Proinsias wrote:I'm not asserting chance. I'm not even sure what it means for someone to 'assert chance'.
There is only 2 choices to form a basis from. If you don't feel that ID is plausible then it would be chance.
KBCid wrote:It is a much more realistic position to assert that life was designed than that it occured by chance since you have never seen complexity of this nature by anything less than intelligent agency.
Proinsias wrote:I think it is more realistic to say we don't currently know how biological life on earth originally arose.
One could certainly assert that position if you don't understand mechanics or the physics required.
KBCid wrote:If the answer is not of importance then why post to the thread since it is entirely about the question of how matter is controlled in space and time. This is tantamount to trying to understand how a car motor functions without looking under the hood or how a factory works by only looking at the material going in at one end and finished structures coming out the other. Who in their right mind would not want to look inside the factory to understand how the matter that goes in is arranged into the final form that comes out?
Proinsias wrote:I wanted to look under the hood of biology so I went to college and university to study biology. To me your current position is tantamount to understanding a car by looking under the bonnet and inferring it has its ultimate origin in an intelligent agent capable of controlling all matter from the beginning.
The difference here of course is that I / we are not simply looking under the bonnet. We are looking at all the parts that form, and are used to form the whole. If I were to take you on a 3D tour of a functioning engine how would you know design from chance possibility?
Why does it require intelligent agency to form a motor or a space shuttle or a watch? how come we don't see things of this type of complexity just naturaly occuring?
My inference to ID is based on observable evidence for what has already proven the causal ability to form matter into arrangements of this 'type' of complexity.
I am certainly not asserting in my theory that the intelligence that formed life could control 'all matter' from the beginning as this would be a religious belief. I do have beliefs aside from this particular mechanical / physics position but I am not relying on a belief to state the position.
KBCid wrote:I have answered the question. Precise spatiotemporal control of matter requires an irreducible highly complex control system.
Proinsias wrote:How do you differentiate between "movement" & "precise spatiotemporal control"?
Replication / repetition of 3 dimensional form. This is the difference between looking at a tree and seeing the forest that a tree is a small part of. Matter can certainly be moved by random forces in the environment and not be spatially controlled. However, if an arrangement of millions or billions of substrate components keeps forming the exact same 3 dimensional structure repeatedly then there is a cause which is not random and when we consider that the components must move through space and time in order to become part of that final structure then it requires a 'precision' control of both spatial and temporal aspects. Physics and mechanics.
Here is an example;
You are walking down the beach and you encounter a precise 1 foot cube of sand with 5 perfectly flat sides that you can view... you keep walking down the beach and you encounter another cube that is precisely the same as the last.... you keep going and you see many more as you go and at some point you realise that they are placed at a specific distance from each other.
Now what would you logically infer 'could' be causal to that observable evidence and why? It is after all simply sand on a beach.
KBCid wrote:Life cannot replicate without it. This is an extremely wonderful insight from physics and mechanical engineering for those who are not mechanically inclined. The woefully inadequate understanding that biology currently has is because they are not looking at the system in play. They are doing a great job of identifying the individual players and nearly nothing in the way of how they are being applied in space and time.
Proinsias wrote:I really don't see the wonderful insight.
I see a lot of examples from biology asserting ignorance and the need for further study across a diverse range of problems. All of which involve movement, as that's what matter does. I see you unifying all these mysteries by claiming there is some sort underlying control system but I see no control system.
If you don't see the insight then you need to develop an understanding of both physics and mechanics.
When the Wright brothers asserted that man could fly in a heavier than air machine everyone laughed at them because it was common understanding by the scholars and college educated at that time that such was impossible.
Flight by machines heavier than air is unpractical (sic) and insignificant, if not utterly impossible. Simon Newcomb
Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible.
Lord Kelvin, British mathematician and physicist, president of the British Royal Society, 1895.
It is apparent to me that the possibilities of the aeroplane, which two or three years ago were thought to hold the solution to the [flying machine] problem, have been exhausted, and that we must turn elsewhere.
