Despite being an ID advocate for several years now (and having an authors account on this forum), I haven’t really taken the time to put pen to paper and write about it, apart from a few lengthy exchanges I had with a close friend and critic of ID. He has since stepped away from the online world, and so the exchange has ended. You can still view my responses to him here, here, here, here, and here. I also published one article where I highlighted various atheists and agnostics who are critical of neo-Darwinism and supportive of ID here.
The last thing I wrote on the subject was two years ago now, however this last year I’ve been wishing to start up a new ID blog. I made this decision for several reasons. One reason is that I simply want a place where I can write and consolidate my thoughts on the matter. I’ve also been meaning to get back into writing in general, and of course, I need a specific topic to focus on. Having said all this, I’m genuinely fascinated with this whole topic, particularly philosophy of science and biology. Yes, there are already plenty of good, active blogs and websites that cover this area so it isn’t as if another one is necessary, but I do think I can add something to the discussion.
There are other factors that make this new blog slightly different to ones already out there. I’m from the UK and not officially affiliated with other ID organisations like the Discovery Institute and so really, mine is an independent one. There have been some pro-design UK blogs in the past but they are now in stasis and as far as I’m aware there isn’t much other commentary coming from my neck of the woods. Of course, I’m fully aware of the excellent work that Centre for Intelligent Design have and are still doing (and I hear they’ll be launching a brand new website in the new year). I have contacts with many involved with C4ID and have taken part in some of their events. But I still feel that there needs to be a little more activity coming from us Brits so hopefully I can help to fill that gap.
To give a few more concrete details about this blog, it’s provisional title is ‘Design Disquisitions’, as I think it accurately captures my intentions behind this endeavour. I intend to use it to explore all aspects of the ID conversation, documenting different perspectives in the debate and turning a critical eye to both sides (even though I do side with the design view). I’ll also be defending ID by responding to critics and documenting the powerful, positive arguments in its favour. I have little interest in the political culture wars that often get dragged in to this issue and I want to focus on the science and philosophy. I love places like Uncommon Descent and Evolution News and Views, yet I think perhaps conservative ethical, political and and other extra-scientific issues get mixed in too much, which distorts the corpus. I’m not saying I necessarily disagree with conservative views on those issues, and of course, ID may have many extra-scientific implications, but for me they are not relevant to ID as a scientific theory.
I’ve already been working hard on this blog throughout the year, so I have quite a bit of material stocked up. I’ve also worked hard at just gathering resources and it’ll be the most thorough storehouse of ID material on the web. As for when it will be online, I’m aiming for January in the new year. Until then I’ve got a lot of work to do!
Stay tuned!
Joshua
Joshua:
Very interesting. Let us know. 🙂
” Yes, there are already plenty of good, active blogs and websites that cover this area so it isn’t as if another one is necessary, but I do think I can add something to the discussion.”
No, there aren’t. If someone can point me to some thriving ID science blogs, please do. And actual scientific discussion, I don’t mean Discovery Institute Press Release pseudoblogs, or religion blogs that mention this stuff. ID science blogs.
Darwin’s God is probably a DI front, but that’s the only one I can find besides UD. Joshua if you have ID content the blog runners here would probly love you to contribute it.
Thanks for the comment Ahmed. Well there have been in the past and this forum and ENV do a good job at covering some of the science. You can’t deny there has been much high quality scientific discourse in these places, even if they are mixed up with ethical and political issues.
AhmedKiaan at 3: As noted earlier, trolls are more interesting when they at least try to get their facts right.
Darwin’s God is the personal blog of Biola biophysics prof Cornelius Hunter. Hunter is a DI fellow but that is a somewhat loose relationship that mainly commits the parties to not dissing each other in public.
Change the batteries in your tinfoil hat. That is why your hat is beeping, you know.
Joshua G, the awkward problem with blogs is that they are non-economic volunteer projects that tend to last until one or a few individuals get drawn away for various reasons.
ENV is the DI’s blog and UD is a non-profit corporation explicitly dedicated to using donations to maintain a news site on ID-related issue from an ID-friendly perspective. To the extent that either of us has more staying power than most, it is the back office that matters.
Ahmed @2,
you may want to visit biosemioses.org.
AhmedKiaan, given your belief that you are defending the science of Darwinian evolution from the pseudo-science of Intelligent Design, it might surprise you to know that the shoe is squarely on the other foot. The fact of the matter is that Darwinian evolution is a untestable, and therefore unfalsifiable, pseudo-science whereas, on the other hand, Intelligent Design is very much a testable, and therefore, falsifiable, science.
