Pix: It is a pretty safe pediction if we have to wait until for ever to see if you were right or wrong.
stunney: Ah, so the English language is the problem now?

No, the practical problem of having to wait for ever. Where do you get that language is a problem?

I have lots more than one! But it would be tedious to list them all just for your benefit, and pointless, judging by how badly you mangled even that one.

Ah, I see. You have lot. You just picked the one that we have to wait for ever to see if you are right or wrong. That can of science.

Maybe the fact that their young benefit from milk is just a by-product of the Coffee Deities decreeing the creation of milk-producing creatures so that humans can enjoy better cups of coffee.

Sure, I am not disagreeing with that. But the prediction from evolution is that there will be no adaption that is not useful for the species. If you find such an example, we can discuss it. The milk and the flowers have benefits for the species, so are not such examples.

me: 'Ever' covers any period of time. 'Any period of time' can mean less 10,000 years or more than 10,000 years.

pixie: Well, yes. That is the (other) problem. It is a pretty safe pediction if we have to wait until for ever to see if you were right or wrong.

Ah, so the English language is the problem now?:roll:

4) me Two competing theories need not differ in all their predictions.

pixie: But you only have one!

I have lots more than one! But it would be tedious to list them all just for your benefit, and pointless, judging by how badly you mangled even that one.

I said creationists, not IDists. Are you aware they are not the same?

That depends on who you talk to. Are you aware that Dawkins seems to see no important distinction?

me: Calling it a by-product is simply the assertion that no designer intended milk to go nicely with coffee or flowers to look pretty to humans. But that's precisely to beg the question. It's like saying micro-evolution is just a 'by-product' of special creation.

pixie: No, that is the point. The prediction is that no feature of the natural world is there only for the benefit of another species or the designer. Flowers look pretty to, but they look that way to attract insects.

No they don't. Neither flowers nor insects are aware of aesthetic properties at all.

Cows give us milk for coffee, but they produce milk for their young.

Maybe the fact that their young benefit from milk is just a by-product of the Coffee Deities decreeing the creation of milk-producing creatures so that humans can enjoy better cups of coffee.

In other words, you're begging the question atrociously. All you're doing is asserting that aesthetic properties reduce to attraction and attraction has benefits. But aesthetic properties aren't even perceived at all except by humans. This is why humans paint and photograph and plant and crossbreed flowers, but no other species does.

me: In the same sense that evolution is falsifiable even though Darwin is dead.

pixie: What? Darwinism could have been falsified within Darwin's lifetime.

No it couldn't.

Your theory can only be falisified at the end of life on Earth.

My theory could be falsified tonight if a bunch of dogs start churning out superb online astronomy papers.

There is something of a difference when doing practical science"¦

There is also something of a difference when arguing with someone who makes so many basic errors of fact and reasoning that it's really not worth it, such as The Pixie.

'Ever' covers any period of time. 'Any period of time' can mean less 10,000 years or more than 10,000 years.

Well, yes. That is the (other) problem. It is a pretty safe pediction if we have to wait until for ever to see if you were right or wrong.

4) Two competing theories need not differ in all their predictions.

But you only have one!

5) Nothing about ID per se is tied to the idea that a designer is liable to produce 'new kinds just like that' without biological precursors.

I said creationists, not IDists. Are you aware they are not the same?

Calling it a by-product is simply the assertion that no designer intended milk to go nicely with coffee or flowers to look pretty to humans. But that's precisely to beg the question. It's like saying micro-evolution is just a 'by-product' of special creation.

No, that is the point. The prediction is that no feature of the natural world is there only for the benefit of another species or the designer. Flowers look pretty to, but they look that way to attract insects. Cows give us milk for coffee, but they produce milk for their young.

In the same sense that evolution is falsifiable even though Darwin is dead.

