KBCid wrote:You can try to establish that 'mystery parts' aren't used as evidence, but you would first have to point to where I assert mystery parts as evidence. If you want to have an intellectual intercourse about this system you need to become familiar with how matter can be spatially and temporally controlled. What are the chances of that happening? the simplicity of the situation here is that I assert the existence of a system and provide the empirical evidences that point to that reality and you simply say I don't see it and claim that it is a mystery that will some day be figured out.
Pierson5 wrote:Every time you ask/cite a question that has not been answered (to my knowledge) by the scientific community and claiming it as evidence for ID. Like the questions you ask below. I'm not sure if you are just trying to point out my ignorance on the subject, or if it's genuinely a question which has yet to be answered. An unanswered question is just that, an unanswered question.
KBCid wrote:Setting up another strawman argument? What Does the observation of a 3D spatiotemporal control system have to do with ID? How could it possibly be evidence for ID?
The fact is that spatiotemporal control systems have been investigated quite well... there is no need to be ignorant about the subject simply
because one scientific discipline hasn't studied it. Mine is not an argument from ignorance. You are free to study the subject at any time and no I won't hold your hand and lead you around to every citation on the subject.
Pierson5 wrote:How is it a strawman?
When you assert that I am pointing to mystery parts as evidence for ID. Spatiotemporal control of matter is not a mystery.
Pierson5 wrote:There are many things unknown about this system.
No there are not.
Pierson5 wrote:You ask a few questions. I will admit I don't know the details about how this system functions.
You are quite correct. 'YOU' don't understand it.
Pierson5 wrote:If your questions have answers, provide the citation after the question. If not, I don't see the point of asking a specific science question about your system that has yet to be answered by the scientific community. What is your point? Here is an unanswered question?
Intelligent life has been spatiotemporally controlling matter since before recorded history. You are part of that group. Do you require a scientist to explain to you how you perform that action? If you need someone to explain how this works to you and you are already one of the few intelligent agencies that performs the very action you are questioning then the question is begged for how it could be explained to you.
Pierson5 wrote:I'm not asking you to teach me about the subject. I'm asking for the citation or research being done that concludes this is the product of biological design.
I am not making the assertion "this is the product of biological design"
Pierson5 wrote:You have posted many citations about how the system functions/works, but not one of them concludes that the system could not have come about through evolutionary processes, or is the product of biological design. Not a single one.
Because the only answer currently allowed is natural causes which they can't show has the capability of forming such a system which is why they simply consider it an unknown or a mystery that they hope will one day be solved. By philosophically limiting the range of possible answers allowed there will always be unsolvable mysteries that will conceptually someday be answered.
KBCid wrote:There is much you don't understand and is a mystery to you. This doen't mean that it is actually a mystery to everyone. This is the logic of "if I don't know it then its a mystery to everyone". Good luck with that one.
Pierson5 wrote:See the citation above. I have never claimed that "I don't know, therefore nobody does." I'm merely going off of what I have read from other citations, like the one above.
To which we can continue with the same rationale that "if the people I trust to know an answer don't currently know it then no one knows it".
KBCid wrote:If you aren't concerned about understanding how the system functions then what is there to discuss?
You want to try and discern the origin of the proteins that take part in the positioning process? I have a simple answer for you "they were transcribed and translated from the genome. Are you getting any further understanding about the system from that?
Pierson5 wrote:I'm not trying to "understand the system." I'm trying to understand how you come to your conclusion. The ORIGIN of the system.
Then why propose studying the proteins to get a clue to origins if all you want is to know how I form conclusions? I form conclusions based on scientific understanding and logic.
I conclude that the spatiotemporal system of controlling matter is necessary for the replication of living forms and that it could not evolve since it is irreducibly complex. Pretty simple. Have stated this numerous times. What part do you fail to comprehend.
Pierson5 wrote:I'm sure you will agree with me that we don't have to understand how something functions/is built to understand where it originated.
I'm sure I don't agree. Understanding how the components of crystaline structures function / are built allows for the understanding of 'how' their structures can possibly originate and logically infer 'where' they could originate. In the living system we have investigated the components and it has been determined that there is no natural tendency for cells or their components to become arranged in a particular pattern so one must look beyond the individual parts to discern sytematic control. In order to understand where something could come from you would have to know causes and effects. What cause have you observed that makes matter operate in a spatiotemporally ordered way?.
Pierson5 wrote:So these proteins obviously take part in this system. You say they were translated from the genome. Could they have come about through evolutionary processes?
What evolutionary process was available prior to a replication system? This is precisely why you can't discern the origin of a system by analyzing a single component. This is also where your failure to comprehend the system being discussed causes you to keep asking erronious questions such as this. The fact is that the protein components are controlled in time and space just as they help do their part in the control of other structural formations. They are components that are controlled systematically. read the following again;
Spatiotemporal chemical dynamics in living cells: From information trafficking to cell physiology
Molecular sciences, including molecular biology, genomics, proteomics, and crystallography, have now described life in unprecedented depth and breadth. Yet these descriptions have not improved significantly the rate of drug discovery.
So what have we missed? By so thoroughly embracing structural reductionism, we have learned a great deal about the system’s parts without really understanding how the system works. For example, a list of the capacitors, resistors, and the other functional parts found in a television set are not sufficient to deduce how a television works.
As the parts list of the human genome is much longer than that of a television set, and the behavior of its components more subtle, it is not surprising that molecular biology has not yielded the anticipated cornucopia of new drugs. Living cells require networks of enzymes and receptors with large numbers of feedback loops under conditions held far from thermodynamic equilibrium. Therefore, the properties of individual isolated components can never adequately model the dynamic chemical processes that underlie cell functions. The part cannot explain the whole; to understand how all of the parts of a cell work in concert, the parts must be studied in their cell biological context at a time-scale relevant to the physico-chemical processes under study.
...the processes underlying cell behavior more closely resemble the decision making processes of a computer than the dynamics of a stirred
http://www.sownar.com/silvercluster/Spa ... iology.pdf
Pierson5 wrote:And? Their goal is to understand the system and create new drugs. I am trying to determine the origin of the system, not how the system works. You have said and shown, many times, you understand how the system functions. But, you are going one step further and claiming to have the answer and evidence of the origin (biological design). That's what we are discussing.
If you wish to understand the origin of something you must first understand cause and effect. Until you realise that you can't comprehend a cause until you comprehend the effect then you will be in a constant state of ignorance for both understandings.
KBCid wrote:If we are to discuss origins then it requires that we determine causes and effects.
The effect is the control of matter both spatially and temporally
Now you assert what you know that is capable of causing it.
This is how science works form a question then propose an answer and then test it. Simple stuff.
Pierson5 wrote:Going off of your citation, researches have identified the cause of a few parts of the system. The proteins we are discussing.
No they have not identified the cause yet. They have found components that take part in an action.
Pierson5 wrote:The proteins are CAUSING the formation of the limbs to form (EFFECT). Let's take this cause, research it, and see where it came from. If it evolved, we should find evidence of that, if it did not evolve, we should find evidence for IC.
The proteins take part in CAUSING the formation of the limbs to help produce the EFFECT. The proteins have been researched and they all come from DNA transcription and translation and that is the end of the line for what can be determined for their part in the system. In order to determine their cause now requires the explanation for the origin of DNA. So how does DNA keep originating in every descendant? How did your DNA originate? Was it a chance occurance? All of these questions require a logical explanation that you can't discern by the observable evidence of a component performing an action.
KBCid wrote:How did you determine it has no evolutionary history?
It is obviously not a logical way to test the theory since the system in question reproduces 3 dimensional form. I would further point out that you cannot tell a manufactured / intelligently designed protein from any other type of proposed formation process.
Pierson5 wrote:Obviously I'm not an evolutionary biologist. You are involved in academia, propose your question to a professor in the biology department. You are free to study the subject at any time and no I won't hold your hand and lead you around to every citation on the subject.
Then why are you attempting to discuss this subject? My questions have been posed. I don't need to study the subject to gain understanding as I have already done that and I didn't need any handholding to do it.
Pierson5 wrote:Why don't we take a look at what other researchers have concluded. If they conclude the system came about through evolutionary history, then you can contact them and voice your concerns about the methods they used to determine it. If they conclude it is not possible to come about through evolution (IC), then there you go, evidence for your side.
We have taken a look and in every case they conclude that they don't know... refer to what has already been cited. I have also cited material from other researchers that have dealt with similar subjects that conclude a requirment for design. So your position is not based on what others have said it is based on a foundational assumption of what you believe is possible and you only accept input from others who hold the same belief.
KBCid wrote:I have no problem with what they published. Hoewever, they are silent on this the point I just made. So if you believe they have adressed it then clip the part that works for you and we can discuss it.
Pierson5 wrote:You have no problem with what they published? The paper and citations are on the evolution of the flagellum. This is the exact opposite of the conclusion you are coming to. Again, you are proposing a question
Their conclusion is based on a hypothetical possibility not an empirical answer. Their conclusion is based soley on their own hypothetical possibility that has not adressed the spatiotemporal control system so their conclusion is based on an argument from ignorance. I will restate this so pay attention;
How does the spaciotemporally controlled matter that forms a flagellum change its spatiotemporally controlled position from a previous controlled position elsewhere in the organism (since they assume that multiple parts simply got repurposed). Would you like to try and give that answer a shot?
When you can show that 'they' have adressed this point then we can include their hypothetical assumptions for review. Till then you and they are handwaving.
KBCid wrote:How does the spaciotemporally controlled matter that forms a flagellum change its spatiotemporally controlled position from a previous controlled position elsewhere in the organism (since they assume that multiple parts simply got repurposed).
Pierson5 wrote:Why don't you go ahead and email the authors your concern. Their conclusion is obviously wrong in your eyes. I'll say again, we don't need to understand the intricate details of how something works to have an understanding of how it originated.
I have sent my paper to numerous places on the evo side and so far no reply.
You can say things a million times... it doesn't make it true and as near as I can tell you are neither a biologist or an engineer so how would you know what is required to determine origins of anything. Maybe you should cite a paper that defines what is required to to make an origins determination since it is likely that you didn't write your own.
KBCid wrote:Theories are only allowed to change within the philisophical parameters that is imposed on the method. Naturalism is what is currently being imposed therefore a theory can never include intelligent design.
Pierson5 wrote:This again... You were so adamant earlier that the designer is not identified. Why the need to invoke the supernatural? Read through the Dover transcripts if you believe we should include the supernatural in the scientific method. I don't want to get into this again. Behe thought the same thing, and in court he admitted astrology would then fall into the category of "science."
KBCid wrote:What is supernatural about intelligence? are you supernatural? how does intelligence equate to supernatural?
Then define how naturalism can be tested by scientific method.
Pierson5 wrote:As Sandy pointed out, the method does a pretty good job of detecting intelligence now.
This does not answer why intelligence = supernatural to you. I am certainly not inferring that intelligence is supernatural.
Pierson5 wrote:You have provided your own examples earlier in this thread of researchers determining if something was designed or not, so I think you'll agree. If not, why don't you give us an example of an experiment using a better method than the scientific method to determine what you are proposing.
My proposition is that intelligence can be tested and that it can leave telltale signatures of its having acted that are discernable.
Pierson5 wrote:Testing naturalism with the scientific method has nothing to do with this. As I've pointed out SEVERAL times, not everyone who accepts evolution is a naturalist. Miller - Catholic, Dr. Robbert T. Bakker - Minister.
Naturalism is the only accepted philosophy used to explain how things came to exist. If you can't or won't test it then what makes it scientific?
There are a number of people who participate in the field of study who hold differing beliefs however, this doesn't eliminate the fact that they can't submit a paper based on their beliefs as apposed to others who do believe in naturalism that can submit papers based on that belief.