“Blown Away” Dan Peterson reviews Dr. Stephen Meyer’s book The Signature in the Cell at The American Spectator

_{Clive Hayden

September 3, 2009

Education, Intelligent Design, Science}

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

Dr. Stephen C. Meyer’s book The Signature in the Cell is reviewed by Dan Peterson in The American Spectator (September 1st, 2009). Here is an excerpt:

“Of the approaches taken by ID theorists, Signature in the Cell is most closely aligned with the pioneering work on design detection published over the last decade by mathematician William Dembski, one of Meyer’s colleagues at the Discovery Institute. Dembski and Meyer both rely, at least in part, on information theory and probabilistic analysis to determine whether a phenomenon is best explained as the product of unguided “chance and necessity,” or of design by an intelligence…

Signature in the Cell is a defining work in the discussion of life’s origins and the question of whether life is a product of unthinking matter or of an intelligent mind. For those who disagree with ID, the powerful case Meyer presents cannot be ignored in any honest debate. For those who may be sympathetic to ID, on the fence, or merely curious, this book is an engaging, eye-opening, and often eye-popping read.”

Comments

Jerry
It is easy to measure and the minimum amount is zero but not in DNA used to code proteins.
Could you show us an example of a calculation of FCSI for a stretch of coding DNA?Blue Lotus_{September 5, 2009
September
09
Sep
5
05
2009
02:16 PM
2
02
16
PM
PDT}

Jerry#50
There is no data to support UCD other than the genetic code itself. What is presented is support for common ancestry in various biological lineages. That is what is presented at talkorigins.
You need to read it more carefully, especially the discussion of ubiquitous genes. The evidence from multiple independent lines of inquiry leads to the same conclusion. Universal common descent is supported by overwhelming evidence and, as a falsifiable theory, is not contradicted by any of it.
The Cambrian Explosion is a show stopper for UCD.
Please provide some support for this claim.DeLurker_{September 5, 2009
September
09
Sep
5
05
2009
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PDT}

jerry, "[FSCI] is easy to measure..." ...then shouldn't you be able to show us some working examples in biology? And then maybe explain such measurements are scientifically useful?MeganC_{September 5, 2009
September
09
Sep
5
05
2009
01:22 PM
1
01
22
PM
PDT}

"And the FSCI in those things you mention is? And it’s measured how? And the minimum possible amount of FSCI is?" It is easy to measure and the minimum amount is zero but not in DNA used to code proteins. It is close to zero in most of your comments. "Fact is Jerry the NCIS won’t have heard of FSCI" But they use the concept all the time even if they do not use the term. Just as most humans uses it when they speak and write. I have a question. How many more stupid remarks are you going to make. I haven't seen one intelligent one yet, though I haven't read them all.jerry_{September 5, 2009
September
09
Sep
5
05
2009
12:40 PM
12
12
40
PM
PDT}

Kariosfocus, Care to comment on this
How much of protein sequence space has been explored by life on Earth? We suggest that the vastness of protein sequence space is actually completely explorable during the populating of the Earth by life by considering upper and lower limits for the number of organisms, genome size, mutation rate and the number of functionally distinct classes of amino acids. We conclude that rather than life having explored only an infinitesimally small part of sequence space in the last 4 Gyr, it is instead quite plausible for all of functional protein sequence space to have been explored and that furthermore, at the molecular level, there is no role for contingency.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2459213 If you remember, ID contends that proteins are designed because they are so unlikely. I guess you would say the islands of functionality resemble that for the natural origin of life? And here we are, the entire space has potentially been explored.Blue Lotus_{September 5, 2009
September
09
Sep
5
05
2009
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PDT}

Here
Yes, of course, add random noise to any system and it will regenerate.
Of course I meant degenerate.Blue Lotus_{September 5, 2009
September
09
Sep
5
05
2009
10:14 AM
10
10
14
AM
PDT}

Jerry
Yes, DNA and the transcription and translation suite of proteins and RNA polymers.
And the FSCI in those things you mention is? And it's measured how? And the minimum possible amount of FSCI is?
Your might want to try NCIS for more information. I have a friend who works with them on some IT issues.
Fact is Jerry the NCIS won't have heard of FSCI. It's only in usage here due to Kariosfocus refusal to get it into wider usage by writing up his research into a paper and publishing his work.Blue Lotus_{September 5, 2009
September
09
Sep
5
05
2009
10:11 AM
10
10
11
AM
PDT}

