Religion/Spirituality The Intelligent Design/God/Theism Thread
- Thread starter blackzeus
- Start date
away. Ill lurk and check back in later35] What About the spreading of antibiotic resistance?
From Wikipedia: “Antibiotic resistance can be a result of horizontal gene transfer, and also of unlinked point mutations in the pathogen genome”.
In other words, there are two kinds of antibiotic resistance. The first is due to the propagation via horizontal gene transfer of genes which already exist: no new information is created, and the information in the existing genes for resistance remains to be explained just like any other biological information. The second is a well known form of microevolution, usually easily explained by a single point mutation well in the limits of what random variation can accomplish, especially in fast replicators like bacteria.
It is perfectly true that antibiotic resistance spreads according to the principles of positive natural selection, when the environmental pressure (the antibiotic) is present. That is well known, implies no problem for ID, and is just the best confirmation of what minimal microevolution and NS can really do.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/hasn...ntradiction-that-id-thinkers-use-is-outdated/38] At its foundation ID is based on a logical construct that posits that for any proposition A, A cannot be true and false at the same time and in the same formal relation. Modern quantum mechanics has proven this logical construct – the so-called “law of non-contradiction” — is outdated and does not always holds true.
IN A NUTSHELL: UD’s contributor StephenB has put his finger on the basic problem here: Scientists do not use observed evidence to evaluate the principles of logic; they use the principles of logic to evaluate such evidence.
We can see this from how the quantization of energy levels was first discovered by Planck in 1900.
He was studying the so-called black body radiation problem, where if we have a cavity with a small hole in it, there is a definite roughly bell-curve shaped peaked spectrum of light from the hole that depends on the temperature but not the materials the cavity is made of. (Think about how and why the pupils of our eyes or the mouth of a cave or a pinhole in a closed box all look flat black.)
Classical models could to some extent explain one skirt or another, but not the peak and fall-back on its other side, hence talk of the Ultraviolet “catastrophe.” It was as though once the frequency moved up, the light “had” to come in larger and larger lumps.
So, roughly speaking, Planck proposed just that as a model:
E_lump = h*f,
f being the oscillation frequency of tiny oscillators in the walls of the cavity. He was hoping to then smoothen it off in the usual way that happens in calculus. But his lumps of light would not go away, and he was stuck with quanta of radiation when it is emitted or absorbed. (And of course, h is now known as Planck’s constant, 6.626 * 10^-34 Js.)
Then, five years later, Einstein came along with his study of the photoelectric effect, and showed how that sort of lumpiness of light would also explain another puzzle, the reason why light below a certain threshold frequency would not knock off electrons from a metal surface in a vacuum.
He called the lumps of light “photons,” and Quantum Theory was born. (BTW, this is what is mainly responsible for Einstein’s Nobel Prize; he did not get it for his then even more controversial theory of relativity. In addition, those who imagine that physics in particular does not study or explain on causes, should ask themselves: what does an effect point to?)
But now, let us look closer: at each stage, the scientists were comparing observations with what the classical theory predicted, and were implicitly assuming that if the theory, T, predicted observations, O, but we saw NOT-O instead, then T was wrong.
Q: Why is that?
A: Because they respected the logical law of identity [LOI], and its travelling companions, the law of non-contradiction [LNC] and the excluded middle [LEM]. If a scientific theory T is consistent with and predicts observations O, but we see the denial of O, i.e. NOT-O, O is first seen as distinct and recognisably different from NOT-O [LOI]. The physicists also saw that O and NOT-O cannot both be so in the same sense and circumstances [LNC], and they realised that once O is a distinct phenomenon they would see O or NOT-O, not both or something else [LEM]. (Where also, superposition is not a blending of logical opposites, but an interaction between contributing parents, say P and Q to get a composite result, say R; as we can see with standing waves on a string or a ripple tank’s interference pattern.) Going further, when such scientists scratched out their equations and derivations on their proverbial chalk boards, they were using distinct symbols, and were reasoning step by step on these same three laws. In short, the heart of the scientific method inescapably and deeply embeds the classic laws of thought. You cannot do science, including Quantum Theory science, without basing your work on the laws of thought.
In short, to then suggest that empirical discoveries or theoretical analysis now overturns the basic laws of thought, is to saw off the branch on which science must sit, if it is to be a rational enterprise at all. And, while it is easy to get lost in the thickets of quantum weirdness, if we trace carefully, we will always see this. MORE DETAILS . . .
1) I stated my beliefs because in the athiest (
at the spelling) thread people asked me about my beliefs2) I can cite posts in my thread if you like, but my proof deals with complexity, whether it is a computer, a chair, or E.coli is irrelevant. If you want to take it to the molecular level we can go there
, but you should probably start first with disproving the proof 3) Hmmm again, feel free to peruse the thread, or if you would like a swift death, I can just cite specific posts for you to debate, the choice is yours
4)
a) That is your fatal flaw in understanding. I stated I believe in ID, however, ID is not a belief, it is a summary of results based on the scientific principle to show the ridiculousness of believing all this occured randomnly
b) My induction proof revolved around complexity. It's impossible to be true at the micro/macro level for a complex entity with in a set involving that entity occurs by chance while a simpler entity within the same set occurs due to intelligent design
Apatheism
See this is a post that makes sense: "I just don't give a f*ck, and I claim that's true"
NO ambiguity in that statement 
The golden ratio
Of course, there are those who would say finding the same constant here and 7 billion light years away is mere chance It takes more faith to argue against ID that it does for it Son, wtf is this shyt?
The definitive thread on ID breh. We tryna get the story straight here
The definitive thread on ID breh. We tryna get the story straight here
I appreciate what you doing, but this thread's confusing so far.