Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

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

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email
File:Nostradamus prophecies.jpg

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
It is quite easy to ascertain that on this, NWE is far more correct, and that Wikipedia is in effect a mouthpiece for objections to design thought. Wiki's loaded description and tendentious assertions are based precisely on the misrepresentations noted; sustained in the teeth of responsibility to be fair and accurate. In particular, I find that Wikipedia seriously and irresponsibly distorts the nature of science in that summary, ideologically loading science with implicit materialism in the teeth of easily ascertained historical facts, phil of sci concerns and related issues on epistemology and inductive logic. As a glance at he IOSE introduction page will show, I have highlighted these areas of concern. But it is also quite clear on abundant experience, here at UD and elsewhere, that if one seeks to correct such an entrenched ideology, the standard resort has become distractive red herrings, led away to strawman distortions, soaked in ad hominem smears and set alight through vituperative rhetoric or more subtly through snide inferences and insinuations or invidious associations. These tactics seem to be increasingly dominant in ideologically tinged matters, and clearly trace to the destructive influence of Saul Alinsky. Notice, that in my case this has reached the level of threats against innocent and uninvolved members of my family. These threats are in the context of people who are evidently associated with porn and atheism movements. (Do you want to see what they had to say in response to my exposing the destructive impacts and alarming spread of porn, in my personal blog through a table of shocking statistics? [Cf, here for my post that they stridently objected to, with particular ire directed at Christian churches as "houses of hate." -- i.e. we see here the psychology of projection.] Let's just say there is a linear connexion from those statements to the sort of blood libels that have come up through professor Dawkins' toss out the poisonous red meat assertions. So much so that anti-religious motivation would be an aggravating factor in a case.) GEM of TKI PS: FYI, I had not actually noticed his threat to go to barrister until after I learned that Dr Bot was banned for it. And, I have not merely "accused" people of blood libel without good reason, I have described what they did in the terms of what that sort of irresponsible false accusation of alleged support for murder did and does yet, a point that usually escapes those caught up in such smears. Do you remember my remarks about the "auntie" murdered in 1980 on a poisonous smear against shop-keepers, and how the leader of the group that spread the smear then smoothly denied moral responsibility on radio? I have never ever forgotten that moment of horror on just how destructive smears can be, just how much of an out of control fire a smear can set. So, I repeat: there are ZERO responsible Christian leaders, Dr Craig included, who support genocide. This is easily ascertained, and so those who take up professor Dawkins' poisonous talking point have some serious explaining to do, indeed if you are of a certain level of education and maturity, to recklessly discuss the matter is to enable the smear. And, I have taken time to point out why, cf here and here, with here. Kindly note the added links to media clips. Let me put this matter this way: if you think that being described as smearing people is something that outrages you, think about what it is like to be falsely accused of and/or put under the cloud of suspicion of support for mass murder, with overtones of racism as motive. Then, look back at what has been going on, in that light.kairosfocus
November 5, 2011
November
11
Nov
5
05
2011
05:44 AM
5
05
44
AM
PDT
Dr Liddle: Please. It seems a painful but necessary, fairly frank, comment is in order. I have summarised an exchange that took place in public, and it seems accurately. That is certainly not going behind your back. 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. (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.) 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. 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:
A digital system[1] is a data technology that uses discrete (discontinuous) values. By contrast, analog (non-digital) systems use a continuous range of values to represent information. Although digital representations are discrete, they can be used to carry either discrete information, such as numbers, letters or other individual symbols, or approximations of continuous information, such as sounds, images, and other measurements of continuous systems. The word digital comes from the same source as the word digit and digitus (the Latin word for finger), as fingers are used for discrete counting. It is most commonly used in computing and electronics, especially where real-world information is converted to a digital format as in digital audio and digital photography.