Thomas Edison, American inventor, 1895.
The truth of the matter then and now is simply a lack of understanding of both physics and mechanics. If you wish to understand what I am asserting then you should get a grip on both of these well understood disciplines. Otherwise you are relegated to taking someone elses word for it.
KBCid wrote:The important questions have already been answered. all that is left to define is the exstent of the irreducibly complex system that is operating to allow life to form and replicate.
Proinsias wrote:A quick glance through the papers you cited in this thread shows quite a few unanswered questions, I can't find an example where you answered one of the problems you brought to light.
I have not brought any problems 'to light'. The problems have been brought to light by the investigators making the observations. But, I am defining an answer to their problem. Systematic control of matter in space and time. How does that not answer their problem?
You have 2 choices here, you can observe what is happening in the body or a cell and assert that those particular formations repetitiously happen by chance... or they occur because of a control system. It is ultimately your choice to make.
If you feel my answer doesn't answer the problem then what would you propose it could be? since there is only 2 possible answers then your position has to be chance, there is no middle ground or third option. If however, you feel that an explanation for the observable phenomena could not be chance then you have no choice but to agree with my assertion that a control system is required to cause the observable phenomena.
Proinsias wrote:Explaining than an arm develops in space & over time, that genetic material has a profound effect on the phenotype of an organism, that both the genotype and the phenotype operate in space in time, or that chromosomal position as they line up in the nucleus varies between tissue types doesn't really explain much at all
Well since I am not making any of those assertions as an explanation for anything then you would be quite right that such a perception of what i'm saying doen't explain anything. The truth is that this entire paragraph is an essential restatement of the scientifc observations made by the observers in the papers cited.
Your first point that "an arm develops in space & over time" would be doing nothing more than stating the truth. Doesn't everything in our existence develop in space and over time?
The part you appear to be missing at every turn is HOW these things are able to be formed in both space and time. It seems strange that you have read this thread and not seen one instance where I explain how things are able to be formed in space and time.
Proinsias wrote:if the chromosomes of the different tissues of a given organism all lined up in a similar fashion would this undermine your theory at all?
Not at all. My position and theory is to define what is minimally required for the pattern to repeat. If you see a 3 dimensional pattern of matter occuring then you can assert one of 2 things it occurs by chance or its controlled. In my entire observational experience I have never observed precision repetition occuring by chance, have you?
KBCid wrote:We move things with precision in 3 dimensional space without hardly a thought and yet this is one of the most critical things in the process. precision control of matter in time and space. Strangely this is also our creators claim to fame... He precisely controlled matter to do his bidding from the beginning, he caused it to be formed into all the systems we observe. even the commonly observed sun with planets circling in precision orbits is incredibly hard to imagine occuring by chance.
Proinsias wrote:That may be why I'm having difficulty in singling out biology as the work of an intelligent agent, your hypothesis stretches that bit further to incorporate control of all matter from the beginning.
My theory / hypothesis does not include any beliefs I may hold for validity. We are each free to assign whatever intelligent agent we want to as the agent responsible for the systems origin. If you want to assert the deity of any religion conceived so far you are free to do so because my theory has no dependancy on who the designer may be. I could just as easily hold a belief it was fairies and this would have no bearing or effect on the theory being presented since it simply points to intelligence being required. If it makes you feel better you can assume a currently unknown intelligent agent and then focus on the actual point being made about intelligent agency being a requirement.
Proinsias wrote:Perhaps the thread should be renamed "Precise 3D Spatio-Temporal Control of all Matter Since The Beginning"
'Since The Beginning' of what? can you define precisely what had a beginning?
Proinsias wrote:or maybe "Change". How do we determine what control is inherent and what is not if God precisely controlled matter to do his bidding from the beginning? not to mention the free will/determinism issues that crop up.
I believe it wise to let this last point you made stand on its own as it appears you have an issue with a religious position aside from the physics / mechanics position of this thread.