The primary reason why Darwinian evolution is more properly classified as a pseudo-science instead of a real science is because Darwinian evolution has no rigid mathematical basis, like other overarching physical theories of science have. A rigid mathematical basis to test against in order to potentially falsify it.
In fact, in so far as math can be applied to Darwinian claims, mathematics constantly shows us that Darwinian evolution is astronomically unlikely. That is to say, as far as math is concerned, evolution is ‘statistically impossible’. Here is one example:
The primary reason why no scientist has been able ‘quantify its dictums’ is because there are no known laws of nature for Darwinists to appeal to to base their math on. In other words, there is no known ‘law of evolution’, such as there is a ‘law of gravity’, within the physical universe for Darwinists to build a rigid mathematical basis on:
In fact, not only does Evolution not have any known universal law to appeal to, as other overarching theories of science have, the second law of thermodynamics, i.e. Entropy, a law with great mathematical explanatory power in science, almost directly contradicts Darwinian claims that increases in functional complexity/information can be easily had:
Moreover, empirical evidence itself tells us that “Genetic Entropy”, the tendency of biological systems to drift towards decreasing complexity and decreasing information content, holds true as an overriding rule for biological adaptations over long periods of time:
And whereas Darwinian evolution has no known law of nature to appeal to so as to establish itself as a proper, testable, science, (in fact it is almost directly contradicted by the second law of thermodynamics, i.e. entropy), Intelligent Design does not suffer from such a disconnect from physical reality. In other words, Intelligent Design can appeal directly to ‘the laws of conservation of information’ (Dembski, Marks, etc..) in order to establish itself as a proper, testable, and rigorous science.
AhmedKiaan:
As already discussed, I am eager to witness your personal constructive contributions as soon as some scientific issue is discussed here.
You are certainly welcome to comment at my next OP. Be sure you will not find religious discussions there.
And since Intelligent Design is mathematically based on the ‘law of conservation of information’, then that makes Intelligent Design very much testable and potentially falsifiable, and thus makes Intelligent Design, unlike Darwinism, a rigorous science instead of an unfalsifiable pseudo-science:
Of related note: In so far as Darwinian evolution is dependent on the premises of reductive materialism, and regardless of whether Darwinists ever personally accept the falsification or not, Darwinian evolution is now empirically falsified by advances in quantum biology. Specifically, reductive materialism cannot explain the ‘non-local’ effect of quantum entanglement/information in molecular biology:
i.e. Quantum information is experimentally shown to be irreducible to reductive materialistic explanations. And as such, since Darwinian evolution is based on reductive materialistic premises, then Darwinian evolution is experimentally falsified as the scientific explanation for molecular biology:
Moreover, even if one tosses straight up empirical falsification out the window, and tries to use ‘predictive power’ as a demarcation for determining whether something is ‘scientific’ or not, (Imre Lakatos), then Darwinian evolution, even on that much looser demarcation criteria, fails to qualify as a science but is still more properly classified as a pseudo-science:
Imre Lakatos, although he tipped toed around the failure of Darwinism to have a rigid demarcation criteria, he was brave enough to state that a good scientific theory will make successful predictions in science and a pseudo-scientific theory will generate ‘epicycle theories’ to cover up embarrassing failed predictions:
And following in Lakatos footsteps, Dr. Hunter has compiled a list of some of the major false predictions generated by evolutionary theory. False predictions that are fundamental to evolutionary theory, i.e. go to the ‘core’ of the theory, and falsify it from the inside out as it were using Lakatos’s demarcation criteria.
And here is a broader overview of the many failed predictions of naturalism/materialism, in comparison to the successful predictions of Theism, in regards to the major scientific discoveries that have now been revealed by modern science:
Verse:
News, of course that may be true. Blogs start and stop all the time, but nothing lasts forever. Still, many bloggers manage to keep going over a long period of time, without any external support. I don’t promise to be a consistent blogger, churning out tons of material every day. Firstly because my main reason for writing is primarily for my own enjoyment. Secondly, it’s not necessary to have an all or nothing approach. It’s fine to just write and publish when one has time, and still remain an ‘active’ blogger (even though that can mean less readers). There was a time when UD was much more vibrant, with much more in depth articles being published by many different writers. That’s just the way things go. Anyway, as I said I’m still a big fan of this forum as well as ENV.