My usual first example to my students has been to contrast a ladder's rungs to climbing up a rope. One may hang on to a rope at any point, but between neighbouring rungs, there is no third rung. That absence of a valid state between neighbouring state is the essence of discrete state systems, and it is what marks a digital system as digital. 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. 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.) 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? 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. 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. Now, you strongly object that I have made a strawman mischracterisation of your argument and view. 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. 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 -- 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. 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. At minimum, if that inference is incorrect, it would not be any sort of deliberate misrepresentation, nor is it hypocritical. 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. I will footnote on these matters, as they are not on the main point. As a final main point, I note you have suggested that I am ever so eager to find myself misrepresented by objectors and call them out as using strawman tactics etc. Not so. What has happened is that the PATTERN of objections to design theory that we commonly see is based on misrepresentation of its key concepts, and conflation with a very different movement, creationism. This is then led into ad hominems, and too often vituperation or career busting, though it seems on recent decisions/settlements that the courts are beginning to catch on. If you doubt me on his, let me contrast two online encyclopedias on their ID articles,in the introductions:
NWE: Intelligent design (ID) is the view that it is possible to infer from empirical evidence that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection" [1] Intelligent design cannot be inferred from complexity alone, since complex patterns often happen by chance. ID focuses on just those sorts of complex patterns that in human experience are produced by a mind that conceives and executes a plan. According to adherents, intelligent design can be detected in the natural laws and structure of the cosmos; it also can be detected in at least some features of living things. Greater clarity on the topic may be gained from a discussion of what ID is not considered to be by its leading theorists. Intelligent design generally is not defined the same as creationism, with proponents maintaining that ID relies on scientific evidence rather than on Scripture or religious doctrines. ID makes no claims about biblical chronology, and technically a person does not have to believe in God to infer intelligent design in nature. As a theory, ID also does not specify the identity or nature of the designer, so it is not the same as natural theology, which reasons from nature to the existence and attributes of God. ID does not claim that all species of living things were created in their present forms, and it does not claim to provide a complete account of the history of the universe or of living things. ID also is not considered by its theorists to be an "argument from ignorance"; that is, intelligent design is not to be inferred simply on the basis that the cause of something is unknown (any more than a person accused of willful intent can be convicted without evidence). According to various adherents, ID does not claim that design must be optimal; something may be intelligently designed even if it is flawed (as are many objects made by humans). ID may be considered to consist only of the minimal assertion that it is possible to infer from empirical evidence that some features of the natural world are best explained by an intelligent agent. It conflicts with views claiming that there is no real design in the cosmos (e.g., materialistic philosophy) or in living things (e.g., Darwinian evolution) or that design, though real, is undetectable (e.g., some forms of theistic evolution). Because of such conflicts, ID has generated considerable controversy. Wikipedia: Intelligent design (ID) is the proposition that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[1][2] It is a form of creationism and a contemporary adaptation of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, presented by its advocates as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" rather than "a religious-based idea". It avoids specifying that the hypothesized intelligent designer is God.[3] Its leading proponents are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank,[n 1][4] and believe the designer to be the Christian God.[n 2][n 3] ID seeks to redefine science in a fundamental way that would invoke supernatural explanations, a viewpoint known as theistic science. It puts forward a number of arguments, the most prominent of which are irreducible complexity and specified complexity, in support of the existence of a designer.[5] The scientific community rejects the extension of science to include supernatural explanations in favor of continued acceptance of methodological naturalism,[n 4][n 5][6][7] and has rejected both irreducible complexity and specified complexity for a wide range of conceptual and factual flaws.[8][9][10][11][12][13] Intelligent design was developed by a group of American creationists who revised their argument in the creation–evolution controversy to circumvent court rulings such as the United States Supreme Court Edwards v. Aguillard ruling, which barred the teaching of "Creation Science" in public schools as breaching the separation of church and state.[14][n 6][15] The first significant published use of intelligent design was in Of Pandas and People, a 1989 textbook intended for high-school biology classes.[16] From the mid-1990s, intelligent design proponents were supported by the Discovery Institute, which, together with its Center for Science and Culture, planned and funded the "intelligent design movement".[17][n 1] They advocated inclusion of intelligent design in public school curricula, leading to the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, where U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents", and that the school district's promotion of it therefore violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.[18]