What? Darwinism could have been falsified within Darwin's lifetime. Your theory can only be falisified at the end of life on Earth. There is something of a difference when doing practical science…

The curious thing about stunney's prediction (no new intelligent species appearing within 10,000 years) is that evolution predicts the same thing. If a new intelligent species did appear in that time frame, it would be bad news for evolution, because there are no precursurs around at the moment from where they could evolve. But good news for creationists (if not Biblical creationists); afterall, they believe new "kinds" appear just-like-that. I would imagine it is entirely possible that the gods might decide to produce a new race some time next week.

1) No new intelligent species appearing within 10,000 years was not my prediction. This was my prediction:

No non-human species currently living on Earth will ever evolve to become better at astronomy or tort law than humans.

'Ever' covers any period of time. 'Any period of time' can mean less than 10,000 years or more than 10,000 years.

2) 'Intelligent' is not the same thing as 'better than humans at astronomy and tort law'. Dogs are intelligent to a degree, and I don't rule out future intelligent species evolving from today's canines. But dogs are not as good as humans at astronomy and tort law, and I predict that no evolutionary descendants of dogs or of any other non-human Earth species will surpass humans when it comes to the quality of their astronomy and tort law.

3) If a new intelligent species did appear within 10,000 years, and if evolutionary biology predicts that won't happen, then evolutionary biologists would not take that as proving that evolutionary biology was false. They'd simply amend their theory.

4) Two competing theories need not differ in all their predictions.

5) Nothing about ID per se is tied to the idea that a designer is liable to produce 'new kinds just like that' without biological precursors.

6) My specific prediction nowhere suggests that my preferred ID hypothesis allows that new kinds can appear 'just like that' without biological precursors. On the contrary my prediction explicitly says that no species will evolve from current species of life on Earth to have the aforementioned superior abilities.

The Pixie also wrote:

If you prefer, I could word it thus: the aesthetically pleasing nature of flowers is a by-product of their attraction to insects.

You can word it any way you like. My counter-example is still a counter-example.

Cows produce milk that goes nicely in coffee. But that is merely a by-product of something that helps them raise their own young.

Calling it a by-product is simply the assertion that no designer intended milk to go nicely with coffee or flowers to look pretty to humans. But that's precisely to beg the question. It's like saying micro-evolution is just a 'by-product' of special creation.

In what sense is it falsifiable if we are dead when the experiment finishes?

In the same sense that evolution is falsifiable even though Darwin is dead.

Oh, and that assumes all evolution is fast.

But I made no such assumption. You're just making things up as you go along.

We cannot test the truth of your prediction until all life on this planet has died.

Yeah, we can't. But intelligent aliens living 5 billion years from now and which have been monitoring Earth closely could well be able to do what we do as regards Mars, etc, and detect whether any non-human astonomers and/or lawyers used to live on Earth.

That makes it a pretty safe prediction.

My hypothesis being true makes it pretty safe too.

me: Nor was such a short period in any way implied given the thousands of years since modern humans have been developing astronomy and law.

pixie: Then find a mainstream evolutionary biologist she says another intelligent species might evolve with 10,000 years. Bet you cannot.

My prediction did not say 10,000 years however. It said 'ever'. The word 'ever' covers any finite interval.

Face it, I made a falsifiable prediction. That's what you asked for, and I provided one. Now you're trying to move the goalposts.

It's an example that refutes your position, one of the type that you specified and explicitly invited, as a challenge. You're just not intellectually honest enough to admit it, and so you now attempt to conflate the aesthetic properties of organisms with other properties they possess which cause attraction. Cattle are attracted to fodder, cats to mice, and so on. But this in no way is equivalent to fodder or mice being aesthetically pleasing to cattle or cats. Flowers, indeed most of the biological order, are aesthetically pleasing to humans, however, yet this specific type of property is of no interest to flowers themselves.

If you prefer, I could word it thus: the aesthetically pleasing nature of flowers is a by-product of their attraction to insects. Cows produce milk that goes nicely in coffee. But that is merely a by-product of something that helps them raise their own young.

You're being intellectually dishonest again. There was no restriction on the falsifiability of hypotheses regarding the future evolutionary course of intelligent life on Earth to mean 'falsifiable in our lifetimes'.

In what sense is it falsifiable if we are dead when the experiment finishes?

Oh, and that assumes all evolution is fast. We cannot test the truth of your prediction until all life on this planet has died. That makes it a pretty safe prediction.

Nor was such a short period in any way implied given the thousands of years since modern humans have been developing astronomy and law.

Then find a mainstream evolutionary biologist she says another intelligent species might evolve with 10,000 years. Bet you cannot.

So obviously the timeframe I implied was in the tens if not hundreds of thousands of years.

So you predict that within "tens if not hundreds of thousands of years" no new intelligent species will appear.

Now, can you find any mainstream evolutionary biologist who would disagree with that prediction; who thinks a new intelligent species will (not might, but will) appear in that time frame?

Can you name someone who will be around to see if you were right?

You earlier had written: "So you confidently predict that in 10 billion years no other intelligent species will have evolved?

I did. Because until evolution stops (i.e., when everything on this panet is dead) there will still be a chance of a new intelligent species. We cannot be sure you prediction is true until then.

Insects find flowers attractive.

Insects find faeces attractive. Does that mean that faeces are aesthetically pleasing to them?

You want to quibble over the "looks pretty" semantics?

It's not a quibble. It's an example that refutes your position, one of the type that you specified and explicitly invited, as a challenge. You're just not intellectually honest enough to admit it, and so you now attempt to conflate the aesthetic properties of organisms with other properties they possess which cause attraction. Cattle are attracted to fodder, cats to mice, and so on. But this in no way is equivalent to fodder or mice being aesthetically pleasing to cattle or cats. Flowers, indeed most of the biological order, are aesthetically pleasing to humans, however, yet this specific type of property is of no interest to flowers themselves.

Can you really find any mainstream evolutionary biologists who has indicated it might be possible that another intelligent species will evolve within our life time? I doubt. I very much doubt. In fact I would go so far as to say your comment here is deliberately misleading.

I would call a life time a long time. Wouldn't you? Putting this in context, a life time is a long, long time to wait to see if a prediction comes true. So let us wait and see if you can find a mainstream evolutionary biologist who thinks a new intelligent species could appear by 2200.

You're being intellectually dishonest again. There was no restriction on the falsifiability of hypotheses regarding the future evolutionary course of intelligent life on Earth to mean 'falsifiable in our lifetimes'. Nor was such a short period in any way implied given the thousands of years since modern humans have been developing astronomy and law.

You can argue with someone else such as Zachriel about just how fast 'fast evolution' can be. Nullasalus already had that debate with him a few days ago, with Nullasalus pointing to the rapidity of the appearance of striking new mental abilities circa 50,000 years ago, based on my citation of this material and this. Zachriel kept claiming that purely natural evolution could be fast enough to account for this (though as I and Nullasalus pointed out to him, there's no evidence that this development 50,000 years ago was related to any anatomical development at all, since those folks were already anatomically modern and probably had been for at least 150,000 years already.) So obviously the timeframe I implied was in the tens if not hundreds of thousands of years.

You earlier had written:

So you confidently predict that in 10 billion years no other intelligent species will have evolved?

[Emphasis added]

Certainly Stephen Jay Gould wasn't talking about time periods of billions of years during which biological 'equilibria' were undergoing 'punctuation'. So I'm afraid that once more it's you who's being misleading, not me. And Gould was reasonably famous.

No, Behe's hypothesis is pro ID and anti-undirected natural processes.

Is it? Could you state exactly what it is; maybe I have it wrong.

stunney

The AI community's claims are not confined to saying we can design machines that can do things that intelligent organisms can do. They're not just saying, "Joe can sweep the carpet. And look, so can this robotic vacuum cleaner I designed." So, get real.

So in what way is that science (which is the real issue)?

And the scientific evidence that insects perceive the aesthetic properties of flowers is"¦.? Can science itself, never mind insects, detect aesthetic properties, like prettiness? Insects buzz around flowers because the flowers look pretty? How about buzzing around Beyonce? She looks pretty too.

Flowers look like that to attract insects. Insects find flowers attractive. You want to quibble over the "looks pretty" semantics? You can argue with someone else; I cannot be bothered.

Are you saying you're not prepared to affirm that hypothesis?

The hypothesis is true, but not science.

stunney: No non-human species currently living on Earth will ever evolve to become better at astronomy or tort law than humans. That's falsifiable.
pixie: It is not falsifiable in any practical sense. Evolution takes a long time;
stunney: Not always, according to some very mainstream evolutionary biologists. Even Zachriel says so. Remember the discussion about 'stuck'?

Can you really find any mainstream evolutionary biologists who has indicated it might be possible that another intelligent species will evolve within our life time? I doubt. I very much doubt. In fact I would go so far as to say your comment here is deliberately misleading.

I would call a life time a long time. Wouldn't you? Putting this in context, a life time is a long, long time to wait to see if a prediction comes true. So let us wait and see if you can find a mainstream evolutionary biologist who thinks a new intelligent species could appear by 2200.

So no, evolutionists do not evolve new phyla.

And ID theorists don't design life.

But AI is not just about designing machines, as you well know. Lots of machine designers design machines without claiming that their machines are genuinely intelligent, or claiming their machines are genuinely conscious. AI folks, by contrast, regularly make the latter type of claims as purportedly scientific claims.

But that entirely misses the point

No, you're the one missing the point, quite deliberately. The AI community's claims are not confined to saying we can design machines that can do things that intelligent organisms can do. They're not just saying, "Joe can sweep the carpet. And look, so can this robotic vacuum cleaner I designed." So, get real.

(and I suspect from the way you twist people's words deliberately).

Of the two of us, you're the twister. You've just twisted out of recognition what AI is really all about, "Oh, they're just designers of machines". Yeah right. And feel free to scroll up to read your blatant twisting and turning on the concept of phyla, followed by your embarrassed silence on it this time.

Building a bridge or an AI is a design process, not a science.

That is probably the most disingenuously misleading portrayal of AI ever. A bridge, an AI, it's just designing stuff. Come off it. I mean, is that the Brooklyn Bridge you've got there along with your AI thingie?

Evolution is a science. Mainstream ID is pseudo-science.

You'll need to provide more than the assertion of ideological slogans to stop you looking like a hack.

And I look forward to exposing your pseudo-science, a little below.

me: Is it possible? Yes. It's also possible that you're deliberately pretending to not understand, possible that you're slow on the uptake, and possible that you have a secret admirer who only speaks Sanskrit.

pixie: Hey, if you cannot be bothered to explain yourself, that is fine with me.

If you can't be bothered to explain why I should explain a point you've made no effort to rebut as to its substance, then maybe you should take a hike.

But what makes this most amusing is that you had already conceded my point, which was:

that every relevant observation can't fail to be consistent with the theory, since no observed trait couldn't somehow have been adaptive at some point in some organism.

You had said:

Yes, evolutionary theory says every trait that is observed must have been adaptive in some way or other. So what?

And now you're arguing about it. Sheeesh. Maybe you're just confused, like you were about the word 'stuck', and the concept of a phylum.

me: What about the prettiness of flowers?

pixie: To attact insects, which aid in reproduction (and helping genetic diversity).

And the scientific evidence that insects perceive the aesthetic properties of flowers is"¦.? Can science itself, never mind insects, detect aesthetic properties, like prettiness? Insects buzz around flowers because the flowers look pretty? How about buzzing around Beyonce? She looks pretty too.

Are you really sure you're, er, "˜pro-science'? 'Cos your claim sounds like pseudo-scientific claptrap.

me: Hypothesis: Rational minds designed the Empire State building

pixie: What predictions about the Empire State building does this hypothesis generate?

Are you denying that rational minds designed it?

I think the only one is that the Empire State building has some purpose for the supposed designer. Okay, passes that test. Is the passing of a single test sufficient to give us confidence that the hypothesis is correct. Certainly not. Getting one out of one could very easily be coincidence.

Are you saying you're not prepared to affirm that hypothesis? If so, you should really write that up. Let me suggest a suitable title: "˜Why Rational Pro-Science People Should Doubt That The Empire State Building Was Designed By Rational Minds'.

Just think, you could make yourself a laughing-stock not only at Telic Thoughts, but nationally.

me: Hypothesis: Human minds designed the Empire State building

pixie: What predictions do we get from this? Again, the Empire State building has some purpose for the supposed human designer. We could also predict that the doors are sufficiently large for humans to pass through, but not excessively so. We could predict that the windows are made of material transparent to the wavelengths of light visible to humans. We could predict that humans use the structure. We could predict that humans have records of its design and creation. More prediction, that are more specific.

Pure comedy gold. That's as funny as the time Zachriel assured us all that there's 'some' evidence for the existence of minds.

Like, who knew?:lol:

me: No non-human species currently living on Earth will ever evolve to become better at astronomy or tort law than humans. That's falsifiable.

pixie: It is not falsifiable in any practical sense. Evolution takes a long time;

Not always, according to some very mainstream evolutionary biologists. Even Zachriel says so. Remember the discussion about 'stuck'?

it was millions of years between mankind's split from chimps and his getting as good astronomy or tort law as he is today.

If by "˜mankind' you mean modern humans, then you're simply wrong that they have existed for millions of years. Their biological precursors did, sure. And in all that time they produced no astronomy nor tort law. They weren't even close. By contrast, the spectacular mental achievements we're talking about—the ones of modern homo sapiens—happened very suddenly and very recently relative to evolutionary timescales.

So you confidently predict that in 10 billion years no other intelligent species will have evolved?

Yup.

Consider me unimpressed.

You asked for a falsifiable prediction deriving from my preferred ID hypothesis. I gave you one. Your then declaring that your unimpressed is, er, unimpressive.

me: But it's also saying"”often for other, independent reasons"”that it's probable, or even certain, that there is an intelligent designer.

mf What are these independent reasons?

There are many. Religious experience, the irreducibility of the normative properties of reason and value to physical properties, the scientific evidence for the contingency and finite history of the physical universe, and the staggering degree of intelligible order of the physical universe would be among the reasons for thinking the world has a rational creator. I interpret the argument as an abductive inference—-an inference to a best explanation—proposed as a hypothesis that best explains the data set.

Does the logic of ID hold without them?

I think it does. ID logic starts from the fact that we know some things are designed. It then asks what else might be designed. What precisely is it that licenses or justifies the belief or knowledge claim that something—for instance, the Empire State building, or Microsoft Word"”was designed? And is that type of justification something that could be extrapolated, in principle, to hypothetical cases of non-human design? And does the data presented by biology—-for instance, the DNA code, or aspects of the minds of human organisms—-present us with a possible such case?

mf: But YEC and robotic probes are not ID.

me: They're not? I think they are both counted as versions of ID around here.

mf: I guess that is the key disagreement. I thought ID said nothing about who, why or how.

I'd say there could be, and are, different ID hypotheses about who, why, and how, just as there are different hypotheses held by evolutionists about various aspects of evolutionary history.

Both YEC and robotic probes clearly say something about who and hint at how and why. They are compatible with ID but they are not the same proposition. My problems with YEC, robotic probes, and sufficiently robust versions of theism are different from my problems with ID. ID is not falsifiable. The others are false.

How do you know that it's false that life on Earth was intelligently designed elsewhere and transported here by robotic probes? How do you know that it's false that God specially created the human mind?