Kariosfocus
I think you need to first look at the Abel review paper on a chain of build- up peer reviewed papers, here, which is of course peer reviewed. There and in the onward papers you will find enough that is technical to your heart’s content.
If this paper is peer reviewed and that gives it something worth considering, why are the tens of thousands of other peer reviewed papers that say things you don't agree with not worth considering? Of course "information" is present in living beings. DNA is digital after all. And you can remove the quote marks from "information" when you define in what way you are measuring and using that "information". But proving that an intelligent designer was required for the origin of life, that life dragged itself up thos shores you keep going on about? Not so much.
And, that technical content will not materially differ from — though it ill elaborate — the basic information I have given using FSCI as a 101 level concept.
Ah, yes FSCI. Tell me, what's the minimum amount of FSCI it's possible for an object to have? Is there an upper limit?
Similarly, Meyers’ critical review for the rest of us, is a case of science being too important to be left to the technical guild scientists
Er, if not scientists then who? It takes some level of training to pick up a "science" and do science with it. Anybody who does science is a scientist. Any scientist who wants their work to be considered for incorporation into the body of work central to science has to pass a set of tests. The best tests that can be devised - other scientists. So, who are these non-scientists you want to start doing science KF? What are they going to do? Spend a few years at university learning how to be a scientist then become scientists? What if they say the exact same things that the scientists are saying now that you don't like? What then? Will you change you mind?
and the Lewontinian institutionalized materialism games that are known to be afoot.
Yes yes, you keep saying that but you've only got one or two examples which are debatable at best. If there was such a widespread conspiracy as would be required to keep the evidence for ID bubbling up then I'm sure one of those tens of thousands of theist scientists would have spilled the beans already. And yet, all you have is a story about a man who had to move offices. Boo hoo.
And while I am at it, just to pick up one point to serve as the slice of cake
Cake? Ingredients? I can only speculate on what type of cake you've been eating.
clusters of identifiable states [macroscopically recognisable states]
Yes, but what does that look like and how are those states arranged?
in what are more broadly phase spaces embracing a great many microstates of physical entities,
You provide no information on tose states, yet we are supposed to assume they are arranged as you suggest on no basis other then that it is the way you are suggesting they are arranged.
as you will plainly know. And since such spaces are as a rule well beyond 3-dimensional, you know as well that direct visualisation of the full scale space is not possible
But what about the arrangement of the space? How have you defined which areas are required for OOL when nobody knows the OOL?
as a first course in Stat thermo-d or in dynamics or the like or even possibly a modern controls course would have taught you.
You are a fine one to impune my math skills when you refuse to defend your treatment of Weasel with people capable of disproving your arguments mathmatically, prefering to pontificate here to Joseph and Jerry as they nod in agreement.
The difference I am making is that the landscape is vast and flooded with a sea of non-function, making it very hard to start from any credible initial condition
Now we get to it. Please provide the map you are using and where you got it from. And how you know it relates to the actual OOL. And define "credible". What you consider credible somebody else may not. Be specific.
and plausibly find islands of function for bio lifeforms as part of the overall unfolding from the big bang to galaxy and solar system formation and terrestrial planet creation in relevant habitable zones etc.
And you know where and when these islands are do you? How do you know that? How do you know what the landscape you describe looked like at the OOL.
getting us to the warm little pond or the volcano vent undersea etc scenarios.
You can continue to add probability onto probabality against life forming, but the fact is life is here and there is no evidence that it needed ID to get here.
And slipping into that sea of non-function from an island of function is simple to see by e.g. taking a sentence of any good length and allow its letters to vary at random.
And are those letters fixed in place at any point? What, mutate phrases like this website does? http://www.zachriel.com/phrasenation/
Phrasenation allows one to adjust the relative frequency of each type of mutation. Once having generated a phrasagen, we must compare it to our Phrase Book in order to determine its meaningfulness. If it is not found, we will ruthlessly eliminate it. To be honest, as this world goes, is to be one man pick'd out of ten thousand.
Have a look. It does what you claim cannot happen.
Soon, its meaningfulness vanishes. the same will happen to say code for a program.
Yes, but we're not talking about code for a program are we? We're talking about living entities. IF "CODE VARY" > "TOO MUCH" THEN DIE ELSE REPRODUCE Yes, of course, add random noise to any system and it will regenerate. If there is no mechanism in place to manage that. Hello sexual reproduction!
the objection is distractive and dismissively derogatory not substantial.
In this comment you brought up the formation of the solar system.
Beyond that, I have had to deal with Weasel on points this morning, so I will take time out for now till the morrow, DV.
You've still not addressed my first and really only question on Weasel - how two programs with very different outputs, population sizes etc can "be the same program"?Blue Lotus_{September 5, 2009
September
09
Sep
5
05
2009
10:06 AM
10
10
06
AM
PDT}

"Regarding CSI/FCSI/FSCI/CCSI/CSI:NY: Any working examples in biology, anywhere?" Yes, DNA and the transcription and translation suite of proteins and RNA polymers. Your might want to try NCIS for more information. I have a friend who works with them on some IT issues. And it up in the air what will happen to Ziva David. If you find anything out, let me know.jerry_{September 5, 2009
September
09
Sep
5
05
2009
09:37 AM
9
09
37
AM
PDT}

There is no data to support UCD other than the genetic code itself. What is presented is support for common ancestry in various biological lineages. That is what is presented at talkorigins. The Cambrian Explosion is a show stopper for UCD. If you want to start at the various phyla and work down, then there is evidence of common ancestry at various places but not UCD.jerry_{September 5, 2009
September
09
Sep
5
05
2009
09:27 AM
9
09
27
AM
PDT}

Joseph
OK then post the genetic data that links to the physiological and anatomical changes.
A good start on such has been made. Remeber how young this science is. Remember how long you've had to explain it all but did not.
Using mouse embryos, Noonan and his collaborators examined how HACNS1 and its related sequences in chimpanzee and rhesus monkey regulated gene expression during development. The human sequence activated genes in the developing mouse limbs, in contrast to the chimpanzee and rhesus sequences. Most intriguing for human evolution, the human sequence drove expression at the base of the primordial thumb in the forelimb and the great toe in the hind limb. The results provided tantalizing, but researchers say preliminary, evidence that the functional changes in HACNS1 may have contributed to adaptations in the human ankle, foot, thumb and wrist-- critical advantages that underlie the evolutionary success of our species. However, Noonan stressed that it is still unknown whether HACNS1 causes changes in gene expression in human limb development or whether HACNS1 would create human-like limb development if introduced directly into the genome of a mouse. “The long-term goal is to find many sequences like this and use the mouse to model their effects on the evolution of human development,” Noonan said. National Institutes of Health and the U.S. Department of Energy funded the work.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080904145056.htm http://www.gis.a-star.edu.sg/internet/site/article_data/sufian_3/HACNS1%20ScienceBlogs.doc http:// http//scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2008/09/did_a_gene_enhancer_humanise_our_thumbs.php#more Did you want papers rather then write ups? Let me know.
For example what DNA sequence or sequences are responsible for the loss of the opposible big toe in humans?
Just search for "big toe HACNS1" and you can read all about it for yourself. Then dismiss it out of hand.Blue Lotus_{September 5, 2009
September
09
Sep
5
05
2009
09:11 AM
9
09
11
AM
PDT}

Anyone, Regarding CSI/FCSI/FSCI/CCSI/CSI:NY: Any working examples in biology, anywhere?MeganC_{September 5, 2009
September
09
Sep
5
05
2009
08:26 AM
8
08
26
AM
PDT}

"Blue Lotus" (#42) noted: Biological Abstracts, covering zoology and botany literature since the 1920s has no mention of baraminology." That's because "(the) term baramin was coined in 1941 by Frank Marsh from the Hebrew words bara (create) and min (kind). It was resurrected in 1990 by Kurt Wise...from this came the term baraminology..." - http://www.conservapedia.com/Baraminology Baraminology is pure Young Earth Creationism, and not really compatible with orthodox intelligent design.PaulBurnett_{September 5, 2009
September
09
Sep
5
05
2009
07:41 AM
7
07
41
AM
PDT}

Joseph#44
There isn’t one observation nor experiment that supports UCD.
Apparently you missed my #32 in the Kairosfocus/Blue Lotus brouhaha. Here it is again for your convenience: Joseph#27
Cabal:
The evolutionist position is amply supported by 150 years of research.
The only thing supported is the Creationists’ position of baraminology. There isn’t any genetic data to support universal common descent. Never mind UCD via an accumulation of genetic accidents.
I invite you to read the document on the scientific evidence for common descent at talkorigins: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ If you need further details, I recommend starting with Futuyma’s Evolutionary Biology followed by Gould’s The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Those will allow you to follow some of the peer reviewed literature so that you can understand the incredible and ever growing amount of evidence for common descent. Incidentally, even Behe accepts common descent.DeLurker_{September 5, 2009
September
09
Sep
5
05
2009
07:34 AM
7
07
34
AM
PDT}

"Blue Lotus" (#38) asked: "What do you expect? Perhaps the “darwinists” have got better things to do." A couple of days ago I asked somebody who should know if there has been a review of Signature In The Cell in Science or Nature or Cell or any other actual science publication and he gave me almost exactly the same answer. Those actual science publications have their base audience, and Signature has a rather different choir to preach to.PaulBurnett_{September 5, 2009
September
09
Sep
5
05
2009
07:32 AM
7
07
32
AM
PDT}

PS: Onlookers, if you want to see how I discuss the islands of function challenge at a 101 level cf here.kairosfocus_{September 5, 2009
September
09
Sep
5
05
2009
06:48 AM
6
06
48
AM
PDT}