[ . . . ]kairosfocus
November 5, 2011
November
11
Nov
5
05
2011
05:43 AM
5
05
43
AM
PDT
Elizabeth: I am happy that you agree on those fundamental points. I will not enter your personal discussion with KF, but I believe that we can agree on many things, although I have to remind you that other darwinists here have many times denied even those basic concepts. So, let's see where we agree. You can confirm or not. no-one, certainly not me, denies that information transfer occurs in life That's fine. I will limit the discussion, for the moment, to protein coding gene information. So I suppose you agree: a) That in protein coding genes there is information about the corresponding protein sequence (some deny even that) b) That such information is symbolic, in the sense that it is coded by a symbolic code, called the genetic code c) That the genetic code is a digital base 4 code, organized in three charatcter "words", for a total of 64 word values, corresponding in a redundant "many-to-one" mapping to the 20 AAs and to the stop command d) That there is no known biochemical law that connects the symbolic values in the codons to the corresponding AAs e) That the physical connection between the gene and the protein if made only by the transcription and translation apparatus f) That specific information about the genetic code is independently embedded in the structure of the 20 aminoacyl tRNA synthetases, and that such specific information is the key to decoding the information in the protein coding genes. IOWs, we find the information about the genetic code independently in two dofferent parts of the cell: the protein coding genes (written according to the genetic code) and the 20 aminoacyl tRNA synthetases (structured so that they can correctly decode the coded information) g) That the information in protein coding genes is exclusively about primary sequence, and therefore the search space for that information in any random system acting on the genes is the sequence search space h) That the relation between sequence, structure and function in proteins is very complex, and, while being essentially a necessity relationship (depending on biochemical laws), it is at present mostly beyond the calculation abilities of us humans Well, I would like to verify with you these points. None of them is essentially an ID argument, but they are obviously important points for the ID theory. I am afraid that, if you disagree with any of them, discussion will always be chaotic. So, if you disagree, please try to explain clearly where and why. If, instead, you agree, I would appreciate if you could simply tell us at least some simple and basic points about "the problems you see with ID", and I will be happy to comment on those problems, trying to use a common language.gpuccio
November 5, 2011
November
11
Nov
5
05
2011
02:58 AM
2
02
58
AM
PDT
It's not like Elizabeth needs defending but....
Richard Dawkins: River out of Eden - 1995 Chapter One: The Digital River.
....just sayin'Single_Malt
November 5, 2011
November
11
Nov
5
05
2011
02:40 AM
2
02
40
AM
PDT
This is beginning to sound like the recent objection that an inconveniently discrete state complex system is not digital.
And there you go again, kf, as soon as my back is turned. What on earth is "inconveniently discrete"? You seem determined to construct this straw man that I and others deny ID because we deny that the information in life is "discrete" or "digital". I have denied neither, although I did object, and still do, to the characterisation that information transfer in life is "digital base 4", but as I've said over and over again, indeed it is why I joined this conversation, that objection has got nothing to do with the problems I see with ID as is completely evident from the fact that I am perfectly willing, nay enthusiastic, about the concept that regulatory gene networks work in digital manner. So will you, now, please, retract your repeated straw man insinuation that the idea that information transfer in life is "inconveniently" digital has anything to do with the argument that ID is fallacious. It doesn't. In fact it wouldn't even matter if the information transfer in life were analog (as some of it is) - the fact is that no-one, certainly not me, denies that information transfer occurs in life, that cells contain information, and that that information is, inter alia, stored as sequences of discrete molecular units, and information transfer processes can be considered digital. You are very keen, kf, to object when someone else, in your view, misrepresents your argument. You also, repeatedly, misrepresent other people's, and, moreoever, ascribe to them arguments they simply have not made. You have accused those people, in hysterical terms, of "BLOOD LIBEL!" And yet, when one of those people, who did not even take part in the conversation, jokingly (complete with wink smiley) makes a comment about "British libel laws" - he's banned. This is hypocrisy, kf, and you are doing it again. Let me repeat, in case you are still unclear: There is nothing "inconvenient" to evolutionary theory about the observed fact that information transfer processes in living things and systems is involves arrangements of discrete entities, nor is there anything "inconvenient" about the fact that what we might call "digital switching" is involved. And if the term "digital base N" is used to describe alphabetic information storage systems with N possible elements, then "digital base 4" is a reasonable way to describe polynucleotides. None of that is the least "inconvenient" for evolutionary theory, indeed it underlies the principles of genetics. I look forward to your retraction.Elizabeth Liddle
