Rethinking junk DNA

<< < (5/8) > >>

cyghost (July 20, 2009, 10:05:24 AM):
Ugh... which facts (or lack thereof) have made which hypothesis useless? Do elaborate on this hypothesis.
It is your hypothesis. Why should I elaborate on it?
Quote
Indications of design or directed purposes implies the presence of a mind or minds that intentionally directed something.
Some indications of design or directed purposes then please?
Quote
Like this :P
How very apt seeing what you sprout ;D
Quote
You say science would have picked it up.
Yes. Science measure things that can be... measured.
Quote
I will ask you again how you would propose science can scientifically prove the presence of other minds (other than human)? How do you think science can do that? Which methods would you put forward?
Can we first clarify what you mean with minds other than human minds? When birds build a nest, is that design by mind? When aliens build UFO's, is that design by mind? When Gods create universe by speaking words, is that design?

The onus remains on *you* you give an example of your hypothesis. Don't shift the burden of proof yo!
Quote
So... how about you apply your "I don't know" hypothesis to "junk DNA"?
Been there, done that. *shrug*
Teleological (July 20, 2009, 11:11:10 AM):
Ugh... which facts (or lack thereof) have made which hypothesis useless? Do elaborate on this hypothesis.

It is your hypothesis. Why should I elaborate on it?

Oh do elaborate if you can... What is this hypothesis? That intentions are real and we are not delusional? That intentionality, chance and necessity are three ways of describing modes of being? That reason, logic and science depends on intentional agents and not delusional, self-refuting zombies? Do elaborate here if you want.

Quote
Indications of design or directed purposes implies the presence of a mind or minds that intentionally directed something.

Some indications of design or directed purposes then please?

What would you take as an indication? An indication that you are the author of your intentions? I am curious how science will be able to provide you with these "indications", whatever you believe them to be.

Quote
Like this :P
How very apt seeing what you sprout ;D
Quote
You say science would have picked it up.

Yes. Science measure things that can be... measured.

So science can measure design and detect minds? Do elaborate on this wonderful concept of yours.

Quote
I will ask you again how you would propose science can scientifically prove the presence of other minds (other than human)? How do you think science can do that? Which methods would you put forward?

Can we first clarify what you mean with minds other than human minds? When birds build a nest, is that design by mind? When aliens build UFO's, is that design by mind? When Gods create universe by speaking words, is that design?

Minds other than humans? How about any entity that can create something... change matter from one form to another reflecting the intentions of the author.

When birds build a nest, is that design by mind? When aliens build UFO's, is that design by mind?
Well, these would reflect the intentions of the authors don't you think.
Birds building/making nests in order to house eggs perhaps?
Aliens building UFOs to... I don't know fly perhaps? If aliens exist that is...

How would science detect the workings a mind without empirical proof of the existence of that mind? Say an alien discovered this human-made artifact on planet X but has no knowledge of the human race, how would you conclude this object is the product of an author{s} with intentions.

The onus remains on *you* you give an example of your hypothesis. Don't shift the burden of proof yo!

How about the fact that you have intentions and you can think about and towards things? You do believe you are thinking not?
Quote
So... how about you apply your "I don't know" hypothesis to "junk DNA"?

Been there, done that. *shrug*

Don't you mean... been there, done nothing?
cyghost (July 20, 2009, 12:33:23 PM):
You keep on wanting to shift the burden of proof. I understand why. It is quite a heavy one. I'm not going to let you.

You propose design, you prospose we have to assume design - defend this notion or admit defeat once more. :D
Teleological (July 20, 2009, 12:44:17 PM):
You keep on wanting to shift the burden of proof. I understand why. It is quite a heavy one. I'm not going to let you.
Not so easy there. You made a few interesting assertions. Now support them if you can. Here they are again for ALL to see.
You say:
If there were indications of design or directed purposes, science would have picked it up.

I say:
Indications of design or directed purposes implies the presence of a mind or minds that intentionally directed something. You say science would have picked it up.

I ask you again:
How you would propose science to scientifically prove the presence of other minds (other than human) when indications of design or directed purposes implies the presence of a mind or minds that intentionally directed something?
How do you think science can do that?
Which methods would you put forward?
What would you take as an indication?
Can science measure design?
How would science detect the workings a mind without empirical proof of the existence of that mind?

You say science would have picked up indications of design or directed purposes... your turn to back up that assertion!

You propose design, you prospose we have to assume design - defend this notion or admit defeat once more. :D
I asked the question whether science would proceed better and if it is better to assume function and design and then try and figure out what it is and how it works than to assume junk that accumulated for no reason.
Also, is the null hypothesis as stated (without reference to any peer-reviewed literaure, still waiting) still valid according to you? Why?
cyghost (July 20, 2009, 15:05:19 PM):
If there were indications of design or directed purposes, science would have picked it up.
It would. It will. It didn't and it doesn't. Evolution adequately explains how we get here without a designer. QED.

You are asking me to explain something to you that doesn't exist. :o Not about to do it mate. If you want to accept that as an assertion not backed up, I'll not try to convince you otherwise. I accept that the scientific method works and I think that it would, if it existed, be able to identify design. It does an adequate job in birds' nests and beavers' dams and ants' heaps for instance.

If we speak about specifics, I'll easily answer "I don't know" which is *not* a nod to design. I can't help that you don't accept "I don't know". The fault, I submit, lies entirely with you.
Quote
I asked the question whether science would proceed better and if it is better to assume function and design and then try and figure out what it is and how it works than to assume junk that accumulated for no reason.
This has been explained to you. Above. Not very far up. None as deaf as they who will not hear or blind as they who will not see.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Skeptic Forum Board Index

Non-mobile version of page