I would hope that I still have the support of other ID folks, especially on here. Surely we should be advocating as much varied discussion of ID as possible and not just wishing to limit it’s dissemination to two already established venues.
Joshua G at 12, we are happy to have you aboard and do keep us posted. Post brief stories that link to your work there and I will send them out in our promo packages to Facebook.
My point was that the blogs that survive at all have infrastructure. Infrastructure matters.
Thanks News, and I hope I can add something to some of the discussions on here as well. There’s no point in creating our own little bubbles.
Yes I agree with that. We all need infrastructure 🙂
Joshua G., I can’t wait to dialog on your new blog. This blog is far too quick, in my opinion, at banning consenting voices. Theskepticalzone.com has too many voices, and too harsh of conversation for my taste.
You said, “I intend to use it to explore all aspects of the ID conversation, documenting different perspectives in the debate” This I appreciate as I hold to a view that is not too popular around here — I find the universal common descent argument to be compelling. This, of course, removes the possibility of a literal Adam and Eve, which creates some theological challenges. I know that VJ Torley felt crushed around here for holding to a UCD perspective. I hope that the UCD view doesn’t get lambasted on philosophical/religious grounds on your site.
You also said, “turning a critical eye to both sides”. I’m not quite sure how you can look at both sides of a multi-sided object. I guess that there are two major camps — naturalistic and ID, but there is LOTS of variation within the ID camp, and definitely some within the naturalistic camp.
A site dedicated purely to ID science? Great! It will be a first.
Too often here we are treated purely to philosophy (done poorly), or opinion.
I’m only worried that you desribe it as dedicated to science and philosophy of science. This gives pause, as I have a sneeking suspicion a steady diet of a purely philosophical bent, will ensue.
Where will you be getting your experimental research from? Do you have scientists collaborating? Will the posts regularly discuss new and unfolding areas of ID research? Are any labs, or teacing institutions involved? How often will you post? You say you have a fair ammount of work ready to present, does any of it explain experiments based on ID theories?
Among other questions I would actually also like to know more about you. If you are an ID advocate, could you describe your qualification for this role?
rvb8:
Strange comments.
You seem not to understand the basic importance of philosophy of science and epistemology in the ID debate. Strange indeed, because you should know all too well that the main (maybe the only) objections to ID that come forth, in the end, are religious and philosophical: methodological naturalism, and similar foolishness.
You seem to have some religious adoration for labs and experiments, and easily forget the basic truth: experiments are necessary to collect facts, but facts need to be interpreted, and that’s where theories arise. You seem to believe that labs and experiments are assets of some theory, but that’s really silly: facts belong to all, and anyone can interpret them according to his scientific views. So, the answer to your strange question:
“Where will you be getting your experimental research from?”
is very easy and simple: from the scientific literature.
And then, the last question:
“If you are an ID advocate, could you describe your qualification for this role?”
What qualification is necessary to be an advocate of a scientific theory?
Again, the answer is easy and simple: none at all, except for the only qualification that is needed in any intellectual debate: good ideas.
So, instead of asking for qualifications like any obtuse bureaucrat, just wait and read Joshua’s, or anyone else’s, ideas. Then you can comment with your own.
As you can see, I did not need to know more about you or to read about your qualifications as an anti-ID advocate in order to comment about the ideas you expressed in your post. It was easy and simple.
“So, the answer to your strange question: “Where will you be getting your experimental research from?” is very easy and simple: from the scientific literature.”
In other words, science will continue to be done by actual scientists.
The ID contribution will be to philosophize, and make up new acronyms, and post YouTube links.
Just like always.
As pointed out to AK in post 7,8, 10, and 11, Darwinian evolution is NOT even a real science in the first place but is more properly classified as a non-falsifiable pseudo-science.
AK, being the atheistic troll that he is that could care less for the actual truth of the matter, completely ignored that damning fact and now further states this false claim:
First off, a Darwinist putting on a lab coat and performing experiments in a lab does not make him a scientist any more than a man putting on a dress and performing sexual acts on other men makes him a woman. And much like a man having sex with other men will never bear a child to prove that he is, in fact, a woman, Darwinists in lab coats performing experiments in the lab have never bore, and will never bear, fruitful results that will prove Darwinian evolution is, in fact, a real science:
Simply put, despite having billions of dollars in federal funding, and despite ‘expelling’ practically everyone from academia who does not toe the Darwinian line, Darwinists have never experimentally proven that Darwinian evolution is, in fact, true:
Franklin M. Harold, whom I believe is an atheist, calls Darwinian accounts ‘a variety of wishful speculations’. Specifically he states:
James Shapiro, the main founder of the anti neo-Darwinian group “The Third Way”, makes an almost verbatim statement prior to Harold’s statement:
The late Stephen Jay Gould weighs in here on the evidence free ‘just-so stories’ of Darwinists and states “Virtuosity in invention replaces testability as the criterion for acceptance.”