November 5, 2011
November
11
Nov
5
05
2011
02:24 AM
2
02
24
AM
PDT
PPS: Bow beach is a shingle beach at the foot of a cliff in Cornwall, UK. The Google maps overhead shot looks typical of beach forms, the obvious artificial feature is the road back of the cliff. Of course, it is possible to engineer an object to look natural, but the design explanatory filter was deliberately not designed to detect this, it is looking for features that flag the un-natural, or artificial, not for features that mimic the natural successfully. but, often art imitating life will be imperfect on close inspection and will be revealed by those features that flag art not nature.kairosfocus
November 5, 2011
November
11
Nov
5
05
2011
01:32 AM
1
01
32
AM
PDT
PS: A beach form, again, is like Pinatubo: generally best explained on natural forces, though we may have the case of artificial beaches, which MAY in some cases show features that show origin in art rather than chance and necessity. For instance, groynes, artificial reefs, etc. Those are abundantly amenable to empirical investigation, and in most cases, as a light tackle surf fisherman, require no more sophisticated equipment than eyeball mark 1. (BTW, dumped sand beaches tend to not have a natural distribution of sand particles, after all sand was displaced form where it naturally goes. hence the messing up of water clarity on beaches in Florida.) Remember, we investigate per aspect on empirically tested reliable signs and compose the overall causal account from that.kairosfocus
November 5, 2011
November
11
Nov
5
05
2011
01:25 AM
1
01
25
AM
PDT
PS, I would laugh if it were not so sad. S = 0 is the default, namely, it is the default that blind chance and mechanical necessity are able to create phenomena. It is only in cases where we can warrant that this is not plausible that design is a serious candidate on signs of design. Of course, what GB et al do not want to admit is that they really want to lock out that possibility that S = 1, by imposing a censoring a priori materialist redefinition of science, such as we can see here on. Anyway, what is needed to be justified is on a case by case basis why it is inferred that S = 1. That is shown above. A reasonable person would address that instead of trying to fixate on the default that is his own position, save for refusing to lock out the possibility that S = 1. Imagine, trying to justify that, in a context where we do empirically know -- Paricutin [sp] in Mexico -- that volcanoes form naturally, the best explanation of a volcano is just that which has been observed to produce them.kairosfocus
November 5, 2011
November
11
Nov
5
05
2011
01:18 AM
1
01
18
AM
PDT
P: More sadly revealing scorched earth bitter retreat tactics. We have relevant technologies, and can design and develop more if necessary. We have relevant analytical techniques. (I suggest you take a pause and read here on and here too. You are not dealing with ignoramuses that do not know how to carry out a scientific investigation. People who object to the imposed a priori evolutionary materialism are not ipso facto ignorant, stupid, insane or unduly wicked.) The above discussion on what goes into the Chi_500 equation and its link to the empirical investigatory context shows what would be required. Scientific investigations are after all artifacts of design. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
November 5, 2011
November
11
Nov
5
05
2011
01:03 AM
1
01
03
AM
PDT
Dr REC: This is beginning to sound like the recent objection that an inconveniently discrete state complex system is not digital. Sorry, direct observation of design, and of techniques that show design of life forms, is proof of concept that intelligences can plainly design life forms. That Venter was able to snip out and embed genome segments and watermarks shows the relevant technology at work. yes, they need to get to a Genome compiler at some point, but that is a matter of detail, not the fundamental capacity to manipulate molecular components to assemble a living cell. Which, actually is a case of proving by inspection that engineers can engineer. This should net even be a issue. As to, can engineers produce a system of complexity beyond 500 - 1,000 bits, that is obvious, by direct inspection. This sounds like objecting for the sake of objecting, in a sort of scorched earth, bitter retreat strategy. All it does in the end is it demonstrates and unreasonable attitude. Let's do a bit of logical skeletonising:
1: Engineers and others routinely produce artifacts with 500 - 1,000 or more bits of functionally specific complex information. 2: Engineers routinely produce such objects with features in the nanometre to micrometre range, and indeed a nanomachine technology is emergent 3: Engineers and chemists routinely synthesise complex, biofunctional, highly specific organic compounds, often termed drugs. 4: Genetic engineering is a reality, and indeed an industry. 5: Venter has applied these and related techniques to assemble a novel genome, snipping, splicing, adding watermarks etc. 6: This has been shown to work in the context of the living cell. _______________________________ 7: It is possible, with future development for these technologies to be brought together to create artificial life forms through intelligence. 8: That is Venter et al have provided proof of concept of the ability of intelligent designers to implement artificial life forms, by intelligent design. 9: At least, to the reasonable mind.
