Darwinist rhetorical tactics DNA

Protein Synthesis . . . what frequent objector AF cannot acknowledge

Spread the love

Let us use a handy diagram of protein synthesis:

Protein Synthesis (HT: Wiki Media)

[U/D, Sep 2:] Where, to clarify key terms, let us note a key, classic text, Lehninger, 8th edn:

The information in DNA is encoded in its linear (one-dimensional) sequence of deoxyribonucleotide subunits . . . . A linear sequence of deoxyribonucleotides in DNA codes (through an intermediary, RNA) for the production of a protein with a corresponding linear sequence of amino acids . . . Although the final shape of the folded protein is dictated by its amino acid sequence, the folding of many proteins is aided by “molecular chaperones” . . . The precise three-dimensional structure, or native conformation, of the protein is crucial to its function.” [Principles of Biochemistry, 8th Edn, 2021, pp 194 – 5. Now authored by Nelson, Cox et al, Lehninger having passed on in 1986. Attempts to rhetorically pretend on claimed superior knowledge of Biochemistry, that D/RNA does not contain coded information expressing algorithms using string data structures, collapse. We now have to address the implications of language, goal directed stepwise processes and underlying sophisticated polymer chemistry and molecular nanotech in the heart of cellular metabolism and replication.]

Further u/d Sept 2: A look at creating mRNA:

As Wikipedia admits (but, revealingly, does not duly emphasise) with a few telling words:

In molecular biology, RNA polymerase (abbreviated RNAP or RNApol), or more specifically DNA-directed/dependent RNA polymerase (DdRP), is an enzyme that synthesizes RNA from a DNA template. Using the enzyme helicase, RNAP locally opens the double-stranded DNA so that one strand of the exposed nucleotides can be used as a template for the synthesis of RNA, a process called transcription. A transcription factor and its associated transcription mediator complex must be attached to a DNA binding site called a promoter region before RNAP can initiate the DNA unwinding at that position. RNAP not only initiates RNA transcription [–> algorithmic start, notice, transcribing is generally stepwise], it also guides the nucleotides into position, facilitates attachment and elongation [–> notice direct parallel to stepwise synthesis of AA chains for proteins, cf Lehninger 8th edn p 3346: “RNA polymerase elongates an RNA strand by adding ribonucleotide units to the 3 ′- hydroxyl end, building RNA in the 5 ′ → 3 ′ direction”], has intrinsic proofreading and replacement capabilities [–> language], and termination recognition [–> algorithmic halting] capability. In eukaryotes, RNAP can build chains as long as 2.4 million nucleotides.

This is a corner of the general cell metabolism framework:

Where, Yockey observes (highlighted and annotated):

Yockey’s analysis of protein synthesis as a code-based communication process

Where, too, the genetic code is, and its context of application is:

Given, say, Crick:

Crick’s letter

. . . we need to ask, why. END

F/N1: It seems advisable to highlight the layer cake architecture of communication systems

, , , and of Computers, following Tanenbaum:

Clearly, the communication framework does not reduce to the physics of the hardware involved.

F/N2: Dawkins admits

He tries to deflect the force by appeal to “natural selection,” but protein synthesis and linked metabolic processes are causally antecedent to self replication and therefore pose a chicken before egg challenge especially for origin of life.

84 Replies to “Protein Synthesis . . . what frequent objector AF cannot acknowledge

  1. 1
    kairosfocus says:

    Protein Synthesis . . . what frequent objector AF cannot acknowledge

  2. 2
    Alan Fox says:

    In Francis Crick’s letter to his son, he explains his use of ‘code’.

    This is like a code

    Not ‘this is a code’. It’s an analogy.

    [ED: Kindly see p. 5 of the letter above, AF strategically omits a few lines later where Crick affirms that DNA IS a code using underscore. That sort of misdirection, regrettably, is a typical rhetorical tactic AF uses. KF]

  3. 3
    Alan Fox says:

    At all stages of the process, notwithstanding that DNA-to-RNA copying is called translation, every step involves physicochemical interactions.

    [ED: AF full well knows the focus is protein synthesis, which uses the genetic code as a code to effect stepwise assembly of AA chains as a key stage of protein synthesis. He evades the illustrative diagrams in the OP and tries to use the template mechanism as a red herring led away to a strawman. But in fact mRNA creation is ALSO a stepwise algorithmic process as was added to OP on Sept 2. KF]

  4. 4

    AF: And another analogy is this very message I am typing. Every step involves electromechanical interactions once the keys are depressed, and the keystroke is accepted by the computer. But Immaterial mind (mine) creates the sequence and the thoughts flowing into this keyboard.

  5. 5
    kairosfocus says:

    AF, slide down to the box, you will see emphatically, this IS a code. This may be the light bulb moment caught in this letter to his son. KF

  6. 6

    The first diagram from KF reminds me of how messages are sent and received in a distributed but connected communication system. The sender encloses the message between a set of start and stop bits, and the receiver then scans the incoming stream for those start and stop bits and captures the message for downstream use.
    Analogy!

  7. 7
    kairosfocus says:

    AF, the usual framework is a layer cake architecture. There is a physical layer but that does not mean there are no informational, software layers. Crick’s letter to Michael used fountain pen marks on paper but the text in English does not reduce to the physics of marks on paper. KF

  8. 8
    kairosfocus says:

    AYP, actually in the 3rd chart Yockey was elaborating the Shannon T/comms framework architecture and applying it to protein synthesis. KF

  9. 9
    Alan Fox says:

    But Immaterial mind (mine) creates the sequence and the thoughts flowing into this keyboard.

    I suppose we could segue off into philosophy of mind, determinism, philosophical zombies and free will if you want. The OP is about the biochemistry of protein synthesis.

  10. 10
    kairosfocus says:

    See F/N 1 and 2.

  11. 11
    Alan Fox says:

    Well biochemistry is what I’m somewhat qualified to discuss. Anyone else?

  12. 12
    Alan Fox says:

    RNA world says no to F/N 2

  13. 13
    kairosfocus says:

    AF, no. The biochemistry is well established and several Nobel Prizes were awarded. It is now literally taught down to primary schools in some measure. Your problem is you refuse to acknowledge the information system architecture that rides on the molecular nanotech. You see string data structures with start, elongate in ways 1 to n, stop and refuse to acknowledge codes in action. Much less algorithms. You snatch at any straw you hope will keep that afloat, such as above not noticing the boxed remark by Crick. You have gone out on a rhetorical limb and it is cracking behind you. KF

  14. 14
    Alan Fox says:

    Yes the biochemistry is well established. I excuse your ignorance as you have never studied the subject at an academic level.