In fact, one of the main themes of many of Michael Behe’s talks is that ALL ‘grand Darwinian claims rest on undisciplined imagination’:
The way that Darwinists give the false impression that experimental science supports Darwinian evolution is that, as Professor Skell stated, “Darwin’s theory (is) brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss.”
Here are a few notes backing that ‘just a narrative gloss’ assertion up:
Moreover, it is impossible for Darwinists, in the peer reviewed literature, to describe the complexities of biological life without illegitimately using words that invoke agent causality or teleology:
This working biologist agrees with Talbott’s assessment:
Moreover, the presumption of Intelligent Design is far more than just a ‘narrative gloss’, as Darwinian evolution is found to be, but is in fact ‘a driver of science’:
That Intelligent Design should be found to be ‘a driver of science’ should not be all that surprising since the presumption of Intelligent Design lays at the very foundation of modern science itself. Specifically, ALL of science, every discipline within science, is dependent on basic Theistic presuppositions about the rational intelligibility of the universe and the ability of our mind to comprehend that rational intelligibility. Modern science was born, and continues to be dependent on, those basic Theistic presuppositions:.,,,
Moreover, if we cast aside those basic Theistic presuppositions about the rational intelligibility of the universe and the ability of our mind to comprehend that rational intelligibility, and try to use naturalism, i.e. methodological naturalism, as our basis for understanding the universe, and for practicing science, then everything within that atheistic/naturalistic worldview, (i.e. supposed evidence for Darwinian evolution, observations of reality, beliefs about reality, sense of self, free will, even reality itself), collapses into self refuting, unrestrained, flights of fantasy and imagination.
To reiterate, it would be hard to fathom a more unscientific worldview than Darwinian evolution and Atheistic materialism/naturalism in general have turned out to be.
The way that Darwinists try to get past this requirement of basic Theistic presumptions, in order to practice modern science in the first place, is that they, forgetting that they are assolutely dependent on basic Theistic presuppositions, try to use bad liberal theology to argue that ‘God would not have done it that way’.
In other words, Darwinists are, in fact, Theologians practising bad liberal theology rather than scientists practising good science. Moreover, since they have no actual scientific evidence that Darwinian evolution is true, and since science itself is absolutely dependent on basic Theistic presuppositions, then this bad liberal theology within Darwinian evolution turns out to be absolutely essential to the fake facade that Darwinists put up pretending that evolution even qualifies as a rigorous science in the first place.
Verse and Quote:
Joshua G:
I repeat what gpuccio wrote @1:
Let me quote a famous scientist – very dear to Poland and France:
This is from the Book of books:
rv says “A site dedicated purely to ID science? Great! It will be a first.”
. . . . . .
rv,
After you’ve demonstrated (with utmost clarity, for all to see) that you have no interest in discussions of science, it makes you look rather silly to keep harping about science. With such obvious disconnectedness on display, you’ve put yourself in the position of being taken with a grain of salt.
And still no response. Perhaps the third time is a charm?
How about it rv, care to engage in a discussion of science?
AhmedKiaan:
“In other words, science will continue to be done by actual scientists.”
Of course scientists do science. Can you do better than state trivialities?
“The ID contribution will be to philosophize, and make up new acronyms, and post YouTube links.”
Stupid. ID is a new paradigm, which will help get rid of the old, biased paradigm of neo darwinian evolution as an explanation for biological complexity.
Have you ever heard of the problem of competing paradigms in philosophy of science? No, it seems that you consider “philosophizing” as a waste of time… Shame on you.
The simple fact is: people like rvb8, and probably you, seem to believe that facts that are collected in scientific research belong to some ideology: if they are collected by people who believe in neo darwinism, they belong to neo darwinism, and so on. What a poor, gross conception of science!
Good scientists are collecting daily new knowledge about the functional information in biology, and the amazing new levels of control and functionality that would have been completely unthinkable just a few years ago. Do those facts belong to neo darwinism? Certainly not. They are, indeed, daily confirmations that ID is the only paradigm that can explain the facts.