(BTW: Have you any proofs that the only possible intelligences are human, given say what beavers do, as in it seems that beaver dams manifest complex specified functional organisation adapted to particular circumstances? And, given the fine tuning of the observed cosmos, and its credible beginning -- i.e its radical contingency, do you have any proof that an extra cosmic, necessary being that is intelligent, purposeful and powerful enough to build a cosmos, is an impossibility?) Thanks for letting us know your attitude. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
November 5, 2011
November
11
Nov
5
05
2011
12:52 AM
12
12
52
AM
PDT
KF: GinoB is obviously here to disturb, not to discuss. But he is a good example of the irrational propaganda of the worst darwinists, so I would not complain after all.gpuccio
November 5, 2011
November
11
Nov
5
05
2011
12:45 AM
12
12
45
AM
PDT
GB: False, FAIL again. Work your way, step by step through the discussion above, and show us the circle you assert. Actually, you cannot; which is why you ave resorted to drumbeat repetition of already falsified and irresponsible assertions. In addition, complexity exists, high contingency exists, and information exists, info that may actually function in ways that crucially depend on the specific configuration of elements. Posts in ASCII text as are all over this thread demonstrate such functionally specific complex information as an empirical reality. The underlying computer programs that enable this blog to work and your PC to work, especially down at machine code level, demonstrate that algorithmically functionally specific, complex digital information is an empirical reality. These are observable facts, not assumptions. Now, you show your incivility by resorting to repeating the mantra, meaningless [and I note resorting to namecalling] in the teeth of step by step presentation of the meaning above, instead of (per specific request) SHOWING what is "meaningless" in that if you could. And FYI, even if I were in error, that would not imply meaninglessness. And, I am not in error, just you have a handy drumbeat dismissive word handed down to you by the sockpuppet MG -- if you are not simply another manifestation of the same sockpuppet. In short, your rhetorical tactic is to repeat the assertion and demand demonstration of the opposite, while trying to drag the discussion down into the gutter of namecalling. (This aspect, I formally warn you to cease and desist from henceforward.) Sorry, FAIL. You have claimed not mere error but meaninglessness. You therefore need to show, per duties of care, that the FSCI concept is something like a square circle, i.e inherently impossible by reason of self-contradiction. THAT, YOU HAVE FAILED TO DO, BUT HAVE RESORTED TO THE NOW FAMILIAR TACTIC OF TRYING TO CREATE PERCEIVED CREDIBILITY BY DRUMBEAT REPETITION. That in itself tells us a lot about where the balance of credibility and warrant lie. Going on, for the sake of the onlooker, let's pause to note that FSCI is simply a descriptive term, a sub-set of complex, specified information where the specification is based on observed function that is dependent on key-lock fitting of the right components. Car parts are like that, keys and locks are like that, software is often like that. (I gave the example of the most expensive comma in history, the one that blew up a rocket that went off course.) This is patently not self-contradictory. That which is empirically observable is possible, and that which is possible is by direct demonstration of existence, not impossible. Let's hear OOL researchers Orgel and Wicken on this, in the 1970's as they wonder at the functionally specific and complex wiring diagram -- have you ever build a complex electronic or mechanical system from parts, step by step according to a layout and wiring diagram? -- organisation and associated information of the living cell. This is of course from the same IOSE introduction page you have clearly not bothered to read despite invitation:
orgel, 1973: . . . In brief, living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity. [--> Which specification is in the context of requisites and organisation of biological function] Crystals are usually taken as the prototypes of simple well-specified structures, because they consist of a very large number of identical molecules packed together in a uniform way. Lumps of granite or random mixtures of polymers are examples of structures that are complex but not specified. The crystals fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; the mixtures of polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity. [[The Origins of Life (John Wiley, 1973), p. 189.] Wicken, 1979: ‘Organized’ systems are to be carefully distinguished from ‘ordered’ systems. Neither kind of system is ‘random,’ but whereas ordered systems are generated according to simple algorithms [[i.e. “simple” force laws acting on objects starting from arbitrary and common- place initial conditions] and therefore lack complexity, organized systems must be assembled element by element according to an [[originally . . . ] external ‘wiring diagram’ with a high information content . . . Organization, then, is functional complexity and carries information. [--> See the roots of the descriptive summary: functionally specific, complex organisation and associated information?] It is non-random by design or by selection, rather than by the a priori necessity of crystallographic ‘order.’ [[“The Generation of Complexity in Evolution: A Thermodynamic and Information-Theoretical Discussion,” Journal of Theoretical Biology, 77 (April 1979): p. 353, of pp. 349-65.]
