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
some computer viruses can evolve in some sense via polymorphic code: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymorphic_code http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metamorphic_codejunkdnaforlife
November 3, 2011
November
11
Nov
3
03
2011
06:45 PM
6
06
45
PM
PDT
GB, that discrete state systems are digital systems is not an analogy. That genetic code is a code is not an analogy. And so on. Worse, reasoning based on analogy happens to be close to the heart of inductive reasoning, so please be careful of sawing off the branch on which science sits. (And notice the legitimate analogy used there.) GEM of TKIkairosfocus
November 3, 2011
November
11
Nov
3
03
2011
06:31 PM
6
06
31
PM
PDT
KF, you mentioned (RW) vs (ROM), I just got to this part in the Shaprio book where he says:
So all genome action is subject to the inputs and information-processing networks we know to operate in living cells. Part II describes how the new conceptual landscape leads us to think about a read-write (RW) genome, replacing the traditional evolutionist read-only memory (ROM) device subject to change by accidents and errors.
Apparently idea of (ROM) is itself being questioned. Evolution: A View from the 21st Century *Table 1.1 Changing views of Intracellular Molecular Information Transferjunkdnaforlife
November 3, 2011
November
11
Nov
3
03
2011
06:30 PM
6
06
30
PM
PDT
Dr Liddle Pardon, but this is now going in circles, where adequate answers have been repeatedly given. It is an uncontroversial standard of the relevant technology, that digital systems are defined by being discrete not continuous state, and that this has to do with the use of different states to carry out informational functions, such as logic, computation/calculation, storage, processing etc. It is further uncontroversial, that digital systems come in various bases, binary being two-state, decimal 10-state per digit, duodecimal being 12 states per digit, hexadecimal 16, and sexagesimal 60. Etc. In this context, it is generally acknowledged that DNA uses 4-state digits in string structures, commonly represented by AGCT for values. Yes the underlying materials and forces happen to be chemical and spatial rather than electrical, but that does not change the basic point. Further to this, there are protein coding regions in DNA, which have an identified 3-digit per word, code known as the genetic code. None of this should even be a matter for controversy. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
November 3, 2011
November
11
Nov
3
03
2011
06:26 PM
6
06
26
PM
PDT
Dr Liddle: The question you asked was why we regard DNA as digital, and when we pointed to the 4-state discrete state system, you then spoke of read/write issues. I pointed to the fact that a ROM is read only but that does not change it suddenly into not being a digital system. ROMs can be factory programmed, electrically programmed, UV erased, etc etc, but that has no ability to change that the information in them is discrete state. The simple matter to be kept in focus is that: DNA is based on a 4-state digit, string data structure. Simple, and directly observable. After that first fact is seen and understood, we can then address how the info got there, immediately and originally, given its role in the cell. How the body of biofuncitonal info got into a cell based ortganism is important, and ti raises the issue that we are looking at 100 - 1,000 k bits for the first DNA based cells, and 10 - 100 mn bits increments for body plans, a material part of which must be functional for a viable organism to exist. While this is of course unwelcome, the only credible source ont eh gamut of our observed cosmos for that much info, is intelligence. GEM of TKI F/N: A bit off topic but important. I am saddened to see the ultimate playout with Dr Bot. I tried to point out to him, across two threads, that he had gone too far, making a statement on a clip that implied -- and that of course is quite different from what he may have deliberately intended -- that I have falsely accused others of advocacy of genocide etc. He seems to have refused to either explain himself or apologise, and instead went on to further accuse me and finally to threaten legal action. I am highly confident that such action would be futile as it would be patent to a solicitor that I am identifiable as the target of a false implication and (quite reasonably) pointed that out and requested explanation and apology. It is not irrelevant to note that on the root matter, one may easily see here that Dr Craig, a leading Evangelical Theologian and Philosopher, is also not an advocate of genocide or the like, i.e. the accusations made against him -- and which by the nature of scandals would spread like a cloud of suspicion over all evangelical Christians, in many minds -- are based on a caricature of his views (as I have pointed out from the very beginning of the poisonous rhetorical storm that has brewed up based on a recognisable distractive rhetorical stratagem: tossing out red meat to stir up a nasty fight).kairosfocus
November 3, 2011
November
11
Nov
3
03
2011
06:06 PM
6
06
06
PM
PDT
A thousand useless words and you didn't answer the question: Where is your evidence that the volcano is not specified?GinoB
November 3, 2011
November
11
Nov
3
03
2011
05:47 PM
5
05
47
PM
PDT
GB: Remember, we are here dealing with inference to best explanation, which I have asked you and Fossfur to take a careful look at. It is strictly logically possible that every post in this thread is an act of lucky noise on the Internet that somehow reconstructed and issued the posts we typed up and tried to send. But, for a great many reasons, that is not the best and most reasonable explanation. (And notice, intuitively, you recognise the functionally specific, complex information present in the thread as strong and reliable signs of intelligent cause. Think, very hard about why you do that, bearing in mind the issue of the additional capacity of self-replicating for a watch that was put on the table 200 years ago, cf here as was already pointed out and linked.) You may also profit from an examination of the explanatory filter discussed on a per aspect basis, here. The filter deliberately is heavily biased to make default rulings on mechanical necessity in low contingency cases, and chance in high contingency cases. It is only when it is not plausible for chance and/or necessity on the gamut of our solar system [500 bits] or observed cosmos [1,000 bits] to give rise to a particular outcome, that an inference to design is even on the table -- which is why we do not need particular evidence to infer non-specificity, but rather good reason to infer specificity. To clarify specificity, consider that an observed event E comes from a narrow and independently definable zone T in the field of possible configs W. That is, we are looking for a special outcome maximally unlikely to arise by blind statistical events. (This is quite similar to the way that a common approach to hypothesis testing works. The most likely place to find a sample in a distribution is in its bulk, not in a far tail. If we have two overlapping possible distributions, and E would be in the tail of H0 or else would be in the bulk of H1, it is best to explain E as belonging to H1.) In the most relevant case, we are talking about observing complex, functional, digital code that fits into a system, and allows it to do some particular thing. It is logically possible for noise filtered by blind trial and error to give rise to such functional code, but utterly implausible relative to the alternative, intelligence. And, when we factor in the relevant scope of atomic resources and time, we see that on the gamut of our solar system [our practical universe], the 10^57 atoms, for 10^17 s, would have some 10^102 Planck time quantum states. That's about 1 in 10^48 of the number of possibilities for just 500 bits. A useful comparison is that if the number of configs is viewed as a 1-straw sample, taken blindly from a cubical hay bale 3 1/2 light days across, even if a whole solar system were in that bale, by overwhelming likelihood the sample will pick up the bulk, not the atypical zones, i.e would be reliably a straw. The notion of starting from an initial functional config and then incrementally improving by incremental trial and reward of incremental performance improvement may explain adaptations of a functional body plan, but it does not explain origin of body plans, starting with the first and going on to the many dozens of further plans we see.kairosfocus
November 3, 2011
November
11
Nov
3
03
2011
05:24 PM
5
05
24
PM
PDT
Dr. Bot, you can please yourself re British libel law, but you are no longer with us. As a general rule, anyone who threatens to sue is off the board.News
November 3, 2011
November
11
Nov
3
03
2011
05:08 PM
5
05
08
PM
PDT
ScottAndrews2/Thornton
You are identified to fellow posters as Thorton, the troll that renders darwins-god.blogspot.com unusable for any serious discussion. (It’s tempest in a teapot. Who cares, I know.)
BIG LOL! No, I'm really Jack the Ripper! No, I'm really Pol Pot! :) You're making quite the spectacle of yourself here Scott/Thornton, acting like a butt-hurt teen age girl. I guess since you are too incompetent to discuss any scientific topics, trying to fling mud is all you have left. Apparently someone made you look like a fool when you posted your Creationist stupidity on another board, so now anyone who points out your Creationist stupidity must be the same person! No one ever lost money underestimating the intelligence of a Creationist.GinoB
November 3, 2011
November
11
Nov
3
03
2011
01:23 PM
1
01
23
PM
PDT
kairosfocus
Non specified, so S = 0, so Chi_500 = – 500, negative limit. Well within reach of blind chance and necessity.
Where is your evidence that it is not specified? If was designed and built then is certainly had a specification.GinoB
November 3, 2011
November
11
Nov
3
03
2011
01:10 PM
1
01
10
PM
PDT
Unfortunately the mechanism change and adaptation observed in living populations can only account for slight changes within a population. It's "power" has been rendered useless by a realistic take on AVIDA: The effects of low-impact mutations in digital organisms Chase W. Nelson and John C. Sanford Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, 2011, 8:9 | doi:10.1186/1742-4682-8-9
Abstract: Background: Avida is a computer program that performs evolution experiments with digital organisms. Previous work has used the program to study the evolutionary origin of complex features, namely logic operations, but has consistently used extremely large mutational fitness effects. The present study uses Avida to better understand the role of low-impact mutations in evolution. Results: When mutational fitness effects were approximately 0.075 or less, no new logic operations evolved, and those that had previously evolved were lost. When fitness effects were approximately 0.2, only half of the operations evolved, reflecting a threshold for selection breakdown. In contrast, when Avida's default fitness effects were used, all operations routinely evolved to high frequencies and fitness increased by an average of 20 million in only 10,000 generations. Conclusions: Avidian organisms evolve new logic operations only when mutations producing them are assigned high-impact fitness effects. Furthermore, purifying selection cannot protect operations with low-impact benefits from mutational deterioration. These results suggest that selection breaks down for low-impact mutations below a certain fitness effect, the selection threshold. Experiments using biologically relevant parameter settings show the tendency for increasing genetic load to lead to loss of biological functionality. An understanding of such genetic deterioration is relevant to human disease, and may be applicable to the control of pathogens by use of lethal mutagenesis.
Also it is clear by using examples of artificial selection that tehre are limits to the amount of phenotypic plasticity allowed.Joseph
November 3, 2011
November
11
Nov
3
03
2011
12:58 PM
12
12
58
PM
PDT
Strawman, to dismiss something you are plainly uncomfortable with; for the sort of facial feature that would raise the question of design, you would be looking at mega bytes of info to get a sufficiently defined mesh of nodes and arcs to form a sufficiently definite face. The issue from the beginning was whether there was an artifact of image processing, confirmed by a later scan. There was no serious question of an inference to a designed feature on Mars on the evidence in hand. The earlier hand drawn canali, were designed: by the astronomers, to resemble what they THOUGHT they saw (the specification). Had their seeing been accurate, the network WOULD have indicated a Martian civilisation.kairosfocus
November 3, 2011
November
11
Nov
3
03
2011
12:32 PM
12
12
32
PM
PDT
Non specified, so S = 0, so Chi_500 = - 500, negative limit. Well within reach of blind chance and necessity.kairosfocus
November 3, 2011
November
11
Nov
3
03
2011
12:26 PM
12
12
26
PM
PDT
Petrushka Have you taken time to look at the cluster of examples here, with what else they point to? (It looks like you are recirculating long since answered talking points.) GEM of TKIkairosfocus
November 3, 2011
November
11
Nov
3
03
2011
12:19 PM
12
12
19
PM
PDT
GinoB, You are identified to fellow posters as Thorton, the troll that renders darwins-god.blogspot.com unusable for any serious discussion. (It's tempest in a teapot. Who cares, I know.) Some interesting subjects came up on that blog, but it didn't take long to observe that you and a few others were intent on drowning out discourse with childish name-calling, insults, and ignorant rhetoric. I don't believe I need to say any more about it.ScottAndrews2
November 3, 2011
November
11
Nov
3
03
2011
11:33 AM
11
11
33
AM
PDT
Scott, it's t-h-o-r-t-o-n only 1 n and it is at the end.Joseph
November 3, 2011
November
11
Nov
3
03
2011
11:31 AM
11
11
31
AM
PDT
Newtons first rule is:
We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.
Let's not forget the second, third and forth:
We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. The qualities of bodies, which admit neither intensification nor remission of degrees, and which are found to belong to all bodies within the reach of our experiments, are to be esteemed the universal qualities of all bodies whatsoever. In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions inferred by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses that may be imagined, till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions.
We have a mechanism for change and adaptation in living populations. It has been employed by plant and animal breeders for centuries and has been experimentally verified in the laboratory -- "notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses that may be imagined." Parsimony favors the demonstrated mechanism over the imagined one.Petrushka
November 3, 2011
November
11
Nov
3
03
2011
11:31 AM
11
11
31
AM
PDT
Petrushka:
There is no metric for distinguishing design. It is a matter of judgement, except when we have clear evidence that something is made by a known kind of maker. But it is knowledge and observation of makers that weighs heaviest.
Yes, knowledge of cause and effect relationships help and we can extrapolate from there. But I strongly disagree that there isn't any metric for distinguishing design, many venues rely on that very thing. If it is a judgement call then it would be safe to say that all of science is a "judgement" call until someone outright proves it- Einstein gravioty bends light- judgement call based on what he had- later confirmed during a total solar eclipse. And while there may be some ambiguities- it would matter on their importance on whether to sort it out- there are strong indicators nontheless:
"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: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components."- Dr Behe in "Darwins Black Box"
And just because you can't tell a mess of twigs from an old deteriorated bird's nest that doesn't mean no one could. Not everyone is cut out for this investigating stuff.Joseph
November 3, 2011
November
11
Nov
3
03
2011
11:28 AM
11
11
28
AM
PDT
ScottAndrews2/Thornton
PRATT? Slimy dishonest Creationists?
ZOMG he used the term PRATT! No one else on the web has ever used it! "fourscore and seven years ago" Look everybody, I'm Abraham Lincoln!! Here's a hint ScottAndrews2/Thornton: you should worry a lot more about the questions you're ignoring and the fool you're making of yourself here at UD, not in baseless speculation about postings at other unknown sites.GinoB
November 3, 2011
November
11
Nov
3
03
2011
11:18 AM
11
11
18
AM
PDT
Petrushka Newton's First Rule, parsimony and Occam's razor all tell us that the EF is the methodology all investigations need to take if they are going to determine a root cause. As for stuff on mars, well we really need to see it in more detail to see if there are any signs of work.Joseph
November 3, 2011
November
11
Nov
3
03
2011
11:17 AM
11
11
17
AM
PDT
Whoops. failed to close the quote tag.Petrushka
November 3, 2011
November
11
Nov
3
03
2011
11:02 AM
11
11
02
AM
PDT
if we were to make a trip to the far side of the Moon and find a pile of apparent machinery in a crater... But something like this already happened with the Martian face, which illustrates the propensity of design inferences to return false positives. Obviously if we find something never seen as a result of a known natural process, we will infer it is made by something analogous to a human. But that is because we have extensive knowledge of things made by humans and things made by natural processes. When the object is ambiguous, as with the Martian face, the inference -- either way -- is based on ignorance of the object's history and ignorance of the possible causes.
Petrushka
November 3, 2011
November
11
Nov
3
03
2011
11:02 AM
11
11
02
AM
PDT
ScottAndrews2
That’s exactly what is taking place right now. Trouble is, “mainstream science” doesn’t want to be scooped, even though science should always be open to it.
Let us know when it actually happens, K? We won't be holding our breath.GinoB
November 3, 2011
November
11
Nov
3
03
2011
11:01 AM
11
11
01
AM
PDT
Petrushka,
I would like to see the explanatory filter scoop mainstream science in some real situation where information about the origin of an object is incomplete.
That's exactly what is taking place right now. Trouble is, "mainstream science" doesn't want to be scooped, even though science should always be open to it.ScottAndrews2
November 3, 2011
November
11
Nov
3
03
2011
10:59 AM
10
10
59
AM
PDT
Well go for it. Let's see an example of an explanatory filter in action for a specific object. How did it do for the infamous face on Mars? Actually there are dozens of websites devoted to designed or living objects on Mars. I would like to see the explanatory filter scoop mainstream science in some real situation where information about the origin of an object is incomplete.Petrushka
November 3, 2011
November
11
Nov
3
03
2011
10:56 AM
10
10
56
AM
PDT
I few more Thortonisms:
Hey -----, why don't you put down that donut and give us the ID explanation for ring species? LOL! That's our boy -----, sharp as a bowling ball. Same old Creationist PRATT stupidity: "evolution says everything happened BY ACCIDENT!!!" The poor NTMO therefore had no thoughts of its own but could only mimic slimy dishonest Creationist leaders.
PRATT? Slimy dishonest Creationists? Time to own up. For someone with such strong feelings about lying and hypocrisy you appear to be up to your neck in it. Personally I don't know who you are or care. But you've already been a plague to one forum, shouting down attempts at polite, serious conversation. Now that it's out in the open, at least admit to it.ScottAndrews2
November 3, 2011
November
11
Nov
3
03
2011
10:55 AM
10
10
55
AM
PDT
7.1.2.1 PetrushkaNovember 3, 2011 at 6:22 am https://uncommondescent.com/darwinism/when-darwinism-infects-popular-culture-confusion-follows-as-well-as-nonsense/comment-page-1/#comment-407292 The analogy with computes fails specifically because living systems tolerate and pass on errors, whereas computers generally do not. The problem with the computer code analogy is not in the pointless argument over discrete vs digital, but in what happens when there is an error in duplicating the code. Cells have editing functions that are similar to error correcting functions, but the editors do not prevent the errors from propagating. At some point the errors have an effect on phenotype, and this is subject to selection. Either it confers an advantage or disadvantage.Petrushka
November 3, 2011
November
11
Nov
3
03
2011
10:50 AM
10
10
50
AM
PDT
It is of course interesting since all of his words/terms, expressions and idiotic smartassisms are identical to Thorton. I have no doubt that any number of local socks are created all over the Net when the Originals been banished before. Of course then there's that mystic collective that plays games out there.Eocene
November 3, 2011
November
11
Nov
3
03
2011
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PDT
There are different levels at which we can study the same phenomenon.
I certainly agree. That is why analogies are aids to thought rather than than laws of nature. One must not engage in the king of reasoning that goes from the analogy with computer programs to the limitations of programs. I admire your defense of Soviet 5-year plans, but somehow the rest of the world seems to have iPods without central planning. I'm not an ideologue. I think central planning is necessary for disaster planning and for the care of the poor and less capable. But Adam Smith accurately describes the best approach to providing the non-essentials in the marketplace. As with evolution, it matters not whether the source of variation in products is planned by intelligent beings or planned by the inventors of pet rocks or rock music. The invisible hand decides what succeeds and what fails. With language it matters not whether new words are invented by Shakespeare or by people who can't spell. The invisible hand decides which neologisms survive.Petrushka
November 3, 2011
November
11
Nov
3
03
2011
09:55 AM
9
09
55
AM
PDT
LOL! So you think I'm someone else because I used the phrase "NUH UH" ???? According to a quick Google search, that phrase can be found on some 1,270,000 different pages. I suppose because I used the phrase 'common descent' that makes me Charles Darwin too. You're a bigger dolt that I ever could have imagined.GinoB
November 3, 2011
November
11
Nov
3
03
2011
09:45 AM
9
09
45
AM
PDT
1 5 6 7 8 9 12

Leave a Reply