When Darwinism infects popular culture, confusion follows as well as nonsense

_{Denyse O'Leary

November 2, 2011

Culture, Darwinism, News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Every so often, one reads a sentence that just takes one’s breath away from an otherwise intelligent writer who uses Darwinism to help explain the world: This from Colin Dickey’s “Quack Prophet” (Lapham’s Quarterly):

Whether it’s the Dead Sea Scrolls or Finnegan’s Wake, there’s a long literary history of taking the garbled and the fragmented and looking for lucid meaning beneath. The science writer and professional skeptic Michael Shermer has gone so far as to argue that we’re hard-wired, from an evolutionary perspective, to look for such hidden meanings. “From sensory data flowing in through the senses the brain naturally begins to look for and find patterns, and then infuses those patterns with meaning,” Shermer writes. “We can’t help it. Our brains evolved to connect the dots of our world.” By adjusting the signal-to-noise ratio, Nostradamus introduced enough static into his Prophecies that they could be all things to all readers, poetic Rorschach blots of detail and blur.

Excuse us, but: The Dead Sea Scrolls are a remarkable 1947 find (since augmented) of a group of manuscript fragments and artifacts that everyone knew had lucid meaning, but awaited translation and clarification. You didn’t need to be “hard-wired” to notice any of that. Finnegan’s Wake is a deliberately obscure novel written by Irish novelist James Joyce, pored over by generations of academic dullards – to Joyce’s huge amusement, had he lived to see that entire circus play out. Much of it probably did have some meaning; it was written in English by an already successful novelist. Again, no “hardwiring” required to suppose that, though a certain amount of denseness for spending a lot of time on the problem.

It’s not like seeing patterns in the clouds, which might actually be evidence for Shermer’s thesis if not pressed too far – which it nearly always is.

Conflating the Scrolls and Finnegan’s Wake, spiced up with some Shermerite nonsense about how our brains evolved to … whatever, is an appalling but telling example of cultural Darwinism at work.

Those who don’t believe in meaning corrupt and confound it.

Note: The ostensible subject of the piece is that reliable checkout counter tabloid icon, the “prophet” Nostradamus, who was obscure for an entirely unrelated reason – to avoid falsification. Reminds one of something, no … ?

Comments

F?N: Of course, Dr REC neatly fails to identify that
(a) there are many protein families that DO cross the FSCI threshold, and (b) collectively -- there are many proteins in a cell needed for the functions of life to happen --
. . . so that in aggregate the living cell is WELL beyond the threshold where the import of the design inference is DESIGN. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{November 6, 2011
November
11
Nov
6
06
2011
03:09 AM
3
03
09
AM
PDT}

F/N: The design inference is inference to best explanation based on comparison of known causal processes and patterns, and the characteristic signs they often leave behind. This is precisely not an appeal to ignorance, save that when we deal with cases where we did not directly observe the deep past of actual origin, we must infer any explanation we attempt. To try to cast the general challenge faced by any origins science investigation as though it were a particular objection to design theory is blatantly selectively hyperskeptical. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{November 6, 2011
November
11
Nov
6
06
2011
03:05 AM
3
03
05
AM
PDT}

P: Strawman, and setting an incoherent challenge. Design is an issue at all because we know design as designers, in a world where we see other designers (like beavers). The very point of the process of science is that we examine our world and the causal patterns and processes that seem to be at work in it. Mechanical necessity is one, chance is another, design is a third, in relevant contexts. If we are undertaking a scientific project, should we not work based on what we can observe about our world? Why then do you want to demand:
. . . some method of detecting design that did not rely on knowledge of designers or of natural processes
Similarly, is not the discovery of traces in an object that per investigation reliably point to root causal process, not an examination of something in the object itself that points to its credible origin? Does this not seem rather strange indeed, that you want something in the object that tells its roots but do not want to bring to bear the empirical investigations and empirically reliable findings that identify signs that point to causal factors that best explain certain features? It seems the real problem is the signs in question strongly point where you would not go, and you are willing to be selectively hyperskeptical in approach to science to lock that out. This is ideology, not sound science. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{November 6, 2011
November
11
Nov
6
06
2011
03:01 AM
3
03
01
AM
PDT}

Can you kindly confirm to us that you accept that there are NO responsible Christian thinkers and leaders who support genocide, specifically including Dr Craig?
No, I cannot confirm that, kf, because as I read his article, Craig specifically states that under "divine command theory", "God has the right to command an act, which, in the absence of a divine command, would have been sin, but which is now morally obligatory in virtue of that command." This apparently includes genocide. I can see no other way of interpreting this except as saying that otherwise sinful acts, specifically including genocide, can be "morally obligatory" (aka "condoned") if commanded by God. How else could you interpret it?Elizabeth Liddle_{November 6, 2011
November
11
Nov
6
06
2011
02:49 AM
2
02
49
AM
PDT}

OOPS: 143 ASCII characters, or about 20 - 25 words.kairosfocus_{November 6, 2011
November
11
Nov
6
06
2011
02:49 AM
2
02
49
AM
PDT}