Those fundy dummy creationist origin of life researchers! how dare they speak of specified complexity and functional complex organisation on wiring diagrams! How dare they mention design and selection! (Onlookers, an excellent definition of intelligent design is purposefully directed choice contingency and resulting configuration. The intent of Wicken of course was to hope to warrant that "natural" selection has the requisite capacity, this has failed across 30 years since.) Now, too, blatantly, the well-known info capacity metric I = - log p is not only not contradictory, it is a key component of the basis for modern information theory. However we need more than that, as this Hartley-Shannon metric peaks for a flat random meaningless sequence. Real, functional information invariably embeds redundancy so its use of symbols constrained by meaningful rules is not going to be on a flat random statistical distribution. That's why we can easily tell (a) meaningful phrases in English ASCII text, from (b) ewghegbweab, meaningless random text strings. That is where a metric that brings to bear the observationally warranted inference that functional or similar specificity is at work, is useful, by employing a well-known technique, the dummy variable that records a judgement justified on objective grounds. In short, as already explained: if an object can be accounted for on processes of blind chance and necessity acting on matter and energy in plausible initial conditions, then S defaults to zero. (The metric is used in the context of the explanatory filter approach to empirical investigation of credible causal explanations, per aspect of an object, system, process or phenomenon etc.) It is when that cannot reasonably be done that S = 1, especially if we can show the key-lock fit to function pattern by the effects of perturbing or randomly varying parts or similar process. Since information carrying capacity as measured in bits, say, n bits, immediately implies a space of possible configs, 2^n, it is then useful to assign a threshold for sufficiently complex that functionally specific, narrow clusters, T, are deeply isolated to a degree that available material resources and blind search possibilities cannot reasonably find such deeply isolated zones. The gamut of choice is in the first instance, our observed solar system of some 10^57 atoms. Across 10^17 s, a typical estimate of the order of magnitude of the possible age, we have 10^102 Planck time quantum states as the upper limit of change for the atoms. In addition, as an empirical fact, it takes ~ 10^30 PTQS's to carry out the fastest, ionic chemical reactions. So, we have a threshold of 500 bits which is 48 orders of magnitude beyond the limit of what the solar system -- our practical cosmos for chemical interactions -- can do. Onlookers will observe that the scope of search vs scope of possibilities challenge was explained, in terms of a solar system [not even a needle] in a haystack search. Converting to those familiar terms, we are looking at taking a blind one-straw sample from a cubical haystack three light days across. Sampling theory very firmly tells us that such a sample will reliably pick a case from the overwhelming bulk of the distribution of possibilities, not from deeply isolated atypical zones. Such deeply isolated zones, AKA islands of function, are practically unobservable on the scope of a blind search using the resources of our solar system. If you step up to 1,000 bits, this would isolate a search on the scope of the 10^80 or so atoms to more than 150 orders of magnitude. So, it is sensible to test for whether we are beyond a reasonable scope of search. That is what the 500 bit threshold is doing; which is of course not meaningless. Moreover, none of the elements in the expression: Chi_500 = I*S - 500, bits beyond the solar system threshold . . . is a denial of any of the other terms, nor is subtraction an operation that imposes contradictions. Further to this, the 500 is a threshold in bits, and once the information metric is measured in bits, bits are being subtracted from bits, the dummy variable parameter having no units. We may then directly read the equation: Chi_500 = I*S - 500
1: Chi_500 is a metric that takes the following value, based on certain mathematical operations and is also rooted in associated empirical investigations, observations and measurements that are required to apply it in a real world case. 2: Where I is a measure of information-carrying capacity arrived at by standard means for an object of interest, in bits, and 3: Where also, the object is empirically and/or analytically warranted to show functional specificity, 4: Also, where we are beyond a 500-bit threshold set based on the atomic state capacity of the solar system's 10^57 atoms, 5: then we may assign a value to Chi_500 of bits beyond the relevant threshold. 6: Where also, the utility of that value, once it is positive, is that we have a quantitative criterion for identifying that the best explanation of a given aspect of a given object of interest in view, is best explained on design, not blind chance and mechanical necessity. 7: Which is directly subject to empirical test based on objects of known causal provenance that can be measured, the ASCII text of web pages being a particularly convenient case that underscores the empirical reliability of this metric and the inference based on it.
In short the expression is exactly not meaningless, and is subject to empirical test. The Internet is a standing demonstration of its empirical reliability in cases where we know the causal story.kairosfocus
November 5, 2011
November
11
Nov
5
05
2011
12:29 AM
12
12
29
AM
PDT
DrREC: I don't understand: why should the 500 bits "arise at once"? ID (in the sense of intelligent design, the process of design) is constantly observed, in human design. ID, in the sense of ID theory, cannot be observed, because theories are not facts. As usual, darwinists abuse epistemology for their propaganda.gpuccio
November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
11:48 PM
11
11
48
PM
PDT
ScottAndrews2
If you know of a mechanism that can produce anything in biology that gives even the eyeballed appearance of having been designed, then explain the origin of such a thing in terms of that mechanism. If that mechanism deals in specifics, then be specific. I have issued that simple challenge ad infinitum to no response. In fewer words, if you can explain origins, then explain an origin.
You're a flat out liar. You've had that challenge answered numerous times, had scientific papers with that exact thing placed under your nose repeatedly. but still you lie about it. Here's yet another one for you to lie about and say doesn't exist Body plan innovation in treehoppers through the evolution of an extra wing-like appendage Abstract: Body plans, which characterize the anatomical organization of animal groups of high taxonomic rank, often evolve by the reduction or loss of appendages (limbs in vertebrates and legs and wings in insects, for example). In contrast, the addition of new features is extremely rare and is thought to be heavily constrained, although the nature of the constraints remains elusive. Here we show that the treehopper (Membracidae) ‘helmet’ is actually an appendage, a wing serial homologue on the first thoracic segment. This innovation in the insect body plan is an unprecedented situation in 250?Myr of insect evolution. We provide evidence suggesting that the helmet arose by escaping the ancestral repression of wing formation imparted by a member of the Hox gene family, which sculpts the number and pattern of appendages along the body axis. Moreover, we propose that the exceptional morphological diversification of the helmet was possible because, in contrast to the wings, it escaped the stringent functional requirements imposed by flight. This example illustrates how complex morphological structures can arise by the expression of ancestral developmental potentials and fuel the morphological diversification of an evolutionary lineage. There you go troll - a reconstruction of the evolution of the treehopper's helmet (including genetic pathways involving Dll and hth genes, and nubbin protein) showing it is a modified T1 dorsal appendage with a bilateral origin. The primary use (and selection force) of the helmet is predator defense through mimicry, which is covered in other papers. Go on troll, make yourself look like a fool again and tell us " but they're still BUGS!" It's obvious you're just a Creationist troll not interested in any scientific discussion. Go crawl back under your bridge you lying troll.GinoB
November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
10:20 PM
10
10
20
PM
PDT
Joseph
The OBSERVATION is that living organisms contain fsci. The ISSUE is how to explain it.
It's easy to explain. FIRST came the observation that genomes were complicated, and involved in complex chemical reactions to create proteins. THEN came you guys who said "Gee, let's give that observed complexity a fancy, sciency sounding name - FSCI" THEN you make the completely circular claim "It has FSCI, it must be designed!" Why don't you show us where FSCI was a recognized scientific metric before you ID guys came up with it and used it in your circular argument. A link will do. You lose again Joseph. Stick to your YEC baraminology.GinoB
November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
09:38 PM
9
09
38
PM
PDT
"every instance of design from which we draw the inference is human, and no human design which would qualify as ID is biological. (None that I know of, anyway.) Point taken. Fair enough.: Thanks. I agree. The point taken is that the 'inference' overreaches. Pathetically and dramatically.DrREC
November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
09:30 PM
9
09
30
PM
PDT
Thank you for your honesty JoeG. "outside of human design no one has witnessed 500-100 bits of BI arising at once." Which renders ID a theory in search of an observation. In other-words, a pitiful pile of nothing. Anyone care to prove me wrong on this assessment. ID has never been observed.DrREC
November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
09:28 PM
9
09
28
PM
PDT
As for what’s in the picture, well we would have to go there, investigate and put ALL the data into the EF.
Feel free to do it as a hypothetical exercise. What kind of data would be relevant? what instruments would you want to have? What would you measure and why?Petrushka
November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
09:05 PM
9
09
05
PM
PDT
DrREC, You reject the inference that living things were designed, because every instance of design from which we draw the inference is human, and no human design which would qualify as ID is biological. (None that I know of, anyway.) Point taken. Fair enough. And yet the separation between what is observed and what is inferred is always the reason for inference. Once you observe a thing, it is no longer an inference. Do you reject the concept of inference altogether? I am sure that you do not. So how do you formulate your line between what is a valid inference and what is not? It has the appearance of being arbitrary. You reject it because you don't like it. If that is not the case, what is your basis? Regardless, the origin of life and of diversity is unobserved. If you reject the inference of design drawn from comparison to known design, then from what do you infer the belief that the components of life can spring from chemicals, lacking consciousness and yet endlessly driven to improve themselves? Let's say that the design inference is weak. Is the evidence supporting your conclusion stronger or weaker? When you reject one premise on the bounds that the evidence is weak and embrace another for which there is none whatsoever along with mountains of reason for doubt, how can one not conclude that it is simply your preference? There's nothing wrong with it. Why not just accept it?ScottAndrews2
November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
04:07 PM
4
04
07
PM
PDT
Petrushka:
For example, explain how the explanatory filter would deal with this: http://www.environmentalgraffi.....review.jpg
It would say it is a picture. Most likely taken by an agency we call "human". As for what's in the picture, well we would have to go there, investigate and put ALL the data into the EF.Joseph
November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
03:56 PM
3
03
56
PM
PDT
GinoB, Given the correct geological conditions volcanos form. Now if a volcano formed in the absence of those conditions then we may have a reason to investigate and may find an alien craft.Joseph
November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
03:46 PM
3
03
46
PM
PDT
Wrong again, as usual. The OBSERVATION is that living organisms contain fsci. The ISSUE is how to explain it. YOU think chance and necessity can produce whereas we say all observations point to intelligent agencies as the only source. WE can support our end and are waiting on YOU to support yours.Joseph
November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
03:44 PM
3
03
44
PM
PDT
OK, outside of human design no one has witnessed 500-100 bits of BI arising at once. And probabilities only apply to chance and necessity. Otherwise it is like calculating the probability of Stonehenge or calculating the odds of s designer designing something he/ she/ it can design. Once we know it is designed we study in that light so we can understand it.Joseph
November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
03:41 PM
3
03
41
PM
PDT
Both Lenski and Thornton have demonstrated three step creations of new functions involving an intermediate neutral (non-selected) step. Neutral drift has been a part of population genetic theory for half a century and has now been experimentally demonstrated.Petrushka
November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
02:44 PM
2
02
44
PM
PDT
Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything:
All you have done is restate the fact that an assembly of parts does something. You have said nothing about the history of the assembly. We know that there is an incremental path from jawbones to inner ear bones, because we have preserved specimens of the incremental steps. We don't have proof that the increments were undirected, but we have independent observation of equivalent changes in morphology brought about by the selective breeding of wolves to dogs and foxes to tame foxes and wild grass to corn. Behe argues in the realm of making novel proteins, but there are no novel proteins required to produce the spectrum of vertebrates. Nearly all the differences separation one vertebrate from another are in regulatory genes. So the fact that new protein domains are rare is not a particularly strong argument against the common descent of vertebrates (which is probably why Behe accepts the common descent of vertebrates).Petrushka
November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
02:24 PM
2
02
24
PM
PDT
Only because you defined the genomes of living organisms to have FSCI. Completely circular, completely worthless.GinoB
November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
02:24 PM
2
02
24
PM
PDT
ScottAndrews2
ID infers design, leaving a wide margin of error. You are demanding that KF demonstrate that a volcano was not designed.
No, I am demanding that he demonstrate the objective methodology he claims exists for determining design from non-design. Mt. Pinatubo was just an example I picked at random. He obviously can't do it, and you can't do it either. You constant defense of him with meaningless sidebars and accusations is the behavior of a troll. There’s no nicer way to say it. I could think of a few worse. The position you have taken demonstrates beyond a doubt that you have no purpose other than to argue and harass.GinoB
November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
02:21 PM
2
02
21
PM
PDT
Petrushka,
The real problem is that we know the mechanism for the inheritance of variation in living things, and there is no designer in sight, nor is there the slightest trace of evidence that variation exhibits foresight.
Of course we know the mechanism for the inheritance of variation. Presumably you mean diversity in its present state. If you know of a mechanism that can produce anything in biology that gives even the eyeballed appearance of having been designed, then explain the origin of such a thing in terms of that mechanism. If that mechanism deals in specifics, then be specific. I have issued that simple challenge ad infinitum to no response. In fewer words, if you can explain origins, then explain an origin.ScottAndrews2
November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
02:19 PM
2
02
19
PM
PDT
13.1.1.1.2 Joseph "Right he synthesized it from a computer record but he added “water marks”, right?" Right, and those water marks don't do anything biological. No new biological information. REC 1) "Outside of human design, can you provide me an actual example of biological intelligent design, say 500-100 bits of biological information arising at once? JoeG: "Besides the origin of life?" The origin of life is now empirical? Did you observe it? Did it proceed from proto-life with a spontaneous gain of more that 500 bits of information? REC 2) Provide the calculation. JoeG: If it is by design then there wouldn’t be any calculation. Almost identical to what KF says. Once you know it is designed, it is designed.DrREC
November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
02:17 PM
2
02
17
PM
PDT
For example, explain how the explanatory filter would deal with this: http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/sites/default/files/images/bowbeach3.preview.jpgPetrushka
November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
02:14 PM
2
02
14
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5 6 12

Leave a Reply