BL: I think you need to first look at the Abel review paper on a chain of build- up peer reviewed papers, here, which is of course peer reviewed. There and in the onward papers you will find enough that is technical to your heart's content. And, that technical content will not materially differ from -- though it ill elaborate -- the basic information I have given using FSCI as a 101 level concept. Similarly, Meyers' critical review for the rest of us, is a case of science being too important to be left to the technical guild scientists and the Lewontinian institutionalized materialism games that are known to be afoot. (And while I am at it, just to pick up one point to serve as the slice of cake with all the ingredients in it: islands of function in config spaces is a simple way of referring to clusters of identifiable states [macroscopically recognisable states] in what are more broadly phase spaces embracing a great many microstates of physical entities, as you will plainly know. And since such spaces are as a rule well beyond 3-dimensional, you know as well that direct visualisation of the full scale space is not possible, as a first course in Stat thermo-d or in dynamics or the like or even possibly a modern controls course would have taught you. This also holds for so-called fitness landscapes, which are often mapped as 3-d sand-table style landforms for illustration. The difference I am making is that the landscape is vast and flooded with a sea of non-function, making it very hard to start from any credible initial condition and plausibly find islands of function for bio lifeforms as part of the overall unfolding from the big bang to galaxy and solar system formation and terrestrial planet creation in relevant habitable zones etc., getting us to the warm little pond or the volcano vent undersea etc scenarios. And slipping into that sea of non-function from an island of function is simple to see by e.g. taking a sentence of any good length and allow its letters to vary at random. Soon, its meaningfulness vanishes. the same will happen to say code for a program. the objection is distractive and dismissively derogatory not substantial. ) Beyond that, I have had to deal with Weasel on points this morning, so I will take time out for now till the morrow, DV. Others may want to take up points too in the meantime. G'day. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{September 5, 2009
September
09
Sep
5
05
2009
06:28 AM
6
06
28
AM
PDT}

Blue Lotus, All observation and experiments support baraminology. There isn't one observation nor experiment that supports UCD. Heck we have never observed new protein machinery "evolve". Nothing on new body plans- we don't even know where to look in the genomes for body plans.Joseph_{September 5, 2009
September
09
Sep
5
05
2009
05:58 AM
5
05
58
AM
PDT}

There isn’t any genetic data to support universal common descent. Blue Lotus:
Only if you have your fingers in your ears and your eyes tightly shut.
OK then post the genetic data that links to the physiological and anatomical changes. For example what DNA sequence or sequences are responsible for the loss of the opposible big toe in humans? How about upright, bipedal walking? The eye- you must know what DNA gives us eyes- post it or admit I am right.
If there is no genetic data to support UCD then why do you suppose Behe believes in UCD?
You should ask him.Joseph_{September 5, 2009
September
09
Sep
5
05
2009
05:56 AM
5
05
56
AM
PDT}

Joseph
The only thing supported is the Creationists’ position of baraminology.
Interesting useage of the word "supported". Biological Abstracts, covering zoology and botany literature since the 1920s has no mention of baraminology. The only way that baraminology can be "supported" is if you ignore every conclusion of the field of cladistics and the scientific consensus regarding transitional fossils. Stick your fingers in your years and say "lalalalal". Where did you read that the only thing supported was Creationists' baraminology? Answers In Genesis? Joseph, this charade has gone on too long. Just PM Ras please!Blue Lotus_{September 5, 2009
September
09
Sep
5
05
2009
05:03 AM
5
05
03
AM
PDT}

Joseph
There isn’t any genetic data to support universal common descent.
Only if you have your fingers in your ears and your eyes tightly shut. If there is no genetic data to support UCD then why do you suppose Behe believes in UCD?Blue Lotus_{September 5, 2009
September
09
Sep
5
05
2009
04:54 AM
4
04
54
AM
PDT}

Kariosfocus
Such recreations show that explicit and implicit latching -- locking in -- of successful letters in the Weasel target phrase is real.
Who is denying that? Tell us all KF, who is denying that? That due to the way Weasel works letters usually "appear" to latch? It's like saying that people are denying there are letters at all. Or that people are denying that the letters change. Nobody is denying that once correct a letter is unlikely to change. Nobody is denying that once correct a letter is unlikely to change. Nobody is denying that once correct a letter is unlikely to change. If they are, could you tell me who they are please? You know, support your assertion with some facts! So, come on KF, who are these people that claim that Weasel does not tend to keep correct letters? Yet another strawman. The issue is that "implicit latching" is accepted by all. Yes indeed, letters appear to latch. They can, and do, change even if correct. The issue is the "locking in" and "explicit" latching. It simply does not happen. Dawkins' has said it. Programs have been recreated and they give the expected results and don't show it. Yet you refuse to follow the evidence where it leads, instead taking the party line at the cost of much face, and claiming that explict latching was implemented in the TBW Weasel. So, come on KF, who is denying that Weasel appears to latch letters? We know who is claiming it explicitly latches them. You and Dembski. So, onlookers, another strawman for KF to demolish with his word blunderbuss. He claims that people claim something that nobody is in fact claming, then proves those people "wrong". Victory! Yes explicit latching is real but only if you program it in This is not complex stuff. Actual population genetics is hard work. It's no wonder you want to avoid that body of work and concentrate on a trival example from 20 years ago that was only ever intended as a teaching device in the first place and where it's limitations and simplifications were detailed in the same please Weasel was described. Keep following that evidence where it leads!Blue Lotus_{September 5, 2009
September
09
Sep
5
05
2009
04:04 AM
4
04
04
AM
PDT}

Find another word. Or do the work required to bring your IDEA up to the level of a theory. Just because you claim it don't make it so!
If they had a real answer to the core ID challenge as summarised by Meyer and Peterson, they would have been all over this thread as gangbusters.
They don't need to. It's the other way around you see. The "ID" challenge has been found wanting already. It's up to your side to show the evidence. Write the papers. Do the lab work. Like it or not ID needs to do more the publish a few books aimed at the lay auidence. Perhaps you could write up your ideas on FSCI and submit them to Nature?
Here, for a third time in 24 hours, is the unmet, unaddressed challenge to be discussed on its merits:
Unmet and unread. Don't you get it yet? Did you go to debate class, stand up, read a 3000 word essay and sit back down again claiming victory? For example
Latching behaviour of generational champions is credibly observed in showcased runs of Weasel c 1986, and is definitively demonstrated for the various recreations that are what we have to work with.
The only way you can say "credibly" is to ignore the work that others have done in a formal mathmatical (i.e. scientific) way and put your fingers in your ears and say "la la latching". In the "other place" much work was done to put your claims on a mathmatical foundation. They were found wanting. Yet you apparently don't think ID is sufficently important to brave the den of infidels. They are not that bad you know! And with your armour of faith and the sword of being right I'm sure you'd show them what for! But I guess we'll never know how you would defend your claims mathmatically. I guess you simply cannot but don't want so say as much.
Once such a pattern exists, the Marks- Dembski analysis of the probabilities of getting to target in q queries on the premise that once a correct letter appears in a generational proximity to target champion it stays there -- it is effectively latched -- will then follow quite simply. Just remember Q increments in generational clumps.])
And yet
the premise that once a correct letter appears in a generational proximity to target champion it stays there
has been proven not to be the case in Weasel both mathmatically and with video evidence, and even with Dawkins' own statements. Yet you continue to make your claims as if none of those things happened. Who's following dogma and ignoring where the evidence leads eh? Onlookers, you are the judges here. Bring in your verdict!Blue Lotus_{September 5, 2009
September
09
Sep
5
05
2009
03:32 AM
3
03
32
AM
PDT}

Kariosfocus
Observe the continued dead silence on the central issue for this thread on the merits — and note, this also happens to be the central claim of bio-side ID theory that is being discussed — from the Darwinists.
What do you expect? Perhaps the "darwinists" have got better things to do. Perhaps people realise that any debate on this thread regarding the book is futile. Why bother, when the author is not around to answer any points. Why bother when the only people around will never concede anything and have already made their minds up about it all. And "bio-side ID theory". That's a new one. Lets do a quick dictionary check on "theory" shall we?
# A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
Does you bio-side ID theory meet that level? Has bio-side ID theory been tested or is it widely accepted? I know your "latching" thing has given you the idea that you can redefine words to mean what you think they mean instead of what everybody else thinks they mean but by any definition of "theory" ID is not a "theory". Find another word. Or do the work reqBlue Lotus_{September 5, 2009
September
09
Sep
5
05
2009
03:24 AM
3
03
24
AM
PDT}

Kariosfocus
And, it is a generally known easily seen fact that code based complex function is easily disturbed and destroyed by modest perturbation, i.e islands of function is an accurate description.
I guess it's such an obvious fact that somebody forget to tell all the Biologists studying Chernobyl. The trouble with your analogy is simple. If you had a planet made up of 99% land and 1% water, but the water was arranged in such a way that it divided up the land into many "islands" your description would describe that situation just as well. Let's try it shall we?
islands of function
MMM, yes. Define what you mean by "code based complex function" ? Define and give an example of a "modest pertubation"? Draw me a map of these "islands of function" that you claim prove life cannot exist without intervention. If the planet is 99% island then your claim still holds true but you've simply no way of knowing not only what the shape and size of the islands were but no way of knowing the number and arrangement. Do you? Be honest, you simply don't You just guess. You make claims with great authority but try backing them up. I predict you won't be able to draw me a map of these islands of functionality as they were millions of years ago. I further predict that fact won't stop you confidently claiming in the future that the arrangements of these islands you know nothing about make the natural origin of life impossible.
4] Is there a known, observed source of such FSCI? –> Yes, intelligence routinely produces such code based complex functionality.
How much FSCI is there in A) The first replicator? B) The Bac Flag? C) An Egg Also can you name something with A) 1 FSCI B) 499 FSCI C) 500 FSCI D) 501 FSCI I realise something with 1 FSCI might be impossible. So tell me KF, what is the smallest amount of FSCI a thing can have? Please, again, don't trouble yourself to answer these questions. I believe onlookers by now realise they are only asked to highlight the lengths you'll go to to avoid address issues as you prefer simply to ignore difficult questions and repeat over and over the same shallow arguments.
then we may infer that the intelligence in cells in our bodies points to intelligence that pre-existed humanity and indeed the code-based complex functionality that is manifested in biological life on earth
So lets grant you that for the sake of argument. Life was designed. Now what?
No, we have reason to know scientifically that there was such agency, but we do not have enough evidence on science to draw a scientific inference as to who or what such agency was or is.
Now what?
7] Why is this chain of reasoning so often stridently objected to?
It's invalid. You do not define with rigour any of your terms and so it's impossible to answer such claims scientifically.
In short, ideology and philosphical agendas may have more to do with what is going on in origins science than many are wont to admit.
Oh, this is all to do with "origins science" is it? You should have said! Tell me, if these ideological and philosphical agendas are so offensive to you then why don't you pull your finger out and publish the work which you say proves a designer was required for life. Your FSCI work proves this, you claim. So publish or perish! But if you don't publish then you have no right to complain that the agendas are being set not to your liking. If you don't go to the party you don't get a say in what music is played! So, complain all you like on this blog, you'll achieve nothing. Publish your work to a panel of scientists so they can examine it and question your assumptions. That's a start.
And, when ideological oxen are gored, they lash out in horn-tipped rage.
At least they do that. What's your response? And who do you think you've gored here? What victories have you won? You've converted nobody to your latching crusade apart from those that would support you no matter what. Several people have registered and posted here just to say how much they could not believe your "tatics" and how obviously wrong you are. So carry on the good work!
PS: the always linked will of course provide more details here than an is reasonable in a blog comment.
I dread to think! :)
PPS: Re Gaz above on Weasel c 1986. His claims were not merely answered in the already linked thread, but anticipated and resolved here, from sometime in April.
Has this really been going on that long? George L Farquhar says hi!
(In short, just as shouting endlessly that a sheep’s tail is a leg — by insistent contentious redefinition — so the partyline view that a sheep has five legs is correct is an absurdity, attempted redefinitions of what the observed and described implicit [or explicit!] latching of generational champions means does not turn Weasel into what Darwinists wish it were.)
Oh the irony.
In short, just as shouting endlessly that a sheep’s tail is a leg
Dawkins' claims Weasel is a tail. You claim it is a leg. Let's be clear on that.
so the partyline view that a sheep has five legs is correct
It's clear to all that the only reason you defend Dembski's "Weasel" as you do is because you are following the party line. If Dembski said it, it's true. After all, what other reason could you have for making the claims you have? It makes no difference to anything after all, if Weasel latches or not. There is no natural "ID" side on this argument. It just so happens that Dembski has chosen his interpretation and you, lacking any other reason to take one side or the other, have taken his side and will defend it forever. For no reason other then because that is the side that Dembski has chosen. So, who is the real "Darwinist" here? Who is following dogma at the expense of where the evidence leads? Who has made their mind up in advance that something is true and then refuses to change their mind when new evidence (Dawkins own statements) appears?
the observed and described implicit [or explicit!] latching of generational champions means does not turn Weasel into what Darwinists wish it were.)
Implicit latching is something you invented to cover yourself. Now you get to claim that Weasel latches "explicitly" (code) or "implicitly" (how it works) so you can have it both ways and not be wrong whatever way round you want to play it. Nobody's fooled. Let's remind everybody of what you said way back in 12/18/2008
Weasel sets a target sentence then once a letter is guessed it preserves it for future iterations of trials until the full target is met. That means it rewards partial but non-functional success, and is foresighted. Targetted search, not a proper RV + NS model.
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/complex-does-not-equal-contingent/#comment-300338 Indeed. No mention of "explicit" or "implicit" latching there! No sir! It's almost as if your position has evolved over time as new evidence became available. Again, please don't think you have to address anything in specific in my posts, just repost your usual and claim that you've seen off those uncouth darwinists. That'll do.Blue Lotus_{September 5, 2009
September
09
Sep
5
05
2009
03:10 AM
3
03
10
AM
PDT}

Kariosfocus
the Darwinist objectors have addressed everything except the actual substantial issue supposedly at stake.
Substantial issues need to be raised in substantial venues. Venues where people who are experts in the field can comment and help revise the work. And who are you to talk about people addressing everything but? Your way of debating is to simply ignore points you don't want to talk about. Such as why Dawkins' Weasel and Dembski/Marks "Weasel" have totally different outputs, population sizes but are somehow magically "the same" nonetheless.
For those who disagree with ID, the powerful case Meyer presents cannot be ignored in any honest debate.
And you expect people to address the content of the book here do you? Is that the "substantial issue supposedly at stake"? In any case, "honest debate" has never happened here, as the thread detailing bannations and deletions in "the other place" documents. Where could you get some "honest debate" then? I know, perhaps by submitting your work to a panel of your peers and asking them to pick it apart? It can only emerge stronger right? Yet no. Yet another ID book aimed at the lay auidence.
So, going back to the excerpt from the Dan Peterson review, let’s refocus on the issue on the merits:
Indeed. Great way to divert the conversation. Great way to get the subject back onto safe ground for you. Yes, lets refocus on the issue. You are so good at that.
In Signature in the Cell Meyer marshals the scientific facts and arguments to show that the staggering quantity of information contained in the “computer code” in our cellular DNA almost certainly cannot have been generated by undirected material processes.
Is that science then? "Almost certainly"? So there's some doubt is there? Not 100% sure are you? That's odd, because I thought you were touting this book as some kind of proof. Now we find out it's some kind of bet.
1] Is there scientific support for the claim that there is a staggering quantity of digitally coded, functionally specific information in the living cell?
"Staggering quantity"? Is that science? Tell me, can you put a number on this "staggering quantity" of information or do you "just know" it's there. If you can't put a number on it, how do you even know you have a "staggering quantity" of it? Don't worry, I don't expect you to answer any of these question, just simply repost your usual copy+paste "debate" and walk away in victory.
yes, as even just 1,000 bits specifies a configuration space such that he 10^80 atoms of our observed cosmos, across its thermodynamically credible lifespan, would not be able to sample as much as 1 in 10^150 of the configs.
Tell me KF, when the observed cosmos is "sampling" the configs what is it doing? What process is going on when this "sampling" is happening? Do tell, please.
Thus, it is not credible that a random walk from arbitrary initial conditions could reasonably arrive at shores of islands of function in the space. [1 in 10^150 is the next best thing to a fraction indistinguishable from zero.]
You are wrong. Want to know how I know you are wrong? A) Define "arbitrary initial conditions" B) Define "shores of islands of function" Yes I know you define B) as "the simplest living organism" but you simply do know know what the first replicator was at that first "shore of function". So your claim is invalid because you simply do not know enougth about the starting conditions to say anything about probabilities.
[1 in 10^150 is the next best thing to a fraction indistinguishable from zero.]
Earlier you said that
DNA almost certainly cannot have been generated by undirected material processes
Is that the probability of that then? Is your "almost certainly" 1 in 10^150? And I guess you got that figure by taking all the components and working out the possible combinations when put together randomly? Well, no actual Biologist thinks like that. For more details on why that is a fallacy see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoyle%27s_Fallacy
These people, including Fred, have committed one or more of the following errors. 1. They calculate the probability of the formation of a "modern" protein, or even a complete bacterium with all "modern" proteins, by random events. This is not the abiogenesis theory at all. 2. They assume that there is a fixed number of proteins, with fixed sequences for each protein, that are required for life. 3. They calculate the probability of sequential trials, rather than simultaneous trials. 4. They misunderstand what is meant by a probability calculation. 5. They seriously underestimate the number of functional enzymes/ribozymes present in a group of random sequences.[1]
Of course, I don't expect to you address any of these issues and with good reason. After all, Hoyle almost got a Nobel. So no need to address any of the points above, just simply repeat "Hoyle got a Nobel or similar". All science so far!Blue Lotus_{September 5, 2009
September
09
Sep
5
05
2009
02:40 AM
2
02
40
AM
PDT}

Onlookers: Observe the continued dead silence on the central issue for this thread on the merits -- and note, this also happens to be the central claim of bio-side ID theory that is being discussed -- from the Darwinists. If they had a real answer to the core ID challenge as summarised by Meyer and Peterson, they would have been all over this thread as gangbusters. They are not, guess why. Or, maybe, we don't have to guess. Here, for a third time in 24 hours, is the unmet, unaddressed challenge to be discussed on its merits: ______________ >> In Signature in the Cell Meyer marshals the scientific facts and arguments to show that the staggering quantity of information contained in the “computer code” in our cellular DNA almost certainly cannot have been generated by undirected material processes. Instead, Meyer contends, in our combined human experience the kind of complex functionally specified information that is present in living cells is known to be produced by only one source: an intelligent, purposeful mind . . . >> ________________ And, this is what is now on the table, from Peterson:
Signature in the Cell is a defining work in the discussion of life’s origins and the question of whether life is a product of unthinking matter or of an intelligent mind. For those who disagree with ID, the powerful case Meyer presents cannot be ignored in any honest debate. For those who may be sympathetic to ID, on the fence, or merely curious, this book is an engaging, eye-opening, and often eye-popping read.”
In short, among other things, a MORAL test is now on the table. GEM of TKI PS: MeganC: kindly either address the substantial issues cogently on the merits, or stand exposed as an idea hitman (female version it seems) spouting talking points from the "red herring distractor led out to strawman misrepresentations soaked in ad hominem personal attacks and ignited to choke, confuse, cloud, poison and polarise the atmosphere" gamebook. If you want to address the main issue on the merits, it has been put here. If you instead want to play around with Weasel, you have links that address the matter on the merits, starting from Appendix 7 in my always linked; though I would prefer that you take that up in the Contest 10 thread as already linked, where I go next. (Games that boil down to saying that a sheep has five legs because the tail is hereby deemed a leg, are not cogent. [Latching behaviour of generational champions is credibly observed in showcased runs of Weasel c 1986, and is definitively demonstrated for the various recreations that are what we have to work with. Such recreations show that explicit and implicit latching -- locking in -- of successful letters in the Weasel target phrase is real. Once such a pattern exists, the Marks- Dembski analysis of the probabilities of getting to target in q queries on the premise that once a correct letter appears in a generational proximity to target champion it stays there -- it is effectively latched -- will then follow quite simply. Just remember Q increments in generational clumps.])kairosfocus_{September 5, 2009
September
09
Sep
5
05
2009
02:08 AM
2
02
08
AM
PDT}

kairosfocus, You always make me think of waffles for some reason. Why would that be?MeganC_{September 4, 2009
September
09
Sep
4
04
2009
02:29 PM
2
02
29
PM
PDT}