  15. 15
    Alan Fox says:

    Oops. How that got posted four times? Immaterial forces at work?

  16. 16
    kairosfocus says:

    AF, the biochem, despite your denials and dismissals, shows the framework in which the genetic code is a code. It is all actually tabulated and works in a string data structure using mRNA as the means of numerically controlling the Ribosome. Several Nobel Prizes were won showing that. KF

  17. 17
    Alan Fox says:

    AF, the biochem, despite your denials and dismissals, shows the framework in which the genetic code is a code.

    Like code, says Crick.

    It is all actually tabulated and works in a string data structure using mRNA as the means of numerically controlling the Ribosome.

    Poor analogies show your ignorance of the biochemistry. This is curable, KF. There are books that are not too technical that you wouldn’t benefit from reading them.

    Several Nobel Prizes were won showing that. KF

    I don’t think so.

  18. 18
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: Let me refer to what is perhaps the classic text of Biochem, Lehninger (which I first met on Hall in my Uni in the late 70’s), now in 8th Edn by a committee, pp. 194 – 5, as a point of reference:

    The Linear Sequence in DNA Encodes Proteins with Three-Dimensional Structures

    The information in DNA is encoded in its linear (one-dimensional) sequence of deoxyribonucleotide subunits, but the expression of this information results in a three-dimensional cell. This change from one to three dimensions occurs in two phases.

    A linear sequence of deoxyribonucleotides in DNA codes (through an intermediary, RNA) for the production of a protein with a corresponding linear sequence of amino acids . . . The
    protein folds into a particular three-dimensional shape, determined by its amino acid sequence and stabilized primarily by noncovalent interactions. Although the ?nal shape of the folded protein is dictated by its amino acid sequence, the folding of many proteins is aided by “molecular chaperones” . . . The precise three-dimensional structure, or native conformation, of the protein is crucial to its function.

    Clearly, AF’s irresponsible rhetorical bluff attempt fails.

    We see, that D/RNA is a string data structure that ENCODES through linear sequence of AGCT/U, just as was long since already noted. This is essentially Crick’s point in his Mar 19, 1953 letter to his son, as highlighted. Manifestly, the code in question is as tabulated in the OP, with minor variants. The code conveys information through the pattern of the sequence of bases, as was separately noted, i.e. codons, with start, elongation and stop.

    Obviously, the role of Ribosomes and tRNA with loading enzymes is also as described.

    Notice, these are not controversial matters, they are a matter of fact summary of core long since warranted points.

    The Cell A Molecular Approach, 8th Edn, Cooper, adds, p. 122:

    Although the sequence of nucleotides in DNA appeared to specify the order
    of amino acids in proteins, it did not necessarily follow that DNA itself directs protein synthesis. Indeed, this appeared not to be the case, since DNA is located in the nucleus of eukaryotic cells, whereas protein synthesis takes place in the cytoplasm. Some other molecule was therefore needed to convey genetic information from DNA to the sites of protein synthesis (the ribosomes). RNA appeared a likely candidate for such an intermediate because the similarity of its structure to that of DNA suggested that RNA could be synthesized from a DNA template [–> notice where templating happens and from Lehninger where string data structure encoding and expression toward protein synthesis happens] . . . RNA differs from DNA in that it is single-stranded rather than double-stranded, its sugar component is ribose instead of deoxyribose, and it contains the pyrimidine base uracil (U) instead of thymine (T) . . . However, neither the change in sugar nor the substitution of U for T alters base pairing, so the synthesis of RNA can be readily directed by a DNA template. Moreover, since RNA is located primarily in the cytoplasm, it appeared a logical intermediate to convey information from DNA to the ribosomes. These characteristics of RNA suggested a pathway for the flow of genetic information that is known as the central dogma of molecular biology:
    DNA –> RNA –> Protein

    And more.

    In short, the irresponsible attempt to bluff and hyperskeptically dismiss by AF fails. As should have been obvious.

    Why did he make such a resort?

    Because, the consequences of massive coded information in the cell, claims of molecular evolution etc notwithstanding, are devastating to evolutionary materialistic scientism and fellow travellers.

    As we go on to see other hyperskeptical rhetorical gambits by AF and co, let us bear this track record of ill founded bluffing in mind.

    KF

  19. 19
    kairosfocus says:

    AF, as further correction, Crick starts with like a code then progresses to IS a code, see the box around key statements. You were corrected but insist on falsehood, that tells us further about your want of credibility, this is stuff right before us. Further, Nobel prizes for the work in question started with Crick and Watson, and went on and on including Monod. You are clearly utterly unreliable. I have already put Lehninger on record, that shows that the consensus as described in OP is indeed the consensus, confirming your basic disregard for facts. KF

  20. 20
    Alan Fox says:

    Fine, let’s refer to the templating process whereby DNA and RNA pair, replicate and copy and carry information as encoding. What difference does that make?

    [ED: Doubling down on the side tracking distractor while studiously ignoring correction. Sadly familiar techniques. KF]

  21. 21
    relatd says:

    AF at 20,

    “carry information”? Where does that information come from?

  22. 22
    Alan Fox says:

    Could be from the Creator of the Universe. It’s one way to imbue creation with a creator. I don’t know and I guess there’s no way to find out.

  23. 23
    relatd says:

    AF at 22,

    The Catholic Church can combine scientific information with Theology. Science, as constituted, cannot.

    • The Church “proclaims that by the light of reason the human intellect can readily and clearly discern purpose and design in the natural world, including the world of living things.”

    • “Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science.”

    “Christoph Cardinal Schönborn is archbishop of Vienna and general editor of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.”

  24. 24
    Alan Fox says:

    If it works for you, fine.

  25. 25
    relatd says:

    AF at 24,

    Not “works for you”. The real problem here is making sure ID is not taught in schools AND does not become popular with the common people. It is easy to see that IF it is taught that it will go beyond the classroom. It will get people thinking about God. It will tell people, someone made all life. That must be stopped. It can’t happen. Why? Because the Marxist-Atheists will be exposed.

  26. 26
    Alan Fox says:

    The real problem here is making sure ID is not taught in schools
    ..

    What would you teach? I’ve been asking for some idea of the content of “Intelligent Design” science and haven’t got much feedback on substance.

    …AND does not become popular with the common people.

    Well, there’s no chance of that where I live. The US is a very odd place looking on from outside.

