On Sept 23rd, I put up an essay challenge as captioned, primarily to objecting commenter Jerad.
As at October 2nd, he has definitively said: no.
Joe informs us that Zachriel has tried to brush it aside:
Try Darwin’s Origin of Species (1859). It’s a bit dated and longer than 6,000 words, (the 6th edition is 190,000 words), but Darwin considered it just a long abstract, and it still makes for a powerful argument.
This is, frankly, a “don’t bother me” brush-off; telling in itself, as a definitive, successful answer would have momentous impact on this blog.
Zachriel’s response reminds me, all too strikingly, of the cogency of what Philip Johnson had to say in reply to Lewontin’s claims in his NYRB article in January 1997:
There is a serious matter on the table, to be addressed in the context that there is now a significant empirically grounded challenge to the claim that blind chance forces and mechanical necessity can account for the world of life. And, that reminds us to mention that the co-founder of the theory of evolution from 1869 on argued for intelligent evolution, specifically publishing his views at length in The World of Life. Which, is still a powerful argument that that world is “a manifestation of Creative Power, Directive Mind and Ultimate Purpose.”
Hey, let’s add a vid:
[youtube hxvAVln6HLI]
For instance, here — with simplified paragraphing — is a comment in Wallace’s preface:
. . . the most prominent feature of my book is that I enter into a popular yet critical examination of those underlying fundamental problems which Darwin purposely excluded from his works as being beyond the scope of his enquiry.
Such are, the nature and causes of Life itself ; and more especially of its most fundamental and mysterious powers growth and reproduction. I first endeavour to show (in Chapter XIV.) by a care-ful consideration of the structure of the bird’s feather; of the marvellous transformations of the higher insects ; and, more especially of the highly elaborated wing-scales of the Lepidoptera (as easily accessible examples of what is going on in every part of the structure of every living thing), the absolute necessity for an organising and directive Life-Principle in order to account for the very possibility of these complex outgrowths.
I argue, that they necessarily imply first, a Creative Power, which so constituted matter as to render these marvels possible ; next, a directive Mind which is demanded at every step of what we term growth, and often look upon as so simple and natural a process as to require no explanation ; and, lastly, an ultimate Purpose, in the very existence of the whole vast life-world in all its long course of evolution throughout the eons of geological time.
This Purpose, which alone throws light on many of the mysteries of its mode of evolution, I hold to be the development of Man, the one crowning product of the whole cosmic process of life-development ; the only being which can to some extent comprehend nature; which can perceive and trace out her modes of action ; which can appreciate the hidden forces and motions everywhere at work, and can deduce from them a supreme and over-ruling Mind as their necessary cause.
For those who accept some such view as I have indicated, I show (in Chapters XV. and XVI.) how strongly it is sup-ported and enforced by a long series of facts and co-relations which we can hardly look upon as all purely accidental coincidences. Such are the infinitely varied products of living things which serve man’s purposes and man’s alone not only by supplying his material wants, and by gratifying his higher tastes and emotions, but as rendering possible many of those advances in the arts and in science which we claim to be the highest proofs of his superiority to the brutes, as well as of his advancing civilisation.
From a consideration of these better-known facts I proceed (in Chapter XVII.) to an exposition of the mystery of cell-growth ; to a consideration of the elements in their special relation to the earth itself and to the life-world ; while in the last chapter I endeavour to show the purpose of that law of diversity which seems to pervade the whole material Universe.
In short, Darwin’s co-founder — and a man who was at least as learned on the substantial evidence as Darwin was — plainly argued at book length with copious evidence, that the evidence on the ground strongly points to design and purpose even within an evolutionary frame. Brushing the challenge off off by pointing to Darwin’s book, fails the giggle test.
So, here is the challenge, placed before the Darwinist (and similar), Blind Watchmaker Thesis objectors to design theory; especially those at TSZ:
UD PRO-DARWINISM ESSAY CHALLENGE: Compose your summary case for darwinism (or any preferred variant that has at least some significant support in the professional literature, such as punctuated equlibria etc) in a fashion that is accessible to the non-technical reader — based on empirical evidence that warrants the inference to body plan level macroevolution — in up to say 6,000 words [a chapter in a serious paper is often about that long]. Outgoing links are welcome so long as they do not become the main point. That is, there must be a coherent essay, with
(i)an intro,
(ii) a thesis,
(iii) a structure of exposition,
(iv) presentation of empirical warrant that meets the inference to best current empirically grounded explanation [–> IBCE] test for scientific reconstructions of the remote past,
(v) a discussion and from that
(vi) a warranted conclusion.Your primary objective should be to show in this way, per IBCE, why there is no need to infer to design from the root of the Darwinian tree of life — cf. Smithsonian discussion here — on up (BTW, it will help to find a way to resolve the various divergent trees), on grounds that the Darwinist explanation, as extended to include OOL, is adequate to explain origin and diversification of the tree of life. A second objective of like level is to show how your thesis is further supported by such evidence as suffices to warrant the onward claim that is is credibly the true or approximately true explanation of origin and body-plan level diversification of life; on blind watchmaker style chance variation plus differential reproductive success, starting with some plausible pre-life circumstance.
It would be helpful if in that essay you would outline why alternatives such as design, are inferior on the evidence we face. [As an initial spark for thinking, contrast my own survey of origins science here on (note the onward resources page), the definition of design theory in the UD resources tab top of this and every UD page, the Weak Argument Correctives in the same tab, the general resources that pop up on clicking the tab itself, and the discussion of design theory in the NWE article here. You may also want to refer to the site of the IDEA Center, and the Discovery Institute CSC site as well as Mike Gene’s Telic Thoughts. Notice IDEA’s essay on the case for design here.] . . . .
I would put this up as an original post, with preliminary contextual remarks and an invitation to respond in the comments section.
I will not submit the post with a rebutting markup or make an immediate rebuttal. In fact, let me make the offer to hold off my own comments for at least five initial comments. I will give you two full days of comments before I post any full post level response; though others at UD will be free to respond in their own right.
And BTW, I am making this offer without consulting with the blog owner or others, I am sure they would welcome a serious response . . . [NB: I have given how to contact me in the original Sept 23 post, I will not repeat that in a headlined original post.]
That challenge is on the table. In truth, it has always been implicitly on the table. For, as I went on to note on Sept 23:
Now, at any time, in essentially any thread at UD any serious and civil design theory objector could have submitted such an essay, breaking it up into a multi part comment if desired . . .
And, it is quite clear that if there were a cogent, empirically well-grounded blind watchmaker thesis account of the origins of the world of life, there would be no design theory movement in biology.
(There would still be a serious design argument in cosmology, but that is a different matter. That does, however, show that strictly speaking design theory has no need to make its case in the world of life; it is because of the blatant weight of the evidence that there is a design movement on phenomena in the world of life.)
So, there you have it, there is a challenge officially on the table.
Let us see if any of the many objectors to design theory at TSZ or elsewhere — I would even accept a parallel post and discussion here and at TSZ (though, no, I will not be commenting there if that is done) — will be willing to step up to the plate. END
I would accept Origin of Species in lieu of the essay, but if we were to criticize it, they would call it a straw man. No one believes Darwin anymore, after all.
Mung:
Origin (and Descent of Man) are in my view more than matched by Wallace’s The World of Life.
So, we can let the classics rest for now.
Let us instead see if any of the ever so vociferous objectors will be willing to address the matter on the merits, laying out their case. Not, on why they think ID is nonsense etc, but why they think that OOL and OO body plans across the tree[s] of life, are explicable on chance forces and factors, and on mechanical necessity.
If they will they can see my own response to the origins science challenge from a design view here on [at least as an idea of what I mean] — though of course that is a bit longer than an essay.
Let’s see who is willing to step up to the plate on the other side.
As they say, the clock is ticking.
KF
We’re looking for what would be considered a scientific argument, not a rhetorical one. Darwin was a gifted rhetorician, I’ll grant that, but his primary “evidence” for a naturalistic answer to the development and diversification of life consisted of: (i) an analogy to artificial selection in animal husbandry, (ii) extrapolated with imaginary scenarios, (iii) coupled with theological assertions that “God wouldn’t have done things” that we see in biology.
Sadly, Darwin’s adherents have move little beyond this approach in the past century and half.
Sorry, but for anyone who understands the real issues confronting a materialistic creation story, The Origin isn’t going to cut it. One’s view of The Origin as being a “powerful argument” is inversely proportional to one’s understanding of the central issues in explaining biological origins and development.
Interestingly quiet, nuh?
No Kairosfocus, they think, really totally believe, that since darwin’s time all the peer-reviewed literature supports their claims. All you have to do is read them, all 150+ years worth, it is all supporting evolutionism.
So they won’t be bothering with your challenge as the problem is all yours for not understanding what they already know. However they have plenty of time and energy to erect strawman after strawman wrt Intelligent Design and falsely accuse us of not understanding science and being anti-science.
Now the only way to get them to ante up is to have another trial, get them on the stand and have a lawyer with enough knowledge, savvy and tenacity expose them for the equivocating bluffers that they are.
If we have an essay challenge, shouldn’t we have a prize attached?
JB:
They know the prize if they can pull off a knockout.
Not that I am particularly worried that they can actually do it (especially with OOL right in the heart of the challenge). Maybe I need to bring back the 18 Q’s too.
But they ALSO know that whistling by the graveyard invites the duppies leaning on the fence and watching the bravado to have some fun by crying out BOO!
EEeeeeeeeK!
Zoom!
PS: I recently heard of a policeman in Ja walking near a graveyard late at night. seeing a man with a coffin on the shoulder he was suspicious and challenged. “It gettin’ crowded where me been livin, so me movin house.” Zoom!
KF
“Now the only way to get them to ante up is to have another trial, get them on the stand and have a lawyer with enough knowledge, savvy and tenacity expose them for the equivocating bluffers that they are. “
What a jerk. The two are not even connected. Talking about desperation time.
Dover was lost because of the SCHOOL BOARD and the fact the judge doesn’t know anything about science nor what is actually being debated wrt “evolution”.
If I get my shot it will be due to a sticker/ disclaimer saying that darwin erected and refuted a strawman in the fixity of species and that Intelligent Design is not anti-evolution unless you define “evolution” to be the atheistic blind watchmaker thesis which means it too would be subject to that separation of church and state thingy.
But I would love to see any evo answer the question:
“How can we test the claim that any bacterial flagellum evolved via accumulations of random mutations (random = chance/ happenstance events)?”
OR “How can we test the claim that natural selection is a designer mimic? And what evidence is there that natural selection is a designer mimic?”
But first I would love any of them to try to sell the strawman that ID and Creation, for that matter, argue for the fixity of species and no change is allowed- species are immutable.
I have given you a few. You are too dense to understand what a mechanism is. Not my fault.
LoL! Umm science mandates that the way to any given design inference be through necessity and chance. So your position isn’t a crutch. It is an obstacle, albeit a very small one.
Of course you can spew that nonsense over there and get away with it. However we IDists and all objective people know differently. For example Behe’s criteria stands on its own.
I will be sure to have a subpoena waiting for you. The list is growing. It should be a good time.
F/N:
Twist-about rhetorical attempt to get back to shooting at the other guy.
It also rests on a strawman caricature.
Design IS a mechanism — or rather, a family of mechanisms — of cause rooted in intelligent and purposeful action, one evident from billions of cases around us. (And notice, the OP and the original in-thread comment pointed to my own presentation here on that does address issues of dynamics, models and methods of science etc at 101 level. So, the twist-about, subject changing attempt is premised on a willful distortion of the easily accessible truth.)
To put this particular strawman to bed, let’s clip the IOSE summary page where it cites Dembski from NFL — yes, way back in the 1990’s in a book based on a doctoral thesis [and so this thinking washed through peer review TWICE] — on that point:
The challenge still stands.
Provide an adequately empirically warranted account on blind watchmaker thesis chance and necessity mechanisms that accounts for OOL and OO body plans etc. Condense to 6,000 words, and submit.
Those looking on will be able to see for themselves whether there is adequate warrant, or whether we are dealing with Lewontin’s imposition of a priori materialism that forces a blind watchmaker conclusion by writing the conclusion before the evidence can speak.
So far, we have had an invitation to read Darwin (in a context where we have all read the evolutionary textbooks in school and the promotions in the pop sci press, and where many of us are familiar with the technical literature . . . ) and now a turnabout attempt.
After a week and more in threads and now about a day as a headlined post, we have not seen anyone stepping up to the plate.
The challenge is still on the table.
KF
PS: I have added a video on Wallace. Well worth viewing.
As I predicted- it is much easier for evos to erect a strawman of ID arguments and find problems with them, then it is to actually ante up and show the world what it is they accept and why they accept it.
kairosfocus has been handwaved away because we just don’t understand science.
Perhaps it is time to shut down the cross blog banter as the TSZ ilk is intellectually bankrupt.
Let’s count:
24 hrs headlined, no takers on the 6,000 word essay challenge so far.
(Plus ten days previously as an offer from a comment within a thread.)
Remember, this is an offer to host an objecting essay here at UD that shows such warrant as can be marshalled for the blind watchmaker thesis account of the world of life.
KF
PS: Recall, Lincoln’s speech at Gettysburg reportedly took about 2 minutes for about 270 words. At that rate, 6,000 words would be a little shorter than 45 minutes. That’s a pretty good length lecture, and it is about the upper limit for wide readership of a feature article.
PPS: let the objectors who want to pretend that I don’t understand science — as opposed to ideological a prioris imposed on science and flying false colours — first read this and this, then justify their claims as being more than mere dismissive, red herring and strawman caricature tactic talking points. Then, let them get back to the main point: produce and submit the 6,000 word essay.
F/N: Let Wiki begin to speak for the blind watchmaker thesis.
Article on Abiogenesis:
>>Abiogenesis (pronounced /?e?ba?.??d??n?s?s/ AY-by-oh-JEN-?-siss[1]) or biopoiesis is the study of how biological life could arise from inorganic matter through natural processes. In particular, the term usually refers to the processes by which life on Earth may have arisen. Abiogenesis likely occurred between 3.9 and 3.5 billion years ago, in the Eoarchean era (i.e. the time after the Hadean era in which the Earth was essentially molten).
Hypotheses about the origins of life may be divided into several categories. Most approaches investigate how self-replicating molecules or their components came into existence. For example, the Miller–Urey experiment and similar experiments demonstrated that most amino acids, often called “the building blocks of life”, were shown to be racemically [–> i.e. no answer for handedness] synthesized in conditions thought to be similar to those of the early Earth. [–> Of course this is highly disputable] Several mechanisms have been investigated, including lightning and radiation. Other approaches (“metabolism first” hypotheses) focus on understanding how catalysis in chemical systems in the early Earth might have provided the precursor molecules necessary for self-replication . . . .
There is no “standard model” of the origin of life. Most currently accepted models draw at least some elements from the framework laid out by the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis. Under that umbrella, however, are a wide array of disparate discoveries and conjectures . . . >>
So, OOL is a major challenge to a would-be essayist.
S/he will need to have a solid answer to such issues.
KF
Folks: Two days and counting, no takers. Looks like these folks have decided that the “just don’t understand
science[a priori materialism flying the flag of science]” talking point is a good enough brush-off. But what this really shows is that there is a big challenge to answer to the origins question from the evolutionary materialist perspective without convenient a prioris, especially when OOL is in the mix. KFOkay
Let’s continue to survey and critique the modern grand blind watchmaker evolutionary synthesis, in outline. (Looking at the overall summary allows us to see the logical patterns and issues as we look at the forest as a whole and don’t get lost in the trees. I suspect this is where a lot of the reluctance to provide a 6,000 word survey comes from. Never mind, we can pull up a handy summary of conventional wisdom substitute for the empty chair we are facing.)
Back to Wiki standing in, here on evolution (but we must first recall from yesterday as already clipped, that there is no sound answer to the OOL challenge so the Darwinist tree of life has no root):
There is of course no discussion of the origin of functionally specific biological information challenge, there is an obvious assumption that incremental variation is sufficient to explain all of biodiversity, and the OOL challenge is severely understated.
Notice in particular the notion that macro-evo is simply cumulative micro-evo.
That is a strong reflection of the assumption of incrementalism.
On e of the most stunning bland false assertions above is this, and it is a doozy:
We live in a world with literally billions of observed incidents of adaptation by design. This is an unwarranted and false assertion that plays a material part in deciding the issue before the facts can speak.
The definition and discussion of the power of natural selection cleverly skirts the problem of a claimed but dubious self-evident truth: grand question-begging.
A true self evident truth is one that is seen as such once one understands what is asserted, on pain of patent absurdity on attempted denial, e.g. error exists. What is really happening here is that this is a major assumption not open to question in the system and seen as being so obviously “true” that if you question you are perceived as being an outsider and fair game for dismissal. After all if something is self evident then only one who insists on absurdities will reject it.
But in fact a closer look will reveal a major gap:
Go down a bit and the gap becomes even more glaring:
In short the origin of information challenge and the easily observed fact that multi-part function that depends on specific placement, connexion, fit and interaction of particular components is easily perturbed by removing or improperly adjusting key components, are being ducked. In short the general evidence points to islands of function, all across our world of experience. This extends to biology where sometimes as few as one or two changes in a protein can destroy function, as well as the factually observed reality of thousands of sharply distinct protein fold domains in the space of possible sequences, point strongly to islands of function. And, the proposed duck-out, of exaptation, runs smack into Angus Mengue’s challenges C1 – C5:
Whether or not something is actually strictly irreducibly complex, these challenges have to be met for good engineering functionality reasons.
So, we can take islands of function to be a serious challenge, and a roadblock to the bland assertion that in effect macro-evo is nothing but accumulated micro-evo to the point where sufficient divergence of populations has occurred.
And, we have not touched on the observations made by S J Gould et al, on the problem posed by observed sudden appearances, stasis and disappearance, as a dominant feature of the fossil record at all levels. Of which, the Cambrian life revo is a capital case in point, where dozens of top level body plans appear suddenly in the record, in a window of 5 – 10 MY on the usual timeline. It would credibly take 10 – 100+ mn bits worth of functional info to do that, dozens of times over. Not to mention, this is TOP DOWN, not bottom up.
So, even if one accepts universal common descent — given the problem of cogently defining a species, every one including most modern YEC’s will accept limited common descent (probably up to more or less the family or equivalent level) — the issue of design as best explanation absent question-begging materialist a prioris has not been settled.
Perhaps the capstone case of reasoning in an enforced consensus-driven circle is this:
Notice that implied “self-evident” point again?
Common design with built-in capability to adapt is at least as good an explanation of the facts in question as the underlying assumed naturalistic, blind watchmaker thesis evolution, but it has been excluded, a priori, and silently.
Within that circle, of course the only allowed explanation — and this is an inference to best current materialist explanation, not a deduction — degree of resemblance is suggestive of common ANCESTRY (after all, design has long since been ruled out), and the evidence of some adaptive radiation and biogeographic similarity — all of this well within the sorts of levels acceptable to even YEC’s — count as persuasive evidence of grand, cumulative divergence from the hypothetical common unicellular ancestor.
And, we still find no root to the tree that is empirically warranted.
So, common descent with divergence should be separated from the assumption that macro evo is simply cumulative micro, on the info-island of function challenge. That has to be bridged not dismissed. Next, common descent needs to be separated from universal common descent. And common descent to even universal degree in a world where common design is possible and compatible with such, needs to be separated from the assumption of blind watchmaker evolution.
Case not proved, and nowhere near being proved.
After 150 years, and counting.
KF
I’m surprised that keiths over at TSZ hasn’t taken up the challenge. He seems a knowledgeable sort.
lol. go Clint!
This entire issue boils down to the question: Is it even possible for the laws of physics to explain information? In principle, as a matter of logic, they cannot. The laws of physics describe and prescribe the behavior of every bit of matter and energy in the universe. Physical laws govern the behavior of physical things.
Information requires language. Language requires symbols and rules. Symbols are ABSTRACT THINGS, arranged freely and purposefully in accordance with the rules of the language (and one hopes, logic) in order to create information. Let me say that again. The FREE and PURPOSEFUL arrangement of SYMBOLS is required for the generation of information. Free and purposeful have no standing in physics. Thus the denial of said free will and purpose. Meaning, or semantic content, or in the case of biology, LIFE is encoded into a physical substrate (explained by said physical laws) but it is DIFFERENT and APART FROM the physical substrate. Only a mind or Mind can explain information.
There are no laws of physics nor are there any algorithms based upon these laws that can EVER hope to explain how and why symbols are arranged in one way and not another and why they mean or do not mean anything.
This is not that difficult. The naturalist/materialist/physicalist position is destroyed. It’s game over for these… people. They just haven’t awakened to that difficult (for them) fact yet.
The problem is that very few people in either camp understand the underlying issue.
Take the NFL quote…
Note there is no account for the knowledge an abstract designer with no defined limitations would have needed to make 2-4 possible. It’s completely missing.
If IDists think there is no need to explain how this knowledge was created in the case of an abstract designer, then it’s unclear why IDists think there is a need to explain the origin of the knowledge found in the genes of biological organisms. Neither serve an explanatory purpose, which actually address the problem.
if I were a justificationist, I’d object due to the fact that IDists have not proven (justified) the assumption that any known designer existed at the required time, proven (justified) the assumption that it actually had possession of the necessary knowledge and proven (justified) the assumption that it could effect material reality.
However, since I’m a critical rationalist, I directly ask IDists to provide an explanation for how this supposed knowledge the designer use was created, then ask the IDist to point out how Darwinism does’t fit that explanation. However, no explanation is provided.
My explanation for its absence is that IDists think the designer is God and scripture indicates God supposedly “just was”, complete with complete with the knowledge of how to adapt raw materials into biological adaptations, already present. So, IDists omit this because they want their theory to appear “scientific” and their theology entails the assumption that an explanation is not possible.
So, apparently, whether any explanation would represent “the best explanation” depends on one’s theological position on whether this knowledge “just was” and therefore does not need to be explained (or cannot be explained). As such, It’s unclear how any essay can be judged without first explicit disclosing and discussing this issue first.
What I find particularly odd is that when I make the same distinction between non-explanatory knowledge and explanatory knowledge on the thread regarding crows reasoning about hidden agents, and present it as a deductively valid argument, I received a favorable response from the author of the OP.
What I did was start out with the conjecture that Crows can reason about hidden agents, then criticize it based on our current, best explanation of how knowledge is created, the types of resulting knowledge created based on that explanation and the reach that knowledge would have.
When I do this, the reach of the knowledge that crows create is inconsistent with the reach of explanatory knowledge. Therefore we need not be skeptical regarding crows reasoning about hidden agents.
When I apply this same criticism to the knowledge as found in the genome, we find that it too is limited as compared to the reach of explanatory knowledge. However, apparently, this same criticism in the form of a validly inductive argument isn’t accepted.
Again, it’s unclear how any sort of essay would be productive until inconsistent acceptance of deductive arguments based on knowledge creation theories, along with what actually needs to be explained and why, is addressed.
__________
CR, are you willing to resolve the fairly serious matter, if so kindly do so now. If not, understand the context of this thread and what you need to do to be a participant. KF
critical rationalist:
Which “camp” are you in?
What is “the underlying issue”? You don’t say.
Let us know when you are willing to put your money where your mouth is.
it’s unclear how this is a “significant empirically grounded challenge” given that the specific criteria listed does not itself appear to be well defined or “empirically grounded”.
For example…
Criteria (iv) is (best current empirically grounded explanation) not well defined.
For example, would you agree or disagree that explanations are better than others if they explain more phenomena than their rivals? In what way is your answer “warranted”?
It would seem that one’s definition of “best” depends on assumptions that are themselves not “empirically grounded”, such as whether explaining how the knowledge used to perform biological adaptations was created is possible or represents progress, and would therefore represent a better explanation.
Specifically, consider assumptions, such as whether the designer is simple, rather than complex, or “just was”, complete with the knowledge required to[2] form a plan that would actually accomplish a purpose[1]. The knowledge of which building materials to select and how assembling them would result in the desired result[3]. And the knowledge of how to apply the instructions in a way gives the desired result in a particular concrete scenario, in practice[4]. (For example, knowing how to build a house doesn’t necessary mean you know how do you build a house in a hurricane), etc.
Whether this knowledge needs to be explained or cannot be explained doesn’t appear itself to be “empirically grounded”. Rather, it seems to be based on theological interpretations of Biblical scripture, such as John 1:1 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” In fact, I’ve seen this verse in particular given a response to that question on another thread.
IOW, it’s unclear how the definitions of “IBCE” and “warranted” that will supposedly be applied in this challenge are themselves be “empirically grounded” or “warranted”. A such, it’s unclear why I, as a Darwinist, should actually take it seriously even if I adopted your own criteria.
_________
CR, you know you have a matter of an unresolved and serious false accusation to be dealt with before trying to participate in threads I own. Final warning in this thread. You know how to resolve the matter if you care to. KF
How could a list of requirements be, as you suggest, “empirically grounded?” It is the argument or the thesis that must meet that challenge.
The decision about which way to make an empirically-grounded, well warranted case for a given proposition is up to the one doing the explaining, not the one asking for the explanation. The latter simply establishes the aforementioned criteria.
The best argument would be the one which, given the facts in evidence, is the more persuasive of the two competing arguments.
You appear to be confusing your misguided and incoherent criticisms of ID with the challenge of providing a coherent argument for Darwinism.
Do the words “focus” and “relevance” have any meaning for you at all?
Let’s forget about a pro-Darwin argument for the moment. At this point, I will gratefully settle for a comprehensible paragraph.
Okay:
Third day, still no takers up of the 6,000 word essay challenge.
CR’s ignoring of an interdict due to false accusations and trying to divert the thread into a debate over what design thinkers have to say is simply yet another illustration of how objectors to design largely base their case on default evolutionism per the party-line, backed up by attack, attack, attack. In his case he has slandered us on the Barbara Forrest line of “Creationism in a cheap tuxedo” and so would be theocratic tyrants talking points.
a good sample of his blunders lies in how he finds Dembski’s summary of how designers work objectionable. Remember, THIS is what he objects to:
I don’t know CR’s experience with design, but if he knows how even houses and cars or computer programs, or even essays get designed and built, this is instantly familiar. But, he wants to put up a distractive objection so he does.
Similarly, he refuses to attend to the fact that ever since the beginning of the biological side of modern design theory 25+ years ago, the focal issue has been detection of design as key causal factor on tested, reliable empirical factors, not debates over designers. Where also, the evidence in hand from Venter et al makes it very credible that a sufficient cause of cell based life could be a molecular nanotech lab. That has long been obvious, and from Thaxton et al on, design thinkers assessing signs of design in life on earth have carefully pointed out that the evidence of design of life on earth does not by itself point to designers within or beyond the cosmos.
CR goes on to raise a raft of talking points on inductive reasoning, flying the flag of Popper. What he will not acknowledge is that when Popper had to accept the significance of “corroboration” of well tested best to date theories, this points to an unacknowledged acceptance of inference to best current empirically tested explanation.
There is no real need to further follow on distractive side tracks, as a major and utterly telling issue is sitting on the table.
Namely, after ten days sitting in a thread comment, and now three days after being headlined as a full original post [one that for the moment sits at the top of the popular current posts and has the sort of hits to comments ratio that normally indicates scrutiny elsewhere, often hostile . . . ], NONE of the ever so vociferous and learned objectors to design theory has been willing to take up an offer to post here at UD a guest post of a 6,000 word essay outlining the positive evidence for blind watchmaker thesis evolution from OOL on to our own origin.
Over the past couple of days, excerpts from Wikipedia have stood in in lieu of such a submission. Simple highlighting of and briefly discussing key logical gaps suffices to show that something is seriously wrong and has been wrong for 150 years. Of course, such gaps and limitations are not in the news headlines, and are not in the textbooks, and no wise student would openly challenge the “consensus.”
All of this speaks volumes.
Let the record reflect this.
KF
F/N: It is worth clipping Wiki on human origins and the origin of the human mind in particular:
It should be obvious that after a certain point it is implicit that this is how things were, period. So, explanations are put together in the context of the blind watchmaker thesis, rather than being seen as requiring adequate, separate warrant when significant in import.
However, as IOSE summarises (with an audiotape there too), origin of the knowing, reasoning mind is a critical breakdown point for naturalistic theories of human origins, due to an underlying self-referential incoherence:
In short, there are some serious challenges faced by naturalistic explanations of origins, including human origins.
And, one thing is sure, this, you would not learn from the confident manner matter of fact claims that you will usually meet.
After 150 years, case not proved. Far from it.
And of course any serious 6,000 word essay needs to resolve such matters and concerns satisfactorily, not just by hand waving and/or hurling an elephant of authorities that are claimed to prove the assertions.
Show us, in summary, why we should prefer common descent per blind watchmaker thesis evo, on empirical warrant, on its own merits.
So far, wiki as stand in only deepens the challenge, it does not resolve it.
KF
You were warned, repeatedly, and ignored it; also refusing to resolve the problem. KF
Ditto. KF
CR knows or should know that I am dead serious. KF
The answer to your question is, indeed, no. Darwinism purports to explain a great many things, but there is no reason to believe that explanation. A good explanation is, at a minimum, a credible explanation for which there is at least some evidence–not one that just makes a lot of claims. It if explains more phenomena, so much the better.
They have a great deal of meaning for me, but they have nothing at all to do with a well-warranted, empirically grounded scientific explanation.
If I was an administrator, I would offer a free book to anyone who could extract meaning from that sentence.
Meanwhile, I will issue a challenge much less daunting than the one KF has presented. Give me one good reason to believe that unguided, naturalistic forces can, or ever did, create a new body plan.
While I’m guessing KF will delete this as well…
If the knowledge of how to build biological adaptations was “with God” and “was God” in the beginning then no theory could explain how that knowledge was created . . .
__________
Here CR IS WILLFULLY DEFIANT.
He knows there is a significant matter of his insistence on slander on the table, but wants to carry on with debate points as though nothing has happened that requires retraction and apology on his part; meanwhile proceeding to further poison the atmosphere by asserting or implying that the pivotal issue at stake is Christian theology rather than empirical science.
All of this is of course loaded with the design theory is Creationism and right wing theocratic agendas in a cheap tuxedo, Barbara Forrest/NCSE/ACLU etc smear which he has been pushing.
(To correct such, I suggest the onlooker look at the Weak Argument Correctives here on, here and here. Also, it should be evident that if there are empirically warranted reliable signs of design, such as FSCO/I — which there are — then something marked by such signs would point to design, period. Indeed, “In the beginning was the Word” — rational, communicating intelligence — points to just that, if anything. I assure you that had the world of life not turned out to have an informational foundation, this risky prediction of the aged apostle John would have long since been pounced on as a proof that the Christian faith its nonsense and is empirically unsupported. But of course, we now know that deep in the heart of life is coded, complex, specifically functional, purposeful information. Any reasonable person would agree that the risky prediction here has some empirical support in ways John speaking in his own strength could never have anticipated; and in fact, we would see there something very simple to follow, that information/knowledge expressed informationally traces to mind as source, something we know from our own experience. But to the ilk of CR, this must be twisted into something else, something poisonous and dismissive.)
I have left enough to show the problem and will remove further commentary from this unfortunately insistently disruptive and slanderous person. KF
Removed for cause of willful insistence on slander and refusal to reconcile the matter as a reasonable condition of further participation in UD threads posed by the undersigned. KF
Similarly removed for cause. KF
SB: Give me one good reason to believe that unguided, naturalistic forces can, or ever did, create a new body plan.
CR:
There is no relationship whatsoever between your inability or unwillingness to make a case for Darwinism and my theological orientation. I can readily understand why KF is deleting your comments.
If, by “this knowledge,” you mean the knowledge necessary to create biodiversity, and if by “it,” you mean the truth expressed in John 1:1, then you have stumbled onto a truth, however loosely connected it might be to the subject matter under discussion.
I don’t hold those two contrary beliefs, concurrently, alternately, or any other way. God’s knowledge, which is eternal, cannot also have be created.
Either way, I think that the point of this exercise has been made clear. So far, no Darwinist has stepped forward to provide a rational defense for the neo-Darwinistic paradigm. Arguments have been replaced with irrelevant distractions, nothing more. This is typical.
I can think of several reasons why the “challenge” has gone unanswered. I mean, did you issue a call for papers? Did you advertise on other blogs? Did you just assume that all the best and the brightest of Darwinists would stumble across Uncommon Descent?
On a more general point, I think the challenge is somewhat unfair to Darwinists. The challenge, as I understand it, is to provide “an adequately empirically warranted account on blind watchmaker thesis chance and necessity mechanisms that accounts for OOL and OO body plans etc.”
The reason I say this is unfair is because I just don’t think that any Darwinist, even the most extreme hyper-adaptationists, would say that they regard chance and necessity as necessary and sufficient for explaining abiogenesis and morphogenesis. In other words, I really don’t think that they believe what you believe they believe.
What they believe, I believe, is that (i) heritable variation and directional selection are causally responsible for most kinds of microevolution (e.g. adaptation); (ii) that they are also responsible for speciation; (iii) and there is nothing other than speciation to account for.
I think that (iii) is the real kicker, the real obstacle to a productive conversation between Darwinists and anti-Darwinists. (You can put me down as “both” or “neither,” on suitable interpretations.)
The key insight of Darwinism — and here I think both Ernst Mayer and Michael Ghiselin are very good on the point — is its anti-essentialism about species. A species, according to Darwinism, is nothing more than a population. It’s not a kind, form, essence, whatever. It’s just a collection of interbreeding individual organisms. (Which is why applying the concept of species to bacteria is problematic, but OK.)
And, there’s nothing other than species. All of the rest of the taxa — genus, family, order, class, etc. — none of that is real. Darwinism is committed to anti-realism or conventionalism about everything above the species-level, and to anti-essentialism at the species level. The whole account is driven by a pretty rigorous and demanding nominalism. (One wonders how the Thomists can put up with it at all.)
In other words, once you concede that variation and selection can result in speciation, the Darwinist thinks that there’s nothing else to be conceded — it’s all been given away. So, I think that if you really want a viable philosophical or empirical objection to Darwinism, it’s going to have to be at that level: of showing that Bauplaene (“body-plans”) are real, or showing that there’s some biological reality represented by taxonomic categories above the species level.
A quite separate point is whether “materialism” is philosophically plausible. There are no shortages of good (even, I happen to think, devastating) objections to materialism, but they don’t affect Darwinism one way or the other. All they show is that Darwinists should not be materialists, because no one should be. One would need a separate argument to show that Darwinism entails materialism. For all I know, the right philosophical conclusion could be that if one is a Darwinist at all, then one had better be a theistic evolutionist.
Similarly, removed for cause. If CR wishes to participate in these threads, he knows what he needs to do, which is reasonable. KF
You are not thinking very clearly. The idea that God’s eternal ridiculous.knowledge could be created is self-evidently absurd. Neither a Darwinian model nor an ID model could explain such a self contradictory idea. There is no reason to consider it in any context.
Again, you are not thinking clearly. Darwinistic processes cannot, in any way, explain God’s knowledge, which would, by definition, precede Darwinistic processes. That which precedes the process cannot also be caused by the process.
I don’t need empirically grounded evidence to say that God’s eternal knowledge cannot have been created. The only requirement in this case is to be capable of rational thought. That which always existed (eternal knowledge) cannot also have begun to exist (created knowledge).
Correction: The idea that God’s eternal knowledge could be created is self evidently absurd.
Kantian Naturalist & Critical Rationalist.
You ‘guys’ are good. Taxonomy is a creation of humans’ need to categorise things after the fact. It’s a family tree just like any other. There are no lines of demarcation really. ‘Species’ is a fuzzy category; you can’t look at the history of lifeforms and point to one parent-offspring coupling and say: here a new species formed. It’s all a giant continuum.
From my perspective, it is completely futile to participate in KF’s challenge if 150 years of research and publications have not convinced some members of this forum. What could I possibly say that had not already been brought up and discussed before? I’m not saying there is an inherent bias against the very idea of information and knowledge being created but it’s very tiring just to be continually told ‘you have NO evidence’ and ‘your view is illogical and unproveable’. There’s no reason to bother with a 6000 word essay in the face of such nay-saying. Why create a new target which will not further a dialogue or convince anyone?
Hello Kantian Naturalist, just a couple of quick comments…
The issue is guided versus unguided. And their answer to your question resides in the reaction given to any consideration of the former.
Darwinian evolution exists as a result of recorded information. As a consequence, it is entirely dependent on the material requirements of recorded information. Darwinism cannot be the source of those material requirements, and hence, it cannot be an explanation for them. To say otherwise is to propose that a thing which does not exist can cause something to happen, and can be an explanation of it happening. So there is definitely something else to account for – there are many.
Maybe there’s a more precise way of putting some of these issues:
(1) teleology: should we be realists or anti-realists about teleology?
(2) agency: does teleology require an agent, or can teleology come about without agency?
I can happily accept that (Epicurean) materialism entails anti-realism about teleology, and since I am a realist about teleology, I’m not an (Epicurean) materialist. It is a further issue as to whether Darwinism entails Epicurean materialist.
Now, here we have to be very careful. It’s quite true that many passionate defenders of Darwinism have been Epicurean materialists, some reluctantly and others as if they were bringing tidings of joy. (I presume that it is the anti-clericalism which makes Epicurean materialism as attractive now as it was in ancient Greece.) But guilt by association is not logical entailment, and as a quasi-philosopher, it’s the latter which interests me. Which is to say: would be irrational for someone to affirm Darwinism and reject materialism? I do not see any reason why it would be. Hence, Darwinism does not entail materialism — which is completely different from whether someone who was already committed to materialism might find Darwinism attractive.
I said above that I might an “anti-Darwinist” on a suitable interpretation. Here’s why: if Darwinism entails anti-realism about teleology, then I’m against it. If it doesn’t, I don’t care so much.
Now, on the second question, about agency: clearly, there are some teleological systems that are the result of agency. We call those “artifacts”. But clearly it doesn’t follow that just because some teleological systems are artifacts, they all must be. What would be needed here is an argument that the feature which artifacts and organisms have in common — namely, their teleological structure — is best explained in terms of what we know about artifacts — namely, they are (typically) the result of some intelligent agent.
From where I sit, the differences between artifacts and organisms are so great that the comparison just can’t work. It boils down to some version of, “artifacts and organisms are exactly the same, except for all the differences”.
Matters are made somewhat worse by the belief that empirical knowledge alone cannot identify the nature of the intelligent being responsible for organismal teleology. If were to begin with the assumption that the designer is God (perhaps made on a priori grounds?), then at least we could frame the issue in the terms that Steve Fuller uses: is biology just divine technology? And, as he nicely puts it, the real issue is about how we regard ourselves: as “junior creators” or “senior creatures”?
As for myself, I think that the question as Fuller frames it — are we junior creators or are we senior creatures? — is really the heart of the entire issue, and we should just talk about that.
UBP (42):
Is that not a pitfall of the design hypothesis? Until you’ve proven a designer exists that is. Otherwise aren’t you begging the question?
Also, would you consider tree rings recorded information? Or air bubbles trapped in ancient layers of ice? Or datable sedimentary layers of rocks with fossils?
Kantian, I think you may appreciate this article I ran across yesterday:
Can you spot their unwarranted philosophical assumption Kantian?
Jerad,
This position only really makes sense for the person who happens to know that no designer exists, otherwise it assumes its implied conclusion. It also attempts to offer parity to evidence we don’t have in lieu of evidence we do have. I do not have to know whether or not a designer exist in order to know that Darwinian evolution requires recorded information to exist and operate. And finally, this position ignores the fact that we believe in many things we cannot see. We believe in them because we see their effects. To say that the recorded information (which makes life possible) is not such an artifact is, once again, simply an assumed conclusion.
The rings of a tree trunk are nothing more than the state of a tree trunk after having grown for a number of seasons. Those rings (spcifically their number) only becomes information if a capable mechanism brings that information into existence (of which transcription by our visual system is one such capable mechanism). Also, if the arrangement of a thing is “recorded information” merely by virtue of its existence, then everything is recorded information, and we’ll need a new word for those things which are actually arranged to record information. We will have taken a very unique physical phenomenon in the cosmos (information about something recorded in a material medium), and by virtue of our seemingly endless ability to create information from all things, we will have forced that phenomenon onto all things. Its an anthropocentric fallacy, and is completely unecessary. Of course, we are natural symbol-making, information-genrating entities, and it is completely normal for us to think that things “contain information”. But for a human to view a tree trunk and say that it has grown for 10 seasons, he must acknowledge that he has put himself into the system and it is he that has become informed. Without him, that information would not exist, even though the state of the tree trunk remains.
F/N: Day four, and the crickets are still chirping. Of course, the usual pattern of attack attack attack continues. KF
PS: KN, we know that UD is closely, even obsessively monitored and harshly [often, utterly unfairly] critiqued by several objector sites. TSZ is just one of these, and is full of some very familiar names. We can be assured that the objectors know the offer is on the table but are refusing to take it up; knowing that if they had something devastating that actually cogently outlined a clear warrant for their blind watchmaker OOL and OO body plan as well as OO man, mind etc claims, it would have devastating impact. The highly obvious fact of studiously sustained silence, especially in the teeth of the glaring fallacies in the summaries from Wikipedia standing in for the empty chair, speaks volumes.
Has anyone saved CR’s posts? If so please post the link here. Thx, Tobi.
as to per CR:
Quantum teleportation!
That a photon would actually be destroyed upon the teleportation (separation) of its ‘infinite’ information to another photon is a direct controlled violation of the first law of thermodynamics. (i.e. a photon ‘disappeared’ from the ‘material’ universe when the entire information content of a photon was ‘transcendently displaced’ from the material universe by the experiment, when photon “c” transcendently became transmitted photon “a”). Thus, Quantum teleportation is direct empirical validation for the primary tenet of the Law of Conservation of Information (i.e. ‘transcendent’ information cannot be created or destroyed). This conclusion is warranted because information exercises direct dominion of energy, telling energy exactly what to be and do in the experiment. Thus, this experiment provides a direct line of logic that transcendent information cannot be created or destroyed and, in information demonstrating transcendence, and dominion, of space-time and matter-energy, becomes the only known entity that can satisfactorily explain where all energy came from as far as the origination of the universe is concerned. That is transcendent information is the only known entity which can explain where all the energy came from in the Big Bang without leaving the bounds of empirical science as the postulated multiverse does. Clearly anything that exercises dominion of the fundamental entity of this physical universe, a photon of energy, as transcendent information does in teleportation, must of necessity possess the same, as well as greater, qualities as energy does possess in the first law of thermodynamics (i.e. Energy cannot be created or destroyed by any known material means according to the first law). To reiterate, since information exercises dominion of energy in quantum teleportation then all information that can exist, for all past, present and future events of energy, already must exist.
notes:
KN:
I see your:
Au contraire, we ALL know that in schools it is routinely taught — on pain of administrative action against teachers and legal action against school boards that dare to suggest otherwise — that we had origin of life by spontaneous chemical and physical forces in some warm pond or similar venue, leading to a gradual process of branching-tree evolutionary development from a common ancestor to the various body plans in the fossil record and today, including us.
This is taught in the name of Big-S Science.
Those who dare to question or challenge, are dismissed as carrying forward a “war against Science,” often in alleged service to some suggested right wing fundamentalist theocratic tyrannical conspiracy.
Let me cite the US National Science Teachers Association Board in an official statement:
The US National Academy of Science is subtler but makes the same basic point:
Indeed, we know that in a recent case, where a radical new attempted redefinition of science that turns it into applied materialist ideology, was being challenged, these two august bodies jointly threatened that students who were taught a traditional, historically and philosophically well warranted understanding of what science is, does and achieves, with the inescapable limitations [tracing to the limits of inductive — and yes that is a proper and valid term, whoever may want to pretend otherwise — reasoning and knowledge], would be branded with a scarlet C by this new magisterium and held hostage against admission to good Colleges and jobs etc.
As to the claim that Darwinists don’t really believe what has been summarised, let us clip from comment 18 above [safely buried and apt to be forgotten under dozens of subsequent comments for the moment . . . ], where Wiki is standing in for the empty chair:
Nor is this anything new, as I cite in the IOSE unit on Body Plan origin, here is how Darwin closed late editions of Origin:
He was of course clever enough to rule a datum line across origin of life (hence the rhetorical weasel words on a Creator) — a case where his appeal to natural selection would run into the problem that this is not there as a possibility before reproduction arises, and only put his thoughts on that down in a letter, full well knowing that this would soon enough be ferreted out in the typical Victorian “Life and Letters of . . . . ” that was bound to be written for him sooner rather than later.
The very fact that the ONLY diagram in Origin as first published was the expanding tree of life, serves to highlight that a tree has a root, and that the idea was that origin of species was intended to point to origin thereafter of major body plans by cumulative descent with unlimited modification to span the world of life.
So, the question, where is the root, is a relevant and reasonable one.
It is also the case that most plainly shows the basic gap in the whole, want of a mechanism that adequately explains the origin of FSCO/I on a basis that has good and reliable empirical warrant.
So, the silence is indeed speaking loudly.
Louder and louder in fact.
The challenge is still on the table, for good reason.
KF
UBP (46)
But if you and I look at the same artefact, like DNA, and you conclude design (and therefore a designer) and I conclude no design then isn’t it fair to consider the matter undecided and therefore no designer or design has been established?
Tree rings can also indicate dry and wet years and other ‘information’ about the climate at the time the ring was made.
Are you saying that unobserved information is not information? Like an unobserved falling tree in the forest makes no sound?
Does DNA have information before it’s observed or acted upon? Is it arranged?
If I write a phrase on a piece of paper, show it to a friend (so the information is perceived) and then leave it in a cave where it sits for 200 years not being observed does it lose its information?
That’s quite right — and the exact same point holds for “the genetic code”. We make sense of it in terms of “information,” the only difference between that we make sense of genes in terms of protein sequences and we make sense of tree-rings in terms of seasonal variations. If the the organization of tree-rings is ‘informative’ in only an anthropocentric, projective sense, then so too is the organization of nucleotides.
Snip, for cause. KF
Ditto. KF
KN: One wonders how the Thomists can put up with it at all.
Indeed!
Kantian Naturalist:
I say we’re both!
Jerad:
Well, you do seem to be coming on board with the idea that information, to be information, must be information about something.
Now, to whom, or to what, do tree rings communicate information about climate?
That’s what you are saying, if you’d just stop long enough to think about it. 🙂
Think about why DNA is different from tree rings.
It never had any in the first place.
Assume you wrote in Fnglish. 40,000 years from now some alien with no knowledge of English comes across the (miraculously preserved) paper. Does the alien, having observed the paper, obtain the same information as your friend?
If not, what happened to the information?
Kantian Naturalist:
You don’t see any fundamental difference between tree rings and ordered sequences of nucleotides that a read off a strand of DNA?
Jerad,
I notice neither your first nor your second comment to me challenges the fact that Darwinian evolution cannot be the source of the very thing it requires in order to exist and operate. I assume from this it will remain unchallenged.
You are absolutely free to consider all the evidence and conclude non-design. Do you extend to me the same latitude in the face of evidence you cannot resolve? For instance, if you are a student of biology, should you be free to conclude design without having your University faculty pole students and track how many they were able to “convert” over the course of a semester? Or if you are on the faculty, should you be allowed to conclude design without having the remaining faculty post a special page on the University’s website for the express purpose of railing against you? Or if you are among a technical staff who produces course materials on origins, should you be allowed to produce (however modestly) course materials that mentions these issues and their possible implications? Or should these issues simply be ignored, and the possibility of design unambiguously promoted as resolved? And what if you are neither a student of biology, nor a professor or coursework provider; but simply a citizen of a modern culture. Should pseudo-governmental associations leap over your conclusion (that the question of design is open) and seek public policy and court judgments to the contrary? Just exactly how far are you willing to offer me the freedom which you will, in turn, expect from me – and are you prepared to actually stand for your convictions if you find they are being trampled upon?
A tree falling in the woods creates sound as a matter of physical law, requiring nothing of an observer.
I am not certain this is a coherent question. Does an information carrying medium carry information if it is not arranged to carry information?
It retains its representation(s) over the time it is unread, but no information is transferred from those representations (i.e. think Rosetta stone). These are not difficult concepts to understand.
Kantian Naturalist,
Without even the slightest hint of equivocation, this is simply and plainly untrue. It is not defensible from an evidentiary standpoint.
To result in the effect “Hey this tree has lived 10 years” requires the protocol in my visual cortex (and cognitive faculties). To result in the effect of adding leucine to a growing polypeptide requires only the protocol imbedded in the genetic translation system. It requires nothing of me.
Ditto. FYI, a “minimise what was done then try to twist it about” does not reach a reasonable threshold. If you go into someone’s living room and slander him thoughtlessly, then on refusing to take back are asked to leave then keep coming back and doubling down, what is that saying; it is not intrinsically different online. FYI, as linked on already there is a longstanding and harmful willful, spiteful well-poisoning slander of design theory per Forrest et al. If you want to discuss design issues on the merits, you do not propagate or allude to it as though it has [no] merit. KF
Folks: Anyone notice the continued chirping crickets on the focal topic? KF
CR, the empirical fact that quantum information exercises dominion on a photon of energy in quantum teleportation is what empirically establishes the permanence of quantum information. I referenced the IBM research page for that particular point, but you, in your usual less than forthright manner, go straight to the theorems which I merely referenced that strongly support the overall point.
Quantum Teleportation – IBM Research Page
Excerpt: “it would destroy the original (photon) in the process,,”
http://researcher.ibm.com/view_project.php?id=2862
Because of the first law this statement should have stopped you dead in your tracks, but you pretend as if this does not matter. Of course you can believe that conservation of information does not hold (you can believe any irrational thing you want as far as I care), but then again you have that whole pesky thing of the first law of thermodynamics to contend with!
Sorry KF, I didn’t mean to take you topic off track. Will cease and desist!
@StephenB:
This is the message that was intended for you:
In case you weren’t able to read it.
Jerad:
One little thing you have omitted. Inference to design on empirically tested and found reliable sign, specifically FSCO/I.
In short it is not disagreement that counts centrally, but warrant.
Next, I see on tree rings:
Actually, tree rings — a certain physical effect in a growing tree — are not even fully reliable consequences of seasons, years and growth conditions. I gather multiple rings, for instance, are possible in a given year.
Rings are simply a condition of the growth of a tree that we can to some extent correlate with the tree’s circumstances. They are not a code nor are they an analogue index of another variable. They simply are a result of complex growth conditions.
We come along with a model of what such circumstances do, and we construct an interpretation of the projected past based on the trees, thus creating an interpretation of the past. So, tree rings are not in themselves information (though obviously any variable physical quantity can be used to store info in principle), by contrast with code strings or needles or pens and scales or plotter charts.
To help clarify, notice how I speak of functionally specific complex ORGANISATION and/or associated information.
In short, we or an entity can come along and create an informational representation, which is designed. Think of a drawing or a photograph where elements are arranged in a planar mesh as nodes and arcs with particular values. The paper or the film can store info, but it itself is not info. The informational process requires a convention and a process by which intelligence is encoded digitally or modulates something in analogue fashion, and is impressed on a carrier such that it can be received and interpreted.
KF
Folks: Anyone notice the continued chirping crickets on the focal topic?
The non-chirping crickets transfer information.
Mung: Listen to the chirping ones . . . now, da’s info I’d say!
BA: You listen, too.
Jerad: Do you have anything to say on the focal topic?
KF
CR:
Well, then, it seems that you are not referring to God’s eternal knowledge, which was uncreated, you are referring to a created set of instructions, or created information, or program that was fashioned by an eternal mind. Granting evolution only for the sake of argument, the order of events would look like this:
An eternal mind [first cause] >> produces a created set of instructions or program to guide the evolutionary process>>causing the evolutionary process itself to unfold according to that program. You are confusing the eternal mind of the programmer with the created program.
So far, you have used the word knowledge in at least three different ways, as if they all had the same meaning—the eternal knowledge of the Creator—the temporal knowledge implied in a evolutionary program—the cultural or institutional growth of accumulated knowledge—and then link them all together with the pronoun “this knowledge.” Evolutionary theory depends on the program (or what you now seem to be calling knowledge); it cannot create what it depends on. You appear not to have absorbed that point. The program must, by logical necessity, precede the process—both in priority and in time. That means that the process cannot explain the program. Programmer creates>>>Program, which informs>>>Process.
No program can exist without a programmer because no effect can occur without a cause. The point of ID science, which doesn’t get involved with the aforementioned points, is to simply provide empirical evidence for the existence of a program; the point of Darwinism is to claim, unreasonably, that the process can operate without a program, or, in your case, that the process can produce the program.
Darwinists live in a intellectual madhouse, which has been made evident on this thread. Divorced from reason’s standards, they are perfectly comfortable with morphing definitions of words, effects producing causes, arbitrary and meaningless criteria for measurement, or anything else that will facilitate long, irrational rants that say less than nothing.
No, I do not. You continue to confuse and conflate the created program with the eternal mind that fashioned it. Your error is in believing that the evolutionary process can create the set of instructions that inform and direct it. This is a logical impossibility. Then, of course, we have the small problem that you don’t know or cannot articulate what you mean when you use the word knowledge.
Again, you are confusing the program with the programmer.
The is no “supposedly” to it. The fact is that ID methodology cannot probe the identity of the designer because it is not equipped to do it.
ID’s empirically-based methodological approach is not synonymous with the philosophical points I made about God’s eternal knowledge. You can’t just refer to both elements as “it.” ID’s methodological approach can only detect the presence of an intelligent agent, nothing more. The only reason I introduced the philosophical arguments was to correct your misunderstanding about eternal and created knowledge. ID science does not get involved with those kinds of things. There are different ways of obtaining knowledge about the real world. The philosophical method is one of those ways.
ID science can say nothing about the identity of the designer. However, philosophy can prove, with no difficulty, that that the first cause of the universe must be an eternal, personal, self-existent being. You must learn to make these distinctions.
No, that is not correct. ID does not presume to say that no such explanations are available because such explanations are, in fact, available. However, ID science cannot probe that territory because it is not equipped to do it. ID scientists know what they t can and cannot explain with their paradigms, unlike Darwinist, who think that they can explain everything until someone like kairosfocus asks them to do it, at which time they fold like a lawn chair.
There you go again. “The knowledge in question” is eternal if you are referring to the eternal knowledge of the programmer, but it is created if you are referring to the created knowledge that manifests itself as a program. The program itself cannot be eternal.
Meanwhile, if Darwinists on this site are so certain of their theory that they would label it as a fact, why will they not step up and answer the challenge. Kairosfocus has asked for a 6000-word essay. I, on the other hand, am searching for just one, empirically-based reason to believe that undirected naturalistic forces could produce even one new body plan. Are there any Darwinists on this site with enough intellectual integrity to provide a rational defense for Darwinism?
Upright Biped (@ 60) wrote:
I see the situation quite differently. In the case of tree-rings and seasonal variations, we have a causally-grounded structural isomorphism which can be taken as significative by a dendrochronologist, who can interpret the rings and say, “this one here means that it was a short summer”.
In the case of nucleotide sequences and peptide sequences, we again have a causally-grounded structural isomorphism which can be taken as significative by a molecular geneticist, who can interpret the nucleotide sequence and say, “this is the gene for insulin”, “this gene means insulin,” etc.
So, in answer to Mung’s question (@ 58),
Quite frankly, no, I don’t. My view is that in both cases, we have causally-grounded structural relationships — between tree-rings and seasonal variations, between nucleotide and peptide sequences — but also, in both cases, the signification or meaning lies in the interpretative, sense-making activity of the dendrochronologist or the molecular geneticist.
In one sense, of course, it is true that the signs are there to be read — but that’s as true for tree-rings as it is for genetic sequences.
Again, I addressed KF’s claim of falsehood regarding “Creationism in a cheap tuxedo” immediately after it was made in a similar manner. At which point his objection became so generic that I apparently need to apologize for criticizing his posts and pointing out when those criticisms have gone unaddressed. Essentially, he has retreated to the claim that my criticism is “offensive”.
Unless KF wants to be more specific, then I’ve addressed his claim and my comments were not and have not been “WILLFULLY DEFIANT.”
Of course, if KF merely doesn’t want me to point on his threads because they are his threads and he simply finds my criticism “offensive”, then he should come out and say so, rather than suggest otherwise.
__________
CR Knows what he has done by now and refuses to accept that he has broken civility by propagating a slander, I will let this stand. KF
Removed for cause of persistent misbehaviour, compounding the original problem, KF
Me (51):
UBP (59):
KF (66):
UBP: I think we should all be allowed to think as we will. But when you’re teaching a course in a university department then it’s fair for you to be expected to teach the agreed upon curriculum. I fully support David Irving in publishing whatever dumb theory he has. But I also reserve the right to question his ability to present cogent topics and themes to a history class. And I would vote against giving him tenure if I were on his committee.
KF: I do because I disagree that you have proven your case that complex specified information of a certain length must be designed. Please don’t edit my post as I am merely disagreeing with you and not trying to ‘poison’ the discussion.
Me (51):
A bit of a hodge-podge, I admit. But yes, KF, I think this is on topic: can complex specified information be created by natural processes and what constitutes information. Is a record of climatic conditions contained in tree rings or trapped air bubbles information? What about the record of extinct species found in sedimentary rocks? Or does it become information only when it’s interpreted? If you say that records like tree rings and air bubbles and geologic strata are NOT examples of complex specified information then, partially, DNA is not either since it can be interpreted as a record of life development. (Only partially, I admit since part of DNA is assembly instructions.) I’m talking about pseudo-genes, transposons, endogenous retroviruses, etc. Many such DNA sequences are just along for the ride. Do they constitute complex specified information?
Mung (57):
Doesn’t matter does it. It’s ‘written down’. It’s recorded.
Nope, I think it’s information, perceived or not.
Hang on. Fairly modern men ‘discovered’ Egyptian hieroglyphs and didn’t know how to interpret them. And some ancient Greek text. And Sanskrit records. Are you saying there is no information in those records? How does learning to interpret the records affect the information?
Voyager 1 is transmitting millions of bits of data every day. It’s an amazing feat of engineering if nothing else. We on earth know the format the data is being couched in so it’s easy for us to interpret the signal. Read the information. But an alien culture might not know how to ‘read’ the signal. Does that change the information??
UBP:
Hopefully I”ve made myself more clear.
I think we agree on this. Do you think your view is compatible with Mung’s?
KF:
But there is information about that tree and the conditions it grew in. Information can be ‘read’ in the tree ring record. Otherwise we couldn’t use dendrochronology to date things. We have to be able to leap frog back via various tree ring ‘records’.
But they contain information And there is a code of sorts: dark rings mean something, light rings mean something, fat rings are different from thin rings.
What about air bubbles in ice cores? Or transposons? Or ERVs?
Yes, functional vs non-functional. Would you agree that non-functional complex specified information can be created by purely undirected processes?
So geographic stratigraphic layers are not information about past life forms . . . they contain information but are not information. Yes?
Is the ‘order’ that past life forms were preserved as fossils, information? Where does that information exist? Does it exist in the stratigraphic sequence and not in the fossils themselves?
Kantian Naturalist,
You seem to have missed the point. Here is the conversation again:
The point is that the reading of tree rings informs us alone as observers, but the reading of DNA sequences informs the organism. We may indeed observe the genetic translation system and become informed by it, but our participation is superfluous to transfer of recorded information taking place within the organism itself.
You say: “If the organization of tree-rings is ‘informative’ in only an anthropocentric, projective sense, then so too is the organization of nucleotides.” But that is patently not true. The organization of tree rings IS only informative to us; but the organization of nucleotides is informative to the translation process within the cell, and requires nothing of us.
Are you suggesting that anywhere we find information being communicated in the natural world, our observation of that process reduces it to an anthropocentric projection? Or are you suggesting that the communication of information is a human-only phenomenon, and all other instances of non-human information transfer are something else? If that is so, then can you pinpoint the exact material grounds on which you make this claim?
Jerad,
So you agree that we should promote the question of design in nature as being resolved (if that is what we “agree to”), while you yourself recognize that it is unresolved? And as for the material evidence – that which remains unresolved by any known mechanism – exactly what mechanism should we teach as the one which resolved it. (And by what facts shall we teach that)?
I have no clue who David Irving is. Are you speaking of the Holocaust-denier?
So if I demonstrate to you material evidence which is entirely unresolved by any unguided mechanism (but can be resolved by a guided mechanism), you will respond by suggesting we should be free to determine our own thoughts about these unresolved issues. But if I then ask if you disagree with the common institutional practices of not allowing such freedom, you will return to place the entire enterprise on the same level as a Holocaust-denier making up conclusions against a preponderance of material evidence to the contrary. That’s a class move Jerad. It sort-of throws into relief those people in our histories who had the personal integrity (or professional discipline) to stand up for the truth of the matter, doesn’t it?
Removed for cause, KF
CR:
I was very clear in stating more than once that God’s knowledge is eternal and uncreated. I was equally clear in stating that the program which informs and guides any alleged evolutionary process is created and temporal. So, come off of it. The remainder of your post is little more than an attempt to dramatize the opposite of what I said as if I had said it. Please stop doing that and attend to the substance of what is being said. Better yet, provide one good, empirically-based reason for holding that naturalistic forces alone can produce the diversity of life.
Removed for cause, KF
Removed for cause, CR knows how to contact me and resolve the matter if he wishes to. Notice, as well the consistent side tracking of discussion from the focal matter of a challenge on the table to warrant the assertions of evolutionary materialism. It is quite evident that supporters of that system think it is a default and that that which differs is what is ipso facto wrong, hence the tendency to attack, attack attack, and to smear in so attacking. KF
CR:
I have made it clear several times that God knows everything that can be known and has known it eternally.
As I explained to you previously, you use the term “this knowledge” in multiple ways to serve multiple functions, an unfortunate habit of mind that makes your comments unintelligible, your arguments meaningless, and your objections inappropriate.
Unbelievable.
Oh great, just what I was hoping for—another series of rambling phrases searching for an idea.
SB: ID science can say nothing about the identity of the designer. However, philosophy can prove, with no difficulty, that that the first cause of the universe must be an eternal, personal, self-existent being. You must learn to make these distinctions.
I have arrived at a well-warranted, empirically-based conclusion that you are not prepared to engage in a rational dialogue. I could recommend a reading list for you, but you would not follow up on it because you don’t recognize the need for it. Very sad.
CR, Your criticisms of my remarks remain meaningless because you fail to orient yourself to the argument I make. You do this deliberately, preferring to criticize your definitions as opposed to mine. Take for instance your definition of protocol versus mine. Even though it has been given to you several times (along with the reasoning of why it is the way it is), I’ll happily wager you cannot provide my definition, and compare it to your definition. To do so would expose the intractable weaknesses in your criticisms. Actually, please allow me to rephrase that – to do so would expose how completely vacant your criticisms are, and why you prefer to criticize your definitions as opposed to mine.
UBP (75):
I was being a bit cheeky as I think the issue IS resolved. I was wanting to see what you’d say and you sensibly turned the question back onto me!!
That’s the guy.
I used David Irving as an extreme example, one I thought we might agree on. I can’t get into Mr Irving’s mind so I don’t know what he’s really thinking but it’s pretty clear to everyone else that he’s a bit delusional.
I have said many times before I have no problem with matters of faith. I have no claim on THE TRUTH but I do think it’s fair for academic departments to ask their teachers and lecturers to stick with the widely accepted models which are supported by the evidence, have great explanatory power and are in line with well understood processes.
Obviously you can’t and shouldn’t judge people’s job performance based on things outside of the workplace.
By the way, I’ve been involved with an academic situation where some faculty members were not following department agreed upon procedures and topics.
Then by all means, please provide the evidence-laden unguided mechanism which has been shown to resolve the origin of the iterative system of symbols which Darwinian evolution is dependent upon. Such demonstrations are what empirical science is about, correct?
And if that mechanism is not available, then on what evidentiary ground did you base your conclusion? Is it as I suspected in my earlier comment – an assumed conclusion in the face of material evidence to the contrary? What material facts do you suggest we use to teach assumed conclusions to science students?
Folks (NB Jerad and UB):
From late yesterday afternoon I have been tracking a tragic event relevant to Montserrat.
On the focal matter of this thread, I observe that it is now day five and the crickets (and tree frogs!) are still chirping on the focal topic, never mind the repeated let’s get back to business as usual for objectors to design theory, attack attack attack.
This underscores the significance of Philip Johnson’s rejoinder to Lewontin et al, in 1997; as is of course noted in the OP and as usual ignored by those eager to get back to business as usual attack attack attack:
I think my Gran’pa was right: every tub must stand on its own bottom.
KF
PS: Jerad needs to realise that the living tree is chock full of FSCO/I and is credibly designed, right at the outset. Its rings are produced by step by step controlled processes riddled with design and are not simply blindly produced by the environment. That said, we still have a pattern of events and an object that is shaped by them, no relevant functional info exists in absence of a process of interpretation and a system of source encoder/modulator, transmission or storage, detection, decoding/demodulation and sink. Information exists in the context of such a system, as opposed to potentially variable physical quantities that could be manipulated to store or transmit info by some protocol, perhaps a species of pulse width modulation [= ring width and colour] here. What we have so far is an environmental effect not communication of info in a system. The D/RNA based protein assembly process is sharply distinct from that. And obviously the organisation of an object that is complex and functionally specific, its wiring diagram as Wicken speaks of, is deduced by inspection and insightful analysis, by an intelligent observer. So, this is a case of associated info, which may have been implicit in how it is organised.
SB:
Thank you for your patient interactions and contributions.
It seems that CR and others don’t realise that they do not have a right to cavalierly smear others, by making insistently invidious associations or assertions or otherwise. (And, he insisted on sustaining such in the teeth of more than adequate correction. CR needs to realise that one who is civil does not insist on a slander, demanding proof otherwise to arbitrarily selectively hyperskeptical degrees of warrant. Do you not see how close that sort of demand is to the “reasoning” of bigots of various types too numerous to mention?)
First, the Creationists of today are on the whole responsible people who have nothing to do with extremism and potential theocratic tyranny. One may wish to debate the scientific claims some have made or the hermeneutics, but that is not even remotely related to the behaviour of Torquemada et al. And, it should be noted that the two leading acknowledged saints in Spain at the time condemned the behaviour, and less saintly people were such a threat that that villain had to go about with a military escort at all times. So, even in a fairly autocratic monarchy, this was a clear aberration.
Going on, design theory and its reasoning are simply distinct from that of Creationism, something that needs to soak in. And CR’s attention has already been drawn to correction in the WAC’s but he refuses to heed it.
The difference is patent, but let’s state it. Job 38 contains the nubbin: the Creationist view (per the voice of God answering a puzzled Job out of the storm) is that we were not there and so cannot credibly know the remote past of origins. So, we need to consult the record provided by enscripturated revelation and on the basis of appropriate exegesis, develop our science to be consistent with the thus known past. That is why there is a strong emphasis on Biblical matters in such sites online or in Creationist books, conferences, videos etc.
Faith seeking understanding as you so aptly documented in the WACs.
Design theory, as you highlighted, moves in exactly the opposite direction, from empirical facts and traces of the past observable in the present to an examination in the present of causal factors and their reliable consequences and signs. Then, on sign we may infer per well supported inference to best explanation to credible cause, as from deer track to deer. Where FSCO/I is a well established sign of design, per present investigations and is a major feature of the world of life from the micro-structures of the cell to the major features of a body exhibiting a functional body plan. Similarly, fossil traces from the past of origins point to the same FSCO/I in the past.
So, on such inductive — CR does not like induction and imagines that Popper has cornered the market on truth on the matter — inference to best, empirically grounded current explanation, we can responsibly conclude that the world of life is strongly stamped by signs of design. Indeed, this includes symbolic digital codes, algorithms, etc.
What modern Design theory — right from Thaxton et al on in the early 1980’s — then also notes is that on scientific inference, we do not have warrant from the world of life to infer design being by one or more designers within or beyond the cosmos. Indeed, that is a specific point where Thaxton in particular marked his distinctive difference from Creationism and what it was seeking to do. Where also — pace the slanders and maliciously false reconstructions of Forrest et al in NCSE, ACLU etc — and as was taken hook line and sinker by Judge “copycat” Jones — the timeline shows that this was not the legalistic gambit to evade a ruling of 1987 that is being spread as a toxic smear.
It seems to me that the reason why we have a fight here is really that the origin and diversification of life is the hill that evolutionary materialists chose to take their stand on. A stand that was premised on the notion that blind forces of chance and necessity were adequate to account for the world of life, contrary to the old design argument theologians such as Paley et al; though it should be noted that Paley had some quite useful insights on inferring design [as opposed to whatever onward theological arguments he may have made that may be challenged], including on the implications of a self replicating watch in Ch 2, which somehow seldom — it is like hen’s teeth — comes up in Materialist dismissals. Accordingly they dumped Wallace who begged to differ overboard, and forgot him.
Now, it turns out on further developments that the world of life is brimming over with signs of design, from the use of digital code to store the information of life in the cell on up. But the institutionally locked in a priori materialism cannot admit the import of that evidence or the ideological agenda would collapse, as Philip Johnson said. Not because design of the world of life is a proof of God, but because the materialists made the world of life their exhibit no 1 on why no explanation by designers, especially God as candidate, was necessary or credible.
As I and others have repeatedly pointed out, a sufficient — as opposed to necessary — causal explanation of the world of life would be a molecular nanotech lab some generations beyond Venter et al. Indeed I have predicted that it is credible that we will create life in the test tube de novo across this century.
But that is a side issue, the real deal will be the creation of self replicating automatic factories, that allow the development of a global village construction set that transforms the third world. If the Bussard electrostatic potential well fusion approach or something like it pans out, we are looking at a transformation of energy systems too, and the creation onward of a rocket drive capable of reaching Titan in 74 days. In short, solar system colonisation beckons, and in particular Mars and the asteroid belt.
Beyond that, the stars, one way or another.
I lay that out, so CR and others can begin to understand the sort of sci-tech-development vision that animates people who are attracted to design thought.
It is high time to be rid of the poisonous atmosphere that such objectors have created.
What about the role of — shudder — God?
Isn’t that the point of design theory?
Isn’t that “proved” by the evidence of the Wedge Document, etc?
The problem we have is that there is a tendency to look for reinforcement of an ideology, a point where ideology departs from objectivity and scientific thinking.
There is more than enough evidence to see that inference to design on the world of life is not equal to inference to God, and the fact that the Design movement includes prominent agnostics and even one or two evident atheists should serve as a notice on that.
The spirit of design thought on the world of life is different. Reverse engineering, in one word. Reverse engineering to foster technological transformation and dramatic progress. Does development transformation of the 3rd world move you, and onward does solar system colonisation move you?
Come on.
Oh yes, God.
There is a branch of design theory that DOES point to something that looks a lot like God.
The Cosmological design inference on observed fine tuning of our cosmos.
And lo and behold one of the leading lights there (as the linked will show) is Sir Fred Hoyle, who was a lifelong agnostic; at minimum.
We have built into the basic physics and structure of the cosmos some astonishing features that are fine tuned to set the observed cosmos to an operating point that facilitates C-chemistry, aqueous medium cell based life. The wonder of water, is more than enough to get started on that. We have serious grounds to infer to intelligent design that had the knowledge, skill and power to design and build a cosmos, and ultimately is beyond the inherently contingent world of atomic matter. Where the related philosophy (this is not theology reading texts, it is phil pursing the logic of explanation) points to a necessary, hugely powerful intelligent being with mind as the credible root of being
And the discussion there is far less contentious and poisonous that that poisoned by the behaviour of the ardent Darwinists and fellow travellers.
That tells us something.
So, CR at al need to stop the slander games and turnabout tactics in response to correction, and set about civil discussion.
KF
UBP (83):
The mechanisms behind the modern evolutionary synthesis have been described and elucidated for over 150 years by many people much brighter than myself. Not much point in me going over it all again if you haven’t bought their arguments.
If you look at the biogeographic record, as Darwin and Wallace did, you realise that there are species and genus and families of life forms that only exist in certain locations on the planet. It is possible to begin to construct a tree of descent relationships, a tree of life as it were, from looking at how life forms seeming spread across the planet and changed and adapted to their local environments.
If you look at life forms’ morphologies you can also build a similar tree of life. Not exactly the same I grant you. And not complete either. The fossil record is a partial ledger of some of the life forms that lived a long time ago. We can date the fossils and add them to our morphological tree of life extending it to over 500 million years in the past. Also, the locations of the fossils add to the geo-diversity picture.
Darwin also looked at the ability of breeders in recorded history to modify and change the morphology of plants and animals. He knew the underlying variations were inheritable and that that made plausible the idea that the changes seen in the morphological tree of life as extended into the past and viewed geographically were part of a continuum, not isolated life forms.. For 100 years new fossil discoveries and new species discoveries enabled biologists to refine their life trees and add new branches. Sometimes new subsets were discovered. But nothing pointed to a separate tree. It all fit within certain limits of our knowledge. There was nothing contradictory.
When we gained the ability to look inside the heritable mechanism we found a whole new way of drawing our tree of life. In fact, many different ways based on which chunk of DNA we focused on. (Not just genes mind you, the universal genetic code, transposons, ERVs, pseudo genes, broken genes, number of chromosomes, it all points in the same direction.) While each of those trees differed slightly from each other and from the morphological and geographic trees the main branches and divisions mostly held. The new knowledge was concordant with the old knowledge. All lines of evidence were giving the same indication: life on earth arose by common descent with variation.
In short the modern evolutionary model of how life arose on this planet is coherent, self-consistent (within knowledge bounds), agrees with other sciences like chemistry and physics, has great explanatory power, is supported by multiple lines of independent evidence and does not include extra assumptions or special pleading. Nothing outside of known and observed processes are required. And we have observed many smaller steps occurring. Our big jigsaw picture is not complete by any means but every new piece we find eventually makes sense in the bigger picture once we figure out where it goes.
As far as I can see, it’s the most parsimonious and powerful model going. It’s simple and elegant and it works. Just like a good theorem in mathematics.
I’m sure this mini-essay has flaws and some badly worded sections. And I’ve probably left some things out. But I just made it up rather quickly so be nice please. And remember, you did ask.
This has nothing to do with the modern evolutionary synthesis. MET is silent on the origin of the biosemiosis. It cannot logically be the source of the material conditions required for its own existence, unless you believe that something which does not exist can cause something to happen.
With this answer, you did nothing but punt away inconvenient evidence. Welcome to a real time exposition of your pseudo-scientific ideology.
That modern evolutionary theory doesn’t account for biosemiotics tells us only that we don’t have a completely adequate theory of life. But from the claim that the theory doesn’t explain everything, it doesn’t follow that the theory is mistaken with regards to what it does purport to explain, namely adaptation and speciation.
Upright BiPed,
Do you enjoy beating your head against brick walls?
UPD (87):
I’ve said many times I’m not well versed enough in the OoL issues to discuss it intelligently so I will stay out of that part of the discussion. I made my statement just to cover the other aspects of the general topic.
Kantian Naturalist, Jerad
MET cannot be the source of the material conditions required for its existence.
This is a point that you both skipped over from comment #42. Darwinian evolution requires the existence of heritable recorded information. Heritable recorded information has specific material conditions in oerder to exist (this both as a logical conclusion and an universal empirical observation). As a consequence, Darwinian evolution is entirely dependent on the rise of those material conditions. It cannot be the source of them, and hence, it cannot be an explanation for them. To say otherwise is to propose that a thing which does not exist can cause something to happen, and can be an explanation of it happening.
Quite right — from which I conclude that Darwinian evolution, since it presupposes the existence of life, cannot explain the origins of life. Nor does it pretend to.
UBP (91):
Obviously evolution requires the existence of heritable recorded information. I didn’t address the origin of the the first basic replicators for reasons I’ve mentioned. Why are you going on about it? What specific material conditions are you thinking of? Aside from the basic template and enough ‘food’ and conditions conducive for replication.
What do you want me to say, that I know how the first replicator arose? I don’t so I’m leaving that for the experts in the field. I don’t think it had to be very big though.
Jerad:
Does the existence of recorded information require evolution?
Who said anything about the first replicators?
How did the information arise? It sure as heck wasn’t read off of tree rings. Tree rings didn’t exist.
UPB, maybe you should change your argument from ‘heritable’ to ‘transferable’?
Mung (94):
Give me an example. I think air bubbles trapped in ice layers contain information, no evolution required there. I think sedimentary layers of rock contain information regarding their ‘journey’ no evolution required. I think the bands of magnetic polarity on either side of the mid-Atlantic rift contain information about tectonics, no evolution required. I think the moon contains information in it’s geology and make up and crater patterns that make it possible to hypothesise about how and when it was created, no evolution required. I think radioactive dating tells us about the age of non-living deposits.
What particular information are you referring to? Except for the first replicator information in genomes came from variation (including duplications) and natural selection favouring variants that were better able to exploit their environmental niche. The ‘information’ in their DNA was ‘generated’ via the mutation and selection repeated over generations. The selection was not random, it depends on the environmental conditions.
KN:
How can a theory which denies the reality of species, explain their origin?
😉
Kantian Naturalist,
I don’t want to misrepresent you, I’m going to mark up your text a bit, let me know if you object:
We maintain that genetic sequences are of a completely different kind than tree rings. Like trying to compare apples and Deep Blue.
Please see Figure 2 in the following paper (p 112):
http://www.toriah.org/articles/yockey-2000.pdf
No human observer is required for that system to exist. There is no similarity when it comes to tree rings.
Removed for cause. Evidently CR does not understand that when you have slandered your host, and will not pull it back but then go on to want to come back and demand that the host prove the obvious, simply compounds the problem. And of course the context of the problem has already been adequately explained (cf latest remarks at 85 above). “Criticism” is not an excuse for slander. KF
TSZ poster keiths has a blog post up about why [he thinks] ID is incompatible with the evidence that Darwinists appeal to for their theory of common descent.
http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/?p=1331
Toronto quips:
I laughed.
One has to wonder if Toronto has ever taken a serious look at evolutionary theory.
Anyone care to speculate on whether Lizzie’s program is more complex than the CSI it allegedly generates?
Joe Felsenstein:
Could you first just explain what a Fitness Landscape is?
Have you or anyone else over there at TSZ read:
Reconstructing the Past (Sober)
Evidence and Evolution (Sober)
The Logic of Chance (Koonin)
keiths:
Therefore, Darwinian Evolution is true.
Note how since keiths cannot put forth a positive case for as requested by the OP in this case, he has to go on the attack against ID.
keiths:
Common descent is not a threat to ID, much less a serious threat.
As far as evidence, does the word cherry-picking ring any bells?
I have a question I’ve been wanting to ask for some time:
Can it be called common descent if a designer ‘helped’? If there are gaps which could not be spanned with purely natural, undirected processes then is it still common descent?
Perhaps it’s just me but I always thought common descent meant via purely natural, undirected processes. With no intervention. Purely the result of strict parent/child propagation.
Based on my version of common descent I would say anything involving a designer was NOT common descent. But perhaps we should discuss the matter to make sure we’re all understanding each other.
What do y’all think?
Seriously.
Removed for cause, as pointed out. KF
CR,
You should know by now that I choose not to engage any argument you might put forth in any thread hosted by kf.
Jerad,
You don’t see patterns of descent with modification in technological artifacts? Or is there some doubt in your mind that such artifacts were designed?
keiths:
lol. The “big tent” of ID does not “shelter” either group. I myself often challenge young earth creationists, for example.
And even given the creation of separate kinds Creationists accept common descent within those created groups.
To someone in the ID camp reading this, you probably look like a complete moron who hasn’t a clue about ID.
ID’ers do not argue that unguided natural process can’t do it, therefore a guided process. No wonder you were banned from UD. You’re off to a rollicking start there keiths.
It can only get better now. I hope.
keiths:
lol.
Well, I read all the way through. keiths seems to be arguing not for common descent, but for universal common descent. There’s a difference, and the evidence is different, depending on which you are arguing for.
As such, I expected to find some mention of the things shared by all living organisms. Wouldn’t they be the strongest evidence for universal common descent?
Alas, it was not to be.
Given the opening statement, I expected to find discussion of specific evidences. But alas, those too were missing. Maybe a future post?
Removed for cause of insistence on sustaining slander. KF
Removed for cause, apparently CR thinks we are foolish enough to confuse slander with genuine criticism. KF
Mung,
The funny side is it could be easily argued that evidence for Common Descent is not compatible with the blind watchmaker thesis, ie the modern synthesis.
Mung (with special reference to Keiths):
It looks like more of the same, default a priori evolutionary materialism backed up by attack attack attack and complaints against censorship.
I see Keiths:
That is a statement in willful defiance of duties of care to truth hoping to profit from the false being perceived as true by the intended audience, a slanderous lie — I have linked a definition from Wiki — motivated by bigotry.
A lie, in the face of a challenge now approaching sixteen days to simply put up a positive case for blind watchmaker thesis evolution, which I have personally promised to host at UD.
Sixteen days of a serious and open offer and nothing put forth to do so.
Sixteen days in which, if there had been good will a new leaf could have been turned.
Instead, we now clearly see the usual tactic of red herrings, dragged away to the feet of strawmen soaked in ad hominems and set alight through incendiary words. The better to cloud, confuse, choke, poison and polarise the atmosphere.
It should be clear that — for the most recent instance — neither of Onlooker nor CR were asked by me to apologise or leave threads I host until they crossed the threshold of bigotry.
Yes, bigotry.
Calling or implying that those you object to are invariably ignorant, stupid, insane and/or wicked is bigotry. (Yes, Dr Dawkins, bigotry. And, how many years have you kept this bigotry up?)
Suggesting that serious opponents with serious questions and carefully considered views with serious intellectual pedigrees going back to Kelvin, Maxwell, Pascal, Kepler, Newton, Boyle, Bacon, Galileo and co, and beyond all the way to Plato et al are playing hidden agenda corruption of science games is bigotry.
Playing invidious guilt and demonisation by association games is bigotry.
Suggesting without extremely good warrant — and no twisting the Wedge document or citing copycat Jones or his mentors in the NCSE or ACLU and/or those who parrot them is not good warrant — that serious opponents are involved in nefarious conspiracies to subvert education, science, policy and government and society is bigotry.
Conspiracy theory-level bigotry.
Yes, bigotry.
Bigotry.
Understand that.
Bigotry.
And now maybe you will understand why I am saying you will not be allowed to play bigotry games as though nothing destructive has happened. Especially, when something serious is on the table.
So, let the record stand, that shows that for sixteen days coming on, a serious offer has been put on the table, only to be ignored and met with bigotry.
Let me take just one little slice:
Rubbish, based on the very same game I just spoke to. (E.g. It is no accident that the very first group referred to just above is Creationists. After all, having already successfully smeared these, the next step is guilt by association. STOP, just stop. Now. Enough of bigotry, ingrained bigotry already.)
The design inference is very simple, based on the premise that empirical, inductive explanations of the deep unobserved past or the like, are based on traces we observe and known empirically reliable causes that give rise to the same type of result. So, for instance we know on billions of cases that FSCO/I is a reliable sign of design as key cause. Indeed, the only observed cause, never mind ever so many dubious attempts to cloud the issue. genetic algorithms, from the very statement of a fitness function that points uphill start in a target zone and are chock full of the information built into such. The challenge is to get to such an island of function in a vast sea of configs that quickly exhaust cosmos scale resources without hardly sampling the space of possibilities.
And the objectors know this or should know it.
So, on best current empirically anchored explanation, when we see FSCO/I, the best explanation is design.
Notice, no world view level a prioris [cf evolutionary materialism and its question-begging redefinition of science and its methods), no impositions of question-begging answers before the facts can speak etc. Basic inductive reasoning.
Yes, in some moods, Creationists will discuss in terms of design inferences and warrant for same. Vastly improved creationist discussion, too.
Yes, there are those who are theistic, deistic or panentheistic, or pantheistic, or Platonist etc who accept an inference to design. They do so for the same empirical, a posteriori inductive reasoning process just outlined.
So do the agnostics and atheists who accept design theory.
So, the whole rhetorical game being played is to divert to accuse accuse accuse, meanwhile refusing to address a very simple bit of inductive reasoning.
And meanwhile, we have gone fifteen and a half coming on sixteen days without even an offer to put up a 6,000 word essay to show the positive case for the blind watchmaker thesis explanation of the world of life from OOL to the whole branching tree of major body plans down or up to us.
The crickets are chirping on this front, even while we see the heavy cannons of bigotry-laced talking points trotted out.
And, BTW, Keiths is not telling you that I said, that a parallel posting at UD and TSZ would be welcome. The debate can run in parallel and the onlookers can see for themselves just what is going on.
Biting at the hand offered in the spirit of sincere dialogue speaks volumes Keiths.
Loud and telling volumes.
I hope you have enough conscience to be deeply ashamed of your shameful performance.
Good day, sir.
GEM of TKI
In re: 96 & 97:
I’m not sure how tongue-in-cheek this is, but it bears emphasis, perhaps, that contemporary evolutionary theory does affirm the reality of species — it’s just committed to anti-essentialism about them. So anti-realism follows from anti-essentialism only in light of some antecedent view that species are real only if they are kinds. But surely any metaphysical position accepts that there are individuals. And a population is an individual — it’s just a disparate, collective individual. (I’m not willing to say that the Yankees don’t really exist, but only the players.)
Though I do think that a respectable version of Darwinism yield anti-realism about higher-level taxa, I don’t think that that commitment is really necessary to the theory. Gould, if memory serves, was hesitant to endorse anti-realism about higher taxa. Not really sure about that, though.
Of course, I agree that no human observer is required for the causally-grounded isomorphism between nucleotide and peptide sequences, by virtue of the pairing between codons and amino acids. But for that matter, no human observer is required for the causally-grounded isomorphism between tree-rings and seasonal variations, either. So I still don’t see the point at which the analogy I’m urging breaks down.
(P.S.: No, I don’t mind if Mung or anyone else adds mark-up to my posts. It helps illustrate points of agreement and disagreement.)
Mung (105):
I wouldn’t use the term common descent in those cases.
How about it, is descent with designer intervention common descent?
Jerad:
Given that you reject the idea that designs can evolve via modification of prior designs I don’t see much point to your question.
KF (111):
That seems a fairly straightforward statement of the situation. Is it just it’s conjunction with the previous statement that bothers you?
I’m not sure where CR’s bigotry entered in not having read, or been able to read, all his(?) posts but you are allowing that we can disagree with you on some of these matters surely.
And meanwhile, we have gone fifteen and a half coming on sixteen days without even an offer to put up a 6,000 word essay to show the positive case for the blind watchmaker thesis explanation of the world of life from OOL to the whole branching tree of major body plans down or up to us.
You are continually telling us that the design inference is clearly the best inference based on warrant and in the teeth of something so . . . . is it even worth someone trying? I continually hear from you and Mung and Joe and Gil that evolutionary theory is absurd and nonsensical and wrong, that it has no evidence, that the evidence is stacking up against it. I can’t really see the point of restating all the same arguments that have been made over and over again.
That being said I did, in a previous post, attempt to explain to Upright BiPed why I found the evidence for undirected evolution compelling. No one commented on that attempt. Oh well.
Mung:
I don’t think you’ve addressed my statements in post 95 trying to answer a question you posed to me. Does that mean you’re tired of the topic, busy or that my answer is not worth responding to?
That’s not what I said though. I said I wouldn’t use the term common descent in such cases. Clearly design ideas, like models of cars or computers or even works of art, can borrow from what’s gone before. It’s one of the ways dissemination is evaluated in archaeology.
My question: should we use the same term, common descent, when referring to guided and unguided descent? Would it not be clearer to use different terms? I ask in the hope of making the conversation clearer and less contentious.
Why should an unguided process just happen to be information preserving? How is “it just happened, that’s all” an explanation at all, much less a better explanation?
Jerad:
Nah, my stance is it’s not even wrong. 🙂
I think I said it turns people into useful idiots.
Sorry, in post 115 I failed to blockquote a paragraph from KF starting “And meanwhile, we have gone . . . ” I do apologise for any confusion.
Mung (118):
I remember you saying that. But there’s not much point in me trying to present my best case is there? I’m not going to change anyone’s mind so . . .
Kantian Naturalist,
There is no inherent law-based pairing between codons and amino acids. That paring is context specific; established in complete material isolation (temporally and spatially) from both the codon and the amino acid. This establishes a relationship within the system, not merely a law-based result.
The issue is not a comparison between a) seasonal effects on tree rings, versus b) the effects of nucleotides on the production of peptides. That is a frame shift you pushed in your previous response. The issue on the table was the existence of information transfer, and the comparison was the between a) tree rings and the cognitive response “Hey this tree is 10 years old” versus b) the effects of nucleotides on peptide production. You stated that they were the same thing – a human projection of information transfer. But they are not. One requires a human observer in order for the information to be transferred, and the other does not.
I will return later to respond to Jerad’s #93.
CR,
(chuckle, chuckle)
It’s all too easy for you to promote such an idea. You haven’t the intellectual integrity to actually face criticism (at least not here). You shelter your position from criticism by deliberately refusing to engage it. And when you criticize other’s positions you substitute their positions with arguments of you own making – then attack those arguments instead. You make yourself impenetrable to evidence and reason, and in the process, you become the worst kind of ideologue.
Prove me wrong:
This will be my last response to you if you do not engage the argument on its own terms, or do not directly answer the question. I predict you will do as you’ve done thus far, defend yourself by questioning the question in order to avoid it.
Jerad:
I bet not many of us here here expect to change your mind, but that has not prevented us from presenting our best case(s).
Who knows, by presenting your best case and seeing it critiqued you may actually come to see some merits to the criticisms.
Jerad:
You answered my question. You don’t think the existence of recorded information requires evolution.
As for your questions, let’s go back to your previous scenario involving Voyager 1:
So you agree there’s a distinction between data and information?
It doesn’t change the data. Since that data is not informative, it follows that it’s not information. Information informs.
What do they contain information about? Why do you think these things “contain” information rather than merely serving as a source of data?
Make it possible for humans, you mean? In the absence of interpreters of these phenomena, in what sense do they contain information?
No, it was more of an uneducated rant. Theobald’s “evidences” do NOT support unguided evolution. And unguided evolution can’t even construct new protein machinery that require more than two new protein-to-protein binding sites.
Heck, keiths, you can’t even provide a testable hypothesis pertaining to unguided evolution.
A third grader can come up with a better explanation for not having his homework finished on time than unguided evolution has for the diversity of life.
No, you just declare it and erect strawman after strawman to support your bald declaration.
And now you are very proud of yourself because it is a lot of work erecting and destroying so many strawmen at one time. You may have broken a record- heh, you surely are a broken record, skipping, repeating and just noisy.
I’ve started reading Plantinga’s Where the Conflict Really Lies, and he makes a nice point on the distinction between “random” and “unguided.”
Planting quotes Sober as saying, “There is no physical mechanism (either inside organisms or outside of them) that detects which mutations would be beneficial and causes those mutations to occur”, to which Plantinga adds, “But their being random in that sense is clearly compatible with their being caused by God.”
By contrast, by unguided Plantinga understands the claim that “no personal agent, not even God, has guided, directed, orchestrated, or shaped it [the process of evolution.”
That is to say: modern evolutionary theory says only that mutations are random, in the precise sense provided by Sober. Whether those random mutations are also unguided is a metaphysical question. So we can distinguish between what’s empirically knowable (whether mutations are random) and what’s a matter of metaphysical speculation (whether mutations are unguided).
Now, Plantinga then goes on to chastise scientists and philosophers who conflate these issues, and take evolutionary theory as basically giving us empirical confirmation of unguidedness.
At first blush, it seems to me that Plantinga is correct to do so. I say that because even though I am a naturalist, as Plantinga is not, I share with Plantinga the idea that there’s some distinction to be drawn between science and metaphysics, whether that metaphysics is naturalistic or theological.
KN,
That is correct. There is no scientific methodology which can measure the extent to which some process is guided or not guided.
Yet we repeatedly have to deal with the argument as if it’s a scientifically settles issue. Jerad himself has recently asserted that random indicates unguided while at the same time rejecting the idea that if it’s non-random it is therefore guided.
Kantian Naturalist
When Darwinists write the textbooks that influence young skulls full of mush, they make it clear that evolutionary “science” is all about unguided evolution and the creative power of ontological chance (Evolution IS purposeless and definitely doesn’t know where it is going). When they speak about it in public, however, they fight amongst themselves about whether to be honest about it or to pretend that they allow for epistemological chance (Evolution SEEMS purposeless but we can’t be sure).
Some analysts, such as Jay Richards and Stephen Meyer understand the deception. Others, such as Alvin Plantinga and William Lane Craig have been taken in. What matters, though, is what the Darwinists tell the children, and what they tell the children in the name of science is this: “Evolution is a purposeless, mindless process that did not have man in mind.”
Mung (123):
Do you really think so? After comments like these (just from this thread after your post):
If I went through some other recent threads I could find much more disparaging comments about evolutionary theory. I did give an explanation of how I see the evidence earlier in this thread (comment 86) and no one commented on it.
And so it goes . . .
Mung (124):
I know what you’re saying: the bits or the numbers therein are the data but they don’t mean anything without interpretation. Like saying that the average daily temperature of the world is just data, interpreting it as indicative of climate change is imposing or gleaning information from the data.
But I don’t think the separation is normally that great. If Voyager 1 is sending back temperature data and that’s what the scientists want to see then that’s information. You can/could say that the actual 0s and 1s, the bits, sent are data and not information but they’re just a translation of the temperature which was measured before it was translated into bits and then is reread as temperature when the signal reaches earth.
If there is a locked way of translating from ‘information’ to bits then I don’t see the distinction as being important.
Really? So when we couldn’t read Linear B there was no information there but when we learned how then there was information? Information comes and goes depending on who’s looking at the transmission medium/data? So if there’s never anyone to interpret it the information is lost? It was there when someone wrote the text but it goes away ’til someone reads it?
Are you saying seeing the bands of reversed polarity in magnetic rocks on either side of the mid-Atlantic trench contain no information unless there is someone to interpret it? Before humans learned to send down probes and ‘read’ those bands there was no information there but after we did there was? That the information just, all of a sudden, came into existence? Who created it then? What intelligent agent created the information in tree rings or when an insect is trapped in amber or when air bubbles are trapped in ice layers or when fossils are formed and then ‘interpreted’ later. Who created the information? The person who ‘reads’ it?
Again, are you saying the interpreters are then creating the information? If yes then how? If not then where is the information coming from?
Jerad:
Do you understand that there is a sharp and material difference between imposing a priori evolutionary materialism — read all five illustrative cases in point, please — and accepting common descent [with some degree or another of modification and diversification], including universal common descent?
(Behe for instance is perhaps the no 2 current scientific advocate of design theory in the world of life, and he holds to universal common descent. Similarly, the co-founder of evolutionary theory, Wallace, held to a view that has been called intelligent evolution, as can be seen in his The World of Life. [It is telling that this book has been recently re-issued by the publisher, Forgotten Books. Cf. the original post for links and do watch the vid.)
Similarly, despite many bland assurances from the evo mat establishment that there is simply a matter of cumulative effect between micro- and macro- evolutionary change, the fact of multi-part complexity dependent on tight integration of the components, and correct organisation to achieve function, shows that in the world of life we have reason to expect to see islands of function.
This is evident, first, from the fact of thousands of protein fold domains that simply do not fit a branching tree pattern and are isolated to something like 1 in 10^60 or 70 in AA config space. Similarly, we observe that small mutations often derange function and many can easily be lethal (hence our fear bordering on panic over radioactivity). Next, the actual fossil record, as opposed to the branching tree diagram often imposed on it, shows a pattern of top-down diversification [from the Cambrian fossils on], multiplied by appearance, stasis, disappearance of forms at all sorts of levels as a dominant pattern. So, we have excellent grounds to see that islands of function are just as much of a challenge in the biological world as in any other domain where we see FSCO/I. And, it remains the case that the only widely observed, empirically reliable source of FSCO/I is design.
Likewise, the term “Evolution” is notoriously slippery and prone to the rhetoric of equivocation. But, given the reason to see the islands of function effect as a serious challenge, adaptation to niches within a body plan is one thing; molecules in a pond to Mozart is quite another.
And, given the evidence just summarised, that is not just a matter of question-begging, there is a case to be answered to in the face of abundant empirical evidence.
What is being objected to is not common descent and evolution in the micro sense [accepted by even today’s young earth creationists and seen as a designed mechanism of adaptation, cf the way the immune system responds to infections as a model] or even universal common descent, but he a priori imposition of evolutionary materialism that definitely begs big questions and warps the way observationally grounded inductive empirical reasoning works in science.
And since someone out there — utterly astonishingly — is trying to pretend in the name of Popper that induction is a dubious intellectual exercise and does not extend to inference to best current empirically grounded explanation, let me underscore from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy on Deduction and Induction:
In short, in inductive reasoning [the major part of reasoning, let us not forget, and those who object will invariably be found bringing back inductive reasoning in under another name by the back door, e.g. when we see the concept of corroboration in Popper, it is a case of unacknowledged and probably unrecognised inference to best explanation across competing options . . . ], we seek to provide good and reasonable, responsible grounds of warrant for a conclusion in light of relevant facts etc.
So, where the evidence and reasoning adduced give good grounds to SUPPORT the credibility of the claim that a conclusion is plausibly or probably true, then this is a cogent inductive argument.
Inference to best current explanation fits under this.
Degree of warrant varies with the case and a reasonable man will assess that degree of warrant for itself and in light of comparable cases.
For quite painful current instance, observe how I have tracked the emerging story of the Fly Montserrat crash on takeoff from V C Bird Antigua Sunday afternoon that has Montserrat in a state of shock. Note:
In short, inductive reasoning is credible, is widely and reliably used in important situations with life and death on the line, and it counts. (And, on a personal note, try to understand having to deal with the sort of abusive behaviour that was so evident yesterday, while having to face this community tragedy and other difficult challenges at the same time. The uncivil advocates and enthusiasts of Darwin need to begin to understand some of the ways in which their irresponsible behaviour is needlessly harmful.)
As to the invidious association game where “Creationist” is used as a term of abuse and projection of bogeyman fears,t hen is used as a tar baby to try to associate design theory with a series of perceived threats to science and society, based on what are demonstrably slanders, that has been more than adequately shown above.
Similarly, the key and material divergences between the pattern of Creationist thought and that of design thought, has already been outlined here and is plain enough from many other accessible sources.
The rhetorical tactic of guilt by invidious association with the creationist bogeyman, is a slander.
And, a slander used to substitute for a patent absence of cogent response on what is an open invitation to provide positive warrant. Remember, my offer has been that I will personally host here the 6,000 word essay.
In reply to that slander, I have seen all sorts of poisonous distractions, including what looks like the tactic of being disruptive in a thread to attract disciplinary action in defence of civility, that is then twisted into a compounding Big Lie false accusation of censorship.
Remember, such stunts are in response to an offer to host a 6,000 word essay laying out the positive case for blind watchmaker thesis molecules to man evolution.
That speaks loudest volumes on the want of sound warrant for the case, and it frankly goes to character.
Let me cite the 2350 year old warning from Plato in his The Laws, Bk X, on the amorality and dangerous behaviour of nihilistic factions premised on evolutionary materialism, to underscore the point:
We can hardly say we have not been warned in good time.
It is time to think again, and it is high time for the enthusiasts and advocates of Darwin to do a lot better than this.
KF
F/N: Six days and counting for the offer as given in the headlined post above, sixteen days if we remember the in-thread offer; note as well the absence of a cogent response in light of the clips and comments from Wiki as stand-in for the empty chair. Advocates and enthusiasts of Darwin need to understand the first rule of holes: if you need to get out, stop digging in deeper.
Jerad:
First, do you understand that ancient scripts were recognised as coded symbolic representations of messages expressed as structured sets of glyphs long before they were deciphered?
Second, do you know that so soon as DNA was discovered as a double helix, the same symbolic representation under a protocol, a convention, was recognised to be taking place? (Think here of Crick’s March 19, 1953 letter to his son Michael, years before the actual code table was worked out. In the letter, Crick spoke of a direct parallel between the sequence of bases and the letters of a textual message.]
Do you see the equivocation between that which has effect because of meaning as interpreted and expressed, and that which has effect because of mechanical necessity in light of initial circumstances and the mere presence of the forces and materials of nature in the situation?
You seem to be conflating apples and oranges, because your evident underlying materialism tends to suppress the difference.
Specifically, such materialism leads you to reduce mind to matter and does not see the implied self referential incoherence.
For just one instance, in the protein assembly process, the bases in the mRNA in the Ribosome, couple to tRNA anticodons, and thus the chaining chemistry of AA’s is used. So far all is mechanism, though functionally specific in organisation and highly complex at many levels.
Now, understand the next point: the tRNA’s are loaded at a universal coupler the CCA end, that couples to the same side of the AA, regardless of its identity.
That is, which AA couples to which tRNA is not Chemically determined.
Instead, there are what I descriptively call loading enzymes, that couple to the tRNA’s based on their coded shape — like a Yale Lock’s prongs — and then the right AA is added based on the information stored in the tRNA. That is why tRNA’s have recently been artificially reprogrammed to load novel AA’s, extending the range of AA’s used in assembly.
You are equivocating the STATE of an object with its being informational. the STATE of the bubble of air in an ice field is just that, a state. The shape of a snowflake is just that. These are contingent and can be shaped by chance and necessity, or by choice.
Remember, the Shannon info metric is a measure of info carrying capacity; not of the sort of functional coded info that is being discussed at UD and elsewhere.
The process of growth of a tree, is driven by internal programs and algorithms from cells to systems, and responds to a cluster of environmental effects.
Because it is contingent, it can be used to store info, and we can come along and deduce per inference to best explanation a model of the past on the state of the rings we observe. But the state of the rings as such in the state of nature, is not a part of a source-encoder/modulator, transmitter/ storage, detector, demod/decode, sink system. It is just an effect and a state of nature working freely that we can come along, measure and record. Then, we interpret based on models of cause and effect to suggest a past timeline.
By sharpest contrast, the DNA, RNA, enzymes, Ribosome protein synthesis process uses just such a comms system, and a digital code to effect an automatic assembly process.
I am sure however, that a priori commitment to materialism will tend to suppress or cloud the distinction.
Do you genuinely see no difference between the text of this post, or the Rosetta stone or the Behistun rock etc, and the pattern of concentration of gases in an air bubble in an ice core?
What do you think it is that such is clearly telling us, looking on; never mind how it may well seem so convincingly to say to card-carrying members of your apparent party?
KF
F/N: It may be helpful to use the informational definition of entropy, to help see the relevant distinction. The Gibbs entropy metric indicates the average missing info on the specific micro state of an entity, given its macro state. That is, the system plainly has a more or less specific actual state [up to relevant quantum uncertainties], of the position, momentum and energy of constituent particles, but that specific state is not specifically described by giving the macro-observable thermodynamic state variables, hence the metric gives an index of number of degrees of freedom consistent with the macrostate. In short, actual condition, observability of that and record of it, are not to be equated. So much so, that we can define a physically meaningful and important metric of missing info.
KF:
Lost an earlier reply, my internet connection is being wonky. Oh well, will try and recreate:
I was trying to come up with a way to refer to unguided vs guided/assisted/tweaked common descent. I guess we could use common descent and universal common descent but I find that confusing since most biologists use common descent to mean unguided common descent.
I think I shall use undirected common descent to imply what most biologists mean and directed common descent to mean what I think Dr Behe means, i.e. a designer intervened at certain stages. That seems unambiguous to me. I hope that doesn’t misrepresent anyone’s point of view.
I am sorry for the plane tragedy. I hope that’s being handled with grace and compassion.
It’s hard to say without being able to see all the posts but I gather you are annoyed with being grouped with Creationists. While I would avoid such labelling I suppose the idea that a designer intervened in some way and their design(s) were implemented implies that lots of little creation events had to happen. Please don’t censor this post, I’m just discussing the issue.
I am also trying to figure out what Mung means by information. He(?) seems to think that written text has no information until it is interpreted. And that material deposits, like fossils layers and bands of alternating polarity alongside the mid-Atlantic rift contain data and not information. But I’m not really clear.
In my mind, if DNA contains complex and specified information then so does text, read or not. (I am avoiding the functional aspect for the moment, I admit.) As does any pattern, by your standard, which exhibits more than 500-bits of complex, specified information.
Of course they were, otherwise no one would have tried to decipher them. So they conveyed or contained information.
Yup, we disagree on whether or not that could have arisen via undirected processes or not though. But obviously, it’s a code!!
Uh . . . I don’t think so.
A string of bits that can be read and interpreted as the first sentence of this post has complex and specified information. Even if it’s not read? Yes?
A protein coding sequence of DNA bases contains complex and specified information whether it’s transcribed or not. Yes?
I agree there’s a difference between a code and an object. And that the code exists abstractly in some sense.
But the state of an object tells your something about it’s history and what forces put it in that state! Albeit without a code. An insect preserved in amber contains information aside from it’s DNA. You can date it, find out what it ate (if you’re lucky), maybe even figure out what time of the year it was born. From the state.
You can figure out when the magnetic poles of the earth reversed based on the polarity of datable metallic deposits. That is information about the past history of the earth surely.
The forensics around a dead body have to do with the state and situation in which it was found. And that information can lead you to determine if murder was committed and maybe even give you some clues to who the killer is. That’s information contained purely in the state of the body and the state of the surroundings.
Joe’s favourite example, Stonehenge clearly didn’t just happen via natural processes. The state of the objects in question, the stones, tell you this structure was deigned and built by intelligent designers. No text, no code, just the state.
Unless I’m really misunderstanding you I don’t see that you can’t have complex and specified information created by non-directed processes and/or recorded in the state of objects. Not the same as a code, clearly. If your argument is that it’s impossible for non-directed processes to come up with a code . . . I’d have to think about that. But can undirected processes create stores of complex specified information by putting things in certain states or configurations? I think so.
Jerad as I head out the door:
I understand, just lost an edit on a Word doc and had to recreate.
Somehow forgot to save on the paragraph.
Universal but guided common descent has always been held by a distinguished minority, starting with the co founder of evolutionary theory. The question is blind watchmaker molecules to man evo vs everything else.
The design issue does not pivot on common descent vs not.
Instead it pivots on the empirically grounded root of FSCO/I.
Similarly, nowhere at no time, it can be confidently shown, has it been empirically warranted that blind chance and mechanical necessity without guidance or influence of intelligence, has been shown to be the likely source of cell based life. The OOl challenge the root of the tree of life model, is missing.
And there is no possibility of differential reproductive success to appeal to to resolve the matter as this is the root of reproductive capacity.
Next, similarly, there is no good empirical warrant for the blind watchmaker thesis on OO body plans.
As for the blind chance and necessity driven origin of mind, that runs into self referential incoherence.
See summaries above in responses to Wiki clips and onward stuff elsewhere.
Gotta go.
KF
KF (136):
Ouch! We all know how to prevent that but we all get bit sometimes.
No, it doesn’t. Like I said, I was merely wanting to clear up one small bit of vocabulary. And, as I admitted, I was side-stepping the ‘functional’ part of functional complex specified information.
I find it quite reassuring actually. Not because I can abrogate responsibility for my actions or treat other people poorly which I try hard NOT to do. I just find that general viewpoint explains a lot about why us humans are so bad at statistical thinking on the fly, recording accurate memories of situations we observed and really, really awful at seeing the world from anything other than our own selfish point of view. I struggle everyday trying not to be such a dopey human being.
Do what you gotta do. Lots of things are more important than this blog. Lots.
Jerad @135:
Apologies for jumping in with a drive-by comment, and I’ll let you two continue your conversation, but I wanted to make one quick observation.
Jerad, one of the aspects I struggled with for a while was this very issue you are pointing out, namely some physical object “containing” information. For example, do the rings of Saturn contain information? Well, certainly a detailed description of all the rock and ice parts would be very complex and specific, so we might be tempted to think that the rings of Saturn “contain” information even though there is no code or language involved.
I had an epiphany of sorts when reading Werner Gitt’s In the Beginning Was Information (despite the books other failings, he pieces together a pretty good primer on information). It is this: Information about something is never the thing itself. Stated another way, the existence of something is not information in an of itself.
Understanding this principle makes things much clearer in terms of what we mean by information. Do the rings of Saturn contain information? No. Now if someone were to describe for us the rings of Saturn in detail, then that description would be information. However, that description is not (indeed cannot be) the rings themselves, but is a mental construct created to describe an existing reality. And a code is always used. No exceptions.
Same goes for your ant in the amber. Is it true that there are facts about the ant and the amber? Sure, there are historical realities. But where is that information? It is non-existent until someone (an intelligent agent) looks at reality and creates a mental construct, using a code and a language, to describe the reality. Then that information exists.
In the kind of situation you are thinking of, it would be helpful to think not in terms of information being contained in the rings of Saturn or an ant in amber, but the fact that there are certain physical realities that can be ascertained and then described using information.
It is critical to grasp this nuance to understand what we are talking about when we talk about information. Now we could have an argument about the definition of the word “information” and angels on the head of a pin, but regardless of the exact deliniation of the definition anyone wants to put on the word or the different types of information that may exist, the fact remains that the kind of information we are interested in (and the kind of information contained in DNA) is always code/language based, and is always separate from the thing described.
Think of it this way: (i) DNA contains information (genetic code, instructions for building proteins, etc.); (ii) there are also certain realities about DNA that could be discovered and described using information (how many nucleotides, the double helix structure, the size, type of molecules used, and on and on). We must not confuse the latter with the former. There is a very important distiction.
Eric,
I hear what you’re saying but . . .
We know that the earth’s magnetic core has reversed many times in the past. That’s information. Where did it come from? I’m not just describing the varying polarities of magnetic rock deposits.
We know the dinosaurs died out about 66 million years ago. Where did that information come from? Did we create that information? Did it not exist before us modern humans made it up? Does that mean it wasn’t true before that?
We know lots of stuff about occurrences in the past that we haven’t observed and we have no written records. Where does all the information come from?
I’m not sure this information way of looking at things is very helpful. Why don’t we just focus on the stuff we can deduce from the evidence?
IF:
that description was something we did not already know.
and more substance-free trope from dr boo-who-
No, it was more of an uneducated rant. Theobald’s “evidences” do NOT support unguided evolution. And unguided evolution can’t even construct new protein machinery that require more than two new protein-to-protein binding sites.
Heck, keiths, you can’t even provide a testable hypothesis pertaining to unguided evolution.
dr boo who:
Well obvioulsy ID is the only rational and reasonable choice seeing unguided is out.
Umm they say they have already refuted it. IOW you have no idea what you are saying. But nice of you to prove my point- that you have nothing.
________
Joe, kindly adjust your tone. I notice that once the int3ensity of terms you use ratchets up, you slip off the wagon. You do not need to be more than substantive to make some very good points. Let those who choose to be abusive be that, not you. (And BTW, you used a suspicious term that I do not understand about fingers; I suggest you back away from questionable terms. KINDLY, TURN DOWN THE VOLTAGE NOW. kf
keiths, clueless to the end:
1- Just about anything can be placed in a nested hierarchy. Meaning nested hierarchies are not anything special. It just all depends on the criteria.
2- Evolutionism does not expect descent with modification to construct a nested hierarchy based on traits. This is so for at least two reasons- 1- in order to hace des w/ mod produce a nested hierarchy based on traits, traist have to be immutable and additive. 2- with gradual evolution we would expect a smooth blending of traits, which would produce a Venn diagram, not a nested hierarchy.
An no keiths, we do not assume there are islands of function that unguided evolution cannot reach. That is what all the EVIDENCE says. So don’t cry just because you are unable to support the claims of your position and stop blaming us for your failure.
removed for cause, as already documented. KF
I had hoped that CR understood the issue of abusive behaviour he was presenting; his behaviour now constitutes insistent thread vandalism on top of the slanders and bigotry he has been advancing. I ask him to cease and desist, if he is unwilling to accept that he has passed slanderous remarks and has conducted himself in an unseemly fashion and needs to make amends therefor. KF
F/N: Does KS understand that e.g. paper clips — a classic classroom study — come in nested hierarchies, so also do automobiles by a given manufacturer at a given time and across time, and that this is consistent with design and with the fact that there is no empirically warranted incremental blind functional- all- the- way incremental random walk based path from any one config to any other? Does he understand that multi-part tightly coupled components to achieve function normally and naturally leads to islands of function whereby minor change within an island will be possible but significant change beyond that boundary destroys function before a new one could emerge with a new configuration? Does he understand that the real challenge on the table is to provide an adequately empirically warranted blind watchmaker account of OOL from a reasonable pre-life condition, and then a similarly empirically warranted one for the branching tree of life pattern advanced for 150 years, with adequate empirical warrant, including say accounting for the top-down Cambrian life architectures, and that this is now going a-begging for sixteen plus days total?
keiths:
keiths also seems to think that “the Designer” should have created living systems with none of the characteristics of living systems in order to avoid the appearance of descent with modification, and that because “the Designer” didn’t do that, this is a massive problem for ID.
Mung @140:
No, it doesn’t make any difference whether I already know the information. After I read a book does it cease to contain information because I already read it? Does the DVD cease to contain information after I watch the movie. Of course not. You’re using “information” like “news,” as in: “That’s news to me.” Obviously that is incorrect.
If you were being sarcastic, I apologize for restating the obvious.
CR,
Yet your entire program of justification in Darwinism is failed by the avoidance of a simple question.
“Can a thing that does not exist cause something to happen?”
Jerad @139:
Of course there are physical realities (past, present, and future). And they can be described using information.
It is critical. Particularly because some people have a hard time distinguishing between the information contained in DNA and the so-called “information” contained in a pile of rubble (or the rings of Saturn). We have to make the distinction. Otherwise, we end up with the absurd and nonsensical position that everything everywhere is information, and we deceive ourselves into thinking that what is contained in DNA or in a language isn’t special but is just more information like everything else. Again, my DNA example is important.
Now, I am not a big stickler for semantic labels, so I am perfectly happy for purposes of discussion to let someone call the physical existence of something “information,” as long as they understand very clearly that it is vastly different from the information contained in a code/language. If someone wants to call the information contained in DNA “Information Type 1” and the information that describes the physical reality of DNA “Information Type 2,” then fine. That is a strange and questionable approach from the standpoint of information theory or what is typically understood from the term, but fine.
We could still have a meaningful discussion as long as we carefully deliniate the difference between actual information/code type information and the physical reality of objects. The first is interesting; it is unusual; it comes (at least in our experience) only from mental activity and requires coding conventions; it is (amazingly) found not only in our books, DVD’s, and newspapers, but in our very cells. The second is uninteresting; it is ubiquitous and everywhere; it comes from everything; it is about as useful as noting that “stuff exists.”
olegt sez:
What does that mean- as in a nested hierarchy of a Prius and all of its parts? Or a nested hierarchy of transportation that includes the Prius?
Man I wish thse people would learn how to propely ask a question.
Iin the second scenario well the first thing we do is get rid of the names we have given them and focus on the traits- the names mean nothing, only the traits matter.
So we would have the nested hierarchy called “Transportation”. The next level would be the categories “land”- “water”- “air”. Then you just keep filling in the levels and sets depending on the criteria used.
Denton went over this in “Evolution: A Theory in Crisis”
1- Ancestor-descendent relationships do not form a nested hierarchy
2- Nested hierarchies do not require “daddies”
Onlookers:
Do you observe how the challenge to actually put up a positive, empirically grounded case for blind watchmaker molecules to man evo, is being repeatedly diverted from?
What does this tell you, given that a solid case for such would have devastating impact on this blog and far beyond it?
KF
Joe:
You are correct in all essential points.
However, note that a branching tree evolutionary pattern can be made for the automobile which would have a timelined pattern in a nested hierarchy with cross links as new features propagate in a burst — as in horizontal info transfer.
There was also a very famous blunder by Berra on the ancestral pattern of the Corvette. This could be extended to show ancestral patterns complete with extinctions.
Indeed a trip I made to Cuba took me in a timewarp to the vehicles of my early childhood [complete with Hillman Hunters and the like, ’57 Fords, 47 ford station wagons etc], i.e. we even have a case of a land that time forgot, save for a few innovations!
The only fly in the ointment, this was all by known design.
Hence, the blunder.
KF
Oh goody, keiths has responded:
Just about anything can be placed in a nested hierarchy. Meaning nested hierarchies are not anything special. It just all depends on the criteria.
BWAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAHAAAAA
1- Prokaryotes do not form a nested hierarchy based on traits
2- Plants do not form a nested hierarchy based on traits
3- Those are life forms that refute what you just said
4- Evolutionism does not expect descent with modification to construct a nested hierarchy based on traits. This is so for at least two reasons- 1- in order to have des w/ mod produce a nested hierarchy based on traits, traits have to be immutable and additive. 2- with gradual evolution we would expect a smooth blending of traits, which would produce a Venn diagram, not a nested hierarchy.
5- Linneaus formed the nested hierarchy based on a common design. Evos stole his idea and just replaced the archetype with common ancestor and sed “see we got a nested hierarchy too”
6- Cladistics is based on traits with ancestry ASSUMED. And again it all requires traits to be additive and immutable- all descendents have to have all of the defining traits as the alleged parent population. Yet evoluttion is not like that.
Does Theobald really think that evolution predicts defining traits to be immutable and additive?
Umm biological fitness refers to reproductive success and whatever survives to reproduce, survives to reproduce. How do we “map” that, exactly?
Fuzzy overlap/shading/ gradient fill pattern rather than Venn diags that CAN be expressed in a hierarchy?
Joe Felsenstein:
Just call me prescient:
http://theskepticalzone.com/wp.....ment-16439
Maybe when KF talks about “islands of function” he’s not using the same metaphor.
Design DON’Ts– The Landscape Island
I was able to find this article:
PROBING THE ADAPTIVE LANDSCAPE USING EXPERIMENTAL ISLANDS
What would an island on a biological fitness landscape represent?
Removed for cause, as long since noted on. Until CR resolves a fairly serious matter of bigotry and incivility, he will not be welcome in threads I host. He knows this but seems to be playing a game of feeding a further slanderous talking point that insisting on resolving matters of civility that have been raised by CR’s wrongful conduct is a condition of participation in discussion; this is not censorship as he know, it is insistence that a serious problem be resolved before a discussion can continue on reasonable terms. . CR needs to observe that other critics continue to comment and discuss without problems, this is because they have not stepped out of the pale of civil discussion. CR should draw a lesson therefrom if he wishes to be a part of threads I host, noting in particular that he cannot relabel slanderous conduct as “criticism” and induce me to go along with such behaviour. KF
In re: 127: glad we agree!
In re: 128: I’m not quite sure if the suggestion being made here is that students are being successfully indoctrinate with anti-teleology. I’m presently teaching an introduction to philosophy (big state school in the South), and when we did a week-long unit on Darwinism vs. I.D., I found that many of my students didn’t know anything about Darwinian evolution. It wasn’t taught in their high schools. Yet they are perfectly happy with moral relativism, and bristled at my suggestion (increasingly insistent as the semester passes) that there are objective moral truths.
Onlookers,
observe the pattern of attempted turnabout of the burden of proof. Notice, every attempt is made to get us to forget that there is a challenge to produce a 6,000 word positive evidence essay.
Meanwhile there is now a debate over the shapes of fitness landscapes. Try some occasional sand banks emerging from a sea, with hiilocks that move around but in a limited time zone will be more or less fixed.
Then address the issue of finding these zones by blind random walks of atom configs, in a warm little pond or whatever. Then, factor in the scope of genomes starting at 100 – 1,000 k bits credibly, and the scope of config spaces for such. 100 k bits has 9.99 * 10^30,102 possibilities.
If you want to speak of narrow sampling frames, then start with selecting blindly from the power set of the first tier space.
Then translate this into the genome info stored as an effective string. (If you want to look at the functional organisation that too can be converted into a suitably structured nodes and arcs description and coded in a string, so this is WLOG.)
In short the config space I have in mind is reducible to the lattice for a string data structure of sufficient size and we can profitably talk in terms of Hamming distances and zones where we have specific complex function and much larger zones of non-function. Obviously we are here in hyperspaces well beyond our ability to draw.
Then, think in terms of the challenge of search via blind chance and necessity, on the gamut of the solar system or the observable cosmos, given the set of possible configs of strings of that sort of length.
That is just for OOL.
Go on up to strings on the order of billions of bits to capture the world of life.
Then ask yourself, where is the empirical warrant for incremental origin of major body plans, starting with the Cambrian.
KF
Eric: “No, it doesn’t make any difference whether I already know the information.”
Ah, memories:
http://www.uncommondescent.com.....you-asked/
CR now wishes to pretend again that the issue of the “Creationism in a cheap tuxedo and theocratic anti-science tyranny” slander has not been adequately pointed out, explained and discussed, or that he is now now involved as a trollish enabler in a further, “this is UD playing at censorship” smear. Removed for cause of insistent uncivil conduct. KF
And in perfect form, CR relentlessly dodges the question yet again:
The operation of the Darwinian mechanism in inheretance and evolution is something I neither find inconceivable, nor do I reject it. Where do you go with your deflective ad homs now?
I cleared that up long ago. I could be wrong about anything. So could you. Fantastic insight, eh?
Utter double-speak [snip]
You refuse to integrate material evidence and rational observation because it inteferes in your justification in the Darwinian mechanism. You cannot even so much as address it.
_______
UB, please watch tone and language. Also, don’t feed da troll. KF
CR,
Can a thing that does not exist cause something to happen?
Its a simple question. Answer it.
C’mon Mung (@160). You’re smarter than that. And I know you’re smarter than that. And you know I know you’re smarter than that. 🙂
I’m familiar with the idea MacKay is conveying. But what you wrote in your comment is still information, nonetheless. 🙂
MacKay is distinguishing between the statistical Shannon level of information (that a lot of folks get hung up on) and the semantic level of information and pointing out, quite rightly, that information in the sense we are interested in has an important semantic component; a simple statistical Shannon-type description is inadequate. He then gives an example of how to recognize this semantic aspect of information when we interact with it. I agree with his point and example.
Yet the fact that information has been once communicated doesn’t mean it ceases to be information. Again, once I read a book, does it cease to contain information? Of course not. Let’s not confuse the inherent information with the “that was news to me” kind of colloquial idea.
keiths:
A trillion times huh? How did you measure that?
What evidence?
Let me explain what I did not miss. I did not miss the shift from an assertion that ID was incompatible with the evidence for universal common ancestry to one in which you argue instead that unguided evolution is just a better explanation. A “trillion times” better.
What argument?
What data?
Ah. Parsimony. What about maximum likelihood?
So. Evolution is unguided. That’s 1 assumption. Evolution is guided. That’s one assumption. Looks to me like the score is tied and we’ll need to appeal to something else to establish which assumption is the most parsimonious.
Look keiths, let’s simplify. Assume I am an ID’er who does not reject common ancestry. Choose simply one evidence for common ancestry, and present an argument for why it is incompatible with ID. That’s what your OP claims you’re going to do. I just haven’t seen it yet.
“Intelligent Design is not compatible with the evidence for common descent.”
That’s your thesis. That’s the argument you need to make. Arguing about which theory better explains the evidence doesn’t advance that claim.
When I say, what evidence, what argument, what data. That’s what I mean to point out.
KN:
My (sobering) experience is that on any reasonably technical subject, you will find that most HS students have but the vaguest recall once the exam is safely in the past.
I would suggest that Darwinian naturalism is presented as the standard view in ever so many formal and informal contexts that it is inconceivable that students will have not had any exposure to it. This is not the 1920’s.
As to objective morality, that is a case of even more deeply set saturation coverage, and presented in the guise of “values clarification” and derivatives since those days, it will fix the notion that morality is relative. The students have been raised in a relativist cave and will struggle to recognise the apparatus of the shadow show, much less to go up the ascent to the outer world that it will take considerable time to see differently.
When belief and value systems have been deeply indoctrinated, they will only break through major crisis.
So, that resistance you report is not unexpected.
Plato would have smiled.
KF
Mung:
Why doesn’t KS simply produce a 6,000 word essay on the empirical warrant that grounds accepting molecules to man, blind watchmaker evolution as credibly scientific knowledge, instead of playing at the you ID’ers are too dumb to understand game? KF
Hi Eric,
Well, I’m not alone:
KF,
My guess is that to do so he would need to actually learn some of what this “evidence” is, figure out how to present it, and then see it subjected to critique.
He doesn’t really know what he thinks he knows.
What he thinks he knows doesn’t actually demonstrate what he thinks it does.
He doesn’t want to find out that he’s wrong.
Better to not go there.
Eric (139) . . . I think. There’s so many posts off topic .. .
Okay. I’m trying hard to understand. Can we talk about a particular situation.
Did the dinosaurs go into a distinct period of decline about 66 million years ago?
Is the answer to that information?
Is what happened then information?
Where did that information come from?
Did that information exist before human beings were able to understand it?
Is it possible for non-directed processes to created information?
Why haven’t Mung and KF and others addressed these points?
______
Jerad, I am processing the impact of a national tragedy, where one of the best teachers in my son’s school was killed (as well as two others, incl the pilot) in a plane crash Sunday afternoon, on her 29th birthday. A really lovely young miss. They had to shut down the school y/day morning — crying from the principal on down; and this evening is the second candlelight vigil. As for info, the D/RNA in the heart of the living cell is coded and algorithmic info, causally prior to living cells that make proteins based on DNA. The decline of dinosaurs, whenever it happened is an EVENT, as opposed to semantic info describing it. The rocks with dino bones don’t have DVDs in them that play the diaries of Dr Dino Historian. A model has been made in recent years that purports to report this as almost unquestionable fact. That is way too strong of a claim for the strict degree of evidence we have. What is fact is that these animals lived and have gone extinct, leaving traces. One thing I will note is that I get just a tad dubious about claims of soft tissues and cells in bones surviving in the sort of condition recently reported for 70 mn years (without needing to commit myself to anyone’s timeline claims); I don’t think the last conclusive word has been spoken on these animals yet. More broadly, I think too much of what is presented as Science Sez on the remote past of earth needs to be tempered by a dose of recognising that we did not actually observe the past and our reconstructions have limitations. KF
Joe Felsenstein:
Well keiths, good luck now attempting to press your argument that ID is not compatible with the evidence for common descent. Until you rebut JF’s claim, I’m just going to quote him.
Mung @168:
Yes, another example of someone using the word information in the colloquial sense of “it’s news to me.”
So let’s see. I pick up a book I haven’t yet read. It has lots of information contained in it. Then I read it. All the information vanishes and the book now contains no information (pity the poor guy who picks the book up next — there is no information in it any more). Then a year later I forget half of what I read, and, remarkably, that portion of the information reappears in the book. But only until someone reads it . . . Pretty funny stuff!
Look, I understand the idea of a receiver being involved in communication of information and that the information can have the semantic effect of conveying previously-unknown material (which is really what your authors are trying to highlight, as opposed to a string of nonsensical Shannon-only “information”). But we have to do a lot better job of parsing the nuances than just saying that information doesn’t exist if I already know it or that it doesn’t exist if I don’t understand the language involved. Furthermore, there is lots of information that is operational in nature (rather than communicative, like the book example). Right now in my computer as I type this there is a ton of information being retrieved, acted upon, processed, and stored. And it is all happening — objectively so — regardless of whether I, the user, have the faintest idea what is going on or whether I fully understand every operation down to the last bit.
Yes, the communication of particular information can have different effects on me, depending on what I already know. But the information is objectively there. Whether I fully know the information already or whether I can never hope to access the information (for example, if it is in a language I don’t understand) has a great bearing on what it means to me and the impact of the communication of that information to me, but it has no bearing on whether the information is there.
In re: 166 — yes, mine as well. I was just surprised, that’s all.
Not that this is relevant, but it might interest some folks here to know that I presented the material as follows. First, I distinguished between (1) empirical science: Darwinism or intelligent design?, and (2) metaphysics: naturalism or theism? So that yields four options:
(1) naturalistic evolution (i.e. “random”=”unguided”);
(2) theistic evolution (i.e. “random”=”caused by God through means that are undetectable to human beings);
(3) naturalistic design (i.e. the designers might be aliens);
(4) theistic design (i.e. the designer is the God of the philosophers, if not also that of the Bible).
Interestingly enough, none of my students expressed any strong feelings one way or the other on the empirical question, though some of them had strong feelings one way or the other on the metaphysical side of things.
_____
Design can also be embedded in the cosmological order. KF
The disambiguation of “information” comes from viewing it in terms of its material existence alone.
Information requires a material medium? check
Information is about something? check.
Information is separate from the thing it’s about? check.
Information requires a protocol in order to achieve an effect? check
From this, a coherent, unambiguous view of information can be formally understood, and that understanding can be tested over and over again in real-world situations. Information can be transcribed (copied) by law-based (rate-dependent) processes (such as vision, auditory, and tactile input) or it can be conveyed through rate-independent structures (such as language, gestures, codes, and nucleic sequences). In all of these cases, information will be materially arbitrary to its resulting effect, because it is not a concrete thing being transferred; it is only an abstracted (and incomplete) form of that thing, resulting in an specified effect.
Hi Eric,
I don’t believe in nonsensical Shannon-only information either. Nonsensical information is an oxymoron. Even Shannon information is information about something.
And is there any question that it involves the exact same concepts, though in terms of reduction in uncertainty? As ID’ists we should not fall prey to misapplication of information theory.
How much “Shannon information” is contained in the following: 00101
KN,
Say organisms guided their own evolution. Where would that fall in your list?
cheers
In re: 176,
I suppose that would depend on whether one held that view on a priori grounds — because it seems to be the most reasonable or least improbable view — or if one held that view on empirical grounds.
Personally, though I accept teleological realism, I take that to mean that organisms purposively direct their own behavior. Whether that extends to their evolution is a difficult question. I suppose I think it does not, because I think of evolution as a consequence of their behavior but not itself a part of it.
I take very seriously the problem of abiogenesis, because if one is a naturalist (as I am), the problem is one of figuring out how non-teleological processes (what is described by the laws of physics and chemistry) gave rise to teleological processes (what is described by biology). So far as I can see, one part of the solution will require rethinking what we take “non-teleological processes” to be. It seems to me that the most promising naturalistic solution will involve thinking of matter as itself essentially ‘proto-teleological’, which is why I’m strongly sympathetic to self-organization theory.
That said, I’m the last person to insist that we actually have in our possession a naturalistic theory of abiogenesis. It remains a real problem. If I had the mind for organic chemistry and biochemistry, I’d be working on it myself. (Unfortunately, I don’t have the mind for it, as my college transcript clearly indicates.)
KN, I suggest a look at Plato in The Laws Bk X. There is also a reason why when I taught intro to phil, I began from Plato’s parable of the cave. Since I am not exactly a movie fan, it was a student who pointed to The Matrix. KF
KN:
At last, someone who is serious:
This of course would point straight to cosmological design, especially in the context of the already known.
KF
KN:
As for me, I think “non-teleological process” is an oxymoron.
So I took this home DNA test that’s been advertised on this site, and I flunked. Do you think it’s me, or the test?
I’ve read that section, and also some of Timaeus. The argument in Laws struck me as frustrating. It seemed to be something like this:
(1) moving things are either self-moving or other-moved;
(2) organisms are self-moving movers;
(3) but they are not originally self-moving movers (because each organism comes from some other organism);
(4) self-moving movers require an originally self-moving mover;
(5) mind is an originally self-moving mover;
(6) so mind is the cause of organisms.
(1), (2), and (3) look fine to me. I’m not entirely sure about (4), and the way the argument moves from (4) to (5) to (6) worries me. I can’t shake the feeling that something’s gone wrong here.
And it just seems odd to me to think that the rise of Democritean atomism was somehow responsible for Alcidiabes’ moral corruption, but I don’t know. Thucydides portrays Alcibiades as vain, intelligent, and narcissistic, which would be enough as it is without attributing his corruption to Democritus’ aprioristic anti-creationism.
A few years ago I read Creationism and Its Critics in Antiquity, and I use Sedley’s narrative as part of the structure of the ancient philosophy course I sometimes offer. (The other part of the structure traces the narrative from the Sophists through Thucydides’ History to Plato’s Republic.)
In re: 179
Yes, I think that cosmological ID is in much better shape than biological ID. The only metaphysical alternative to cosmological ID is the multiverse hypothesis, and that’s just a 21st century version of Democritean aprioristic anti-creationism, only with universes instead of configurations of atoms.
(I use the Myth of the Cave, too. When I started teaching, in the mid-90s, students were quick to point out the analogy with The Matrix. First-year students today don’t even know it. I’m going to have see Inception just to stay au courant with my pop-culture references.)
Joe Felsenstein:
Well Joe F, common design doesn’t explain everything. It explains why there are similarities.
Building codes, IEEE, -> standards Joe. When constructing things to the same sets of standards there is going to be some degree of similarities, ie some degree of a common design.
But it doesn’t stop there. Common design also applies to the same part being used for entirely different purposes- a car tire is obvioulsy used on a car but also used in an automatic baseball/ football throwing machine and to rotate carnival rides.
So common design does NOT explain the differences observed. That is explained by design requirements. For example my computer needs to communicate with my printer so the communication ports have to have the same parts to allow for communication to occur. And if the printer has a microprocessor, well that circuitry will be very similar to the computer’s microprocessor circuit(s). However the differences between the two are explained by the different design requirements of each machine.
Not that you will ever understand any of that…
KN:
Yes, I’ve read that one as well.
Are you aware of:
The Patristic Understanding of Creation: An Anthology of Writings from the Church Fathers on Creation and Design
http://www.uncommondescent.com.....available/
Joe Felsenstein:
Well no Joe, that’s just not true. As an educator, I’d think you would want to be better informed.
You see, your typical YEC thinks everything was created perfect, and then THE FALL, and it’s been all downhill ever since. So junk DNA fits in just fine with their theology, thank you very much.
I don’t care. I don’t accept the young earth theory. I think the earth is old and that life has existed on the earth for many many years.
keiths needs to address ID’ers like me. He’s the one who lumped us all together. All I have to do with arguments like yours is say, so what.
More JF:
Any creationist who argues like that is a moron. Can you cite one?
Horizontal gene transfer does not “show that the tree is not a perfect tree,” and the fact of HGT and it’s impact on your ability to reconstruct a phylogenetic tree is not a creationist inspired plot against evolutionary theory.
I asked how many over there had read Koonin. You want to know the relevance:
And evolutionary theory, in all it’s marvelous plasticity, now uses the new data as evidence of common descent. You gotta love it.
keiths on October 10, 2012 at 1:06 am said:
lol. Let the revisionist history begin!
If it makes no difference to your argument, why did you feel you needed to include it in your post. Numerous times! Trillions of times!
Why would you consider the fact that I identified this whole issue about which is the better explanation as being irrelevant to your argument “bizarre,” when the reason that I brought it up was to point out that it fails to advance your thesis in the slightest.
keiths:
Let’s not suppose that. Let’s suppose that you’re going to actually set forth evidence and an argument to support your thesis that “Intelligent Design is not compatible with the evidence for common descent.”
To me, that’s the more imaginative flight of fancy.
But you’re only on Part 1. We can wait.
In the post you cite I also wrote:
Eagerly awaiting.
Keiths:
But the “things” unguided evolution explains trillions of times better are “things” like disease, deformities, and losers. And ID agrees that when it comes to those things, unguided evolution is the best explanation.
So we are in agreement then. Glad I could help.
Joe Felsenstein:
JF, I just find that hard to believe, when folks over there at TSZ just keep bringing it up.
Mike Elzinga:
At least Mike doesn’t call it a biological fitness landscape.
It’s nice to hear that living organisms are a very delicate phenomenon that exist within a very narrow energy window.
What sort of fitness landscape is Mike talking about?
If DNA is 98% junk, that’s an awful whopping amount of jumping about the fitness landscape an organism can do without being destroyed in the process.
keiths:
Am I allowed to quote you? Or would that be quote-mining and therefore be non-responsive?
I don’t see any questions worth wasting my time on.
Get back to us when you’ve posted Part II. Honestly, your time will be better spent on writing Part II than on writing and posting responses to comments on your Part I.
Intelligent Design is not compatible with the evidence for common descent
1. What is this evidence for common descent you speak of?
2. Why is ID not compatible with that evidence?
Just one example, keiths, one example only.
Joe Felsenstein:
No, Joe, that is not what I said.
So? Why is that unfortunate? Unfortunate for who? Is it unfortunate for keiths’s argument? Isn’t that the same thing I was saying?
I predict that either you or keiths will post a brilliant and devastating response. But given that some omni-benevolent deity might intervene and turn it into an asinine and puerile response, my prediction is not scientific.
Is that what you have in mind?
Chalk one up for ID predictions.
I guess it remains to be determined whether such predictions are “scientific.”
keiths:
Yeah. I googled “standard phylogenetic tree”
Guess what I got. Yup. Your author.
And this:
The “standard phylogenetic tree” is a format.
And this:
Construction of standardized phylogenetic trees
Wait. There’s more than one standardized phylogenetic tree?
keiths, maybe you should get to work on Part II asap.
Keith; daring a heavy reader, to read. Now that’s funny.
Mung:
Um, if you mean that Shannon information describes some statistical property of the underlying information, then sure. But the only thing it is “about” is measuring this degree of uncertainty. I fear we must be talking past each other, because I am sure you know this.
I’m not completely certain what you are asking, but if you are asking whether Shannon information involves “the exact same concepts” as complex, specified functional information, then, no, I would not say that it involves the exact same concepts. Can a Shannon calculation be performed on CSFI? Sure. And what does it tell us? Well it gives us a statistical measure of the particular string in question. Yet it tells us precisely nothing about (i) the syntax (in most cases), (ii) the semantics, (iii) the pragmatics, and (iv) the goal/purpose of the information. All of those concepts — at the very least (i)-(iii) — are important aspects of the kind of information we are dealing with in biology, in our technology, in books, etc. And all of these concepts are missing with Shannon information. So, no, we are not dealing with the exact same concepts, even though a Shannon calculation can be used to run a statistical calculation on any given string of information. Shannon information might be useful as some sort of preliminary analysis of a string, and in that sense CSFI could be seen to include a Shannon component; but CSFI goes well beyond Shannon information and contains important additional concepts.
Again, I would think that this is pretty straight forward, so perhaps I am misunderstanding your question or your point. If so, please accept my apologies.
Jerad @170:
Good questions and a bit challenging to get our heads around, so worth chewing on a bit. Let me see if I can describe it this way:
Something like the extinction of the dinosaurs is an event. An awful lot has been written about the extinction of the dinosaurs so it becomes a little challenging to distinguish between the information we know (or think we know) and the event itself. To make it simpler to describe, let me use a much simpler and more contemporaneous event.
Suppose you are standing near a hillside and suddenly you see a rock roll down the hill. That is an event. Does the event “contain” information? Well, the rolling rock is not expressing any creative, operational or communicative information that we could possibly understand. There is no code, there is no language. Fair enough, but what about the circumstances of the event? Surely there is information contained in all this? And this is the tricky part.
You could, using your faculties and your prior knowledge describe the event. Your description would then be information you have created, and it could be conveyed in any particular language convention you choose. But the event did not “contain” that information; you created it.
A couple of points to further illustrate:
– First, as to the question of when an event occurred. Suppose that a week later someone were to ask you when the rock rolled down the hill. The answer would be “one week ago” and that would be information. However, and this is key, that information was not contained in the event. That is information imposed from outside, using our pre-existing understanding of time and our conventions of communication. If we doubt this, suppose that the viewer instead is seeing a simple video of the rock rolling down the hill. The question is then posed: “Can you ascertain from this series of images when the rock rolled down the hill?” The answer is no. Because that information is not contained in the event itself. It is imposed as part of a mental exercise from outside of the event.
Second, we know that information can be conveyed in various forms (written text, ones and zeroes, different languages). And the particular medium or language convention does not alter the substantive information. Instead, the information exists independent of the particular instantiation of the information. So after you saw the rock roll down the hillside, we could demand: “OK, now translate the information you just received into binary.” The logical response would be “What information? What are you talking about? There is nothing to translate into binary. Perhaps you want me to describe the event or analyze the event?” In other words, the event itself does not contain information. Now as soon as you, as a mental exercise of an intelligent being, describe the event, you have created information. And once that information exists we can easily translate it into binary or any other appropriate language form.
——-
Again, if someone insists that events or objects themselves “contain” information by their very existence I suppose I won’t begrudge them using the term. But we must be extremely clear that it is not “information” in any substantive sense that we normally use that term or as is understood in information science. Furthermore, the use of that definition is pointless, because it is tantamount to saying that information is everywhere, at all times, in all things, which, perforce, means that kind of definition is useless for any of the interesting things we are trying to do with information, whether it be in computer applications, cryptography, literature, or bioinformatics.
Information as we are interested in is characterized at a minimum by a code, a syntax, and some kind of semantics. Although descriptions of events and objects constitute this kind of information, this kind of information is not contained in events and objects themselves by their mere existence.
In re: 185, no, I’m afraid I haven’t. I’m neither interested in nor knowledgeable about theology, truth be told. Thomas Nagel, writing about Plantinga in The New York Review of Books, suggests that to a believer, an atheist looks like someone who has “a spiritual blindness of which he is unwilling to be cured”. So be it.
I do have a lot of interest in resistance to materialism in early modern philosophy, though. I find Leibniz and Berkeley fascinating, and love teaching their works when opportunity presents itself. Lately I’ve been enjoying Epicureanism at the Origins of Modernity, which I hope to finish soon.
I’m finding participating in this thread increasingly frustrating owning to the large number of comments directed at people on a thread on another blog!! I don’t understand why comments regarding that distant thread can’t be made on that thread. At the very lest why can’t there be an Uncommon Descent thread purely for responding to threads on other blogs.
Eric (194):
That the event occurred is information yes? How the event occurred is information yes? When the event occurred is information yes? “A rock rolled down the hill” is informative. “A rock rolled quickly down the hill” has different information that “A rock rolled slowly down the hill.” “A rock rolled down the hill yesterday at 5:23pm under a cloudless sky with 8 crows flying over head and ran over a sheep.” Where does the information come from? If the event hadn’t occurred then there is no information to convey?
Hang on . . . if a rock rolled down a hill and crushed a sheep there is no information unless I describe it? I’m not sure the sheep would see it that way!
I can understand that a description contains information but I can’t get my head around that the information didn’t exist until the description was created. AND, given that, aren’t tree rings and sedimentary deposits descriptions of past events? Is not a tree a witness to climatic variations which are recorded in it’s variable growth?
When we make statements about the past, create information as you put it, how do we know what to say? I would say we read the information from the physical record. Otherwise we wouldn’t be able to make the statements. I would say we synthesise and translate and codify the information but we didn’t make up the information.
Not from the series of images okay but you might be able to by examining the site of the event. By looking for natural records of the event. Just like we use maggot growth to help establish how long a body has been dead. The state of the maggots convey information about the body.
That the event occurred is information though isn’t it? No matter how it’s expressed. It affected the surroundings, changed the configurations.
Perhaps I should just stop trying to get this. I understand having a metric for measuring information in a particular format. But I don’t see how information is only created when something is described.
KN:
Up in the middle of the night.
I see your attempted reduction of Plato to a string of propositions. In so doing, you left off several key sections of the discussion — and notice, the exchange on length that shows that P was aware that there were a lot of facets that needed to be discussed together and that would influence one another.
This is not a chain argument [no stronger than the weakest link], it is a rope argument. A cumulative case of many mutually reinforcing strands. Such is the stronger for having many such elements, however thin and weak the individual strands may seem, especially to the critical onlooker disinclined to accept.
An argument like that fits a cogency, degree of warrant per inference to best explanation model not a validity-soundness model.
Observe my clips here on, including the part where he is trying to identify the first from the second etc, and where he comes up with the idea of agency — ensoulment if you will — as a self-moved originating cause. That points to reflexivity and feedback as essential to agency; suggesting our current sense of the meta level of reflection on lower levels, nb also here on the Derek Smith cybernetic model with a loop and a two tier controller framework that allows looping again at the level of control. Then notice how he strongly suggests that such is a major aspect of LIFE, here I guess he is close to the Hebraic Nephesh principle.
In the midst of all of this, he infers a cosmological design inference by a good soul.
Going beyond all this, I would draw your attention to a key concern in Kantian style thinking — notice, I am not asserting such of any given individual, I am speaking of a tendency — with the ugly ditch between the internal reflection or perception and the external world. If there is a gulf between the two, knowledge of the external world collapses — including the now self referential claim that such knowledge is not possible. For, that is a knowledge claim relevant to the external world.
What I suggest is the more modest claim that we evidently live in an external world, to which we find our senses and mentality adapted. And that proper functioning of our senses and reflections in their proper environment gives reasonable degree of warrant though we are also prone to error, accidental and willful. The very fact that “error exists” is a matter of factual consensus and of undeniability pointing to truth being real and applicable tot he external world, and capable of warrant in some cases to undeniability. Thus, truth, knowledge [even of the external world!] and error all exist, and we are capable on the second order level, of knowing these.
That has consequences across a wide swath of how we have been led to think in our time, especially on the sort of radical relativism that has been entrenched in culture for generations now, with William G Perry championing the view that growth [!!!???] to relativism is a mark of proper intellectual maturation. A wiser more humbled model would be that we know some things and one of the chief things we know is that we make errors.
Going on to the issue of inference to biological design, the basic fact is that we live in a world where we have much experience of and credible knowledge about functionally specific complex organisation and/or associated information, FSCO/I.
One of these, is that function that depends on specific configuration of multiple well matching parts, exists in a context of a vastly larger set of possible arrangement of the parts down to the atoms, that are most definitely non-functional. The tragedy I am now processing is a case in point, of just how easy it is to derange an aircraft as a flying system in an environment that allows it to function. In short, the concept islands of function is not a dubious or question-begging one, it is rooted in a vast pool of solid experience and associated reason that understands the dynamics of multi-part function.
So much so, that the intellectual pretzels that we see ever so many otherwise reasonable people twisting themselves into to deny such per a selective hyperskepticism, are revealing of an underlying indefensible motive for the resistance to what would otherwise be patent. With all due respect, skeptical rationalisations that fall into this trap are not reasonable, but the very opposite.
Now, the evidence is that FSCO/I is a characteristic product of intelligence. Indeed, it is a reliable sign thereof.
So, when we see such FSCO/I in life from the micro-level of the cell on up through major body plans for multicellular forms, this should give us a clue on underlying cause, whatever the mechanisms used to effect that cause. there is more than one way to skin a cat-fish!
Given the “magic dust” indoctrination on the powers of so-called natural selection [a powerful PR/ad slogan if there ever was one . . . ], the proper place to begin is with Darwin’s warm little electrified pond of salts or the modern like. How do we move from simple molecules to the right set of monomers, and onwards to the exquisitely complex tightly integrated, gated, encapsulated metabolic automaton with a von Neumann coded info based self replicating and constructing/maintaining facility? On physics and chemistry without injection of intelligently sourced guiding info to a purpose?
In a context where the sheer chemical level atomic resources and times as well as plausible timeline available would be predictably fruitlessly exhausted — e.g. a blind sample of the feasible scope for our solar system relative to the possibilities for 500 bits stands as 1 straw to a cubical haystack as thick as our galaxy — by the config space for just 500 – 1,000 bits? There are not enough resources on the gamut of our solar system or the observed cosmos, to sample enough that we can reasonably expect to see any more than the bulk of possibilities. Which will predictably be non-functional.
So, we see reference to self-organisation. Now, the conventional resources of physics and chemistry do not support FSCO/I rich self-ORGANISATION, though they support self-ordering on the order of a vortex like a hurricane or the like. The only empirically warranted force in the world known to be capable of such organisation is intelligent design. So much so that when origins are not at stake we normally and uncontroversially take FSCO/I as a sign of design as best explanation. For instance you are not inferring insistently to lucky noise as default explanation for posts in this thread.
So, on simple reasonableness, so long as agents capable of designing the world of observed life on earth are POSSIBLE, we must be willing to accept the force of evidence that highlights the empirically reliable cause of FSCO/I. To overturn that, the necessity is not convoluted speculations and dismissals much less the sort of atmosphere poisoning stunts that we saw even in this thread, but empirical demonstration of the contrary.
And, remember, we know that the patterns in question are in part in the form of coded data digital programs in the living cell.
So, if you are saying that he world in which we live “spontaneously” produces entities with that code based on deep rooted dynamics built into nature, that is saying that that nature is carrying out a second level program that creates such programs. A signature of design if there ever was one, design built into the fabric of the cosmos, if it were true. The ultimate form of front-loading.
I would suggest that such front loading would need to be demonstrated and that in the meanwhile the simpler inference is a more direct form of programming.
Notice the real top tier of reasonable candidates: competing design hypotheses.
Beyond that, I have argued at 101 level here that the physics of our cosmos that sets up a world in which there are suitable life sites for C-chemistry, aqueous medium cell based life, points to design. Just think, the first four elements, depending on nuclear resonances etc, are H, He, C and O. That gets us to organic chemistry and to water. N is close to being 5th, and that gets us to proteins, not to mention fats and carbs and cellulose as polymer etc.
No wonder Sir Fred Hoyle, a life-long agnostic [at min], went on record:
In short, OOL in context of a cosmos set up for life is pivotal.
And once we have this case in hand, the main task of the birth pangs is over (the head is out of the womb and heading for birth); the rest follows as a matter of course.
We have a network of life that uses FSCO/I based on common components, to the point where when it was recently evaluated, it was found that vast swaths of the human genome are sitting there in the kangaroo, a marsupial for crying out loud.
We have mosaics like the platypus, with not only macro-level parts from all sorts of creatures, but the same continues at molecular levels. (Add in black swans and we can see that Somebody had a reason to set up Australia as the Antipodes to all comfortable speculative metanarratives!)
Gould and others pointed out that at all levels, the pattern of forms in the fossil record and in the current world is appearance, stasis, disappearance, not smoothly shading incrementalism. The tree of life model dissolves into conflicting molecular homology based trees, and we see that the best but unwelcome explanation is code reuse to fit design needs.
And so forth.
All of which is closely tied to why design is not going away quietly, having been metaphorically tarred and feathered by the Darwinist mob.
(And yes, that is a mob violence semi lynching that can easily enough kill. Those who participated in such acts, morally, are guilty of acting with inexcusably willful disregard to the safety of and justice for their victims; T & F did not put a rope around the neck and hang from a tree, but morally it was indefensible, just it was subtler so the participants could lie to themselves about what they were doing. I gather T & F of Joseph Smith not only put his life at risk, but caused the death of two of his children who were made sick because of exposure. Young children cannot be responsible for their parents’ actions. There is no excuse for such mob rule misbehaviour.)
I think we can now see some of why the Darwinist objectors, after a full week of a headlined offer and after ten further days since the original offer was put on the table in a discussion thread, have preferred to resort to mob rule thread vandalism and smear based dismissive tactics than to seriously address the challenge to write an essay in justification of their claims.
The voting with misbehaviour, evasions and turnabout tactics speaks sad volumes for their real degree of confidence in the weight of their claims on the merits.
But any rate, that is not relevant to you.
We have had a useful exchange of views, and a civil one.
I thank you for that.
KF
Jerad:
Actually, the exchange with TSZ is close to the heart of this thread, which is about a challenge to produce a 6,000 word essay on the positive evidence for blind watchmaker thesis, molecules to man evolution. That challenge was first given to you, and you punted, so it has been given wider circulation.
For you, the side issue on information, has been accommodated; if anything.
On that issue, I think enough has been said for onlookers to see the difference between an object or event and its causal process, and the shaping o a particular class of objects and events through informational actions.
The course of that exchange underscores the sense in UB’s analysis of information and its roots and context.
KF
PS: If we permit the degradation of language where information-bearing is tantamount to existing or being an event etc, then we will have to find another word for what information means. That may be rhetorically convenient to those who wish to evade the import of FSCO/I, but it is a resort to the fallacies of equivocation and idiosyncratic imposition of self-serving redefinitions. Thus it is similar to the question begging redefinition of science and its methods that radical evolutionary materialists have recently tried to impose. We refuse to accept either case. That a dinosaur existed and died is an event, our taking notice of such is an informational act. Neither of these has anything to do with the well grounded fact that in the heart of the cell lies digitally coded functionally specific algorithmic information in string data structures. Nor, with the empirically well warranted cause of such FSCO/I, i.e design.
KF (198):
I see your points. I do appreciate the indulgence. I don’t know where to bring up questions since I can’t create threads!
I’m happy to quit talking about it now. I think I just don’t get information theory beyond doing some math to ‘measure’ the amount in information in simple mathematical sequences and structures.
Hope things are settling down after the crash. I guess in a place like Monserrat just about everyone knows everyone else. It’s like a big village really.
Jerad:
There is such a thing as the work of grieving. Many are in shock, there is a rising aspect of blaming and anger at real or imagined culprits, there is a confrontation with the fragility of life and all the issues of pain and evils, and so forth.
For me, it is simply a shaking impact, of a cold probability assessment coming up sadly trumps. (I long ago determined not to fly on the puddle jumpers unless there was compelling, life hazarding level reason. I much prefer the ferry.)
I think as well the incident is a case in point on how hard it is to intuitively grasp a probabilistic analysis on the one hand and on the other it raises issues on the temptation to shave corners on responsibilities.
And somewhere out there in the fog lurks the terra incognita of Mr Rumsfeld’s unknown unknowns.
Your raising of information issues is relevant to the topic of the thread though a tad tangential. But much more important, you have been civil and serious, which earns you a right to a significant leeway.
What I have said above is that you need to be aware of the issue of degradation of language, where terms are emptied of meaning. If every discipline is now a science, then science has been emptied of meaning. Similarly, we have perfectly good words for events and objects, for remains or traces and for causes and effects.
Information needs to mark something else, something that can be expressed in many ways, translated, and shared between many sources without losing its character, meaningful and functional expression of messages as signs, analogues and symbols, typically in accordance with conventions.
Perhaps, we should remind ourselves of Merriam Webster, which in this matter will be more reliable than Wiki etc:
I highlight the definition that seems to be closest to a core view of what information is and is about.
Just as thematic ideas: contingency, surprise, learning regarding credible state, resulting responsive effects in accordance with a protocol or a model framework that guides response etc.
KF
F/N: Today marks seven days the essay challenge has been up as a headlined offer and seventeen since it was put up as a comment. The ducking, diverting and atmosphere poisoning tactics used in response speak volumes on the actual weight of the evidence on the merits. KF
keiths provided quite a bit of raw spewage, but still no testable hypothesis for unguided evolution.
Not only that those guys don’t seem to understand what a nested hierarchy is…
Oh boy, start at root A –> A.1, A.2, A.3 . . . (first order branches) –> A.2.1, A.2.2, A2.3 . . . (second order from one of the nodes) –> etc., reducible to a tree with a single root and progressively forking branches. This also gives us a case structure on keys with decision nodes and shows how WLOG all of this can be reduced to a suitably structured string. Cross links once they exist, move us to somewhat of a mesh network topology, probably an incomplete mesh. Mosaics such as the platypus put us in somewhat of a mesh. KF
We believe that God is love. Would love be something you would be interested in or knowledgeable about, as a philosopher?
dr boo-who:
Evolutionism definitely doesn’t predict one. And the one Linneaus put forth was based on common designs.
Eric @194.
Some good points. I was going to say something about what I though you believed but deleted it, and now I am glad I did. I would have been wrong.
🙂
So if I burn a book it’s rather foolish to ask, where did the information go?
Jerad @ 129:
I wrote:
Do you view that as a non-factual statement?
As for the quips against evolution theory you posted, were any of them addressed to a specific argument set forth in favor of the theory?
But really, refusing to discuss specific aspects or propositions of the theory because it might get criticized? So maybe start out with something non-controversial to get the ball rolling?
Evolution is simply changes in allele frequency in a population, for example. Guided or unguided? How do we decide?
You got to respect how keiths now tries to turn it around and put the onus on us. We’ve put forth a positive case for design. Now it’s your turn to put forth a positive case for why ID is not compatible with the evidence for common descent. Don’t try to change the burden of proof.
Allan Miller:
The ‘pebble’ we’ve been offered is that the nested hierarchy is objective, not subjective? And this is incompatible with ID how?
Mung (208(:
I do not recall asserting something exactly like that. If you could point to my statement to which you are referring I shall try and clarify it. I do remember discussing random mutations . . .
Quips against evolutionary theory? Me? Which quips are you referring to?
If you ask me a question I’ll try and answer it.
I’d say unguided is the default assumption since guided requires the assumption of an extra process or force (a designer). I’d also assign it the default because it’s the consensus view.
To then prove the changes in allele frequencies came about by a guided process you’d have to prove that some thing happened which could not have happened in an unguided scenario.
My understanding of the current ID arguments against unguided are that some events are highly unlikely which is not the same as proving they could not have happened.
Mung,
Do you mean the quips I posted by others disparaging evolutionary theory? I can’t remember exactly what sub-topic they addresses. I merely selected them as representatives of a general trend I’ve noticed at UD of making such comments. I’m sure you know what I’m referring to.
Again though, if you have a particular question or issue you’d like me to address just ask. Things are much clearer that way.
In re: 205
Interested in, yes. Knowledgeable about, sort of. 🙂
Be that as it may, while I acknowledge and appreciate the Christian belief that God is love, I do not share it.
And OMTWO proves it doesn’t understand science:
Newton’s four rules of scientific investigation contradict what you say OMTWO.
Who do you think we should side with, the father of modern science or an anonymous loser?
Then it tries to make this personal:
Anyway, anayway and anyway, I don’t.
That is irrelevant. All you have to do is demonstrate blind and undirected processes can produce it and I have nothing to say.
Of course there isn’t any such thing as A “fair DICE”- dice is plural, duh. 😛
dr boo-who cries on:
It predicts that we can make a nested hierarchy out of just about anything. Ya see nested hierarchies are purely artificial, but then again you don’t seem to know what a nested hierarchy is. So perhaps you should start with that.
Evolutionism definitely doesn’t predict one.
1 We do NOT see one with prokaryotes. does evolutionism apply to prokaryotes?
2 With a gradual process we would expect a blending of traits along any given branch.
Ya see Allan, nested hierarchies are constructed with just the TIPS of the branches when in reality every point along the branch is a transitional population- each slightly modified from the previous. That means we would have mammal-like reptiles and reptile-like mammals- a rali live Venn diagram, complete with overlaps. Nested hierarchies require distinct sets, no overlaps.
OK, just a couple of final thoughts on the concept of information and then I’ll let the thread resume its regularly-scheduled programming.
Jerad @196:
Might be helpful for us to say it this way: Objects and events have characteristics which can be described using information. Very simple example: I have a pencil. This is information. The information, however, is a mental/figurative representation of the actual object. The information is not the actual object and cannot be; information is always representative of something else.
Again, I think the bulk of the confusion arises from the very broad colloquial use of the word “information” and the idea of information being “contained” in an object or an event. If you want to use the word “information” to refer to the characteristics of objects and events, fine. But please then, every time you use the word that way, add the following parenthetical caveat: “(please note that I am using the word in a broad sense and not in the sense of information theory or in a sense that is relevant to technological/biological information storage, retrieval, coding, languages, etc.).” 🙂
—–
Mung @207:
If that was the only copy of the book, then, yes, the information is destroyed. Unlike matter and energy, information is created and destroyed all the time. An overwritten file, a burned letter, a disintegrated ancient tablet, a note written in the sand that gets washed away by the rising tide . . . This is a very interesting aspect of information and one that distinguishes it from matter and energy (and one that also highlights the fact that information is neither merely a characteristic of, nor reducible to, matter and energy).
I logged on late last night to respond to Jerad’s questions at #93, but then read through Eric’s very fine explanation at #194, and thought there was really not too much to add. Then after reading Jerad’s ridiculous treatment of Eric’s comments today, I can see there is simply no amount of reasoning or evidence that can be offered. Our universal common experience of material phenomena (like information) simply does not matter in these cases. When someone has a worldview to protect, even discussing material evidence becomes pointless.
But don’t sweat it Jerad. You can eat the fruit apple, but you can’t eat the word “apple”. There’s little doubt how you might find it difficult to identify one from the other.
OMTWO:
Yet that “explanation” can’t even produce a testable hypothesis.
Given the options that is the best explanation.
Again ID is NOT anti-evolution, only anti- the blind watchmaker having sole dominion over evolutionary processes. Also both Lenski and nylonase smack of built-in responses to environmental cues.
Or perhaps OMTWO can provide a testable hypothesis fpr blind and undirected chemical processes doingit.
keiths-
Why don’t we see an objective nested hierarchy with prokaryotes? Why are you too afraid to face the facts?
“And we don’t see a designer coming in to correct our spelling – we have programs that do it.”
hahahaha – good one
It adds the correct way at looking at organisms- just as archaeology adds the correct way of looking at a group of rocks, ie Stonehenge.
Or perhaps OMTWO can provide a testable hypothesis fpr blind and undirected chemical processes doingit.
Doing what YOU claim they can- try any bacterial flagellum.
Only intellectual cowards equivocate and you do in continually. ID is NOT anti-evolution.
Saw it and read it. Darwin didn’t know anything and he argued against a strawman. IOW he was intellectually dishonest.
Absolutely.
That doesn’t change the facts.
Whatever YOU were blathering about, OMTWO.
Man you are dense- YOU said:
YOU SAID IT – I was responding to you.
But thanks for proving that you are not only a waste of time but also a waste of sj=kin…
OMTWO:
And THAT explains the problem.
I will leave you to your strawmen and a “science” book that attacks a strawman and doesn’t provide any way to test its claims.
petrushka on October 10, 2012 at 6:44 pm said:
By being a day (or more) late and a dollar short?
See here:
http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-435866
Patrick on October 10, 2012 at 7:06 pm said:
And you’re a liar. But then, we already know that.
I offered a few days ago to incorporate an algorithm into my program.
Well, since you seem so eager, help me out.
Time for another ID prediction: You won’t.
keiths:
What discussion? We’re still waiting for you to present some of that massive amount of evidence for universal common descent you have, the existence of which is incompatible with ID. Once you do that, maybe we can discuss.
dr boo-who:
That is what we have been waiting for- predictions that your position makes when applied to the testable hypotheses that no one seems to want to talk about. IOW it is clear that you do not understand the concept of what prediction means when applied to hypotheses.
And it is a safe bet that you don’t understand nested hierarchies.
Maybe your position sez we will observe nested hierarchies when we do and we won’t when we don’t.
It predicts that we can make a nested hierarchy out of just about anything.
No Allan, not just anything you can pull from your [deleted, watch language, KF].
However for example I can make an objective nested hierarchy out of books in a library and the parts of a human body- I have seen the latter in a biology book.
F/N: Anyone who has played animal, vegetable or mineral, will know that it is quite possible to make a nested hierarchy of the list above, once we have sufficient room to set up a case structure to frame a hierarchy. The objection is silly, and it is about a strawman distortion and distraction. Notice, how far we are from a serious answer to the essay challenge, with no takes as the day eighteen mark approaches. KF
KF (228):
I’m not saying my comment (86) in this thread is what you’re looking for but it was a quick attempt to present my view of the evidence in a very general sense and no one has commented on it.
dr boo-who spews:
Onlookers notice that neither you and the TSZ ilk are too cowardly to produce a testable hypothesis for your position. THAT is what is very interesting.
Which claim is that? I say you are lying, again, as usual.
keiths chokes:
No. To date no one has produced a way to test unguided evolution.
No testable hypotheses and no way to test its claims.
For example how can we test teh claim that any bacterial flagellum evolved via accumulations of genetic accidents? Please be specific or you admit your position has nothing.
BTW any time you want to ante up say $5,000 USD I will put my knowldge of nested hierarchies up against yours. Just let me know, coward.
more keits spewage:
I would have to visit the scene and examine it. You know conduct a scientific investigation
I would have to visit the scene and examine it. You know conduct a scientific investigation.
I would ask the astronomer where he pulled gravity from. Then sit back and watch him implode.
Phylogenetic and morphological data do not support any mechanism- I would tell the biologist he is FoS.
I would then ask the biologist for a testable hypothesis for unguided evolution. Then sit back and watch HIM implode.
And ponder this- if you are an evo who needs to make up such stupid stories then it is a given thet you have nothing but desperation.
Nice job ace…
.
more dr boo-who:
Why can’t YOU just produce a testable hypothesis for unguided evolution, along with any predictions? Why are you being such a coward?
Please define “nested hierarchy”- a valid referenced definituion, please. Then explain why we do NOT observe one with prokaryotes and why that isn’t a problem for unguided evolution.
So to sum up-
Neither dr boo-who nor keiths understand nested hierarchies nor do they understand science. But they sure can spew with the best and whine when it doesn’t go their way.
To Keiths (at TSZ):
Quite the opposite. I don’t make any assumptions about how the Designer would act. He has trillions of options open to him, and he could choose any one of them, regardless of whether it produced an objective nested hierarchy.
You are making the assumption that the designer “has trillions of options open to him” (why?), and that he “could choose any one of them” (how do you know that? are you an expert about the designer’s free will?), “regardless of whether it produced an objective nested hierarchy” (so you know how many of the options would produce that, and that the designer has no reason to prefer one kind of option to another one; again, how do you know that?).
Those are a lot of assumptions.
It’s the evidence that tells us that the objective nested hierarchy exists.
Fine.
1a) Out of the trillions of possibilities, unguided evolution predicts an objective nested hierarchy; we see an objective nested hiearchy; the prediction is successful, and unguided evolution fits the evidence extremely well.
It certainly fits the evidence of the hierarchy. But, unfortunately, it does not fit the evidence of the complex biological information. You are reasoning as though the hierarchy were the only evidence available.
ID predicts neither an objective nested hierarchy, or the lack thereof; we see an objective nested hierarchy;
It does nor predict necessarily the hierarchy, but it is perfectly compatible with it. What ID does predict is the complex functional information in the designed objects.
ID proponents have to assume that the Designer chose to produce an objective nested hierarchy,
Either chose, or had to. Because of specific restraints.
which is exactly the same pattern that unguided evolution would have produced.
No. It is simply the same pattern as any form of evolution, guided or unguided, would have produced if it had to work by modification of the existing beings, instead of having to create new beings from scratch each time. It is very obvious that the first option can be the best, or the only one, available to a designer if specific constraints on how the designer can act are present in the system.
There is no successful prediction, and a completely unwarranted assumption.
There is no prediction here, but there is a much more powerful prediction about complex functional information. And there is no assumptiom at all: we observe the evidence, we infer design (from complex functional cinformation), and we reasonably infer that the designer had specific, and definable, limjitations in how to act.
Physical laws don’t require an objective nested hierarchy.
The designer has to modify matter from consciousness, through some interface. We don’t know how that interface works, and what its laws are. The real constraint is obviously how to implement the design in the material world. The simple explanation for the nested hierarchy is that it is easier for the designer to modify what already exists than to redo everything from scratch. Is that so difficult to understand?
That suggests that your embrace of ID is not scientific.
You are entitled to your opinion, however bizarre.
Keep thinking about this,
I think about many things, but I usually decide myself what to think about. Anyway, thank you for the kind suggestion.
but try to do so with the attitude that you want to discover the truth, whatever that may be — even if the truth turns out to be uncomfortable.
That is a very wise principle for thinking about anything, and I certainly can reciprocate the encouragement.
P.S The UD side of the discussion is happening on this thread, so you might want to repost your comment there.
I will copy this comment there too.
Jerad:
I see your claim that 86 above is at least an outline level response to the 6000 word essay challenge, summarising the view of the experts.
My immediate concern is from the beginning, where you speak in terms of 150 years and the modern synthesis.
However, the challenge I put gives pride of place to OOL, for good reason; and it is also the case that the co-founder of evolutionary theory from 1869 on increasingly repudiated materialistic accounts that boil down to the blind watchmaker thesis. That is why from the first I did not take your remarks as a response on the main subject, but a response to UB. For excellent reason of a drastic difference in scope.
Be that as it may, let me mark up your response to UB, presumably on OO body plan level macro-evolution:
_______________
>>The mechanisms behind the modern evolutionary synthesis have been described and elucidated for over 150 years by many people much brighter than myself.
[a –> The focus you set is ducking the first, central challenge: OOL, which in part has to account for the origin of the code based, von Neumann self replicator. Before any proposed mechanism of chance variation and differential reproductive success leading to descent with empirically grounded unlimited modification of form [CV + DRS -> DWEGUM], could be reasonable.]
Not much point in me going over it all again if you haven’t bought their arguments.
[b –> the issue is not consensus and the like but warrant. And, failure to cogently address the root of the claimed tree of life undermines all assertions beyond that point.]
If you look at the biogeographic record, as Darwin and Wallace did, you realise that there are species and genus and families of life forms that only exist in certain locations on the planet.
[c –> Descent with variation to the family or equivalent level is well within the body plan origin level. Many YEC thinkers take the family to be about the level of the baraminological [?] kind. So, you are at best dealing with adaptation of varieties within a body plan.]
It is possible to begin to construct a tree of descent relationships, a tree of life as it were, from looking at how life forms seeming spread across the planet and changed and adapted to their local environments.
[d –> This takes you to the level of discussing small branches and twigs, rather than an overall tree.]
If you look at life forms’ morphologies you can also build a similar tree of life.
[e –> Ducks the multiplicities of trees that are not consistent with one another, once the molecular and gentic similarities are used rather than superficial morphology. In addition for instance the issue of mosaic creatures and convergence on things like the camera eye — was it 40 origins of the eye or something like that — as well as say the close convergence in form of marsupial and placental forms come up as significant issues.]
Not exactly the same I grant you. And not complete either. The fossil record is a partial ledger of some of the life forms that lived a long time ago.
[f –> Ducks the issue of the Cambrian life revo, which indicates the rise of top level body plans by the dozens, right at the beginning of the story for multicellular animal life forms.]
We can date the fossils and add them to our morphological tree of life extending it to over 500 million years in the past.
[g –> Ducks the Cambrian issue again. Also the multiple, conflicting trees not to mention the root of the tree of life, the pivotal issue. Fails as well to notice that common design as well as common descent can account for a tree-like pattern, with cross links leading to somewhat of a mesh. Indeed, libraries of components re-used in diverse designs can easily account for all that we see. Also, notice, there is a huge gap on what Gould points out is the dominant pattern in the fossil record: appearance, stasis of form, disappearance. ISLANDS of form, in short.]
Also, the locations of the fossils add to the geo-diversity picture.
[h –> Only by extrapolation from variation within limits.]
Darwin also looked at the ability of breeders in recorded history to modify and change the morphology of plants and animals.
j –> Breeding by artificial selection is mostly on Mendelian variation, where characteristics tracing to multiple genes can show wide variation but with limits. Limits to breeding are a well known phenomenon. Also, this is intelligent design. yes, I know Darwin made much use of this as an analogy to his favoured Natural Selection, but in fact he was using ID as a model for the opposite of design, and mendelian variation as a model for mutations. What has simply not been empirically demonstrated per observations is a continuum of incremental variations sufficient to create new body plans, especially from a unicellular organism upwards. Where the evidence of the Cambrian fossils is of appearance of top level forms. Darwin predicted/expected that the then allegedly scanty record would be filled in, but now with 1/4+ mn fossil species [which may itself be a problem] and millions or billions of specimens int eh museum or field, the early pattern has been abundantly supported: discrete forms.
He knew the underlying variations were inheritable and that that made plausible
[k –> Telling word, especially given the above.]
the idea that the changes seen in the morphological tree of life as extended into the past and viewed geographically were part of a continuum, not isolated life forms.
[l –> Ducks the evidence of discrete forms and of top down body plan origins.]
For 100 years new fossil discoveries and new species discoveries enabled biologists to refine their life trees and add new branches. Sometimes new subsets were discovered. But nothing pointed to a separate tree.
[m –> More correctly, there was discovered a range of forms that could be fitted together in a tree-like pattern, but without the clear warrant of incremental variations at body plan level, parallel to say circumpolar gulls or the like. The tips are there but the explanatory, incremental bottom up continuum of forms forming the branches and trunk and root are missing. In short, you have been given a selective picture and interpretation, not the whole story warts and all.]
It all fit within certain limits of our knowledge. There was nothing contradictory.
[n –> False. The genetic and molecular level trees dramatically conflict with one another and with the one composed on gross form. You have been presented with a composed, artificially harmonious picture.]
When we gained the ability to look inside the heritable mechanism we found a whole new way of drawing our tree of life. In fact, many different ways based on which chunk of DNA we focused on.
[o –> And, what did these tell you about the diverse and conflicting trees that emerged? Or the pattern of uniform molecular distance in different categories of life for say proteins?]
(Not just genes mind you, the universal genetic code, transposons, ERVs, pseudo genes, broken genes, number of chromosomes, it all points in the same direction.) While each of those trees differed slightly from each other
[p –> Minimisation of serious conflict, to form a neat harmonious picture. this is indoctrination, not education.]
and from the morphological and geographic trees the main branches and divisions mostly held.
[q –> Fails to explain that there is in fact now a proposed mesh at the root, or that there is again an absence of empirical observation of the incremental forms that are supposed to have formed the continuum of forms from the unicellular ancestor to the major body plans and onward to the forms at the tips of branches and twigs that we observe. In short an overly rosy picture is being painted.]
The new knowledge was concordant with the old knowledge.
[r –> False assertion, painting an overly rosy picture and papering over material conflicts. Notice, this ducks the precise question posed for the essay of providing empirical warrant for the structure of the tree and reconciliation of the diversity of trees once molecular similarities were used to provide alleged reconstructions of the history of life.]
All lines of evidence were giving the same indication: life on earth arose by common descent with variation.
[s –> Force fitting into an artificial harmony that suppresses material conflict. That is why the essay called for specific, empirical observation grounded evidence of the claimed root of the tree of life and for similar evidence based reconciliation that shows the incremental emergence of forms and the reconciliation of materially conflicting molecular trees.]
In short the modern evolutionary model of how life arose on this planet is coherent, self-consistent (within knowledge bounds), agrees with other sciences like chemistry and physics, has great explanatory power, is supported by multiple lines of independent evidence and does not include extra assumptions or special pleading.
[t –> False, based on an imposed artificial harmony that fails to come to grips with material conflicts and gaps.]
Nothing outside of known and observed processes are required. And we have observed many smaller steps occurring. Our big jigsaw picture is not complete by any means but every new piece we find eventually makes sense in the bigger picture once we figure out where it goes.
[t –> A creedal assertion, not an empirically warranted claim.]
As far as I can see, it’s the most parsimonious and powerful model going. It’s simple and elegant and it works. Just like a good theorem in mathematics.
[u –> Again, an artificial harmony that papers over material conflicts and gaps is not cogent, but can be very persuasive to those who do not know about the limitations, gaps and conflicts.]
I’m sure this mini-essay has flaws and some badly worded sections. And I’ve probably left some things out. But I just made it up rather quickly so be nice please. And remember, you did ask. >>
_______________
Jerad, I hope you see why I insisted that the account6 needs to start from the root on up for the essay. By ruling a convenient datum line that does not force the addressing of the source of FSCO/I, much can be made out to be wonderfully reasonable. But once the root is a problem that the only empirical basis for explanation is design, then we can see from then on that design has to be on the table, not implicitly excluded by default of assumed power of mechanisms that is in fact not there.
No wonder, UB replied as follows at 87 (which you do not seem to have taken on board):
I suggest you may find it helpful to read the IOSE units here and here, on OOL and OO body plans; which I think will help you see what you were not told by those who taught you, many of whom may not know better themselves.
KF
Onlookers:
Today is day 18.
This morning, I saw a claim from Jerad that his remarks to UB at 86 above constituted at least a rough outline response. I have marked up as just above, to show why this is not an adequate response to the key issues and to the challenge that pivots on these issues.
Let me remind those who would respond or claim elsewhere or here at UD that an adequate response has been given, just what is needed for an adequate response, apart from a reasonable essay structure:
There is a very good reason why the challenge focusses on the root of the tree[s] of life, as that is where the origin of FSCO/I by blind chance and mechanical necessity is most starkly confronted by evidence, with no reasonable out by claiming the wonderful powers of natural selection.
Unless an essay answers that on good empirical evidence, for good reason, it is a non starter.
KF
PS: Dr Hunter marks up Dr Noor’s first lessons here, and as is headlined at UD this morning also. The want of a cogent, empirical evidence grounded answer to the challenge I have been outlining is painfully evident.
KF (235, 236):
Thank you for taking the time to comment on my very sketchy outline of what I would say were I to try and meet your challenge. I’ll let everyone else read it and do their own comparing and contrasting.
I can certainly see why you would like the OoL issue addressed but, as we both know, it’s not possible at this time to be specific. There are various hypothesis but there is no consensus and certainly nothing has come close to being proven or even more than plausible. So I don’t think anyone could meet your challenge. At one point you say
We will never be able to go back and see what actually did happen so I assume you’d be okay with at least some kind of experimental scenario. And I think you say as much elsewhere. You did talk about defending Darwinism (I’m paraphrasing obviously) and, since evolutionary theory doesn’t address OoL, I did try and do that on it’s own.
I do agree that there are differences between the trees you get depending on what core criteria you use but I disagree that any of the differences are fatal to the theory. I also disagree with pointing to gaps in the fossil record and using absence of evidence as being evidence of absence. In a murder case if I can prove someone was at the scene I don’t necessarily need to be able to establish how they got there to get a conviction. We can make strong deductions even without ever phase being completely clear.
Anyway, clearly I will not be able to give you what you’re asking for. But thanks for having a look at a meagre start/attempt.
Hope the plane crash crisis is settling out. In small countries you’re never too far removed from a tragedy.
and critical rationalist chimes in from TSZ:
Deny? So sorry but I cannot deny that which there isn’t any evidence for. So perhaps you should get to work, find some evidence for teh claim and then we will see.
Jerad:
I see:
The OOL issue is pivotal.
If it cannot be addressed on decisive evidence then there is no basis for making the sort of claims about blind watchmaker molecules to Man evolution that are commonly made in the name of science.
KF
To Allan Miller-
Seeing that you are so eager to say I am ignorant of nested hierarchies, I will ask you to provide a valid and referenced definition of nested hierarchy and tell me how my claims are wrong wrt it.
Linnean taxonomy is NOT based on ancestor-descendant relationships, but on defined characteristics. Linnean taxonomy is the nested hierarchy observed and he constructed with a common design in mind. All evos did was steal his idea and make it seem as if it supported them.
Any classification based on ancestor-descendent relationships, as descent with modification would be, would be a non-nested hierarchy.
Clades form nested hierarchies, again, based on defined traits- as in all these organisms share x number of traits so they must be related because we have already concluded that is so. However say the starting population gave rise to a population that lost on of the defining traits? That is totally OK with the theory of evolution, that over time traits can become lost- evolution does NOT have a direction. It would be a descendent but not included in the Clade because it lacks a defining characteristic of that Clade.
Denton went over all this in “Evolution: A Theory in Crisis”- so don’t act as if I am making all this up. I am not the only one to point out the folly of nested hierarchies wrt evolutionism.
You can run your mouth all you want. I can support my claims and all you can do is falsely accuse me and never support yours.
Well, I thought I’d drop in and see if anyone has accepted the challenge yet. No takers eh?
Jerad, if you want to know why we deride evolutionary theory, it’s because there is so little real substance to it.
But lots of storytelling, if that’s your cup of tea.
hahaha
Streambed Design
How to Design a Dry Stream Bed
Jerad:
At least, you have given your best try.
In so doing, you have accepted the gap at OOL, I have pointed out its significance. This issue is actually pivotal for the way design thinkers look at origins, and has been since the earliest modern design thinking in the early 1980’s with Thaxton et al. (BTW, a Chemist and Cancer survivor.)
I think we both have learned from it.
And, we have had a civil exchange of views.
Which, given the stunts and antics going on elsewhere, is unfortunately also significant to the point of being remarkable.
KF
Zachriel:
How are you defining nested hierarchy? It is already a given that ancestor-descendent relationships for non-nested hierarchies.
Do you think if we took all of the descendents of the “weasel” program, including the unseen offspring, that we would observe a nested hierarchy based on descent with modification? If so, let’s see it.
List your criteria for each level and each set, please.
We’re definition nested hierarchy objectively, Joe, based on what is actually there. sheesh
dr boo-who cowardly avoids producing a testable hypothesis for its position and whines:
How to test and falsify ID and the design hypothesis
Why is that of any interest at all? We are still waiting for you to provide a definition of “nested hierarchy”. It appears that you are too chicken to support anything you say but think if you keep saying it that it means something.
Exactly what I would expect from an intellectual coward because it has NOTHING to do with unguided evolution. Loser
That’s simply false.
No wonder these people don’t even try to meet the challenge in the OP, they don’t even understand evolutionary theory.
Or a tautology.
The theory of evolution predicts that complex things which evolved from simpler things must have been preceded by simpler things. big deal
Conceive of the simplest possible organism capable of asexual reproduction and Darwnian evolution.
Evolutionary theory predicts that it must have evolved (by Darwinian means) from something even simpler.
Evolutionary theory does not require that organisms become more complex as they reproduce and persist over time.
Evolutionary theory does not require that complex organisms cannot become simpler they reproduce and persist over time.
Time to resurrect the Junk For Brains winner. Congratulations Mike Elzinga!
Joe Felsenstein:
Worse, you’re misunderstanding SI, and no one there seems to have the integrity to correct you.
How are you defining nested hierarchy?
Zachriel:
Ah yes, the usual obfuscation. With your “definition” you need to define hierarchical ordering and nested sets.
It is already a given that ancestor-descendent relationships for non-nested hierarchies.
The pattern of whatever it is.
List your criteria for each level and each set, please.
So your “nested hierarchy” depends on observing every step? So your “nested hierarchy” is not based on defined characteristics, as with Linnean taxonomy and cladistics? You have your own made-up/ make believe “nested hierarchy” criteria?
BWAAAAAAHAAAAAAAHAAA-
Look, your “definition” of nested hierarchy is a joke and you know it.
So let me help you, again:
a summary of the principles of hierarchy theory
That said-
For example in the nested hierarchy of living organisms we have the animal kingdom.
To be placed in the animal kingdom an organism must have all of the criteria of an animal.
For example:
The next level (after kingdom) contain the phyla. Phyla have all the characteristics of the kingdom PLUS other criteria.
For example one phylum under the Kingdom Animalia, is Chordata.
Chordates have all the characteristics of the Kingdom PLUS the following:
The next level is the class. All classes have the criteria of the kingdom, plus all the criteria of its phylum PLUS the criteria of its class.
This is important because it shows there is a direction- one of additive characteristics.
Yet evolution does NOT have a direction. Characteristics can be lost as well as gained. And characteristics can remain stable.
All of that means we should not expect a nested hierarchy with descent with modification.
CSI is a value derived by measurement.
To claim that CSI is generated billions of times a day is to not understand CSI.
Sorry kf. 😉
Consider whether or not a child has a fever. You use a thermometer to take the temperature of the child. If that temperature exceeds a certain value you say the child has a fever. You don’t talk of a child having “less fever” and “more fever” the way you jokers over at TSZ ask whether something has less CSI and more CSI.
_________
Actually, what I have said is that there are billions of known-origin cases of FSCO/I cumulatively (notice, my insistence on a specific focus, function depending on specific complex multipart organisation constituting a narrow zone T from a much bigger space of overwhelmingly non-functional possibilities W), and that there are more being created day by day, constituting an ever-growing base of empirical evidence on the empirically reliable observed source of FSCO/I; where this includes not just direct digital strings but organised objects that are reducible to a functionally specific nodes and arcs mesh, which in turn is reducible to a structured string expression, so discussion of strings is WLOG. Just on directly created strings of symbols, how many textual messages of at least 72 ASCII characters are created per day by 7 billion human beings? How many oral messages comprise strings of phonemes which are comparable to 500 or more bits of information, on the same population? Whether or not we actually set out to measure all of these cases, we know the pattern well enough to understand that there will be millions of cases of functionally specific complex organisation created per day, and that a similar number will be cases of symbolic strings in languages that are beyond the threshold where it is reasonable to infer that the only credible source is intelligence, as we can directly observe. KF
OMTWO on October 11, 2012 at 11:58 am said:
LOL! And you probably ARE making it up. That’s why we think you (and Lizzie) are all talk. I don’t have to prove that you’re full of it. All I have to do is let you talk long enough.
petrushka on October 11, 2012 at 8:02 pm said:
There are reasons certain people are no longer allowed to post here. One of them is repeatedly putting forth straw-man versions of ID.
ID is about when a design inferences is warranted. It doesn’t require a “not designed” category. That’s one of Lizzie’s favorite lies and just one (among may) of the reason she no longer posts here.
You do her proud.
________
Why is “magic” being injected into the matter? That sounds suspiciously like a stand-in for “the supernatural” or Lewontin’s and Sagan’s “demons,” i.e. a play at atmosphere poisoning by red herrings, strawmen and ad hominems. Are human beings magical? Do or do we not routinely create FSCO/I? Do or do we not routinely observe the creation of same? Do we not routinely see the wiring diagram type patterns that are involved, and how function depends on getting it right? (Ever had sand get into the works of a fishing reel . . . ?) Do we not therefore have a perfectly good inductive basis for seeing FSCO/I as an empirically reliable sign of design, even as deer tracks are a sign of deer? Strange . . . Oh, I get it now, P is at some level aware that evolutionary materialism has a massive breakdown at explaining mind in a way that leaves knowledge and reason intact. Dismissing such an uncomfortable instance of reductio ad absurdum by projecting the problem elsewhere is one way to rhetorically deal with it. But in fact, the design inference is about warrant for inferring design on sign. Design thinkers recognise another longstanding routine observation, that we see natural regularities tracing to mechanical necessity, that we see high contingencies tracing to chance or choice, and that a good way to distinguish the two is to note that chance often manifests itself in stochastic distributions that will be dominated by the bulk of the distribution, such as a reverse-J or a Bell or a skewed bell, etc. By contrast, intelligence designs things that depend on multipart integration to function, so the active information injected moves us to zones of configs that would be maximally implausible on chance. So, the design filter asks if something is credibly driven by law first, and can warrant inference to natural regularities per strongly stamped regular pattern [dropped heavy objects fall at a force of 9.8 N/kg near earth]; and if that is not relevant to an aspect of a case under investigation, it then looks for stochastic pattern as second default and only on objective warrant will it infer to design. Strictly the alternative inferences are that inference to design of the object or phenomenon/ process in view is not warranted per the criterion. The insistence on toxic strawmen in the teeth of opportunity to do better and even in the teeth of correction, is diagnostic that something is very wrong at TSZ. KF
keiths:
Great. Bully for you. What we were expecting was a post establishing your thesis:
Intelligent Design is not compatible with the evidence for common descent
How old are you, 14? If ID isn’t incompatible with the evidence, then ID isn’t incompatible with the evidence, and your thesis has not been established.
We await your Part II.
Nobody has addressed the critical issue, which is that unguided evolution explains the evidence trillions of times better than ID.
You’re deluded and attempting to rewrite history. The critical issue is whether you demonstrate the truth of your thesis:
Intelligent Design is not compatible with the evidence for common descent
We’re waiting.
What does unguided evolution look like (how do we know when unguided evolution is operating), and what data are you talking about?
The fatal flaw in your argument, and I’m going to be very specific here, is that it’s not an argument, it’s a rant.
An argument would put forth premises in support of the following conclusion:
Intelligent Design is not compatible with the evidence for common descent
petrushka on October 11, 2012 at 8:25 pm said:
Really. Languages are codes?
keiths:
The “trained geologist” is a metaphor for the typical internet evolutionist posting at TSZ and UD.
It not a matter of being fooled by a designed streambed. It’s about the assumption that all streambeds arise by an unguided process and any other possible explanation is ruled out a priori.
OMTWO:
Mung:
Toronto:
You’re right. They are most certainly making it up.
Toronto:
I’ve had a good deal of experience with Lizzie. She is almost certainly making things up. I don’t have a clue about this other person who claims to have generated CSI. I’ll wait to see the code.
Gee. I assert that Lizzie and OMTWO fail to establish their claims to have generated CSI. OMTWO says it’s up to me to demonstrate otherwise, after all, he/she/it could be lying.
I looked at Lizzie’s code. I can’t find her calculation for CSI. Can you point it out to me?
I haven’t seen OMTWO’s code. I can’t wait. I bet it also lacks any calculation of CSI.
I haven’t seen any string produced by Lizzie’s program, so I have no way of knowing whether a design inference would be warranted.
keiths on October 7, 2012 at 11:35 pm said:
What an idiot. Representative, no doubt.
Given her program, what sort of string would constitute a solution? Can you show us the code for Lizzie’s “fitness function”?
She brags that it does not “smuggle in” information because it’s all right there for everyone to see. Except you, apparently.
man oh man. You’re not a teacher are you? I fear that you are.
keiths:
So what? Mine generated a solution in seconds.
Post your code.
keiths:
Only ARTIFICIAL selection is highly nonrandom. OTOH, natural selection, which is a RESULT, is random as whatever survives to reproduce, survives to reproduce.
But nice to see that you can still spew unsupportable nonsense.
Earth to keiths- Theobald is not an authority wrt nested hierarchies. He never even defines what a nested hierarchy is. But you just blindly accept what he sez because you are totally ignorant of the concept.
Perhaps Dougy will explain to you why we don’t observe a nested hierarchy with prokaryotes. Obvioulsy you are too much of a dolt to understand what that does to your claim.
confusion:
No we use our knowledge and experience.
Knowledge and experience are not assertions. And your whining doesn’t change that fact.
We don’t need such an explanation. That comes from studying the design and all relevant evidence.
And if you don’t like it you can always stop being a coward, step up and demonstrate your position’s mechanisms are sufficient. But you won’t because you can’t and it gets your [snip — sexist] in a knot.
But anyway you have absolutely no clue. It is really too bad you won’t be testifying at any ID v unguided evo trials.
___________
1] J, kindly watch tone.
2] Evidently, despite having had a poster child post on the problem, we still have objectors at TSZ who don’t realise that dismissing inductive reasoning as circular, is a case of self referential incoherence that cuts their own logical throats.
3] FYI, TSZ denizens, in the design filter approach, there are TWO defaults, first natural regularities exhibited as the signature of mechanical necessity, then for high contingency, chance not choice. Choice is only selected where — as backed up by strong inductive evidence [that breaks us out of circularity, as J noted] — we have good reason to see that the object etc of interest exhibits an empirically reliable sign of design as opposed to chance contingency.
4] Hence the JOINT specificty-complexity criterion in a context of function dependent on multiple part arrangement and coupling. Go pull a fishing reel if you don’t understand this. (And beyond that go find a watch you can sacrifice to see the workings of. then, think about the example your side does not ever seriously discuss, Paley’s self-replicating watch.)
5] So, kindly stop setting up strawmen, beyond a certain point when you have been repeatedly corrected but refuse to accept such, you exhibit willful disregard for truth and fairness, in hopes that distortions will be seen as true to your advantage. There is a short, sharp, well-deserved three letter word for that sort of stunt, starting with L. In short, there is a threshold where that sort of stunt begins to go to character.
KF
Joe (263),
If you take a population of critters in which there is variation in their ability to withstand severely cold temperatures and they are in a severely cold environment then the ones naturally selected to reproduce will not be selected randomly.
[J, are you aware that the NS criterion is that the odds of survival and reproduction shift? NS does embed a significant chance component, it is not merely and simply deterministic. KF]
Natural populations have variation in many, many characteristics. Those whose variations allow them to better exploit their environment are more likely to breed. The individuals ‘selected’ to breed are not randomly selected. Random selection would mean that each individual has an equal chance to survive and reproduce. The would not have an equal chance and so it’s not random.
Why did the dinosaurs die out? (Or mostly die out, given the bird/dinosaur connection.) The environment changed and non-randomly started favouring individuals that were better able to survive in the new situation. If the selection was random we’d most likely still have dinosaurs around because all individuals would have had an equal chance to reproduce. Which they didn’t.
Not saying that sometimes the environment doesn’t randomly kill off individuals. A bunch of critters are grazing near the base of a cliff, there’s a rockslide which buries some of them. Sure, that happens. But even then, the critters who DON’T graze at the bottom of cliffs are less likely to be killed in that situation.
The great wash of natural selection has random eddies but, like a river cutting through the landscape, is not random.
Joe,
Perhaps the distinction between random and unpredictable would be useful to make.
From Wikipedia:
There are mathematical ‘tests’ for randomness but I think discussing that wouldn’t really add to the conversation. They involve measuring the relative frequency of outcomes, pairs of outcomes, order of outcomes, etc.
I certainly agree that which particular individuals survive and reproduce in an environment is unpredictable but the general trend is clearly not random. Random means every possible outcome is equally likely.
And, as hinted at in the excerpt, there are mathematicians who think that events do not have a probability. It’s an odd tack but some do follow it.
Something that may be of interest to some is Algorithmic Information Theory humorously referred to by Gregory Chaitin as “the result of putting Shannon’s information theory and Turing’s computability theory into a cocktail shaker and shaking vigorously.” Not my field by any means but complexity is a big topic.
For example (again from Wikipedia):
Jerad:
For practical — empirically relevant — purposes, if something is fitting into a random distribution and has no known or reasonable deterministic cause of the outcome, it is effectively random or chance based.
For many things the way to get that is to have clashing uncorrelated — non synchronised — causal chains. That is what happens with a die that is tossed and tumbles then settles. It is a chaotic entity, and the want of correlation and tiny uncontrollable variations guarantee that if it has not been loaded, we will see the sort of distribution that is familiar. From one die to a cluster of die the total then begins to pile up with a peak. And with two sided dice, we have the famous binomial distribution resulting which is often used as an intro for statistical thermodynamics.
The Gaussian distribution is similar to that, with all sorts of little contributory factors going one way then another, and creating a peak because of the dominance of a cluster of outcomes. (Remember, this arose in the context of errors of observation and measurement.)
Way back, my dad in his work as an econometric statistician, would use a telephone book as a poor man’s random number tables. Surnames and given names etc are most certainly not randomly assigned, nor are local loop line codes aka phone numbers. But, in general, there is no correlation between the two. So, by using a phone book and the line codes, one can obtain random number tables. Actually, arguably better than the pseudorandom numbers produced by typical algorithms or circuits. Of course for serious modern random nos, use sky noise or Zener noise flattened by various devices, even driving a seed to a pseudo random register chain.
So, there is a good enough basis for using “chance” in our context.
KF
Onlookers:
Day eighteen and counting, no signs of a 6,000 word essay on warranting molecules to man blind watchmaker thesis evo claims.
Jerad has tried, but with all respect for a civil try, he only succeeded in underscoring the pivotal significance of the OOL aspect and the need to warrant tree of life claims from the roots up.
Noor’s course which has coincidentally come up, underscores the same point.
As for those trying yet another turnabout, if they took time to look at the OP above, they would have seen that from the outset, I have put up the IOSE — cf here on [and yes that is no 6,000 word essay it is a full length course reader] — as a 101 level presentation of the design theory framework, and several other relevant links. That strawman tactic crashes in flames.
But, the turnabout attempt shows that the point is biting home.
Maybe, somewhere out there a light bulb will go on.
It should be quite plain that blind watchmaker thesis, molecules to man evo, while it is announced and taught as practically certain on the strength of Science Sez, is in fact riddled with serious gaps and limitations. To teach it as if it were an assured conclusion, is manipulative ideology, not sound science or sound education.
KF
PS: Given the 18-days no show by those who boast ever so much of their allegedly well grounded molecules to Newton by blind watchmaker chance and necessity theory, let us not allow attempts to divert focus, or turnabout the issue or erect and knock over then soak with ad hominems and burn strawman caricatures of design theory fool us. The emperor, while leading the parade, plainly has no clothes on!
Jerad:
If you take a population of critters in which there is variation in their ability to withstand severely cold temperatures and they are in a severely cold environment then the ones naturally selected to reproduce will not be selected randomly.
Jerad, whatever is good enough survives to reproduce. How is that not random?
Allan Miller:
Evolution is silent on the OoL which means there could have been multiple life-forms with multiple codes and evolutionism would be OK with that. Common descent still cannot explain all of the physiological and anatomical differences observed. No way to test the claim that changes to genomes can account for all the other changes required.
Jerad:
Not necessarilly.
Wikipedia on randomness:
keiths and the rest of the TSZ ilk keep blathering on about nested hierarchies yet refuse to tell us what they think a nested hierarchy is. Zachriel did chime in but that “definition” was too vague to be of any use.
OTOH I have provided a valid and references definition of nested hierarchy. Unfortunately I doubt any of the TSZ ilk will read it or understand it if they do.
Kf (270):
Yup, yup, yup. I was just trying to make sure that when talking about things like randomness and complexity that everyone makes an effort to use the terms as they’re defined by the people doing work in those fields. Dr Dembski has a PhD in mathematics so when he uses a word like random then he is using it in a particular way.
Joe (272):
Whatever or whoever is good enough is not random. Some are not good enough . . . not as fast or as strong or as clever, etc. When some have a greater chance than others, i.e. not equal chances, then the selection process is not random. And some are stronger, faster, etc because there is variation in the population.
Joe (274)
Certainly randomness can mean different things in different contexts. But when talking about random events like rolling a dice or selecting from a population then random means that every outcome is equally likely. That is: there is no preference for certain outcomes. Like there would be with a determined or designed system.
Jerad:
It fits the definition.
Cuz YOU say so?
Joe (278)
Not the specific scientific/mathematical definition.
Nope. A couple centuries of mathematicians and statisticians do. And every textbook on probability and statistics. Have a look at one and see.
KF (266):
The odds have shifted many times. Otherwise we’d be dodging dinosaurs. The odds shift from region to region, from season to season and certainly over the eons. Life forms shift the odds too as the biological arms race ratchets up.
Not purely deterministic but certainly not random. As I said, there are clearly random eddies in the current.
It fits the definition.
Well the ToE is neither science nor mathematics.
But anyway natural selection does not stop being random just because you can picjk whatever definition suits your needs.
With your “definition” you need to define hierarchical ordering and nested sets.
What makes it a subset? And why are YOU responding in the wrong thread?
Joe (281):
I’m suggesting that if you’re going to discuss topics like randomness and complexity with people you should learn how they use those terms. How scientists use those terms. How can you be sure what Dr Dembski and Dr Behe are saying if you’re not conversant with their definitions? Does Dr Behe think natural selection is random?
Failing that it falls upon you to state up front how you define those terms. Otherwise people will misunderstand you.
Jerad,
Please provide a valid reference that says that biologists use “random” in the sense you say and in no other way.
Only dimwits would use the word “random” in such a narrow sense.
Jerad
Heading out the door.
Ar you aware of CD’s discussion in which he looked at how a 1% difference in odds of survival per generation will shift population?
Here is a defn of a random variable courtesy that source speaking against interest, Wiki:
That should be clear enough, never mind a lot of bland declarations to the contrary (even at Wiki).
Differential reproductive success is plainly shaped by all sorts of chance and uncorrelated chains of cause and effect, the issue is that the “fittest” are held to be more likely to reproduce, on whatever grounds. As for the dinosaurs the conventional wisdom is an asteroid impact broke their dominance, allowing the mammals running around at their feet for eons to take over.
KF
Joe (284):
It’s usually linked with the term sample:
Heres a definition of random sample from
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/I.....ommunities
“A sample where every individual in a population has an equal chance of being chosen.”
You’ll find more examples from mathematics and statistics since that’s where it comes from. But others use that definition as well.
Investors for example
(from http://www.investopedia.com/te.....z2965g3EWG)
“A subset of a statistical population in which each member of the subset has an equal probability of being chosen. A simple random sample is meant to be an unbiased representation of a group. An example of a simple random sample would be a group of 25 employees chosen out of a hat from a company of 250 employees. In this case, the population is all 250 employees, and the sample is random because each employee has an equal chance of being chosen.”
Here’s one from the University of Texas
(http://www.ma.utexas.edu/users.....s/SRS.html)
“A simple random sample (SRS) of size n consists of n individuals from the population chosen in such a way that every set of n individuals has an equal chance to be the sample actually selected.”
I guess there’s a lot of dimwits out there then.
The second definition here of random:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/random
“[O]f or characterizing a process of selection in which each item of a set has an equal probability of being chosen.”
If natural selection was a random sample then every member of a population would have an equal chance of being selected. But they don’t.
They sure as heck are NOT using it wrt natural selection being non-random. THAT is what you need to provide. Because if your use is correct it is meaningless. It’s like saying birdshot from a sawed-off shotgun is nonrandom because all the pellets will end up somewhere in front of the shooter.
Zachriel:
By what criteria? I can make anything I want into a set. Which means I can form subsets from that. It does not mean it is a nested hierarchy.
By what criteria?
Apply that to your scenario and get back to us with your nested hierarchy.
Jerad,
With natural selection there isn’t any choosing nor selecting. Your references pertain to things that are chosen or selected.
KF (285):
Not aware but it sounds plausible. Given enough generations.
I know there are lots of definitions of random and randomness but it’s quite common in the sciences to talk about a random sample or selection being one where every outcome is equally likely.
Not on whatever grounds. In particular environmental niches. That’s part of the point: when the environmental pressures change or you look at a different location who is “fitter” changes. That’s why there’s no palm trees in the Arctic or polar bears in Florida. Or fish walking through my back yard. Fish descendants do walk through my backyard though. Had to ditch the gills first.
Exactly, the climate changed and the mammals were “fitter”, i.e. better able to survive in the new environment. Natural selection is fickle. But not random.
Joe (287):
From UC Berkeley’s Understanding Evolution website
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/.....cle/evo_32
“At the opposite end scale, natural selection is sometimes interpreted as a random process. This is also a misconception. The genetic variation that occurs in a population because of mutation is random-but selection acts on that variation in a very non-random way: genetic variants that aid survival and reproduction are much more likely to become common than variants that don’t. Natural selection is NOT random!”
From Wikipedia:
“Natural selection is the gradual, non-random process by which biological traits become either more or less common in a population as a function of differential reproduction of their bearers. It is a key mechanism of evolution. The term “natural selection” was popularized by Charles Darwin who intended it to be compared with artificial selection, what we now call selective breeding.”
From http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_.....not_random
“Natural selection acts on the genetic diversity of a population, where the best traits for survival and reproduction increase in frequency over time. Since natural selection pushes a population’s traits in an advantageous direction, it’s not random but rather predictable, since we know its purpose.”
And many, many more.
Joe (289):
I would not have used the term ‘natural selection’ myself. I prefer ‘effects of environmental pressures’. But most people know what it means.
But, in a sense, nature IS ‘selecting’ by killing off those who are less fit as a general rule.
Some individuals are ‘selected’/survive and have offspring. Some don’t. The survivors are a selection or sample of the whole population. A non-random sample.
I second that!
Jerad:
Umm “the less fit” are just those who reproduce less. And that changes from generation to genration and from day to day.
But anyway- chew on this:
The Origin of Theoretical Population Genetics (University of Chicago Press, 1971), reissued in 2001 by William Provine:
By what criteria?
Zachriel:
Nope, we do not construct nested hierarchies based on the history. If you think otherwise please provide a valid reference. but we know you won’t…
Joe (294):
Absolutely. Or don’t reproduce at all. And it does change all the time.
As I said, I would not have used the phrase ‘natural selection’. And Provine is pointing out that the phrase is liable to be misunderstood. But he’s not saying ‘natural selection’ is random.
Natural selection is a result. It doesn’t do anything. It is not a designer mimic. No one can predict what will be selected for at any point in time- dennett- no one knows what mutation will occur at any point in time. And fitness is an after-the-fact assessment.
What is good for one generation may be detrimental to the next.
As I said natural selection is as nonrandom as birdshot from a sawed-off shotgun. And compared to a 30/06 that is very random.
Nope, we do not construct nested hierarchies based on the history.
Zachriel:
Again, what citeria, ie what traits? What is the nested hierarchy? Define the levels and sets, please.
keiths:
What hypothesis? You have failed to provide one.
Breaking things and causing deformities. And never constructing things. Not exactly what you need.
Joe (297),
Mutations are random, so you agree. Fitness is after the fact since no one knows what the environmental pressures will be or what variation will arise.
Absolutely. Now you’re getting it!!
Well, natural selection got rid of the dinosaurs. And the trilobites. And lots and lots of other extinct species. It doesn’t sound very random to me.
Jerad:
really. and you know that it was natural selection that done it?
So if I go out and kill a deer, that is natural selection, because the dear didn’t survive?
Jerad,
There isn’t any “now I’m getting it” as I have understood that for decades. And what is your evidence that natural selection got rid of the dinosaurs? I have heard different stories but never one that included natural selection.
Jerad:
I see your Wiki clip.
Now, nothing has changed on the basic understanding of natural selection in the past few years, so let me clip the same article from a couple of years back, as I use in my always linked online note:
This is an illustration of the reason why Wiki is so reliably unreliable and ideologically driven on this general subject. The role of random processes and variables in the selection process should be highly evident, and in fact that such would be so is common sense.
Now for the real challenge: natural selection or more properly differential reproductive success of populations, is quite literally a subtract-er of information, an eliminator of variations. THE NATURALISTIC SOURCE OF NOVEL BIOINFO IS CHANCE VARIATION. Which, is severely challenged to bridge the sort of gaps that are required to innovate new body plans, starting esp4ecially from that hypothesised last universal common ancestral unicellular organism. Which is highly relevant to the challenge posed by the Cambrian fossils ever since Darwin.
Going further, in the case of the dinosaurs and the usual story of a meteorite impact, this would clearly be a case of two uncorrelated deterministc chains, leading to intersection of trajectories, i.e. it would be a chance event, and a catastrophic one. There is no incremental variation and selection there.
In short random variables and circumstances show up all over the process as imagined, which should be acknowledged.
Next, we have the fitness problem. Tautology lurks.
There are formulations that do avoid tautology, but consistently there is a falling back into circles as to the fittest and the survivors who dominate following populations. Or, whatever terminology is favoured nowadays.
Not to mention the issue of genetic drift, entropic decay of genomic info, and the gamblers ruin challenge.
For, if a given selection advantage is small and the absolute numbers of the sub-population with the innovation are also relatively low, most of the time, such an innovation will simply be lost due to the overwhelming effects of mere chance on odds of survival and reproduction. In other words, one has to have enough population resources to “spend” for long enough to get to the long-run point where modest differential effects will pay off to one’s advantage. And, if we take isolation to a niche without competition as a typical example by which such innovations will have a good chance to grow into a viable sub-population that can then migrate back and compete with then dominate over the original population, we still have not accounted for the rise of information-rich organically coherent innovations, especially at that core body-plan level which expresses itself in the vulnerable early phases of the embryological development process.
There are more than enough challenges there to debate all day long.
KF
PS: Cf here and here on the case of the whale as it links to the above. (Do watch the vids.)
Mung (301),
Well, if you’ve got an alternative which corresponds to the available data, is in agreement with other sciences, has great explanatory power (as in answering the how and when questions) and makes few causational assumptions then I’m happy to consider it.
If I suggested the same scenario to you I would guess you’d say that was an example of intelligent intervention.
I’m happy to have an intelligent conversation about these issue but I expect to be treated with some respect and dignity. We can all benefit from a serious examination of the issues.
But, just to avoid accusations of not answering the question: you killing a deer is not an example of natural selection. That’s artificial selection. As in selective breeding. Clearly.
Joe (302):
Well, have you got an alternative explanation which is in agreement with the available data, is coherent with the other sciences, which has great explanatory power (i.e. addresses some how and when questions) AND makes few causal assumptions?
You like dancing around the definitions and issues. And I’ve agreed that ‘natural selection’ is a somewhat problematical expression, especially when scrutinised with the goal of disproving it.
But you have yet to present me with a cogent, concise and coherent alternative which matches the criteria I’ve elucidated above.
Jerad:
Do you have any evidence it was natural selection, or not? Or perhaps it was just [snip] ill + luck. When a flood wipes out a population, that isn’t natural selection, that is just the luck of the draw.
How about when a lion makes a kill? Natural or artificial selection, and why?
BTW when humans kill a deer we usually go for the big buck or big doe- we take from the top. And that isn’t selective breeding- well because we aren’t selectively breeding anything.
KF (303):
Really? I thought the extended quote was a fairly good statement of the general idea. I think the role of random processes is highly evident. Otherwise I would have expected more advanced life forms to have arisen much earlier. I know you look at existent life forms from a very mechanistic point of view, with islands of function, etc. But that’s not the general view of biologists. And science is not subject to common sense.
You can make that assertion but that’s all it is. I agree that most mutations are deleterious. But that doesn’t mean that all are. You focus on the majority and give short shrift to the unusual. You insist there is a body plan gap but you cannot prove it. It’s just an assertion. And there’s evidence to suggest that it wasn’t a gap at all.
Variation comes from mutations. It was a chance event. It shifted the goal posts. There was new criteria for ‘the fittest’. The natural event was random but it determined the effect and influence on the life forms. And, therefore, ‘natural selection’ was not random and was determined by the environmental conditions.
The natural events are random but the effects on the flora and fauna are not since they depend on the environment.
Obviously. This is a big question: what does it take for a new trait to get ‘fixed’ in a population. But it is an issue that has been acknowledged and researched. Even books like The Greatest Show on Earth address such issues.
Seriously and honestly, I think you should spend more time reading evolutionary research. Many of your points are examined and discussed.
Joe (307);
The natural event is not natural selection. The effect it has on the breeding population is natural selection.
Proof/evidence? Well, without evidence that there was some kind of intervention, some extra influence, then it comes down to natural forces. Why would you ASSUME otherwise?
Traditionally natural selection since lions are not assumed to have high enough reasoning skills to formulate design.
You are affecting the next generation by limiting the breeding time of some deer. If bigger individuals are more likely to be killed then they might leave fewer offspring. It depends on if you shoot them after their breeding years are over or not. You might not think you’re selective breeding but just because you don’t have a goal in mind doesn’t mean you aren’t affecting the herd.
To Keiths (at TSZ):
I will not spend another word to show that dFSCI is not circular. I have said enough. Please, refer to my answers to Zachriel. If you are not convinved, good luck.
Jerad,
Lions set up and execute ambushes. That is by design.
Also catastrophes are a random effect, not part of natural selection.
Jerad:
Neat slip-slide by the key point, the presence of random processes in the dynamics. And there is the onward implication, potential for gamblers ruin, lack of pop scale and time to effect changes.
Take time to look carefully at the whale examples to see what is not so often brought up when body plan origin is asserted to be simple extrapolation of pop variations.
KF
gpuccio,
Unfortunately nothing you say, no matter how you say it, will ever make any sense to them. But we appreciate the effort.
Thank you
Hmmm . . . looks like this thread is heading toward the good old ‘natural selection is a tautology’ discussion.
And, yes, if anyone is wondering, that is a real issue for natural selection as it is so often presented (despite the fact that most everyone is too polite to bring it up in mixed company) . . .
Eric,
Heck with tautology issue. Natural selection doesn’t do anything, let alone mimic a designer. And taht means they have bigger issues than being a tautology.
No you did not provide any criteria.
Well we told YOU to do it:
Again, what citeria, ie what traits? What is the nested hierarchy? Define the levels and sets, please.
I don’t see a nested hierarchy in what you provided. But then again I am not as demented as you are.
keiths:
Hey, that is what I said- the traits have to be immutable (stable) and additive (changing). I guess I know more about these things than what has been said about me. Strange how it always goes that way.
Yes, a wobbling stability-
Chapter IV of prominent geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti’s book Why is a Fly Not a Horse? is titled “Wobbling Stability”. In that chapter he discusses what I have been talking about in other threads- that populations oscillate. The following is what he has to say which is based on thorough scientific investigation:
(snip a few paragraphs on peppered moths)
You don’t get a nested hierarchy from that.
keiths:
Earth to keiths- no one cares because your scenarios and questions are unenlightening. And pretty pathetic even for you.
Ya see keiths in scenario 1 Bob and friends did design that streambed and fooled the geologist. And we have video to prove it.
Scenrio 2 was another set-up, Hollywood-style. It’s easy to get spray stuff that will set off an explosives detector- but anyway it’s all on film too.
So by the time we get to scenrio 3 we already know how stupid your whole clap-trap is. You think that your absurd extremes really mean something?
Really?
keiths:
I’m hurt.
But here’s my answer. Your comments have nothing to do with your thesis:
Intelligent Design is not compatible with the evidence for common descent
As such, they can safely be ignored as irrelevant. A red herring. You can’t make your case, so you try to change the subject.
You still haven’t told us how to test your claim that evolution is unguided. So how can “unguided evolution” be a better explanation than, say, magical pixies?
Will Part II be any better than Part I? Please spend less time posting and more time working on Part II.
How does one examine the claim that natural selection was the cause of the extinction of the dinosaurs? Seriously.
For posterity:
keiths on October 12, 2012 at 5:20 pm said:
Finally, an actual string to analyze.
So, can someone please post a program to algorithmically compress and decompress this string?
And can some give me a description of it that doesn’t just consist of the string itself?
H H H T H H H T H H H H T H H H H T H H H H T H H H H T H H H H T H H H H T H H H H T H H H H T H H H H T H H H H T H H H H T H H H H T H H H H T H H H H T H H H H T H H H H T H H H H T H H H H T H H H H T H H H H T H H H H T H H H H T H H H H T H H H H T H H H H T H H H H T H H H H T H H H H T H H H H T H H H H T H H H H T H H H H T H H H H T H H H H T H H H H T H H H H T H H H H T H H H H T H H H H T H H H H T H H H T H H H T H H H T H H H T H H H H T H H H H T H H H H T H H H H T H H H H T H H H H T H H H H T H H H H T H H H H T H H H H T H H H H T H H H H T H H H H T H H H H T H H H H T H H H H T H H H H T H H H H T H H H H T H H H H T H H H T H H H H T H H H H T H H H T H H H H T H H H H T H H H H T H H H H T H H H H T H H H H T H H H H T H H H H T H H H H T H H H H T H H H H T H H H H T H H H H T H H H H T H H H H T H H H H T H H H H T H H H H T H H H H T H H H H T H H H H T H H H H T H H H H T H H H H T H H H H T H H H H T H H H H T H H H H T H H H T H H H H T H H H T H H H H T
Mung @332,
I threw together a simple Huffman codec:
http://net46038.wordpress.com/
It turns substrings into shorter bit sequences. The dictionary is optimized in the order of likelihood of a given substring.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huffman_coding
Continued…
Any ANSI C++ compiler should compile it.
Continued…
Source string bits = 501, Total compressed bits = 162
Approximately 3:1 compression
Joe (311):
KF (312):
Me (308):
Me (309):
I agree there are random events that then change the dynamics, the environmental pressures, which affects survival chances.
KF (312):
Is there something specific you’d like me to address?
Mung (320):
The environmental changes which meant small furry mammals were ‘more fit’ than the dinosaurs were brought about (perhaps) by an meteorite impact. But the impact was not directly the cause of most of the die off except for the dinosaurs it actually landed on. The climate changed. The environmental pressures changed.
Again: have you got an alternative which corresponds to the available data, is in agreement with other sciences, has great explanatory power (as in answering the how and when questions) and makes few causational assumptions?
Jerad: Observe what Dr Sternberg (double biology PhD, one in evolutionary Biology) notes on the pop plus mut plus time to fix issues to form the whale body plan. Berlinski (a mathematician) also has some similar remarks to make. KF
Oh, yes: Day nineteen and no offers of a 6,000 word, empirically well grounded blind watchmaker, molecules to man evo essay. KF
KF (329):
I know of Dr Sternberg but have not read much of his work or followed him very closely. If you have a link I’ll take a look.
Dr Berlinski I do not find credible. He does no research of his own, mathematical or otherwise, and his main approach seems to be casting doubt and aspersion without having any kind of alternative. I think he enjoys the notoriety he has amongst the ID community (and has stated he’s happy cashing the Discovery Institute’s checks) but he contributes nothing to the science on either side. He talks a lot but he never sticks his neck out, he never takes a stand. He will also be able to say: I never said I endorsed ID!! I also have to say I tried reading his book on Calculus and I found it pretty bad. Hard to read and meandering with no real point. I question his motives, his insights and his abilities to do scientific work.
Joe: I don’t see a nested hierarchy in what you provided.
Zachriel:
No thanks. If you cannot do as requested it proves that you are a waste of time.
So here it is AGAIN:
Again, what citeria, ie what traits? What is the nested hierarchy? Define the levels and sets, please.
dr boo-who spews:
Please provide a reference that supports your claim that a theory that makes no testable predictions is inevitably unfalsifiable.
We know you can’t but it will be entertaining watching you try.
Jerad:
Well there aren’t any credible evolutionary biologists as not one has added anuything to the “science” of unguided evolution.
Joe (334):
A matter of opinion. But Dr Berlinski hasn’t done any biological research recently if at all.
Instead of just sniping at mainstream evolutionary theory why don’t you present your alternative which is consistent with other areas of science, makes few assumptions and can explain the evidence? Then we can take a look at your hypothesis and see how it stacks up.
Jerad,
I isn’t a matter of opinion when the facts support what I say.
Also an alternative to what? Unguided evolution isn’t an alternative, it isn’t anything but a bald declaration.
Look and see how the design hypothesis stacks up to what?
But anyway in comment 249 are two links- read them and then get back to me.
Joe (336):
What’s your hypothesis then? That can explain the data, etc, etc, etc.
A testable evolutionary hypothesis:
http://www.pnas.org/content/75/9/4334.full.pdf
If I give you a sequence of 0s and 1s will you be able to determine if it’s designed?
Back later, got stuff to do…..I’ll try and think of some more hypothesis, etc
CentralScrutinizer,
Thank you.
Now given that we have a string of 500 bits and can achieve 3:1 compression, does that place this string in a particularly hard to find zone wrt algorithmic compressibility?
You’ve just given me another idea for a fitness function!
thanks 🙂
ok, i need to generate some random strings and test average compressibility using that algorithm.
Jerad:
First, it looks like you need to take the course on evolution.
Do you just not understand that natural selection operates b>within populations?
The fact that dinosaurs died out and some mammals did not has nothing to do with natural selection. When a species leaves no offspring there is no differential survival and there is therefore no natural selection.
It’s all fine to ask for respect, but it helps not to put forth such obviously wrong-headed arguments.
J: >> If I give you a sequence of {functionally specific and complex enough] 0s and 1s will you be able to determine if it’s designed? >> See the point? KF
PS: J did you see how many personalities you directed without actually looking at the issue of the origin of the whale body plan on the merits? And BTW, some very specific links were provided. KF
Mung (340):
There is group selection . . .maybe . . . its acceptance comes and goes. From Wikipedia:
The group selection hypothesis has been around a while. I think it makes sense but, as I said, it’s not completely accepted.
Well, the climate changed, maybe because a big rock hit the earth. The new conditions probably killed off lots of the dinosaur food plants and maybe some of the dinosaurs as well. It it were cold enough. The proto-birds survived though. Maybe they could go further to find food? Anyway, the dinosaurs pretty much left us. Now, that extinction event was not directed as far as we know, it seems to have been caused by natural, undirected processes. What would you call that kind of culling? It’s natural and some species were ‘selected’ over others. Okay, maybe I am pushing the use of the term but it was still undirected differential survival. AND some biologists do hypothesise that selection can operate on the species level. From Wikipedia:
Again, my use of ‘natural selection’ maybe a bit off but it’s not unheard of. Use ‘environmental pressures’ instead. Same result: undirected, natural processes ‘favoured’ some critters over others.
KF (341):
And if it’s not clear if there is functionally specific and complex aspects to the sequence then your default assumption is no, correct?
So you could give a false negative? I think your methods do allow for that.
I keep thinking about aliens intercepting Voyager 1’s signal, not knowing our coding technique, and not being able to decide if it’s gibberish or information. I know, I know, if you get a clear signal of 0s and 1s coming from deep space you’re probably looking at something intelligently designed.
Anyway, I think your default of ‘no design’ is clear.
I am familiar with Dr Berlinski’s comments about the origination of the whale body plan. If that’s one of the references you’re referring to. You know my view, post OoL, of the ability of random mutations and cumulative selection to create new body plans so I don’t really have anything further to add.
I had a quick look back and I did see some links you left for your IOSE site but the links always go to the top of the website as do the internal links in the ‘table of contents’ near the top. It’s quite an extensive site (as I know having looked at it before) so if you could narrow things down for me I will have a look. Perhaps a bit later, just stopped by for a few minutes. Saturday, stuff to do!!
If not those links then I apologise for missing them . . . could you list them again? I also hadn’t realised you’d marked up several comments including some not by me. I will try harder to check back in the future before proceeding. Fair enough?
Jerad,
I’ll give you one guess why it’s called species selection and not natural selection.
And this is, of course, another reason why so many of us have issues with modern evolutionary theory. the constantly shifting of meanings of terms as needed to avid criticism of the theory.
Accident or chance. Random death. The opposite (or so we are told) of natural selection.
When an opossum gets killed by a passing car, it’s not because the opossum wasn’t as well adapted to auto-avoidance as some other opossum. It’s random death. If you want to include that in natural selection it’s actually fine with me though, because that makes natural selection random as well.
Mung (345):
If you wanna know what’s going on you have to keep up!!
Group selection has be debated off and on for decades, it’s not new. Gould has been dead for a decade so if he was supporting species selection it’s been around for a while as well. Evolutionary theory changes (somewhat) as new evidence and hypothesis come to the fore. If you want to ‘get it’ you have to stay current.
Accidental death only for the ones hit by the meteor. Climate change for the rest. Otherwise it’s all random as Joe would say.
Still, differential survival due to natural causes.
Actually, it may be that some opossums ARE more aware and better able to avoid cars. We’ll see how well they adapt to traffic.
But, as a group, the dinosaurs were no longer ‘fit’ for the new environment after the meteor impact. Not random. Some individuals/species/groups were no longer able to compete. They lost. Mammals won.
Jerad, what browser are you using?
Jerad, I think you need to VIEW (well, listen to) the “vid” with Sternberg and take in at least some of Berlinski’s. You have again managed not to address any specifics on pop size, time to fix a mut given gen length and pop size, no of muts to modify body plan, need for co-ordinated, embryologically early muts. And BTW, false negatives are no prob for something aiming to conservatively detect something and be pretty sure of it when it says yes. Are you aware of the Scottish verdict, case not proved? KF
Jerad:
Natural Selection is not differential survival. It’s differential rates of reproduction. If “the survivors” all continue to reproduce at the same rate there is no natural selection.
Jerad:
Umm that has nothing to do with accumulations of random mutations.
If I see a sequence of 1s and 0s on a cave wall or a piece of paper, I will infer some agency put them there.
Jerad:
Perhaps. But it would be an exercise in pointlessness.
You’ve already told us that you would need more than one positive result to warrant a design inference.
And even if we could not tell you whether it exhibited some characteristic that would warrant a design inference what would that prove? ID does not claim it can identify all instances of design.
Zachriel:
Yes, it is obvious that you are delusional. Again I will ask you to tell us:
what citeria, ie what traits? What is the nested hierarchy? Define the levels and sets, please.
Failure to do so will prove that you do not know anything about nested hierarchies.
And Flint chimes in witha whopper of a lie:
Does lying make you feel big, Flint? Why is the peer-reviewed literature totally void of explanations* for everything Behe has claimed to be IC?
* explanations have to pertain to natural selection or other accumulations of random mutations.
_________
This shows an all to familiar pattern of objectors looking for talking points to prop up their preconceived evolutionary materialism, rather than looking seriously at the state of empirical evidence. I suggest to such to soberly examine Mengue’s criteria C1 – 5 and related issues, e.g. here early in the ID foundations series. The practical use of gene knockout studies to identify gene effects should serve to show the empirical warrant for IC, cf the continuation page here. KF
Please provide a reference that supports your claim that a theory that makes no testable predictions is inevitably unfalsifiable.
We know you can’t but it will be entertaining watching you try.
dr boo-who spews:
What struggle? You don’t have a point and you prove it with every post. Strange that when all you had to do to refute my claim is to actually ante up a testable hypotehsis complete with testable predictions, you choked, again, as usual.
So yes it is very entertaining watching you flop around like a trout on the beach.
Nested Hierachy expert Professor Allen:
An ARMY is a nested hierarchy and an ARMY is NOT based on evolution, nor descent wit modification.
Ooops the expert contradicts keiths wo sez only evolution can produce an objective nested hierarchy.
haha, kf, I just noticed you filed this thread under education. =p
Yes, it’s been educational. Thanks!
re: nested hierarchy
Various prokaryote “species” arose independently and then shared genetic material via HGT.
How does that result in an objective nested hierarchy?
How is that hypothesis incompatible with modern evolutionary theory?
what citeria, ie what traits? What is the nested hierarchy? Define the levels and sets, please.
What are you calling a trait? And one shared trait alone doesn’t mean a nested hierarchy.
Why can’t you just do as requested?
Well if you would stop being such a coward and actually do as requested, that would be one way to help me. But of course if you don’t know how to do that then my point is proven. And I thank you.
Zachriel:
Linnean taxonomy was based on a common design, not descent with modification. There isn’t anything about that taxonomy that relates to descent with modification.
Also the nested hierarchy of an Army is not based on arbitrary sets, but those formed according to objective character traits.
And finally as I have been pointing out and Mung supports, there isn’t a nested hierarchy with prokaryotes. So by keiths’ “logic” unguided evolution should be falsified.
Why can’t you just do as requested?
Zachriel:
You are a LIAR. Do you really think that you can fool people with your obvious lies?
what citeria, ie what traits? What is the nested hierarchy? Define the levels and sets, please.
Here, I will help you out, AGAIN:
Have at it or admit that you don’t know what you are talking about- although you will never admit to it nor will you ever comply. Such is the joy of an anonymous sockpuppet psychopath.
Kf (347):
Safari mostly. Sometimes I access the blog via an RSS reader called Reeder.
KF (348):
I am very aware of the Scottish judicial system. And I was not criticising you for having the default assumption of case not proven. I am not aware of a definitive way of determining how many mutations are required to establish a body plan. If you have some research to back that up I’d love to see it.
I shall look at your links after I’ve finished catching up with my ‘fan mail’. hahahahahahahah I can dream eh? 🙂
Mung (349):
But who are the survivors? Is that not part of the calculation? Who gets to reproduce?
Anyway, we agree that natural environmental pressures favour some individuals/groups/species and they form the next generation. And, therefore, their traits become more prevalent in the succeeding generations. And the genetic allele balance is altered.
Joe (350)
You did ask for a testable hypothesis. Was not not that?
And if I don’t tell you where the sequence came from? What techniques do you have to detect design?
what citeria, ie what traits? What is the nested hierarchy? Define the levels and sets, please.
Zachriel:
Yes, well defined sets that reside on well defined levels. I provided an example in comment 249 above.
Again netsed hierarchies require well defined sets that reside on well defined levels
Good for you. That still doesn’t make it a nested hierarchy.
But OK it appears that you have defined your traits as letters. That is step 1.
The point in step 2, defining your sets is in cae of a new discovery. When a new species is discovered we know, based on its characteristics and those of the well-defined sets, where the species resides in the nested hierarchy of Linnean taxonomy.
You appear to be having problems with step 2. Also you are having an issue defining your alleged nested hierarchy, ie the superset.
nested hierarchy
Zachriel:
I am going to go with 4 and 6.
They share the fewest number of contiguous commas. THE DESIGNER hates unbroken sequences of commas. 😉
Jerad:
No, that’s not part of the calculation.
Mung (351):
Not pointless at all. A first step towards proving your case. And surely you would agree that a robust and dependable system has to show that it is such a system more than once. A one time result could just be a lucky example. Repeatable and reliable results, that’s the standard to match surely.
Then I would respect your honesty and acknowledgement of the fact that no screening technique is infallible.
I get stuff wrong all the time. I don’t like it but it’s true. Science gets stuff wrong. But, in the long run, it get’s it right because it’s built on scrutiny and reproducibility and coherence and consistency. No one person gets to decide what’s right and wrong. There is no book of truth. Any and all ideas are up for criticism. And what comes out of that, what becomes the consensus, is strong.
It’s a good system. Slow at times for sure. Subject to problems in the short term. But very good in the end.
And the idea of this forum is to be able to discuss things and to give all ideas a fair listen. Yes? To fulfil that good and noble cause.
Joe: But OK it appears that you have defined your traits as letters. That is step 1.
oops. You mean the commas aren’t also traits?
I guess my @365 is wrong =p
Mung (366):
Well, at least you’re clear on your stance.
Mung,
I originally thought that the commas counted, but then looking at the sets Zach formed, I wasn’t sure. That is why I asked for clarification.
I would have also grouped 4 and 6, but because they have the same number of commas and same numer of letters.
Jerad:
I agree. But we differ in that I believe we already have repeated and reliable results, and you apparently deny that fact.
Every case in which the origin is know, design is the explanation.
Joe, if the commas don’t mean anything, then his members are:
4) RI
5 )G
6 )OG
I would still group 4 and 6, for obvious reasons. I just don’t get what his point is.
keiths on October 13, 2012 at 4:06 pm said:
ok, I re-checked. Maybe you posted a Part II. A post in which you actually make an attempt to show that it is in fact that case that “Intelligent Design is not compatible with the evidence for common descent.”
The answer is no. We’ve seen nothing new from you.
Here, put this into a nested hierarchy: {L,O}{S}{E,R}
Mung:
Obfuscation. That seems the be the whole point of their existence. Their prose is like Vogon poetry- very hard to stomach and too much of it could lead to, well, personal artificial selection.
Toronto on October 13, 2012 at 2:31 am said:
Imagining a calculation of CSI may