Onlookers: I suppose it was predictable -- cf 21 above -- but observe how all across today, the Darwinist objectors have addressed everything except the actual substantial issue supposedly at stake. in Mr Peterson's words as cited in the original post:
Signature in the Cell is a defining work in the discussion of life’s origins and the question of whether life is a product of unthinking matter or of an intelligent mind. For those who disagree with ID, the powerful case Meyer presents cannot be ignored in any honest debate. For those who may be sympathetic to ID, on the fence, or merely curious, this book is an engaging, eye-opening, and often eye-popping read.”
So, going back to the excerpt from the Dan Peterson review, let's refocus on the issue on the merits: ______________ >> In Signature in the Cell Meyer marshals the scientific facts and arguments to show that the staggering quantity of information contained in the “computer code” in our cellular DNA almost certainly cannot have been generated by undirected material processes. Instead, Meyer contends, in our combined human experience the kind of complex functionally specified information that is present in living cells is known to be produced by only one source: an intelligent, purposeful mind . . . >> ________________ Let's ask: 1] Is there scientific support for the claim that there is a staggering quantity of digitally coded, functionally specific information in the living cell? --> Starting at about 100+ k bits, for observed life, yes. 2] Is this information materially comparable to computer code: digital, code based, functional as instructions and/or data structures? --> Yes, esp as we look at DNA expression through mRNA and expression into proteins using Ribosomes, enzymes, tRNA etc. 3] Is there credible reason to believe that such is not plausible as the product of undirected material -- chance + mechanical necessity -- processes? --> yes, as even just 1,000 bits specifies a configuration space such that he 10^80 atoms of our observed cosmos, across its thermodynamically credible lifespan, would not be able to sample as much as 1 in 10^150 of the configs. --> Thus, it is not credible that a random walk from arbitrary initial conditions could reasonably arrive at shores of islands of function in the space. [1 in 10^150 is the next best thing to a fraction indistinguishable from zero.] --> And, it is a generally known easily seen fact that code based complex function is easily disturbed and destroyed by modest perturbation, i.e islands of function is an accurate description. 4] Is there a known, observed source of such FSCI? --> Yes, intelligence routinely produces such code based complex functionality. 5] What then do we have reason to infer on best, empirically warranted explanation? --> Since we do not have any reason to conclude that we exhaust the possibilities of intelligence, but instead have reason to see ourselves as one possible intelligent species, then we may infer that the intelligence in cells in our bodies points to intelligence that pre-existed humanity and indeed the code-based complex functionality that is manifested in biological life on earth. 6] Do we know scientifically what such agency is? --> No, we have reason to know scientifically that there was such agency, but we do not have enough evidence on science to draw a scientific inference as to who or what such agency was or is. 7] Why is this chain of reasoning so often stridently objected to? --> perhaps we need to look at he attitude and philosophy embedded in Richard Lewontin's remarks in the NYRB, in 1997:
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us 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 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, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
In short, ideology and philosphical agendas may have more to do with what is going on in origins science than many are wont to admit. And, when ideological oxen are gored, they lash out in horn-tipped rage. G'day. GEM of TKI PS: the always linked will of course provide more details here than an is reasonable in a blog comment. PPS: Re Gaz above on Weasel c 1986. His claims were not merely answered in the already linked thread, but anticipated and resolved here, from sometime in April. (In short, just as shouting endlessly that a sheep's tail is a leg -- by insistent contentious redefinition -- so the partyline view that a sheep has five legs is correct is an absurdity, attempted redefinitions of what the observed and described implicit [or explicit!] latching of generational champions means does not turn Weasel into what Darwinists wish it were.)kairosfocus_{September 4, 2009
September
09
Sep
4
04
2009
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT}

Joseph#27
Cabal:
The evolutionist position is amply supported by 150 years of research.
The only thing supported is the Creationists’ position of baraminology. There isn’t any genetic data to support universal common descent. Never mind UCD via an accumulation of genetic accidents.
I invite you to read the document on the scientific evidence for common descent at talkorigins: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ If you need further details, I recommend starting with Futuyma's Evolutionary Biology followed by Gould's The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Those will allow you to follow some of the peer reviewed literature so that you can understand the incredible and ever growing amount of evidence for common descent. Incidentally, even Behe accepts common descent.DeLurker_{September 4, 2009
September
09
Sep
4
04
2009
12:08 PM
12
12
08
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply