The Scientific Method of ID

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

Please...make sense. Ranting isn't easy to understand

[BGoodForGoodSake]

NO.

The topic is "The Scientific Method of ID" show us a test of ID. If it is a science show us a test of ID. Lack of abiility of one theory is not a test of ID.

Why do ID proponents keep missing this ?????

Your not fooling anyone.

It's called inference to the best explanation-genius.

I know what it is not called,
scientific method.
lol

And what would be a test for evolution, genius? You make these demands of ID that not even evolution can give! So what is with you? Love is blind?

Here's a simple test of the validity of genetic analysis.

Take a blood sample from a dog a cat and a wolf.
Put them into unlabeled vials and send them off to a lab.
Sequence the genetic material and analyze the results.
Publish the results.
Hypothesis genetic testing shows that wolves are more closely related to dogs than they are to cats.

Take a blood sample from your neighbor, yourself and your uncle.
Use the same routine.
See if the results are acurate.

If the outcome is positive the validity of genetic testing for cross species analysis is stregnthened.

This is the scientific method.

As you can see noone is saying "everything else is wrong so this must be the right answer." Wah wah

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Please...make sense. Ranting isn't easy to understand

She's saying you are losing your credibility, and make it even worse by not admiting that you made mistakes.

It's simple.

I do however understand your point on common descent, the point of the threrad is however...

Use the scientific method on ID>

It's not so hard.

This does not mean.
Attack evolution
Proving ID by disproving evolution
Defending ID

All it means is to come up with an experiment in which the outcome would either,
A. prove a facet of ID as incorrect or inacurate.
OR
B. not prove a facet of ID as incorrect or inaccurate.

[sandy_mcd]

Please...make sense. Ranting isn't easy to understand

I imagine a lot of ranting on these fora is a result of frustration caused by disagreements on basic issues.

So by what avenue of logic can you come to the conclusion that natural selection can do that which no other force in the universe CAN do-break the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

I am frustrated by people who repeatedly post the same misunderstanding of elementary thermodynamics.

[bizzt]

I would like to try and submit one

We know that bacterial cells are propelled by tiny rotary engines called flagellar motors that rotate at speeds up to 100,000 rpm.

"Biochemist Michael Behe points out that the flagellar motor depends on the coordinated function of 30 protein parts. Remove one of these necessary proteins and the rotary motor simply doesn't work. The motor is, in Dr. Behe's terminology, "irreducibly complex."

The Test would be if this function can only be made through Design or made through Evolution... Only by Deduction are we able to prove that this must have been made by Design. What kind of Deduction you might ask. Well we can try to conclude that Evolution did not make this!


How about we start off with this and see where it takes us?

Taken from http://www.discovery.org

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

Please...make sense. Ranting isn't easy to understand

I imagine a lot of ranting on these fora is a result of frustration caused by disagreements on basic issues.

So by what avenue of logic can you come to the conclusion that natural selection can do that which no other force in the universe CAN do-break the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

I am frustrated by people who repeatedly post the same misunderstanding of elementary thermodynamics.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB ... ew&id=3122

[BGoodForGoodSake]

I would like to try and submit one

We know that bacterial cells are propelled by tiny rotary engines called flagellar motors that rotate at speeds up to 100,000 rpm.

"Biochemist Michael Behe points out that the flagellar motor depends on the coordinated function of 30 protein parts. Remove one of these necessary proteins and the rotary motor simply doesn't work. The motor is, in Dr. Behe's terminology, "irreducibly complex."

The Test would be if this function can only be made through Design or made through Evolution... Only by Deduction are we able to prove that this must have been made by Design. What kind of Deduction you might ask. Well we can try to conclude that Evolution did not make this!


How about we start off with this and see where it takes us?

Taken from http://www.discovery.org

Sorry, this isn't an empirical test. It doesn't test a principal of ID. All we are doing here is making suppositions.

This is not the scientific method.


As an example in science we can test to see if a camel and a llama are related close enough they should be able to interbreed.

We then can go into the field and artificially inseminate camel and llama mothers with sperm from the other species.

The results are recoreded and published. This is the scientific method. If there are no offspring we can with some confidence conclude that they must not be related. However we cannot be sure. However after many trials we can be more and more sure.

If they do have offspring, then it shows that obviously that interbreeding is possible. It also leads to the question of why is this possible? It supports the original hypothesis, however there are possibly many explanations so it does not prove the idea. More experimentation on other aspects of the idea need to be made in order to increase confidence in this hypothesis.