  27. 27
    Alan Fox says:

    Atheists will be exposed, will they? Sounds nasty! 😉

  28. 28
    Seversky says:

    Relatd/23

    The Catholic Church can combine scientific information with Theology. Science, as constituted, cannot.

    • The Church “proclaims that by the light of reason the human intellect can readily and clearly discern purpose and design in the natural world, including the world of living things.”

    • “Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science.”

    In other words, we’re right, you’re wrong and if you disagree it’s ideology not science. That about sums it up?

  29. 29
    Seversky says:

    Relatd/25

    The real problem here is making sure ID is not taught in schools AND does not become popular with the common people.

    The irony with that comment is that the Christian version of ID was popular with the common people for thousands of years because it was the only story taught in the schools and churches in Europe for all that time. It’s only very recently that the churches have become a little nervous about an alternative, naturalistic explanation proposed by science that might be credible enough to affect the numbers of bums on pews.

  30. 30
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    There is not a single discovery in biology/genetics that won’t use ID stance(mindset) as a starting point for exploration.

  31. 31
    kairosfocus says:

    AF,

    distraction as usual. You full well know that the pivotal process is where mRNA, bearing a coded algorithm, is used to assemble AA chains towards proteins, as is illustrated in the first figure in the OP.

    You have been making a rhetorical song and dance to pretend that code and algorithm and perhaps even string data structure are incorrect and ignorant usage of terms and concepts.

    At length, I took time to cite Lehninger, perhaps the classic text on Biochem, current edn, in 18 above.

    Lo and behold, your bluffing, rhetorical song and dance collapses:

    “The information in DNA is encoded in its linear (one-dimensional) sequence of deoxyribonucleotide subunits . . . . A linear sequence of deoxyribonucleotides in DNA codes (through an intermediary, RNA) for the production of a protein with a corresponding linear sequence of amino acids . . . Although the final shape of the folded protein is dictated by its amino acid sequence, the folding of many proteins is aided by “molecular chaperones” . . . The precise three-dimensional structure, or native conformation, of the protein is crucial to its function.”

    Your reaction?

    You try to switch over to templating [used to form complementary D/RNA strands, not stepwise code based assembly of protein AA chains], as though you have not been duly, thoroughly corrected.

    So, which is it, gross discrediting ignorance on your part, or was it a willfully deceptive irresponsible bluff.

    Of course, you full well know that coded algorithms make all the difference, being an expression of language and communication systems, with goal directed stepwise processes. In the heart of the cell and antecedent to its metabolism and self replication.

    Proteins, including enzymes, are proverbially the work horses of the cell.

    Language, goal-directed stepwise process, involving sophisticated polymer chemistry and molecular nanotech.

    Transformational.

    KF

  32. 32
    kairosfocus says:

    Sev, there is no sound naturalistic alternative. I refer you to the Haldane challenge. KF

    PS, Haldane

    [JBSH, REFACTORED AS SKELETAL, AUGMENTED PROPOSITIONS:]

    “It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For

    if

    [p:] my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain

    [–> taking in DNA, epigenetics and matters of computer organisation, programming and dynamic-stochastic processes; notice, “my brain,” i.e. self referential]
    ______________________________

    [ THEN]

    [q:] I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true.

    [–> indeed, blindly mechanical computation is not in itself a rational process, the only rationality is the canned rationality of the programmer, where survival-filtered lucky noise is not a credible programmer, note the functionally specific, highly complex organised information rich code and algorithms in D/RNA, i.e. language and goal directed stepwise process . . . an observationally validated adequate source for such is _____ ?]

    [Corollary 1:] They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically.

    And hence

    [Corollary 2:] I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. [–> grand, self-referential delusion, utterly absurd self-falsifying incoherence]

    [Implied, Corollary 3: Reason and rationality collapse in a grand delusion, including of course general, philosophical, logical, ontological and moral knowledge; reductio ad absurdum, a FAILED, and FALSE, intellectually futile and bankrupt, ruinously absurd system of thought.]

    In order to escape from this necessity of sawing away the branch on which I am sitting, so to speak, I am compelled to believe that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter.” [“When I am dead,” in Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209. Cf. here on (and esp here) on the self-refutation by self-falsifying self referential incoherence and on linked amorality.]

    That needs to be cogently answered, on pain of exposing the imposed Lewontinian a priori evolutionary materialistic scientism as outright agit prop educational malpractice.

    No intellectual scheme of thought can be valid if it self referentially undermines credibility of mind and/or rational, responsible [so, morally governed] freedom.

  33. 33
    kairosfocus says:

    PPS, Lewontin’s cat out of the bag moment:

    [Lewontin:] . . . to put a correct [–> Just who here presume to cornering the market on truth and so demand authority to impose?] view of the universe into people’s heads

    [==> as in, “we” the radically secularist elites have cornered the market on truth, warrant and knowledge, making “our” “consensus” the yardstick of truth . . . where of course “view” is patently short for WORLDVIEW . . . and linked cultural agenda . . . ]

    we must first get an incorrect view out [–> as in, if you disagree with “us” of the secularist elite you are wrong, irrational and so dangerous you must be stopped, even at the price of manipulative indoctrination of hoi polloi] . . . the problem is to get them [= hoi polloi] to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world [–> “explanations of the world” is yet another synonym for WORLDVIEWS; the despised “demon[ic]” “supernatural” being of course an index of animus towards ethical theism and particularly the Judaeo-Christian faith tradition], the demons that exist only in their imaginations,

    [ –> as in, to think in terms of ethical theism is to be delusional, justifying “our” elitist and establishment-controlling interventions of power to “fix” the widespread mental disease]

    and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth

    [–> NB: this is a knowledge claim about knowledge and its possible sources, i.e. it is a claim in philosophy not science; it is thus self-refuting]

    . . . . To Sagan, as to all but a few other scientists [–> “we” are the dominant elites], it is self-evident

    [–> actually, science and its knowledge claims are plainly not immediately and necessarily true on pain of absurdity, to one who understands them; this is another logical error, begging the question , confused for real self-evidence; whereby a claim shows itself not just true but true on pain of patent absurdity if one tries to deny it . . . and in fact it is evolutionary materialism that is readily shown to be self-refuting]

    that the practices of science provide the surest method of putting us in contact with physical reality [–> = all of reality to the evolutionary materialist], and that, in contrast, the demon-haunted world rests on a set of beliefs and behaviors that fail every reasonable test [–> i.e. an assertion that tellingly reveals a hostile mindset, not a warranted claim] . . . .