Dr REC: Pardon, but, again, you have distorted what you are facing. Let me interleave responses: ______________ >> This is a funny little dance you’re doing. ID is the notion that design in nature, exceeding a value you’ve set, must be the product of a designer, by inference to human design. 1 --> We observe and experience ourselves as designers, and we observe other creatures such as beavers -- you were invited to observe here on this, notice the varieties of dams -- doing fairly similar things, sufficient to see that design is a manifestation of intelligence, not humanity. 2 --> We also see that causal factors for aspects of objects, phenomena, processes, etc trace to mechanical necessity, chance, and design, which often leave recognisable or even characteristic traces. 3 --> By doing an analysis of atomic resources available in our solar system or cosmos, we have a reasonable estimate of the upper limit of the number of possible configurations the atoms in question can have had across 10^17 s, a reasonable estimate for time available. 4 --> We then apply a very well known bit of math, sampling theory, which tells us that isolated and unusual configs in a space of possibilities do not plausibly appear on a blind sample, unless the sample is a sufficiently large fraction of the possibilities to pass a limit of plausibility. For decades, such has been a key plank of hypothesis testing. At an extreme, it is also the foundation of the second law of thermodynamics -- as the infinite monkeys type analysis underscores. 5 --> We then construct a metric that uses a common class of information metrics as an index of complexity, here, number of configs. As you know, n bits has 2^n possible configs, from 000 . . . 0 to 111 . . . 1. So, we have a reasonable way to estimate search space, based on commonplace results. 6 --> We then compare. For our solar system, 10^57 atoms for 10^17 seconds would have at most 10^102 Planck time quantum states. But 500 bits has 3*10^150 possibilities [and even the fastest chem rxns require 10^30 PTQS's], which is 48 orders of magnitude beyond, as in 1 straw to a cubical hay bale 3 1/2 light days across, about 10 times the size of our solar system out to Pluto. 7 --> Even if a solar system were lurking in such a bale, a sample at that relative size, so long as it is blind, would with maximal probability, only come up with straw, the BULK of the distribution. 8 --> So, we proceed, using 500 bits as a threshold of sufficient complexity to be relevant. 9 --> We then modify the complexity metric I, with a dummy variable (per an objective warrant) that shows if or if not we are warranted to infer that the relevant observed complex and putatively specific outcome E comes from a definable narrow, unrepresentative zone T in the space of possibilities W; such zones of course being relevant to the sort of purposefulness we know that intelligences are capable of: Chi_500 = I*S - 500, bits beyond the solar system threshold 10 --> The resulting metric as just shown works by then comparing complex enough specific outcomes E to the threshold. If beyond the threshold, the best, most plausible, empirically warranted inference is that E is an artifact of design. 11 --> For instance, if you say 1,000 coins in a line with H/T in no particular order, I would be high, but S zero, Chi_500 = - 500. We would be warranted to infer that this happened by chance and/or mechanical necessity. 12 --> But if the same string of coins encoded ASCII text for a passage in English of about 143 words, we would be well warranted to infer design, and the same would obtain if we were able to see that this was the bit pattern of a machine language program that worked in a known controller to carry out a task. 13 --> If we were dealing with say 100 coins, it would be unusual to see ASCII text, or to see machine code, but the pattern would be within reach of the chance and necessity resources of our solar system, so we would default to chance and necessity. S would be 1, but I would be too low. 14 --> Now, onlookers, please note: all of this has in effect been repeatedly laid out above, and there has been no cogent reply on the merits, just a brush aside. That is telling on the balance on the merits. I ask what design in nature has shown a spontaneous increase in biological fsci exceeding the value you set, and you refer me back to a human design (which actually produced no new biological fcsi, in my opinion-see below). 15 --> Mischaracterisation and red herring. The evidence we have in hand, as previously presented, shows -- at least to the unbiased, reasonable minded -- that Venter et al have demonstrated the technology to create nanomolecular designs and integrate them into living forms, showing proof of concept that design is a feasible means of creating novel biological information and forms. Putting aside that you don’t actually have the demonstrated ability to calculate fCSI in biology*, 16 --> Willful misrepresentation and falsehood in the teeth of actually presented (by link) analysis and facts. What was done (months ago) was to use the results from Durston et al in the literature to present several examples on H-functional state, for protein families, e.g.:
we have some reason to suggest that if something, E, is based on specific information describable in a way that does not just quote E and requires at least 500 specific bits to store the specific information, then the most reasonable explanation for the cause of E is that it was designed. The metric may be directly applied to biological cases: Using Durston’s Fits values -- functionally specific bits -- from his Table 1, to quantify I, so also accepting functionality on specific sequences as showing specificity giving S = 1, we may apply the simplified Chi_500 metric of bits beyond the threshold: RecA: 242 AA, 832 fits, Chi: 332 bits beyond SecY: 342 AA, 688 fits, Chi: 188 bits beyond Corona S2: 445 AA, 1285 fits, Chi: 785 bits beyond