This is the scientific method.

Not only that, it is a logical falacy as well.
By concluding that evolution did not do this, it does not prove ID.

A might be true.
B might be true.

A is not true so B is true?
No, this is incorrect.

[IRQ Conflict]

If A is false, what of B? if there are only two possible conclusions do we therfore have C?

If we pretend to have C, we may as well call A true.

Another way to look at this would be if A is false, look to B.

Not, A is false, what do you mean A is false? Keep looking at A till it's true!

A=false ~

[jleslie48]

Please...make sense. Ranting isn't easy to understand

I imagine a lot of ranting on these fora is a result of frustration caused by disagreements on basic issues.

So by what avenue of logic can you come to the conclusion that natural selection can do that which no other force in the universe CAN do-break the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

I am frustrated by people who repeatedly post the same misunderstanding of elementary thermodynamics.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB ... ew&id=3122

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html

aka, PRATT.

this is stupid.

[jleslie48]

If A is false, what of B? if there are only two possible conclusions do we therfore have C?

If we pretend to have C, we may as well call A true.

Another way to look at this would be if A is false, look to B.

Not, A is false, what do you mean A is false? Keep looking at A till it's true!

A=false ~

Wow. considering the terseness of this statement it is hard to believe how many errors in logic you can pack into it. Thanks for playing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propositional_logic

[bizzt]

Please...make sense. Ranting isn't easy to understand

I imagine a lot of ranting on these fora is a result of frustration caused by disagreements on basic issues.

So by what avenue of logic can you come to the conclusion that natural selection can do that which no other force in the universe CAN do-break the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

I am frustrated by people who repeatedly post the same misunderstanding of elementary thermodynamics.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB ... ew&id=3122

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html

aka, PRATT.

this is stupid.

http://www.trueorigin.org/steiger.asp

[BGoodForGoodSake]

http://www.trueorigin.org/steiger.asp

I don't get it,

So whenever we make an invention or build a stadium we are violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

No because the energy expended is greater than the work acompilished.

How is life or evolution any different?

If you are talking about the origin of life I can see a point, but we are talking the scientific method of ID, not the origin of life.

[thereal]

We know that bacterial cells are propelled by tiny rotary engines called flagellar motors that rotate at speeds up to 100,000 rpm.

"Biochemist Michael Behe points out that the flagellar motor depends on the coordinated function of 30 protein parts. Remove one of these necessary proteins and the rotary motor simply doesn't work. The motor is, in Dr. Behe's terminology, "irreducibly complex."

The Test would be if this function can only be made through Design or made through Evolution... Only by Deduction are we able to prove that this must have been made by Design. What kind of Deduction you might ask. Well we can try to conclude that Evolution did not make this!


How about we start off with this and see where it takes us?

Behe's "logic" is based on an assumption that one of these components, the one that made the system work, just appeared suddenly during evolution. So he goes part by part, removing them, to see fit the system will still work...this is how I understand his methods, so correct me if I'm wrong. He does not address the fact that evolution may have also made slight changes in one or each of these components over time to make a system dependent on each component...it's not simply a matter of "put the component in or take it out". He would have to know what possible changes occurred to lead to the observed system and test those arrangements, but how can we predict what those arrangements were. This is why his approach is incomplete and not a valid test suitable of pulling support away from evolution.

[Wall-dog]

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

Before I get into using the Scientific Method, let me first say that absolutely a single cell organism is a part of ID. In fact it is a classic example of an irreducibly complex machine.

Here we go...

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

Certainly ID satisfies the first part. Irreducibly complex machines are a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

ID satisfies the second as well. Intelligence was used to create these machines.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

This has also been achieved. This is how ID went from one irreducibly complex machine to hundreds of them.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

The other irreducibly complex machines have also been found. They were predicted and found.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

If you try to simplify an irreducibly complex machine, it ceases to function. In the case of a single-cell organism, it dies.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

These tests have been done many times. Guess what happens? The single cell organisms die.



If you want to disprove ID according to the scientific method, all you have to do is reduce an irreducibly complex machine and/or come up with an explanation for their existence that does not require intelligence. If there were more than one theory for the existence of irreducibly complex machines then experiments could be devised to validate one theory at the expense of the other. That's already been done with evolution. Experimentation has shown that evolution could not have created these machines. It is much, much easier to validate theories when there are other theories to validate against. It isn't IDs fault that nobody has an alternative theory.

You know what doesn't make sense? Double standards. Too many people hold ID to a higher scientific standard than other scientific theories. THAT is bunk.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

Before I get into using the Scientific Method, let me first say that absolutely a single cell organism is a part of ID. In fact it is a classic example of an irreducibly complex machine.
Here we go...

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

Certainly ID satisfies the first part. Irreducibly complex machines are a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

How does one identify something as irreducibly complex? Is it not true that irreducibly complex mechanisms get their label from the fact that there is no alternative explanation?

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

ID satisfies the second as well. Intelligence was used to create these machines.

Yes an in physics the experiment is geared towards testing the causal force. So in this case we need to test for the existence of an intelligence.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

This has also been achieved. This is how ID went from one irreducibly complex machine to hundreds of them.

Sorry, detecting additional instances does not test the hypothesis. All you have now are more observations. In other words, I can say I have detected a pulsar, and hypothesize that they are formed from collapsed stars. In essence you are saying that if I detect more pulsars that the case for my htpothesis has stregnthened. That simply is not the case.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

The other irreducibly complex machines have also been found. They were predicted and found.

Again this is not very scientific at all. We need to test the proposed processes we hypothesized were the source of these irreducibly complex systems.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

If you try to simplify an irreducibly complex machine, it ceases to function. In the case of a single-cell organism, it dies.

So a human being is also irreducible because if I remove the heart he dies? What about a stack of bricks if I remove one brick it collapses.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

These tests have been done many times. Guess what happens? The single cell organisms die.

I can remove a chloroplast from a blue-green algae and it doesn't die. If I remove a vacuole from a paramecium it doesn't die either. This is the criteria for irreducible complexity? How do you explain the evidence for endosymbiosis?
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultran ... iosis.html

Both mitochondria and chloroplasts can arise only from preexisting mitochondria and chloroplasts. They cannot be formed in a cell that lacks them because nuclear genes encode only some of the proteins of which they are made.
Both mitochondria and chloroplasts have their own genome and it resembles that of prokaryotes not that of the nuclear genome.
Both genomes consist of a single circular molecule of DNA.
There are no histones associated with the DNA.
Both mitochondria and chloroplasts have their own protein-synthesizing machinery, and it more closely resembles that of prokaryotes than that found in the cytoplasm of eukaryotes.
The first amino acid of their transcripts is always fMet as it is in bacteria (not methionine [Met] that is the first amino acid in eukaryotic proteins).
A number of antibiotics (e.g., streptomycin) that act by blocking protein synthesis in bacteria also block protein synthesis within mitochondria and chloroplasts. They do not interfere with protein synthesis in the cytoplasm of the eukaryotes.
Conversely, inhibitors (e.g., diphtheria toxin) of protein synthesis by eukaryotic ribosomes do not — sensibly enough — have any effect on bacterial protein synthesis nor on protein synthesis within mitochondria and chloroplasts.
The antibiotic rifampicin, which inhibits the RNA polymerase of bacteria, also inhibits the RNA polymerase within mitochondria. It has no such effect on the RNA polymerase within the eukaryotic nucleus.

If you want to disprove ID according to the scientific method, all you have to do is reduce an irreducibly complex machine and/or come up with an explanation for their existence that does not require intelligence.

No you need to prove the mechanisms of Irreducible complexity scientifically first.

Think about it, at this point is that something exists. Then you are attributing it's existence to something else. You don't have any evidence for the causal force, and you don't have any definitive test for the observed phenemonon.

If there were more than one theory for the existence of irreducibly complex machines then experiments could be devised to validate one theory at the expense of the other.

You don't need opposing theories to test something. You only need to test the mechanisms of your proposed hypothesis. SCIENCE doe not work by eliminating other theories. Occum's razor works by supporting the best experimentally backed hypothesis. Not the last man standing without a basis for support.

That's already been done with evolution. Experimentation has shown that evolution could not have created these machines.

Please site your source.

It is much, much easier to validate theories when there are other theories to validate against. It isn't IDs fault that nobody has an alternative theory.

No, it doesn't matter ID should be able to be tested on it's own merit.

You know what doesn't make sense? Double standards. Too many people hold ID to a higher scientific standard than other scientific theories. THAT is bunk.

No you don't understand the rigiourous standards of science. I assure that science holds itself up to very tough standards. Feel free to go to any library nearby and peruse a scientific journal to see for yourself.

You will notice a very tentative and narrow language in the conclusions.