    It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us [= the evo-mat establishment] to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes [–> another major begging of the question . . . ] to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute [–> i.e. here we see the fallacious, indoctrinated, ideological, closed mind . . . ], for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door . . . [–> irreconcilable hostility to ethical theism, already caricatured as believing delusionally in imaginary demons]. [Lewontin, Billions and billions of Demons, NYRB Jan 1997,cf. here. And, if you imagine this is “quote-mined” I invite you to read the fuller annotated citation here.]

  34. 34
    kairosfocus says:

    PPPS, US NSTA’s educational malpractice:

    All those involved with science teaching and learning should have a common, accurate view of the nature of science. [–> yes but a question-begging ideological imposition is not an accurate view] Science is characterized by the systematic gathering of information through various forms of direct and indirect observations and the testing of this information by methods including, but not limited to, experimentation [–> correct so far]. The principal product of science is knowledge in the form of naturalistic concepts [–> evolutionary materialistic scientism is imposed] and the laws and theories related to those [–> i.e. ideologically loaded, evolutionary materialistic] concepts . . . . science, along with its methods, explanations and generalizations, must be the sole focus of instruction in science classes to the exclusion of all non-scientific or pseudoscientific methods, explanations, generalizations and products [–> censorship of anything that challenges the imposition; fails to appreciate that scientific methods are studied through logic, epistemology and philosophy of science, which are philosophy not science] . . . .

    Although no single universal step-by-step scientific method captures the complexity of doing science [–> a good point, but fails to see that this brings to bear many philosophical issues], a number of shared values and perspectives characterize a scientific approach to understanding nature. Among these are a demand for naturalistic explanations [–> outright ideological imposition and censorship that fetters freedom of responsible thought] supported by empirical evidence [–> the imposition controls how evidence is interpreted and that’s why blind watchmaker mechanisms never seen to actually cause FSCO/I have default claim to explain it in the world of life] that are, at least in principle, testable against the natural world. Other shared elements include observations, rational argument [–> ideological imposition may hide under a cloak of rationality but is in fact anti-rational], inference, skepticism [–> critical awareness is responsible, selective hyperskepticism backed by ideological censorship is not], peer review [–> a circle of ideologues in agreement has no probative value] and replicability of work . . . .

    Science, by definition, is limited to naturalistic [= evolutionary materialistic scientism is imposed by definition, locking out an unfettered search for the credibly warranted truth about our world i/l/o observational evidence and linked inductive reasoning] methods and explanations and, as such [–> notice, ideological imposition by question-begging definition], is precluded from using supernatural elements [–> sets up a supernatural vs natural strawman alternative when the proper contrast since Plato in The Laws, Bk X, is natural vs artificial] in the production of scientific knowledge. [US NSTA Board, July 2000, definition of the nature of science for education purposes]

  35. 35
    relatd says:

    Seversky at 29,

    “It’s only very recently that the churches have become a little nervous about an alternative, naturalistic explanation proposed by science that might be credible enough to affect the numbers of bums on pews.”

    That’s your concern? The “numbers of bums on pews.”? We’ll make a Christian out of you yet Seversky. Or would you prefer more atheist converts via science?

  36. 36
    Alan Fox says:

    You full well know that the pivotal process is where mRNA, bearing a coded algorithm, is used to assemble AA chains towards proteins, as is illustrated in the first figure in the OP.

    I know full well that in living cells, messenger RNA is a vital element in protein synthesis, copied from a DNA template, the gene, and via the machinery of the ribosome, is used as a template for the synthesis of a protein. At no stage is there anything algorithmic going on. That is just in your head.

    [ED: Further doubling down and refusal to attend to correction. Note the gaslighting declaration in the teeth of the general recognition that coded information in D/RNA is used in protein synthesis. Where, Ribosome action involves a start, elongation step by step as an AA chain is assembled and halting using one of three stop codes. Algorithms are goal directed, stepwise finite processes with halting. AF refuses to heed this, in his attempt to dismiss a fact that is fatal to his preferred view. KF]

  37. 37
    Red Reader says:

    Millions of positive and negative charges on a magnetic strip have no meaning. Yet the series may carry vast amounts of information. Darwinists would have us believe both the digital stream and the magnetic strip are results of random, non-directed events which exist because “survival of the fittest”.
    Oh, they don’t believe that?
    Except, that is exactly what they believe when the storage and medium are biological.
    The “thinking” required to believe such nonsense is insanity.

  38. 38
    relatd says:

    RR at 37,

    It’s not logical. It makes no sense. You should understand that the idea that living things contain codes and switches, for example, that control their life functions is known by those here. They can never promote it or agree with it. The idea of a designer who made living things points to a Creator, to God. That idea must be denied. They have no choice. It would harm atheism if people accepted this.

  39. 39
    kairosfocus says:

    AF, lying by distraction, doubling down, gaslighting and obfuscation. You full well know there is coded stepwise — thus algorithmic — synthesis of AA chains towards proteins using mRNA, as Lehninger et al openly acknowledge, as even Dawkins and Wikipedia admit. KF

    PS, even the assembly of mRNA has a stepwise aspect and editing in Eukaryotes is a direct language process.

  40. 40
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: See OP updates on mRNA synthesis and structure.

  41. 41
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: AmHD:

    al·go·rithm (?l?g?-r?th??m)
    n.
    A finite set of unambiguous instructions that, given some set of initial conditions, can be performed in a prescribed sequence to achieve a certain goal and that has a recognizable set of end conditions.

    That is a finite stepwise sequence from start to halt that completes. This is a matter of instance, not analogy.

    For record, FYI.

    KF

  42. 42
    Alan Fox says:

    …editing in Eukaryotes is a direct language process.

    No it isn’t. It’s a physicochemical process. If you want to insist on an analogy with human language or computer language, go ahead. It adds nothing to the understanding of the process of the origins, evolution or current functions of this biological set of systems.

    [ED: The doubling down continues, and keeps on going below exactly as the headline to OP predicted . . . KF]

  43. 43
    Alan Fox says:

    Unless you agree human language is a completely physicochemical set of processes, which of course it is. 😉

  44. 44
    AaronS1978 says:

    @AF

    First, you can encode things in MANY different mediums. Saying it’s a biochemical process does NOTHING for your argument that it is not code.

    This type of fallacy is often used in neuroscience when dealing with the hard problem of the consciousness

    Yes we can break “seeing the color red” down to its neural correlates but that does nothing to actually explain why we experience the color red.

    Using reductionism doesn’t help your point.

    Second, the highly debated RNA world hypothesis can’t say anything it’s a hypothetical organic chemical process, since we like to take things literally

    Thirdly, for someone who said you are kinda qualified to discuss biochemistry you have yet to put a single real objection using your knowledge to discredit anything KF has posted

    You have dismissed out of hand, mocked, or have simply been passive aggressive to everything he has posted but nothing to academically dismiss the argument. You can however excuse his ignorance…….

    Any lay person would not be able to extrapolate any evidence that you had knowledge in organic chemistry or any school of chemistry.

    So what real evidence to you have that would discredit the concept of DNA being organic code used universally amongst all living organisms on this planet?

  45. 45
    kairosfocus says:

    AF, there is no good reason to deny code and algorithms in the cell. Where, such ride on a physical technology, they are not in opposition to it nor are they reducible to it. As you have been claiming all sorts of things, I again remind you of the matter of fact approach in Lehninger

    “The information in DNA is encoded in its linear (one-dimensional) sequence of deoxyribonucleotide subunits . . . . A linear sequence of deoxyribonucleotides in DNA codes (through an intermediary, RNA) for the production of a protein with a corresponding linear sequence of amino acids . . . Although the final shape of the folded protein is dictated by its amino acid sequence, the folding of many proteins is aided by “molecular chaperones” . . . The precise three-dimensional structure, or native conformation, of the protein is crucial to its function.” [Principles of Biochemistry, 8th Edn, 2021, pp 194 – 5. Now authored by Nelson, Cox et al, Lehninger having passed on in 1986. Attempts to rhetorically pretend on claimed superior knowledge of Biochemistry, that D/RNA does not contain coded information expressing algorithms using string data structures, collapse. We now have to address the implications of language, goal directed stepwise processes and underlying sophisticated polymer chemistry and molecular nanotech in the heart of cellular metabolism and replication.]

    You have gone out on a rhetorical limb to pretend it is ignoramuses etc who imagine code is in the cell. Well, Lehninger [now a committee] — yes, Lehninger — is one of your ignoramuses. Fail. Gaslighting fail. KF

  46. 46
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: To give you an idea of just how outrageous and irresponsible AF’s rhetorical stunt is, here is Alberts et al, Molecular Biology of the Cell, DETAILED TABLE OF CONTENTS, p. xxi; yes, chapter and section titles:

    Chapter 1 Cells and Genomes 1
    THE UNIVERSAl FEATURES OF CELLS ON EARTH 2
    All Cells Store Their Hereditary Information in the Same Linear Chemical Code: DNA 2
    All Cells Replicate Their Hereditary Information by Templated Polymerization 3
    All Cells Transcribe Portions of Their Hereditary Information into the Same Intermediary Form: RNA 4
    All Cells Use Proteins as Catalysts 5
    All Cells Translate RNA into Protein in the Same Way 6
    Each Protein Is Encoded by a Specific Gene 7
    [6rh Edn, 2015]

    Sounds familiar? It should. We are dealing with brazen lying by gaslighting because the significance of coded algorithmic information in the cell is plainly devastating.
    KF

  47. 47
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    Kairosfocus
    We are dealing with brazen lying by gaslighting because the significance of coded algorithmic information in the cell is plainly devastating.

    The reason could be the old age and not necessary the lying. He knows about the biochemistry of 1950 and about Darwin books (1860-80) and he probably lost connection with modern biochemistry and genetics. His conceptions are cemented in the past and are immune to any modern concept of genetics and biochemistry.

  48. 48
    kairosfocus says:

    LCD, the biochem of 1953 was decisive and a responsible person would acknowledge seventy years of development summarised in say Lehninger or Alberts and echoed as far down the food chain as Dawkins or Wikipedia. KF

  49. 49
    Alan Fox says:

    THE UNIVERSAl FEATURES OF CELLS ON EARTH 2
    All Cells Store Their Hereditary Information in the Same Linear Chemical Code: DNA 2
    All Cells Replicate Their Hereditary Information by Templated Polymerization 3
    All Cells Transcribe Portions of Their Hereditary Information into the Same Intermediary Form: RNA 4
    All Cells Use Proteins as Catalysts 5
    All Cells Translate RNA into Protein in the Same Way 6
    Each Protein Is Encoded by a Specific Gene 7

    I don’t dispute any of this, KF. Especially not “templated polymerization”! 😉

    ETA: all strong indicators of common descent, BTW!

  50. 50
    Alan Fox says:

    His conceptions are cemented in the past and are immune to any modern concept of genetics and biochemistry.

    Oh, the irony!

    🙂 🙂 🙂

  51. 51
    Alan Fox says:

    This type of fallacy is often used in neuroscience when dealing with the hard problem of the consciousness.

    You may be surprised to learn that there is no”hard problem of consciousness” if you are referring to Chalmers. But I guess that is off-topic. Don’t get me started on free will and determinism, either.

  52. 52
    Alan Fox says:

    …for someone who said you are kinda qualified to discuss biochemistry you have yet to put a single real objection using your knowledge to discredit anything KF has posted

    Most of the basic facts are not in dispute. When he runs with the ball into the long grass (I love a mixed metaphor) I tend to pick up on it.

  53. 53
    Alan Fox says:

    …the highly debated RNA world hypothesis can’t say anything it’s a hypothetical organic chemical process, since we like to take things literally.

    RNA isn’t hypothetical. It is central to cell function across all extant life. The ribosome is a ribozyme.That RNA can both replicate and act as a catalyst (ribozyme) is strong circumstantial evidence for a precursory RNA world.

  54. 54
    Alan Fox says:

    So what real evidence to you have that would discredit the concept of DNA being organic code used universally amongst all living organisms on this planet?

    DNA is not organic code. DNA stores protein sequences, among other things, as sequences of nucleotides in triplet genetic code or organic code, if you prefer. But otherwise OK. It’s certainly almost (but not quite – there are a few important and interesting variations) universal across all known living organisms.

    In short, I’m not out to discredit DNA as a carrier of information.

  55. 55

    Dawkins is referenced several times here. Does anyone know if Dawkins is actually a biologist? has he ever done any real research? Or does he just write books and preach in a classroom?

  56. 56
  57. 57
    Seversky says:

    Kairosfocus/34

    PPPS, US NSTA’s educational malpractice:

    Calling that “malpractice” is an outrageous slur. Not only is methodological naturalism the best investigatory methodology of the natural world based on its track record, it is our best defense against those who would attempt to impose their partisan political and religious dogmas on students.

    What could be characterized as “malpractice” is the open advocacy of creationism in science classrooms by 13% of high school biology teachers as reported in a survey of same published in 2011. Not only is such practice unconstitutional, it’s also a clear and egregious breach of their ethical and contractual duties as educators.

    [ED: Sev, ideological, question begging imposition as documented and annotated is educational malpractice. KF]

  58. 58
    kairosfocus says:

    AF, oh yes you have. Bruce Alberts et al describe string data structure algorithmic code in direct echo of Lehninger. You have been trying to suggest that code is an error of ignorance. Fail. KF

    PS, More from Alberts et al, p. 7:

    the information in the sequence of a messenger RNA molecule
    is read out in groups of three nucleotides at a time: each triplet of nucleotides, or
    codon, specifies (codes for) a single amino acid in a corresponding protein. Since
    the number of distinct triplets that can be formed from four nucleotides is 43,
    there are 64 possible codons, all of which occur in nature. However, there are only
    20 naturally occurring amino acids. That means there are necessarily many cases
    in which several codons correspond to the same amino acid. This genetic code is
    read out by a special class of small RNA molecules, the transfer RNAs (tRNAs).
    Each type of tRNA becomes attached at one end to a specific amino acid, and
    displays at its other end a specific sequence of three nucleotides—an anticodon—
    that enables it to recognize, through base-pairing, a particular codon or subset of
    codons in mRNA. The intricate chemistry that enables these tRNAs to translate
    a specific sequence of A, C, G, and U nucleotides in an mRNA molecule into a
    specific sequence of amino acids in a protein molecule occurs on the ribosome, a
    large multimolecular machine composed of both protein and ribosomal RNA . . . .

    Special sequences in the DNA serve as punctuation, defining
    where the information for each protein begins and ends. And individual segments
    of the long DNA sequence are transcribed into separate mRNA molecules, coding
    for different proteins. Each such DNA segment represents one gene. A complica-
    tion is that RNA molecules transcribed from the same DNA segment can often be
    processed in more than one way, so as to give rise to a set of alternative versions
    of a protein, especially in more complex cells such as those of plants and animals.

    PPS, you seem to overlook aspects of RNA Polymerase, its stepwise sequence action during transcription:

    Lehninger 8th edn p 3346: “RNA polymerase elongates an RNA strand by adding ribonucleotide units to the 3 ?- hydroxyl end, building RNA in the 5 ? ? 3 ? direction”

    (See u/d’s to the OP.)

  59. 59
    AaronS1978 says:

    @ AF

    “RNA isn’t hypothetical. It is central to cell function across all extant life. The ribosome is a ribozyme.That RNA can both replicate and act as a catalyst (ribozyme) is strong circumstantial evidence for a precursory RNA world.“

    I miss type something? The “RNA world hypothesis” is debated and IS HYPOTHETICAL

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3495036/

    This is just one article in many articles, try Google scholar RNA world hypothesis debate or discussion. Also since you are a wikininja even that junk source of information discusses the challenges.

    This comment really doesn’t show that you know anything about organic chemistry or about its history

    Also did you purposely miss quote me?
    I was discussing the hypothetical RNA world hypothesis, I mean it’s right in the name.
    Why did you say that I was indicating RNA and its function was hypothetical? Were you doing that on purpose or you an idiot?

    “Most of the basic facts are not in dispute. When he runs with the ball into the long grass (I love a mixed metaphor) I tend to pick up on”

    This is a narrative, did not answer my question, answer the question.

    “DNA is not organic code. DNA stores protein sequences, among other things, as sequences of nucleotides in triplet genetic code or organic code”

    Again explaining the physical characteristics of organic chemistry does nothing for your argument that’s it’s not code.

    Why is it not code and try not to go back to “because it’s a combination of organic compounds” you’re wasting peoples time

    Because it’s some combination of organic compounds does not disqualify it as a form of code

    “You may be surprised to learn that there is no”hard problem of consciousness” if you are referring to Chalmers. But I guess that is off-topic. Don’t get me started on free will and determinism, either.“

    You may be surprised that there is a hard problem of the consciousness and that you’re probably uneducated on it. I excuse your ignorance. You obviously from the “school of thought” of people like Alin Seth where everything can be explained using the IP metaphor and there is no hard problem of the consciousness or you’re one of Alex Rosenberg’s morons living a perpetual world of cognitive dissidents.

    You are also very likely not up-to-date on any of Aaron Schruger’s work when it comes to the neuroscience of free will or even John Dylan Hanes more current work (anything 2016+)

    Either way, I’m pretty sure I can guess that your viewpoint is there’s no free will and we are completely guided by the environment and our genetics, meat robots for short with zero control over anything. I also wouldn’t be surprised if you were a big proponent of GWS for the idea of consciousness often purported by Alin Seth

    So if you are one of the people that believe we’re meat robots then stop wasting everybody’s time, no one can help what they are and what they think.

  60. 60
    kairosfocus says:

    Seversky, they imposed an historically unjustifiable ideologically tendentious redefinition of science and held parents and children hostage for the accreditation of their high school diplomas. That is an inexcusable outrage and it is going to eventually face a day of accounting. To point out a fact documented and highlighted may be unflattering to the NSTA but no one forced them to put those terrible facts on the ground. Fair comment on manifest fact is not a slur. KF

  61. 61
    AaronS1978 says:

    By the way off-topic @ the site of uncommon descent

    I normally block all ads on my phone and I purposely restrict the Internet on my phone so that way I don’t sit there all day wasting time

    When I unlock my phone in to argue on this site I am hit with a GRATUITOUS amount of ads

    More ads than any other place that I visit is this necessary?

  62. 62
    AaronS1978 says:

    Haynes not Hanes

  63. 63
    Alan Fox says:

    Either way, I’m pretty sure I can guess that your viewpoint is there’s no free will and we are completely guided by the environment and our genetics, meat robots for short with zero control over anything.

    Wrong you are, matey. I’m neither a strict determinist, nor do I deny free will, in the sense that humans, and not only humans, have the ability to make choices among possible alternatives.

  64. 64
    AaronS1978 says:

    “Wrong you are, matey. I’m neither a strict determinist, nor do I deny free will, in the sense that humans, and not only humans, have the ability to make choices among possible alternatives.“

    I have no issues being wrong about that, it is something I like being wrong about

  65. 65
    JVL says:

    AaronS1978: When I unlock my phone in to argue on this site I am hit with a GRATUITOUS amount of ads. More ads than any other place that I visit is this necessary?

    The owners have to pay the bills somehow. While most of the contributors are not paid the hosting and such do cost.

    I’m sure they would appreciate monetary contributions.

  66. 66
    AaronS1978 says:

    @ jvl I understand that fully but this seems excessive they appear in the middle of our commentary.

  67. 67
    Seversky says:

    I don’t like the ads any more then anyone else but it’s the price we have to pay for the content, I suppose.

  68. 68
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    Not only is methodological naturalism the best investigatory methodology of the natural world based on its track record, it is our best defense against those who would attempt to impose their partisan political and religious dogmas on students.

    Methodological naturalism is a nonsensical expression. To formulate the definition of the methodological naturalism(and any other definition) you need a mind that is in itself the enemy of naturalism. 😆
    Atheists cannot tell what is the chemical formula of the ideas presented in this message.

  69. 69

    For Alan Fox.
    Thanks for the Wikipedia article on Dawkins.
    But what actual science has Dawkins done?
    His book “The Blind Watchmaker” sold many books and contributed much to his fame and fortune. But it was all handwaving. On the other hand, real scientific researchers have taken a good hard look (pun intended) at the eye and provide hands-on scientific analysis as to the making of the eye.
    Dawkins, on the other hand captivates young naive students with Papier-mâché mountains and bended film strips as his laboratory work. Take a look . . .

    https://ayearningforpublius.wordpress.com/2015/07/14/the-eye-a-biological-miracle-but-of-what-sort/

    Yes, Deep Time — the exotic drape that will cover the collection of eyes and hide from public view the rich imaginations of Richard Dawkins, the lead researcher and Program Manager in this magnificent effort.
    In the meantime, the soldier needing the replacement eye will have to wait … wait to the limit of deep time, measured in unknown billions of years.
    Not to worry: “given enough time, and an infinite number of chances, anything is possible” (Dawkins).

    Why does it matter?

    The Darwin Lobby is very effective in assuring that their version of reality – this “illusion of science” called Darwinian Evolution is the only game in town … the only version presented to the public and taught to present and future generations.

  70. 70
    relatd says:

    Ayearningforpublius at 69,

    According to Dawkins, “enough time” is the substitute for God. It replaces God with atheism.

    You will find here that regardless of the evidence posted for ID, the wall of defenders of evolution must stand. They must repeat “evolution is a fact” every day.

    But keep this in mind: The truth must be repeated daily to combat the lies being spread among the people.

    Speak the truth – daily.

  71. 71
  72. 72
    relatd says:

    You’re welcome.

  73. 73
    kairosfocus says:

    Dere ‘ent enough time . . . to even blind search more than a negligible fraction of the configuration space for 500 – 1,000 bits, with a sol sys of 10^57 atoms or a cosmos, 10^80, for 10^17s. Contrast, 900 bases to code a typical 300 AA protein, 1800 bits info carrying capacity.

  74. 74
    JVL says:

    Kairosfocus: Dere ‘ent enough time . . . to even blind search more than a negligible fraction of the configuration space for 500 – 1,000 bits

    And no one is saying that a blind search is being done! You keep arguing against that straw man, misinterpreting what the unguided evolutionary theory is saying. That may play well with some ID proponents but it ain’t gonna fly with them that knows what the real science is sayin’.

    Also, there are no islands of function in the biological space. All life forms are related to all other life forms which means there is a developmental path between them.

  75. 75
    Alan Fox says:

    But what actual science has Dawkins done?

    From the Wikipedia article that you may have missed:

    He continued as a research student under Tinbergen’s supervision, receiving his Doctor of Philosophy[31] degree by 1966, and remained a research assistant for another year.[32][33] Tinbergen was a pioneer in the study of animal behaviour, particularly in the areas of instinct, learning, and choice;[34] Dawkins’s research in this period concerned models of animal decision-making.[35] He was awarded a DSc by Oxford in 1989.[33][32]

    The numbers in square brackets give the citations, if you are in doubt as to the accuracy of Wikipedia on simple facts.

  76. 76
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL, are you arguing that events in a Darwin warm pond or the equivalent exhibit foresight and planning tied thereto? I doubt it. You full well understand what blind chance and/or mechanical necessity [as in natural forces and dynamic-stochastic processes] entail, and where they would have to start from. Further to this, you are trying to wish away the issue of incremental functional all the way transformation. That there is common design does not exclude that there are major innovations that have no actual observational evidence of incremental emergence from antecedent simpler forms. KF

  77. 77
    kairosfocus says:

    AF, Dawkins, whatever his scientific CV says, explicitly acknowledged that the living cell embeds a code using molecular nanotech system. Are you willing to now acknowledge that this is in fact the general, evidence based consensus? _______ And, to explain your rhetorical stunt of trying to set that aside? ______ KF

    PS, as a reminder, Lehninger:

    “The information in DNA is encoded in its linear (one-dimensional) sequence of deoxyribonucleotide subunits . . . . A linear sequence of deoxyribonucleotides in DNA codes (through an intermediary, RNA) for the production of a protein with a corresponding linear sequence of amino acids . . . Although the final shape of the folded protein is dictated by its amino acid sequence, the folding of many proteins is aided by “molecular chaperones” . . . The precise three-dimensional structure, or native conformation, of the protein is crucial to its function.” [Principles of Biochemistry, 8th Edn, 2021, pp 194 – 5. Now authored by Nelson, Cox et al, Lehninger having passed on in 1986. Attempts to rhetorically pretend on claimed superior knowledge of Biochemistry, that D/RNA does not contain coded information expressing algorithms using string data structures, collapse. We now have to address the implications of language, goal directed stepwise processes and underlying sophisticated polymer chemistry and molecular nanotech in the heart of cellular metabolism and replication.]

  78. 78
    kairosfocus says:

    PPS, as you have just used that humble source Wikipedia, are you willing to acknowledge a further point it makes as is in an update to the OP with an embedded onward cite from Lehninger?

    In molecular biology, RNA polymerase (abbreviated RNAP or RNApol), or more specifically DNA-directed/dependent RNA polymerase (DdRP), is an enzyme that synthesizes RNA from a DNA template. Using the enzyme helicase, RNAP locally opens the double-stranded DNA so that one strand of the exposed nucleotides can be used as a template for the synthesis of RNA, a process called transcription. A transcription factor and its associated transcription mediator complex must be attached to a DNA binding site called a promoter region before RNAP can initiate the DNA unwinding at that position. RNAP not only initiates RNA transcription [–> algorithmic start, notice, transcribing is generally stepwise], it also guides the nucleotides into position, facilitates attachment and elongation [–> notice direct parallel to stepwise synthesis of AA chains for proteins, cf Lehninger 8th edn p 3346: “RNA polymerase elongates an RNA strand by adding ribonucleotide units to the 3 ?- hydroxyl end, building RNA in the 5 ? –> 3 ? direction”], has intrinsic proofreading and replacement capabilities [–> language, editing], and termination recognition [–> algorithmic halting] capability. In eukaryotes, RNAP can build chains as long as 2.4 million nucleotides.

    That is, the assembly of RNA in the cell — including mRNA and tRNA — involves an algorithmic, stepwise assembly process with sequential start, steps, halt. “Template” there may be using complementarity of A-T/U and G-C, but it is here used to effect mRNA etc through an algorithmic process.

  79. 79
    JVL says:

    Kairosfocus: That there is common design does not exclude that there are major innovations that have no actual observational evidence of incremental emergence from antecedent simpler forms.

    Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence no matter how much you want that to be true. That is why some people say ID is like a God of the gaps method of reasoning: oh, look, there’s a transition here that isn’t completely clear or documented, must be that some designer bridged that gap.

    Also, why don’t you address what biologists are actually saying instead of creating a false landscape of speculation and arguing against that?

  80. 80
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL, your core problem is that an ideology has been imposed on origins a priori, where blind chance and mechanical necessity has never been observed to create FSCO/I beyond 500 – 1,000 bits. Just so, there is good blind needle in haystack reason to infer it is not plausible, and we do have a known source, design. The real problem is not absence of evidence, it is evidence of an ideologically rejected class of cause. That sort of ideological lock out does not end well. KF

  81. 81
    kairosfocus says:

    PS, Johnson’s reply to Lewontin

    For scientific materialists the materialism comes first; the science comes thereafter. [Emphasis original — the context is Lewontin in NYRB] We might more accurately term them “materialists employing science.” And if materialism is true, then some materialistic theory of evolution has to be true simply as a matter of logical deduction, regardless of the evidence.

    [–> notice, the power of an undisclosed, question-begging, controlling assumption . . . often put up as if it were a mere reasonable methodological constraint; emphasis added. Let us note how Rational Wiki, so-called, presents it:

    “Methodological naturalism is the label for the required assumption of philosophical naturalism when working with the scientific method. Methodological naturalists limit their scientific research to the study of natural causes, because any attempts to define causal relationships with the supernatural are never fruitful, and result in the creation of scientific “dead ends” and God of the gaps-type hypotheses.” [NB: I am aware that Rational Wiki has backed away, un-announced, from the cat-out-of-the-bag direct phrasing that was in place a few years ago. That historic phrasing is still valid as a summary of what is going on.]

    Of course, this ideological imposition on science that subverts it from freely seeking the empirically, observationally anchored truth about our world pivots on the deception of side-stepping the obvious fact since Plato in The Laws Bk X, that there is a second, readily empirically testable and observable alternative to “natural vs [the suspect] supernatural.” Namely, blind chance and/or mechanical necessity [= the natural] vs the ART-ificial, the latter acting by evident intelligently directed configuration. [Cf Plantinga’s reply here and here.]

    And as for the god of the gaps canard, the issue is, inference to best explanation across competing live option candidates. If chance and necessity is a candidate, so is intelligence acting by art through design. And it is not an appeal to ever- diminishing- ignorance to point out that design, rooted in intelligent action, routinely configures systems exhibiting functionally specific, often fine tuned complex organisation and associated information. Nor, that it is the only observed cause of such, nor that the search challenge of our observed cosmos makes it maximally implausible that blind chance and/or mechanical necessity can account for such.]

    That theory will necessarily be at least roughly like neo-Darwinism, in that it will have to involve some combination of random changes and law-like processes capable of producing complicated organisms that (in Dawkins’ words) “give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”

    . . . . The debate about creation and evolution is not deadlocked . . . Biblical literalism is not the issue. The issue is whether materialism and rationality are the same thing. Darwinism is based on an a priori commitment to materialism, not on a philosophically neutral assessment of the evidence. Separate the philosophy from the science, and the proud tower collapses. [Emphasis added.] [The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism, First Things, 77 (Nov. 1997), pp. 22 – 25.]

  82. 82
    Seversky says:

    Kairosfocus/80

    JVL, your core problem is that an ideology has been imposed on origins a priori, where blind chance and mechanical necessity has never been observed to create FSCO/I beyond 500 – 1,000 bits. Just so, there is good blind needle in haystack reason to infer it is not plausible, and we do have a known source, design. The real problem is not absence of evidence, it is evidence of an ideologically rejected class of cause. That sort of ideological lock out does not end well. KF

    As JVL and others have pointed out, you are attacking a strawman. Nowhere does evolutionary biology claim that complex modern biological phenomena arose improbably from simple, inanimate precursors in a single bound. Your unrecognized and undemonstrated metric of FSCO/I is thus far simply irrelevant.

    That there is design in the Universe is not in question. We do it. What is also not in question is that we are not capable of designing universes or the life within them and the ID movement has been unable to demonstrate the existence of any extraterrestrial designers that are capable of such work, arguments by analogy or arguments from incredulity notwithstanding.

    That there may have been, are or will be much more advanced extraterrestrial intelligences out there cannot be ruled out. But that is not the same as claiming that we are warranted in inferring that they do actually exist and that they are responsible for life on Earth.

    That is not ideological imposition, it is the recognition of the current limits of our knowledge. What would be a theological imposition would be any requirement that science proceeds from the unquestionable assumption of the existence of the Christian God.

  83. 83
    kairosfocus says:

    Sev, no strawman. The worldview level question begging imposition is real. As to alleged or imagined capability of blind chance and mechanical necessity to generate FSCO/I beyond reasonable thresholds, never observed. Next, what we do have in hand is coded algorithms in the cell and antecedent to cell based life. That points to intelligently directed, language using configuration as key causal process. Language comes from minds, so this is the true SETI wow signal. Not some red herring theological imposition . . . by their projections shall ye know them, just basic logic and common sense regarding language. Just, it is unwelcome to those imposing a priori evolutionary materialistic scientism and so to fellow travellers. KF

  84. 84
    kairosfocus says:

    Sev, BTW, show us an observationally backed, small increment per step path seen to be functional all the way, from a Darwin’s pond or the like to a functional self replicating cell. My prediction, you don’t have it. Fair comment, the nature of FSCO/I with multiple part organisation, alignment and coupling naturally leads to islands of function in configuration spaces. KF

Leave a Reply