At the same time, the same huge research which is changing all our views about biology has been completely unable to give any support to neo darwinism, a theory which is as unsupported by facts today as it was decades ago.
These are the simple facts. You, go on with your propaganda and your bad philosophizing about philosophizing. And go on evading all real scientific discussions that arise here.
Just like always.
AK can you spin me a Darwinian just so story for this finding? They seem to have left the usual Darwinian spin out of the article:
bFast, thank you for your comment. I can assure you that you will be most welcome to dialogue on my blog. I hope to engage more on here as well, and when I do publish stuff I’ll be cross posting here.
All views will be welcome (apart from commenters who are abusive or trolling). I’m a fairly typical ID proponent, but as I’ve said I don’t want one sided discussions and as you’ve pointed out there is a vast spectrum of views (not just classical ID vs old fashioned Darwinism). I’ll be defending most aspects of ID yet not always agreeing with everything every IDer has said. And I’ll be sympathetically exploring what critics say at the same time as explaining why I think they’re profoundly mistaken.
As for UCD, I will be exploring that issue at many points, though it won’t be my focus, since it isn’t directly relevant to ID. Personally I’m agnostic about it at the moment, but that could change either way.
As much as I love this forum, I agree it can be too fast. I’ll say right off that I’ll likely be a slower, yet detailed writer, rather than a ‘little and often’ one. Primarily because I want depth rather than quantity (this site manages to balance those two quite often), and also because I have several jobs, family and other things to attend to. As I said to ‘News’ that’s not necessarily a terrible thing for blogging, so long as your not expecting thousands of readers every week. I’m happy just to write and publish for my own enjoyment though, and if people read and interact with it then that’s a bonus.
I look forward to further interaction with you.
I’m sorry Upright I can’t answer your question for two reasons; 1, I’m not a scientist and am unqualified, and 2, what the hell are you talking about?
Try this; when I read Coyne, Shubin, Dawkins, Hawking etcetera, I can follow their evidence and argument with ease. I hope I’m not a fool, but your several hundred word question is simply beyond me; unless of course it is a pure mish-mash of psudo-scientific babble, with a few referances to real scientists and sciency acronyms.
Could you make your future questions less than one thousand words and not interpret that which you clearly understand poorly?
This is my main criticism of all ID writing, it is so vague, and unclear. “Your Inner Fish”, was a masterpiece of a science writer, writing and explaining a discovery. You may not agree with “The Selfish Gene”, but its ideas are clearly presented.
Please, please, try to do the same!
Joshua,
“not just classicical ID, vs old fashioned Darwinism.”
And your entire purpose, blog, and intentions, are laid bare.
What is, ‘old fashioned Darwinism’ exactly? Do you mean Evolutionary Biology? You see, your new take, is actually, not!
When you said this was going to be a fresh approach, and would concentrate on the science (good), and philosophy of science, (bad; how this helps investigation elludes me, despite the many words wasted in attempting to justify it), I thought, ‘okay, I’ll give this a whirl’.
And now, in your postings here you have shown your true intentions; just another poorly thought out hit job on science.
ba77,
You kick butt!
You need to assemble all your vast knowledge into a book. Or create some kind of ID reference web site with a topical index so ID supporters can quickly find the documentation they need to make a point regarding one of the many aspects of the debate.
God bless you, ba77!
A shocking surprise, rv.
You spit and hiss about science discussions, but when asked if a universally-accepted pillar of science is correct, you throw your hands in the air and flail them about. You’re then forced to peddle the preposterous excuse that you don’t understand the question, and wouldn’t be qualified to answer it anyway. If your excuse is to be believed, then universal observations (which have spanned the entire history of science) are apparently among those things that you are (by your own estimation) not intellectually fit to discuss.
Normally, I might ask you to take note of just how weak and silly your position is, but in your case it’s probably best to just let you resume your charade. You are surely a canary for the next person, perhaps someone who hasn’t sold themselves out.
‘You are surely a canary for the next person, perhaps someone who hasn’t sold themselves out.’
‘canary’? What does this reference mean? Like the canary in the coal mine? Why am I like that? What, ‘next person’? Sold myself out? To what? To whom?
And that is just the last sentence.
‘My question to you is: Do you think Crick, Rosenberg (and the rest of the planet) have it right? Given that a codon cannot be ‘about’ an amino acid, is a correctly loaded tRNA adapter required to establish the systematic association?’
Can’t answer, sorry far too sciencey for me. I do have several questions about the question however.
1.) “a codon cannot be ‘about’ an amino acid.”
Is this acceptable biological termanology?
2.) If you gave this question to Nick Matzke or other biologists, would it be taken seriously, or would they, as I suspect, just groan?
3.) You connect ‘tRNA adapter’ to ‘systematic association’.
Again, is that acceptable use of biological terms? Would a biologist say, ‘good question’, or would, as I suspect, they too, grind their teeth?
All the posts that are here use the same language. And not being a scientist, and being suspicious of anyone here claiming to be, I simply can’t answer until you frame your question so that an interested lay person could answer. Scientists frame these sorts of questions all the time, why can ID folk, never ask an actually interesting question?
P.S. I don’t, ‘spit and hiss’, nor do I ‘sneer’, that is strictly you people. I do mock occasionally, but that’s only because you make it so easy. Mostly I’m simply exasperated. But IDs constant efforts to say the same thing again, and again, in different ways, is also fascinating.
rvb8:
Try to comment on these simple arguments:
1) The genetic code is symbolic, because there is no direct biochemical connection between codons and aminoacids. This is a fact.
2) Symbolic systems are known only in designed artifacts (or in biology).
3) Being a symbolic system, it cannot work without a translation apparatus.
4) The biological translation apparatus is extremely complex, including the ribosome, mRNAs, tRNAs, the 20 aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases, and much more.
5) However, the part of the apparatus where the symbolic connection is established are the 20 aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases. It’s them that bind, separately, the correct tRNA and the correct aminoacid, according to the genetic code.
6) The 20 aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases are very complex proteins, each of them made of hundreds of aminoacids, with a length ranging from about 200 to more than 1200 AAs.
7) The 20 aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases are obviously synthesized using the information in their DNA genes. That specific information is obviously written in codons, using the DNA code. Therefore, the 20 aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases, which are the only known repository of the DNA code, need the DNA code to exist.
8) There is absolutely no real theory of how such a complex symbolic system, with all the inherent functional information and irreducible complexity, could have originated in a non design way.
These are scientific facts. I would appreciated your comments about them, if they are understandable enough to you.
Or, if you prefer, you can “just groan”, which is probably what you do best.
gpuccio:
Thank you for the very comprehensive comment.
Please, let me take side with your politely dissenting interlocutor and point to item 7.
Do you realize that what you wrote implies a “chicken-egg” conundrum?
Do you realize the magnitude of the problem your statement 7 generates?
Would you mind reviewing that statement to ensure it is correct indeed?
🙂
Dionisio:
Yes, it seems to be correct. And yes, it’s a very big chicken-egg problem (not the only one, but a very good one indeed!).
Of course, “it is generally assumed” that the genetic code was at first implemented in some other way. As “it is generally assumed” that the genetic code was at first simpler. As “it is generally assumed” that sometime in the past there was some biochemical connection between codons and aminoacids, that became mysteriously symbolic “as time goes by”.
Many things “are generally assumed”. None of them with any support from observable facts. You know, those little things upon which science should be built.
However, rvb8 and friends are certainly “groaning” at this point, so out of compassion I will stop here. 🙂
gpuccio,
Recently you also pointed to another “it is generally accepted” related to identical twins having separate minds.
🙂
rv, everything I said in my question is easily fact-checked in a matter of moments. Did Crick predict a set of adapter molecules? Of course he did. Did Zamecnik and Hoagland find those molecules and the set of complex aaRS proteins that charge them? Of course they did. Are these things part of the history record of science? Of course they are. Is it also an accepted truth throughout empirical science that no material object has any inherent semantic quality? Of course it is. As I said, nothing of this is even the slightest bit conttroversial.
The one and only reason you don’t address the question, choosing instead to run from it like the plague, is because the facts and history of empirical science support ID in a completely unambiguous fashion. Why does it take two objects to specify an amino acid during protein synthesis? Because no physical object specifies anything at all, so it requires a particular organization where one object serves as a representation (i.e. DNA) and another object establishes what is being represented (i.e. aaRS). This has been recorded knowledge for more than half a century.
Attacking the people who point this out to you is not going to change the facts in any way whatsoever. It only demonstrates that you’ve given up on science, and are prepared to be an anti-intellectual in the service of your faith.
UB, the pivotal fact is there is TEXT in the heart of life, specifically algorithm effecting machine code. Oodles of it. Plus NC machinery for that code — in D/RNA — to work on. Code and text plus processing machinery do not come about by blind chance and mechanical necessity, period. No reasonable search challenge analysis will allow anyone to escape that point. So, we all have to come to terms with LANGUAGE and messages in the form of molecular technology computing machinery in the heart of life. language and the related stuff are as strong signs of design as one could ask for, just ask the SETI people what they would do if they ran across something that was doing this stuff. Game over, we have to deal with life as a designed entity, if we are at all to be coherent. KF
kairofocus @36,
I worked with technology most of my adult life, both hardware and software — mostly software, but I have done troubleshooting of electronic hardware with an oscilloscope. This was back in the days when you could actually put your finger on the bad component. Today diodes, transistors and so on are most often microscopic sized. ;o)
I have written software to simulate the instruction set of a CPU, software to communicate with robotic equipment on the factory floor, software to manage digital telephony switches, and much, much more.
I am not looking for a job. ;o) I mention all of this just to make a point: You are absolutely right. It is laughably, ridiculously and utterly stupid to even momentarily entertain the notion that the self-replicating, digital-information-based nanotechnology we find in the cell is a mindless accident. History will record that the science of our times — perverted by atheism as it was — became a joke, a very bad and stupid joke that temporarily ruined true, relentlessly objective, genuine science that follows the evidence wherever it leads.
harry:
“History will record that the science of our times — perverted by atheism as it was — became a joke, a very bad and stupid joke that temporarily ruined true, relentlessly objective, genuine science that follows the evidence wherever it leads.”
Very well said.
A very sad example of cognitive bias at world level.
Harry, I am a Hardy Boy, and just the thought of the old Tektronix 465 fed with those old x10 clip on attenuator probes warms the cockles of my heart. My fingers still remember the comfortable, just right firm clicks of the rotary switches, that nothing else since then has ever duplicated. I have developed micro based systems and have come to the point where I began to read some of the machine code. (Long gone now! Motorola is gone, too — incredible! [And when I have seen some of the old names recently, that just means some firm in China has bought the rights; likely working with Walmart.]) So, yes, we are looking at this as people familiar with the class of tech with a far more sophisticated version in front of us. One, in the context of Von Neumann kinematic self replicating automata using molecular nanotech . . . we can describe this but nigh on seventy years later, we cannot build them yet. And Crick knew that from the first, as his $6 mn letter to his son of March 19, 1953 directly states: “Now we believe that the DNA is a code. That is, the order of bases (the letters) makes one gene different from another gene (just as one page of print is different from another).” This is past sixty years ago now, and in the context of winning a Nobel Prize. It is long past high time we faced the implications! KF
GP @ 31, spot on — as usual! KF
KF @40:
Please, let me add this:
GP @ 33, also spot on – as usual!
BTW, has rvb8 commented on gpuccio @31 yet?
Can somebody please let rvb8 know some folks are anxious to read his take on gpuccio’s comment @31? Rvb8 could reveal scientific discoveries no one is aware of! 🙂
Has anybody seen rvb8 posting any comments after 3am* today?
(*) Denver, CO time stamp.
D, 33 too indeed. Let us hear the response to one of our resident physicians on the science of ID. You come in as biologically very literate indeed. (I guess I can say, I sign up as applied physicist who has worked with info systems and takes the bridge to the informational view of stat mech seriously.) KF
gpuccio,
I know from high school that Adenine only bonds with Thymine, and Cytosine only bonds with Guanine.
Where is the ‘symbolism’ exactly? These are chemicals
These bases are further made up of hydrogen,oxygen, nitrogen,carbon and phosphorous; still not ‘symbolism’, much better; facts!
When I read your ‘unanswerable’ facts all I see is one theme: “Look how complicated it all is. This simply can’t arise from RM+NS.”
This is known as the, ‘argument from increduility,’ and is a staple of IDers and also, the only argument ID ever makes. Irreducible Complexity is derived from this arguent as is FSCM/UFO, or whatever letters Kairos grab bags.
The Design Inferrance is also another, ‘wow it’s complex, must be designed,’ cannard.
I can’t follow your science, could you please post these facts at a proper science site, I am not remotely qualified to address these.Suffice to say I think the scientists would say; ‘What the hell is the word ‘symbolism’ doing here?’
I do suspect groans and, ‘nashing of teath’ however.
rvb8:
I appreciate that you have tried, but listen to me: if you really don’t understand the basics of biology, why do you keep discussing it?
The AT – CG binding is obviously a biochemical connection, and is the foundation of all procedures to duplicate DNA and to copy information form DNA to mRNA. As all high school students,including you, should know.
But that has nothing to do with the genetic code, as all good high school students should know.
The genetic code is the symbolic correspondence of the 64 codons with the 20 aminoacids (and stop signals). It is a redundant code, which is not based an anyb biochemical affinity.
IOWs, the linear sequence CCA in DNA is translated to Proline when a protein is synthesized in the ribosome. That mapping is completely symbolic, because CCA, as a sequence of three nucleotides, has no biochemical connection at all with Proline.
To understand what DNA translation is, see for example this wikipedia page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Translation_(biology)
It’s called translation exactly because it transforms a symbolic information (the sequence of codons in the DNA protein coding gene) into a final outcome (the sequence of aminoacids in the protein).
The code is symbolic, as everyone knows (except maybe you). That’s why it is called a code.
The key actors in the translation process are the aminoacyl RNA synthetases, 20 complex proteins which can couple the correct codon to the correct aminoacid. Please, review points 5-7 in my post #31.
Is that clear enough for you?
RVB8, you are confusing cross-links between the two complementary strands of DNA with chaining down the length of the string; which is telling. Without the freedom to have AGCT follow in the chain in any order, DNA could not store the information to assemble proteins specified by the genetic code. Your onward refusal to address functionally specific complex organisation and associated information, reducing to a strawman “Look how complicated it all is,” is further revealing as to determined mindset not to face sober evidence. And, the FIRST context is Darwin’s warm pond of chemicals or the like pre-life environment, the root of the tree of life in OOL, where yes, there is no reproductive mechanism based on genetic code so there is no basis for chance variation and genetically linked natural selection. Then, at body plan origin level you have dodged the issue of need for many closely matched and correctly arranged, properly coupled parts to achieve function i.e. deeply isolated islands of function in vast config spaces; yet another strawman tactic dismissal. The rest of your objections collapse in the wake of that basic, disqualifying confusion and resort to strawman tactics backed up by sneers. Please, think again. KF
Is the confusing and senseless post @43 supposed to be understood as the response to the excellent commentary @31?
By the way, at the end of that post @43 one reads what apparently was supposed to be “gnashing of teeth” (show of anger, dismay, discontent), but grossly misspelled (teath in lieu of teeth). It almost seem like it was done purposely for mocking, because the spellchecker of the editor would have autocorrected the misspelling.
The only value of the mumbo-jumbo written in post @43 is that it triggered the instructive posts @44 and @45 by gpuccio and KF respectively.
It’s sad to see someone wasting the opportunity to learn the interesting things explained @31. Simply pathetic.
Oh, well. What else is new?
Good grief rv, all the intolerance and self-certainty you’ve posted on this blog is based on misunderstanding your high school biology?
Now that you know that the symbolic code in DNA isn’t established by A-T C-G, you can go ahead and answer the previous question:
Feel free to Google anything you want confirmed.
rv, you may want to start here HERE
You can now answer the question which (by direct osmosis at this point) you should have the answer for:
RVB8, it is fair and appropriate comment to say that we await your response and explanation of yourself, especially after months of sneering about UD as anti-science, ignorant, failing to deal with science and the like. KF
GP@ 17, now that I have skimmed back above — spot on. This is already one of the pivotal threads in UD’s saga, where the issues are plainly put on the table. Notice, onlooker, where the balance on merits lies. KF
I don’t know about anyone else, but I’m expecting rv to bust through the door and admit to the established scientific facts at any moment now.
🙂
UB, we wait. KF
RVB8, we are waiting — right here. KF
RVB8, we are still waiting for you to cogently address the issue of text being observed in the heart of cell based life [particularly, machine code], and in so doing to correct your blunder regarding base chaining in D/RNA in 43 above. This, on pain of being exposed as not only demonstrably ill-informed on wider worldviews issues but also of having falsely claimed a focal interest on matters of science connected to the design inference controversy (by implied sharp contrast with ID supporters here at UD). KF
RVB8, you may wish to ponder the OP and discussion thread here, as drawing out the significance of DNA as text, which was highlighted by Crick on March 19, 1953 as demonstrated in the OP: http://www.uncommondescent.com.....a-as-text/ KF