17 --> In addition, the issue is not FSCI in biology, but that biology has FSCI in an information system, working as machine language in an algorithmic system that produces proteins. So, the issue then is what is the known source and empirically credible source of such FSCI. Ans: intelligence. 18 --> In short, this is switcheroo, to try to reverse the real issue. it looks like you have a theory in search of an observation! 19 --> Willful falsehood, in the teeth of presented evidence on the table for months. *(though you reference papers, where fits are estimated based on number of sequences performing the same function. This places enzymes, and domains well below the universal probability bound. Since we know evolution hasn’t searched all sequence space, this is probably an overestimate. Actually taking the sequence space of a moderate sized protein and testing for function would quickly exceed the resources of a laboratory). 20 --> Misrepresentation and distortion that begs the question of what degree of darwinian type evolution has happened and is capable of on its mechanisms of chance variation [the putative source of any novel information] and culling on differential reproductive success [i.e so called natural selection, a SUBTRACTER, not a source, of information]. “Venter et al have demonstrated proof of concept for intelligent design of living forms, period.” False. False. False. Venter did NOT design a genome. He copied a genome, added non-biologically relevant watermarks, and inserted it into a cell. 21 --> Blanket denial in the face of highly relevant reality. Venter has shown that genetic engineers can manipulate the relevant molecules, can assemble/synthesise, can insert and can get such organisms to start up and reproduce. 22 --> So, we see that intelligent designers are CAPABLE of creating novel organisms based on similar technologies, That is we have empirical proof of concept. Wiki:
Proof of concept A proof of concept or a proof of principle is realization of a certain method or idea(s) to demonstrate its feasibility,[1] or a demonstration in principle, whose purpose is to verify that some concept or theory is probably capable of being useful. A proof-of-concept may or may not be complete, and is usually small and incomplete. A proof of concept of an idea is usually considered a milestone on the way to a fully functioning prototype . . .
““They rebuilt a natural sequence and they put in some poetry,” said University of California at San Francisco synthetic biologist Chris Voigt. “They recreated some quotes in the genome sequence as watermarks.” 22 --> Red herring pulling away to a strawman It’s an impressive trick, no doubt, but replicating a natural genome with a little panache is also the limit of our present design capabilities.” 23 --> Red herring --> strawman http://www.wired.com/wiredscie.....etic-life/ Perhaps you could calculate the gain in biological fcsi in this experiment? I’d say it is zero-no new biological functionality. 24 --> Tada, the strawman, duly knocked over. 25 --> Tap tap tap, the real opponent is here, till standing. 26 --> I have specifically highlighted proof of concept as the issue for the Venter case, consistently and for a long time. This has been just as consistently ignored in the rush to try to dismiss the significance of our having a demonstration that the sort of techniques a more advanced molecular nanotech lab would need to create cell based life are plainly feasible. 27 --> Going beyond, the real issue on the table is that the discovery of FSCI-rich systems and techniques in the living cell opened a bridge from biology to information theory and related technologies so that the concepts, findings and issues in those fields are now directly relevant to biology and must be answered cogently. Which is what design theory sets out to do. 28 --> And as the simplified, log reduced Chi metric shows, the answer, very strongly, is that the best explanatory causal factor for what we are seeing in biological systems, is design. machine code for complex integrated operations, starting at about 100,000 bits and d=ranging up to the billions. 29 --> We have found the coins in a line, over 100,000 of them, and they are in machine code that works in a known algorithmic system. 30 --> What best explains that, why, in light of the infinite monkeys challenge, starting from OOL and going on up through origin of major body plans, including our own? ANS: on what we know and can analyse, intelligence. 31 --> So strong is this inference that those who reject it, are resorting to question-begging redefinitions of science that would cripple it from being able to be . . .
an unfettered (but ethically and intellectually responsible) search for the truth about our world based on empircal evidence, observation, reasoned analysis and uncensored (but mutually respectful) discussion among the informed. [cf. here]
32 --> That documented resort to worldview level question begging imposed by raw power to control major institutions of science and science education, is absolutely telling. >> ______________ Cho, man, do betta dan dat! GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{November 6, 2011
November
11
Nov
6
06
2011
02:46 AM
2
02
46
AM
PDT}

Elizabeth: :) :) :) :) :) Connected space) Connected by what? :) :)gpuccio_{November 6, 2011
November
11
Nov
6
06
2011
02:20 AM
2
02
20
AM
PDT}

GB, every materialist I've ever known has simply and willfully ignored pertinent evidence, and yes, they have often (but not always) ignored it in a blustering fashion. Do you consider anyone (regardless of their position) who ignores evidence to be lacking rigor; attached to ignorance?Upright BiPed_{November 5, 2011
November
11
Nov
5
05
2011
07:08 PM
7
07
08
PM
PDT}

it is possible to engineer an object to look natural, but the design explanatory filter was deliberately not designed to detect this
I was kind of hoping you could demonstrate some method of detecting design that did not rely on knowledge of designers or of natural processes. Something that is inherent in the object itself.Petrushka_{November 5, 2011
November
11
Nov
5
05
2011
06:53 PM
6
06
53
PM
PDT}

ScottAndrews2
Reading the abstracts of papers is a good idea. Why don’t you start with that. If you had read and understood the abstracts to even one of those papers then you never would have linked to them.
I read the whole papers which is why I posted them. I keep offering to discuss them but you keep running away. You still think you're so smart you can tell what's in a paper without reading it. Here's a hint smart guy - the abstract won't tell you everything.
Your evidence all exists. It just doesn’t evidence anything you want it to.
Those papers provide everything you asked for, everything you claim doesn't exist - mechanisms and evidence for speciation down to the genome level, evidence and detailed genetic steps for the evolution of new body parts. The fact is, *nothing* will ever satisfy your requirements because you change to a new demand every time one is met. You move the goalposts so far and fast you'll break the sound barrier. You're not interested in learning, you're here to proselytize.
Why do you call me “ugly?” That’s the kind of word choice that reveals more about the one who chose it.
Willful ignorance like you embrace is ugly. Blustering arrogance coupled with willful ignorance is downright hideous.GinoB_{November 5, 2011
November
11
Nov
5
05
2011
06:51 PM
6
06
51
PM
PDT}

GinoB, Reading the abstracts of papers is a good idea. Why don't you start with that. If you had read and understood the abstracts to even one of those papers then you never would have linked to them. Your evidence all exists. It just doesn't evidence anything you want it to. Why do you call me "ugly?" That's the kind of word choice that reveals more about the one who chose it. Time for me to go. I've given you enough attention. My beautiful wife and near-perfect son are home. I think we'll go to the park and enjoy the nature God created for our enjoyment.ScottAndrews2_{November 5, 2011
November
11
Nov
5
05
2011
06:27 PM
6
06
27
PM
PDT}

ScottAndrews2
I have again permitted you to waste my time by reading yet another of your irrelevant research papers.
Sorry, but given your history of prevarication I don't believe you. You didn't read any of the others I posted. You didn't do anything but skim the abstracts and couldn't tell me anything about them in your own words. It was hilarious though when I was asking for your explanation of one paper and you ended up quote-mining a passage from a completely different paper. You couldn't even follow the conversation going on. Sorry Scotty, you'll always be the ugly, ignorant Creationist. Scientific evidence scares the poo out of you You have no answer for it so you run away and hide every time it is produced. Fear not little man. I won't ask you any more embarrassing questions about your stupid claims. I'll just point out your falsehoods and keep posting the scientific evidence you say doesn't exist.GinoB_{November 5, 2011
November
11
Nov
5
05
2011
06:05 PM
6
06
05
PM
PDT}

DrREC,
Realize ID is based on the inference that this large increase in information warrants a designer. Evolutionary hypotheses require NO SUCH OBSERVATION. Indeed, evolutionary biology predicts and observes small, probable increases in information.
Then I've misunderstood. I thought the idea was that over time reptiles had evolved into mammals and birds, and so on. If you're not claiming that evolution is the primary cause of such biological diversification, but rather tinkers with finch beaks and lizard heads and makes cichlid fish change colors, then we are in agreement, and we can leave it there. You have yet to explain on what basis you make the distinction between observing an increase in fsci and an increase in biological fsci. That appears to be your primary objection, and you have yet to explain on what basis you make that distinction. I'll repeat: Inference and extrapolation enable us to explain beyond what we observe. In this case they are all we have. You apply an ad-hoc rule to arbitrarily rule out the inference, and seem to think that your extrapolation is now the last man standing. That looks an awful lot like a shortcut to arriving at the conclusion you prefer. Explain why the origins of biological fsci cannot be inferred from the origins of non-biological fsci. Don't beg the question by claiming to have an alternative explanation. Explain the basis for the line that you have drawn. I think you just made it up.ScottAndrews2_{November 5, 2011
November
11
Nov
5
05
2011
06:03 PM
6
06
03
PM
PDT}

GinoB, I have again permitted you to waste my time by reading yet another of your irrelevant research papers. This one starts from the stated assumption that animals with larval forms evolved, and asks which of two hypotheses seems more likely. That's the sleight of hand that many readers will miss. That both hypotheses may be false is never considered. What GinoB thinks the paper demonstrates is actually what is assumed at the outset. The paper simply asks, starting from the assumption that one evolutionary narrative or the other must be true, which one wins. It never addresses the basis for that assumption. As usual GinoB, you produce research which isn't so much wrong as it just doesn't say what you think it does. It doesn't even claim to. Any specific details mentioned in the paper are intended to support one hypothesis over the other. The paper does not attempt to provide evidence that evolution explains the origins of any larval or adult forms. That is not its purpose. How many times have you done this? Six? Seven? You post links to papers that don't even claim to be about what you think they are. Then you throw a childish fit ("NUH-UH" - I didn't even know adults said that) when someone explains what the papers really say, or you accuse us of pretending they don't exist. They all exist. There are thousands more where that came from. Who cares? If I want to pretend that something doesn't exist I'll start with you. At the very least, I won't follow another link until you pass a simple test by summarizing in your own words what you think it says and why it is relevant. Because I don't think you even read this stuff. Good grief, you bolded the whole abstract! You have no idea which phrases or sentences if any are relevant. Fail again, unless your goal was to elicit a response. Most people who crave attention prefer the positive kind. I feel sorry for you if this is what you want.ScottAndrews2_{November 5, 2011
November
11
Nov
5
05
2011
05:41 PM
5
05
41
PM
PDT}

" I have no observation of design creating 500 bits of biological fsci. If I have not already openly conceded that, I am now." Thanks. So there is no empirical observation of an increase in biological fsci that would warrant a design inference. In other words, ID is a pointless theory that describes no observation. Realize ID is based on the inference that this large increase in information warrants a designer. Evolutionary hypotheses require NO SUCH OBSERVATION. Indeed, evolutionary biology predicts and observes small, probable increases in information. "You have no observation of the processes of variation, selection, drift, and what have you producing that same fcsi. There can be no honest discussion that does not begin from that point." Is just false. We have many observations of those processed producing small increases in fcsi. I can and have provided references. Others have on this thread also. You bring up the unobserved past. Admittedly, much prior to LUCA is hard to infer. But-what is more reasonable-that an observed process operated in the past, or a process with NO empirical support? And anyway, evolution isn't about abiogenesis. I guess if ID wants to be a theory without observation, it is welcome to be.DrREC_{November 5, 2011
November
11
Nov
5
05
2011
05:26 PM
5
05
26
PM
PDT}

Just in case you didn't see my previous message: My response to your earlier post is here: http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/?p=212 Feel free to respond either at TSZ, or, if you prefer, here, and perhaps leave a link at TSZ (you don't need to register to post). Cheers LizzieElizabeth Liddle_{November 5, 2011
November
11
Nov
5
05
2011
05:21 PM
5
05
21
PM
PDT}

ScottAndrews2
You have no observation of the processes of variation, selection, drift, and what have you producing that same fcsi. There can be no honest discussion that does not begin from that point.
Apparently there can be no honest discussion from you on the topic, period. I have already posted eight scientific studies with evidence for those very things, two papers of which are on this very page. How do you live with yourself when you feel the need to lie with almost every post you make here?GinoB_{November 5, 2011
November
11
Nov
5
05
2011
05:16 PM
5
05
16
PM
PDT}

Oh yes, excuse me. Any material observation coming from an opponent must first conform to one's whim, or whatever observable impact it has on the issue cannot be considered legitimate. That's much better. The clear air of empiricism is beginning to return.Upright BiPed_{November 5, 2011
November
11
Nov
5
05
2011
05:10 PM
5
05
10
PM
PDT}

DrREC, I say "new body plans" because it's better than saying "significant changes" which is a bit vague. I could use specific examples, but I'm actually trying to be generous and not demand an explanation for any one specific change. I'll take whatever you have. (I'm trying to discuss this reasonably in manner that provokes thought rather than frustration. I'll be the first to admit that sometimes I cross the line.) I'm not moving the goalposts. OOL and "significant" evolution* are all that interest me in this context. Why would I be talking about anything else? That is where the controversy is. Where are my 500 bits? I seem to have misplaced them. Perhaps they are right next to your 500 bits. Where did you leave those? Please do not beg the question and claim that all biological information is your example of evolutionary accumulation. Then I would be entitled to do likewise and assert that the same example demonstrates design. The origin of biological diversity is unobserved. I have no observation of design creating 500 bits of biological fsci. If I have not already openly conceded that, I am now. You have no observation of the processes of variation, selection, drift, and what have you producing that same fcsi. There can be no honest discussion that does not begin from that point. It's your extrapolation vs. my inference. Both, by definition, involve reaching beyond what we observe. The question is which has to reach farther. *A few examples that come to mind are the development of legs in legless creatures, the transition from ground-dwelling spiders to those spinning orbital webs. Or the appearance of distinct organs such as lungs or stomachs. In each case not only the physical change but the behavioral must be accounted for. Countless advanced behaviors (birds taking turns guarding a nest) are also of interest. Those cross my mind. Propose your own. I'm attempting to negotiate what would constitute "significant change" so that I can use such a phrase without being vague or suspected of moving goalposts. Perhaps someone has already done so. But it would certainly assist in discussions such as this so that no one would bring up pointless distractions like colored cichlid fish.ScottAndrews2_{November 5, 2011
November
11
Nov
5
05
2011
05:01 PM
5
05
01
PM
PDT}

Thank you for this post, kf. blockquote>I have summarised an exchange that took place in public, and it seems accurately. That is certainly not going behind your back. No, it is not accurate, kf, and I'm not sure how often I have to say this: I do not deny that information, digital or analog, is stored, generated and transferred in biological systems; far from denying it, I have explicitly stipulated that it is. So please stop implying that I, or anyone else, finds this concept "inconvenient". We don't. However, I agree that you have made this point in public - at the time I was just a bit peeved that having hung around the thread repeatedly asking you to retract this implication, while you were logged on, once I'd logged off back it came. But I accept that this was unreasonable on my part (after all, we live in different time zones) and I do apologise for that remark. For the last time (I hope): Yes, there is "digital information" in biological systems. No this fact is not "inconvenient" for any argument I have made, and my arguments over exactly how we describe information transfer at various levels in biological systems has nothing to do with whether or not ID is true or false. Far from it: I've repeatedly drawn attention to the fact that gene regulatory systems are digital in nature. So, in some senses, are brains.
Let’s focus: that digital means discrete state as opposed to continuous state is an easily ascertained standard and utterly uncontroversial usage, dominant in the relevant field of technology.
Fine. As I've said several times, now, I accept this usage.
(This reminds me of objections in recent months to the use that Information is frequently measured by I = – log p; which was somehow suddenly objectionable and questionable to the point of revealing ignorance, never mind its established usage and 80 year history in information theory.)
I don't know who has found this "objectionable". Not me.
And yet, no sooner had I mentioned this in passing somewhere above several days ago now, than you went into full debate mode, sharply challenging the legitimacy of describing a certain four-state per digit, discrete state system as digital. There was at one point even a suggestion by IIRC Dr Bot, that this was to somehow associate the idea of digital technology with something that this is not a proper association for.
Yes, I did, for three reasons, the main one being is that yet again you had implied that my motivation for objecting to that description had something to do with wanting to deny ID. The second was secondary, in that I was regarding "digital base N" as referring to a numeric positional system, not an alphabetic system with N element types. Which is why right from the beginning, I said that DNA was more like an alphabetic system than a digital (i.e. numeric) system (and which you found "astonishingly ill-informed). However, I now accept that this usage is applicable to alphabetic systems, and, with that proviso, am happy to accept the terminology. However I still disagree that information transfer systems in the cell are in "digital base 4". Some may be - some are in other bases, if the number of bases is taken to be the number of molecules or molecular sequences used for information transfer. I certainly don't think that "digital base 4" is a good general description of biological information systems, and is certainly not, IMO, a good way of describing how the DNA molecule is written. Which seems to me rather important.
Let me again cite Wikipedia as a basic source speaking from your side of the fence, though in fact on this matter I have a perfect right to claim some basis of knowledge to speak:
Yes, I know the difference between an analog and a digital signal. I don't think it has the slightest relevance this discussion.
It is a commonplace, that DNA is linear polymer molecule, used to store biological information based on a four state per digit system (as in: digit-al), in a string data structure. Further, the DNA code for proteins, and the algorithmic (step by step, finite, goal directed) processing in the ribosome to create protein chains, based on the three-letter codons in mRNA as transcribed from DNA and perhaps edited for eukaryotes, is also easily accessible and non-controversial.
It may be "a commonplace" kf, but your description begs a great many questions. Yes, DNA stores information, but "is used to store" brings in unwarranted agency language. It stores information, I agree. As for "goal directed" - again this begs the question at issue. The ribosome translation system serves to perpetuate both the organism and the lineage. Calling this a "goal" is to assume your consequent.
While I am at it, I need to re-affirm based on an exchange above, that the alphabet is also discrete state, e.g. between neighbouring letters A and B, there is no valid third letter, etc. (Above, you tried to drive a wedge between alphabetical and digital systems; this is incorrect.)
I assume we agree that alphabetic and numerical systems are different? That is the only point I wish to make.
So, we come to the question, why such a strident and sustained objection in the teeth of easily learned, commonplace facts and terms of digital technology and the easily shown relevance to what happens in the living cell?
Because your model leaves out huge and relevant sections of the information generation, transfer and storage processes found in biological systems. "Base 4" may indeed apply to parts of the system (if "base N" is used to describe alphabetic systems with N element types) but there are far far more discrete element types than 4 used in information transfer in living things, and when it comes to "writing" the DNA sequence, the "digital base 4" model seems to me to be seriously misleading. As a "read only" system, I accept that the reading frame can take one of four states. As a "write" system, the analogy simply doesn't work. Or not that in a way that I can see, and I suspect this is why ID proponents have such difficulty with the question: "how does the information get into the genome?"
The best explanation answer to that so far, on the body of evidence, despite your assertions that it has nothing to do with it, is that the analysis in terms of digital information processing using codes, is an analysis in terms of an information technology and algorithms, and codes. That is, technologies that are only plausibly explained on intelligence.
Well, no, it isn't, kf, and I am glad at least that you have recognised that I am indeed making "assertions that it has nothing to do with it". Perhaps now you will take in the argument I am making, or, at least note (as I have pointed out on many previous occasions now) that your hypothesis about my motivation doesn't actually accord with the facts in evidence: if I were worried about the implications of a "digital information processing using codes" in the cell, why on earth would I be repeatedly pointing out that gene regulatory networks are a "digital information processing system" with inputs handled by algorithms to produce appropriate outputs?
Indeed, use of language — including to construct the symbol-mapping systems used, which code is a manifestation of, is a strong sign of the presence of active intelligence. IIRC, Dr Bot above actually explicitly said something pretty much in accord with this.
Well, no, he didn't, but as he's been banned for no conceivably justified reason that I can see (apparently for objecting to having something untrue said about him and trying to put the record straight) he can't very well put the record straight, can he? But I have myself said (and I think DrBot agreed) that DNA is rather more like grammatical logic than digital computer logic. Again, why would either of us make that point if we thought that it was a problem for our view point?
Now, you strongly object that I have made a strawman mischracterisation of your argument and view.
Yes. You keep saying that I am arguing that biological systems aren't digital because I don't like the implications that has for ID. Clearly that characterisation is wrong, because I have repeatedly described cell information transfer systems as digital.
Perhaps you do have an unusual view, that happens to align practically with the sort of objection in effect but comes from a different motivation.
Yes! Thank you, kairosfocus!
I would certainly like to hear why you have so strongly objected to an uncontroversial definition, one rooted in how digital and analogue information are processed technologically. In your complaint, I have yet to see a cogent explanation of that unusual motivation. Neither did I find such an explanation above during the exchange, nor on other occasions when the objection you have made has come up
Well, I've tried to be as clear as possible, but I will try again: There are many levels and stages at which information is generated, stored, and transferred in biological systems, which include populations and habitats as well as individual organisms and individual cells, and they are all inter-related. One of these, and only one, is the process by which information stored (digitally, if you like, and in base 4 if you like, as long as we agree it is not numeric, and is "read only") in DNA is utilized to build and maintain a) a cell and b) a multicellular organism. This process involves far far more than the translation of protein coding parts of DNA into actual proteins, and includes the template-like production of RNA molecules of various kinds, including enzymes (such as ribosomes), mRNA and tRNA, and of course the discrete amino acids themselves. Then we have the gene-regulatory networks by which genes are switched off and on according to chemical inputs from beyond the cell, including the local and external environment, and resulting in tissue differentiation and the development of body plans, as will of course as healing, and actual bodily functions, including brain activity, in which protein coding genes are constantly being turned on and off. Then we have the information transfer from parent to offspring, so that the offspring genome contains information from its parents (and in sexually reproducing species, recombined from all four grandparents) that enables a novel organism to be built, complete with novel information that doesn't come from any of its ancestors. Then we have the information transfer from environment to population, by which those phenotypes that reproduce better in that environment leave more of their alleles in the gene pool than phenotypes that reproduce rather worse, so that the population gene pool stores, and transmits to each succeeding generation, information about what worked in that environment as well as some "legacy" information about what worked in previous environments. Some of this is better thought of as analog, rather than digital IMO (length of limb; depth of beak), and much of it concerns both gene-gene interactions and gene-environment interactions.
— an objection that frankly I find astonishingly ill-informed, even wrong-headed. Kindly provide it, and I will be prepared to accept a reasonable account.
I have attempted to do so above :)
But it should be clear to anyone looking on why I have hitherto had good reason to infer that the reason for the objection to digital information processing being in the living cell, is the obvious one.
Well, no, because you have consistently ignored my insistence that there is digital information processing in the living cell! Why would I have done such a thing had I had some principled objection to digital information processing in the living cell"
At minimum, if that inference is incorrect, it would not be any sort of deliberate misrepresentation, nor is it hypocritical.
Well, on the whole, as you know, kf, my default assumption is that other people are posting in good faith. It's why I get so cross when you, and others, do not make that assumption (indeed assume the opposite) in others. But as I had not only repeatedly agreed that there are digital information processing systems in the cell, but also repeatedly pointed out that I could scarcely have an objection to their being digital information processing systems in the cell if I was repeatedly pointing out that there were, your repeated insistence that I was denying such a thing for ideological reasons was starting to look, well, deliberate! But I am happy to accept your word that it was a misunderstanding. I hope my view is now clear, namely that far from denying digital information processing in the cell, or information processing at all, I am trying to point out just how many levels and types of information generation, storage and transfer processes take place in biological systems!!! Much of which can be well-described as digital IMO.
And, from my point of view, while I am obviously not a perfect human being [something I could not dare claim, if I am to seriously be one of my faith], far too much of the personalities deployed against me in recent weeks and months smack of well-known turnabout accusation tactics, and even shoot the messenger who bears unwelcome tidings.
Well, I have to say, kf, that I think that you are seeing attacks where none are intended. That's understandable when arguments get heated, and in the ID vs Darwinist argument, fear from both sides of the other taints debates. Paranoia is understandable (on both sides, I would say) but not helpful. That's why my own principle is: assume the other person is posting in good faith. Not for especially virtuous reasons (though I think it's a good principle) but because we are far more likely to understand where the other person is coming from that way. In my experience, most people don't lie, and most people believe what they do because they think their arguments and conclusions make sense. Good people can differ profoundly :) We will continue to disagree, kf, but thank you for your post, and I hope at least, the nature of our disagreement has been somewhat clarified. I'm off to bed - I wish you a good night :)
Elizabeth Liddle_{November 5, 2011
November
11
Nov
5
05
2011
04:54 PM
4
04
54
PM
PDT}

Dr Liddle: Can you kindly confirm to us that you accept that there are NO responsible Christian thinkers and leaders who support genocide, specifically including Dr Craig? [Documentation already provided and linked.] That, thanks to the poisonous rhetoric of professor Dawkins, is the very first item on the agenda. Unless this is clearly accepted, no reasonable, positive discussion can be held. And, that false accusation or insinuation of support for genocide which keeps on coming up, is exactly the blood libel I have pointed out as needing to be addressed. Good evening GEM of TKI PS: I have repeatedly linked where I have addressed the range of issues you attempt to raise again, so I simply point you upthread at this point.kairosfocus_{November 5, 2011
November
11
Nov
5
05
2011
04:53 PM
4
04
53
PM
PDT}

Joseph, please tell us more about your evidence for Noah's Flood, baraminology, and Adam & Eve. That always makes for entertaining reading.GinoB_{November 5, 2011
November
11
Nov
5
05
2011
03:58 PM
3
03
58
PM
PDT}

Dude, Your position doesn't have any explanation for HOX genes, nor any regulatory genes. And HOX genes only influence development and do not determine it.Joseph_{November 5, 2011
November
11
Nov
5
05
2011
03:45 PM
3
03
45
PM
PDT}

And, I have not merely “accused” people of blood libel without good reason
Well, yes, you most certainly have, IMO, kairosfocus. But to clear this up, please answer the following questions: 1) Does William Lane Craig claim that God ordered the Israelite ("Israeli") soldiers to slaugher the Canaanites? 2) Does William Lane subscribe to "divine command theory", which he defines as "On divine command theory, then, God has the right to command an act, which, in the absence of a divine command, would have been sin, but which is now morally obligatory in virtue of that command."? 3) If the answer to both the above is yes, in what sense is Craig NOT saying that genocide is a moral virtue if commanded by God? If the answer to either of the above is no, how have we misunderstood Craig?Elizabeth Liddle_{November 5, 2011
November
11
Nov
5
05
2011
03:44 PM
3
03
44
PM
PDT}

Umm your position doesn't have any explanation for HOX genes other than- "look at those!" But anyway HOX genes do not determine the body plan only influence its development.Joseph_{November 5, 2011
November
11
Nov
5
05
2011
03:42 PM
3
03
42
PM
PDT}

For the lurkers, here's an interesting recent paper on the evolution of body plans through changes to Hox and other regulatory genes. Origins of the other metazoan body plans: the evolution of larval forms Abstract: Bilaterian animal body plan origins are not solely about adult forms. Most animals have larvae with body plans, ontogenies and ecologies distinct from adults. There are two primary hypotheses for larval origins. The first hypothesis suggests that the first animals were small pelagic forms similar to modern larvae, with adult bilaterian body plans evolved subsequently. The second hypothesis suggests that adult bilaterian body plans evolved first and that larval body plans arose by interpolation of features into direct-developing ontogenies. The two hypotheses have different consequences for understanding parsimony in evolution of larvae and of developmental genetic mechanisms. If primitive metazoans were like modern larvae and distinct adult forms evolved independently, there should be little commonality of patterning genes among adult body plans. However, sharing of patterning genes is observed. If larvae arose by co-option of adult bilaterian-expressed genes into independently evolved larval forms, larvae may show morphological convergence, but with distinct patterning genes, and this is observed. Thus, comparative studies of gene expression support independent origins of larval features. Precambrian and Cambrian embryonic fossils are also consistent with direct development of the adult as being primitive, with planktonic larvae arising during the Cambrian. Larvae have continued to co-opt genes and evolve new features, allowing study of developmental evolution. ScottAndrew2 won't read it of course, he'll just claim it doesn't exist, but at least those interested in learning will see it.GinoB_{November 5, 2011
November
11
Nov
5
05
2011
03:13 PM
3
03
13
PM
PDT}

"Please elaborate on how you decide in which medium fcsi may exist" I'm talking about biology, so lets go with the genome. " and be considered a possible product of design" ID and Kairosfocus have described the qualifications for inferring design. I'm simply saying there is no empirical observation of a gain in biological fsci > 500 bits, therefore there is no need to infer a designer. "It appears that you just draw this demarcation wherever it suits you." I chose Kairosfocus demarcation for convenience. His references describe numerous proteins with fits less than 500. Your last paragraph is simply an argument from personal distate. No point in responding.DrREC_{November 5, 2011
November
11
Nov
5
05
2011
02:58 PM
2
02
58
PM
PDT}

You've changed the subject. Google hox genes if you are really interested. Where is the your example of design >500 bits changing body plan?DrREC_{November 5, 2011
November
11
Nov
5
05
2011
02:55 PM
2
02
55
PM
PDT}

"Chuckle, chuckle I love it when a materialist says that material observations don’t matter." Who said that? I'm the one demanding a material observation of design-something you seem unable to dig up.DrREC_{November 5, 2011
November
11
Nov
5
05
2011
02:54 PM
2
02
54
PM
PDT}

ScottAndrews2
It’s one thing to change a body plan – shorten, lengthen, etc. It’s another to come up with a new one. If you can attribute that to evolution then please share.
When you're done trolling and chasing people around the board to harass them, there's a paper above on the evolution of treehoppers waiting for you to explain. Or will you just lie again and say no one ever presented any evidence to you?GinoB_{November 5, 2011
November
11
Nov
5
05
2011
02:31 PM
2
02
31
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 … 12 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply