Jonathan McLatchie vs. Keith Fox: Has ID stood the test of time?

per statistician Bob O'Hara at 19:

Lecture by Dr. Scott Minnich - UC Santa Barbara 2005 Drawing on his ten years of experience in working with bacteria as a geneticist, Dr. Minnich gives a thorough explication of the "irreducibly complex" nature of the bacterial flagellum. He explains this phrase that was coined by Michael Behe, and argues that the irreducibly complex construction of the bacterial flagellum is an outstanding case for an intelligent designer. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0NXElnMuTPI Spinning Tales About the Bacterial Flagellum - Casey Luskin - January 21, 2010 Excerpt: In contrast, pro-ID microbiologist Scott Minnich has properly tested for irreducible complexity through genetic knock-out experiments he performed in his own laboratory at the University of Idaho. He presented this evidence during the Dover trial, which showed that the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex with respect to its complement of thirty-five genes. As Minnich testified: “One mutation, one part knock out, it can’t swim. Put that single gene back in we restore motility. Same thing over here. We put, knock out one part, put a good copy of the gene back in, and they can swim. By definition the system is irreducibly complex. We’ve done that with all 35 components of the flagellum, and we get the same effect.”37 https://evolutionnews.org/2010/01/spinning_tales_about_the_bacte/ Engineering at Its Finest: Bacterial Chemotaxis and Signal Transduction - JonathanM - September 2011 Excerpt: The bacterial flagellum represents not just a problem of irreducible complexity. Rather, the problem extends far deeper than that. What we are now observing is the existence of irreducibly complex systems within irreducibly complex systems. How random mutations, coupled with natural selection, could have assembled such a finely set-up system is a question to which I defy any Darwinist to give a sensible answer. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/09/engineering_at_its_finest_bact050911.html The Bacterial Flagellum: A Paradigm for Design - Jonathan M. - Sept. 2012 Excerpt: Indeed, so striking is the appearance of intelligent design that researchers have modeled the assembly process (of the bacterial flagellum) in view of finding inspiration for enhancing industrial operations (McAuley et al.). Not only does the flagellum manifestly exhibit engineering principles, but the engineering involved is far superior to humanity’s best achievements. The flagellum exhibits irreducible complexity in spades. In all of our experience of cause-and-effect, we know that phenomena of this kind are uniformly associated with only one type of cause – one category of explanation – and that is intelligent mind. Intelligent design succeeds at precisely the point at which evolutionary explanations break down. http://www.scribd.com/doc/106728402/The-Bacterial-Flagellum The Flagellar Filament Cap: Up close micro-photograph and animations of cap - Jonathan M. - August 2013 Excerpt: We are so used to thinking about biological machines at a macroscopic level that it is all too easy to overlook the molecular structure of their individual components. The closer we inspect biochemical systems, such as flagella, the more the elegant design -- as well as the magnitude of the challenge to Darwinism -- becomes apparent. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/08/the_flagellar_f075101.html Amazing Flagellum - Scott Minnich & Stephen Meyer – 2016 video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNR48hUd-Hw Bacterial Flagellum - A Sheer Wonder Of Intelligent Design – video https://youtu.be/fFq_MGf3sbk Souped-Up Hyper-Drive Flagellum Discovered - December 3, 2012 Excerpt: Get a load of this -- a bacterium that packs a gear-driven, seven-engine, magnetic-guided flagellar bundle that gets 0 to 300 micrometers in one second, ten times faster than E. coli. If you thought the standard bacterial flagellum made the case for intelligent design, wait till you hear the specs on MO-1,,, Harvard's mastermind of flagellum reverse engineering, this paper describes the Ferrari of flagella. "Instead of being a simple helically wound propeller driven by a rotary motor, it is a complex organelle consisting of 7 flagella and 24 fibrils that form a tight bundle enveloped by a glycoprotein sheath.... the flagella of MO-1 must rotate individually, and yet the entire bundle functions as a unit to comprise a motility organelle." To feel the Wow! factor, jump ahead to Figure 6 in the paper. It shows seven engines in one, arranged in a hexagonal array, stylized by the authors in a cross-sectional model that shows them all as gears interacting with 24 smaller gears between them. The flagella rotate one way, and the smaller gears rotate the opposite way to maximize torque while minimizing friction. Download the movie from the Supplemental Information page to see the gears in action. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/12/souped-up_flage066921.html

bornagain77

February 25, 2018

February

02

Feb

25

25

2018

04:57 AM

4

04

57

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

ba77 @ 15 -

And herein lies the tremendous difference between the pseudoscience of Darwinian evolution and the science of Intelligent Design. Darwinists are wholly reliant on what they can imagine to be true, but are unable to ever experimentally prove to be true. Whereas ID advocates rely on what the can observe and experimentally prove to be true.

So where are the ID experiments showing that the bacterial flagellum (for example) was designed?Bob O'H

February 25, 2018

February

02

Feb

25

25

2018

03:37 AM

3

03

37

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

CR @ 3:

Making the initial conditions fundamental when they are intractable is a science stopper.

Which would well describe all of the "theories" I alluded to...with the difference being they're specifically intended to be science stoppers, i.e. as an actual limit to what can be. God isn't intractable as we acknowledge Them in being beyond our sphere of understanding, and thus in the realm of solutions to what we can't understand. Of course, the universe being created by a Being beyond our understanding would not stand in the way of our chasing everything we can actually comprehend, so God isn't even a science pauser. In fact, history would point to God as a science enabler. Well, perhaps Newton could've accomplished so much more if Neil deGrasse Tyson had a time machine to go back and straighten him out on the God stuff and teach him to properly pursue science.LocalMinimum

February 24, 2018

February

02

Feb

24

24

2018

03:48 PM

3

03

48

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Seversky @ 8: I'm willing to accept your WDK; as long as it's a fair and proper WDK. The whole super-material structure/spontaneously generated intelligence is fine but super-material intelligence is just wrong schtick gets sillier with every tiresome iteration once you know the game.LocalMinimum

February 24, 2018

February

02

Feb

24

24

2018

03:28 PM

3

03

28

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Of supplemental note: Earlier I quoted Dr. Marks in which he stated:

“There exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. Hard sciences are built on foundations of mathematics or definitive simulations. Examples include electromagnetics, Newtonian mechanics, geophysics, relativity, thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, optics, and many areas in biology. Those hoping to establish Darwinian evolution as a hard science with a model have either failed or inadvertently cheated. These models contain guidance mechanisms to land the airplane squarely on the target runway despite stochastic wind gusts. Not only can the guiding assistance be specifically identified in each proposed evolution model, its contribution to the success can be measured, in bits, as active information.,,,”,,, “there exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. According to our current understanding, there never will be.,,,” - Robert J. Marks II - Top Ten Questions and Objections to ‘Introduction to Evolutionary Informatics’ – June 12, 2017

That Darwinists have no mathematical model should not be all that surprising. Their simply is no 'law of evolution' within the known physical universe for Darwinists to build a realistic mathematical model upon:

Laws of science 1 Conservation laws 1.1 Conservation and symmetry 1.2 Continuity and transfer 2 Laws of classical mechanics 2.1 Principle of least action 3 Laws of gravitation and relativity 3.1 Modern laws 3.2 Classical laws 4 Thermodynamics 5 Electromagnetism 6 Photonics 7 Laws of quantum mechanics 8 Radiation laws 9 Laws of chemistry 10 Geophysical laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_science

As Ernst Mayr himself conceded, “In biology, as several other people have shown, and I totally agree with them, there are no natural laws in biology corresponding to the natural laws of the physical sciences.”

The Evolution of Ernst: Interview with Ernst Mayr - 2004 (page 2 of 14) Excerpt: biology (Darwinian Evolution) differs from the physical sciences in that in the physical sciences, all theories, I don't know exceptions so I think it's probably a safe statement, all theories are based somehow or other on natural laws. In biology, as several other people have shown, and I totally agree with them, there are no natural laws in biology corresponding to the natural laws of the physical sciences. ,,, And so that's what I do in this book. I show that the theoretical basis, you might call it, or I prefer to call it the philosophy of biology, has a totally different basis than the theories of physics. https://www.scientificamerican.com/media/pdf/0004D8E1-178C-10EB-978C83414B7F012C.pdf

In the following article, Roger Highfield makes much the same observation as Ernst Mayr and states, ,,, Whatever the case, those universal truths—’laws’—that physicists and chemists all rely upon appear relatively absent from biology.

WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? Evolution is True – Roger Highfield – January 2014 Excerpt: If evolutionary biologists are really Seekers of the Truth, they need to focus more on finding the mathematical regularities of biology, following in the giant footsteps of Sewall Wright, JBS Haldane, Ronald Fisher and so on. ,,, Whatever the case, those universal truths—’laws’—that physicists and chemists all rely upon appear relatively absent from biology. Little seems to have changed from a decade ago when the late and great John Maynard Smith wrote a chapter on evolutionary game theory for a book on the most powerful equations of science: his contribution did not include a single equation. http://www.edge.org/response-detail/25468

Professor Murray Eden of MIT, in a paper entitled “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory” stated that “the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.”

“It is our contention that if ‘random’ is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.” Murray Eden, “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory,” Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, June 1967, p. 109. https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~christos/evol/compevol_files/Wistar-Eden-1.pdf

In fact, not only is there no 'law of evolution' within the known physical universe for Darwinists to build a realistic mathematical model upon, the second law of thermodynamics, entropy, a law with great mathematical explanatory power in science, almost directly contradicts the primary Darwinian claim that greater and greater levels of functional complexity can easily be had and/or 'naturally selected' for over long periods of time. Indeed, entropy's main claim is that, over long periods of time, everything in the universe will decay into simpler and simpler states until what is termed thermodynamic equilibrium is finally reached.

Diffusion - image https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/12/Diffusion.svg/220px-Diffusion.svg.png

As the following video and paper show, entropy is a far greater problem for Darwinists than they are ever willing to openly admit in public.

Evolution vs Entropy - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGaSE-Q8nDU Genetic Entropy – references to several peer reviewed numerical simulations analyzing and falsifying all flavors of Darwinian evolution,, (via John Sanford and company) http://www.geneticentropy.org/#!properties/ctzx

Thus in conclusion, Darwinists simply have no known scientific basis within the known physical universe to build a realistic scientific/mathematical model upon. And therefore Darwinian evolution, unless such a 'law of evolution' is ever discovered, will forever be reliant on 'the gullibility of imagination' in order to try to make their theory seem remotely plausible,bornagain77

February 24, 2018

February

02

Feb

24

24

2018

01:01 PM

1

01

01

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Sev states that:

Behe’s initial claim was that there was no conceivable way that an organelle like the bacterial flagellum could have come about through incremental processes such as Darwin proposed for evolution. Biologists were able to suggest conceivable ways in which it could have happened thus refuting Behe’s claim.

And herein lies the tremendous difference between the pseudoscience of Darwinian evolution and the science of Intelligent Design. Darwinists are wholly reliant on what they can imagine to be true, but are unable to ever experimentally prove to be true. Whereas ID advocates rely on what the can observe and experimentally prove to be true. Namely that only intelligent agents can create functional information and/or molecular machines. As Behe stated: “Some evolutionary biologists--like Richard Dawkins--have fertile imaginations. Given a starting point, they almost always can spin a story to get to any biological structure you wish”

EVOLUTIONARY JUST-SO STORIES Excerpt: ,,,The term “just-so story” was popularized by Rudyard Kipling’s 1902 book by that title which contained fictional stories for children. Kipling says the camel got his hump as a punishment for refusing to work, the leopard’s spots were painted on him by an Ethiopian, and the kangaroo got its powerful hind legs after being chased all day by a dingo. Kipling’s just-so stories are as scientific as the Darwinian accounts of how the amoeba became a man. Lacking real scientific evidence for their theory, evolutionists have used the just-so story to great effect. Backed by impressive scientific credentials, the Darwinian just-so story has the aura of respectability. Biologist Michael Behe observes: “Some evolutionary biologists--like Richard Dawkins--have fertile imaginations. Given a starting point, they almost always can spin a story to get to any biological structure you wish” (Michael Behe - Darwin’s Black Box).,,, http://www.wayoflife.org/database/evolutionary_just_so_stories.html

You don't have to take Behe's word for it. Gould, Mayr and Hughes all concede the reliance of Darwinists on 'just so stories',,

Sociobiology: The Art of Story Telling – Stephen Jay Gould – 1978 – New Scientist Excerpt: Rudyard Kipling asked how the leopard got its spots, the rhino its wrinkled skin. He called his answers “Just So stories”. When evolutionists study individual adaptations, when they try to explain form and behaviour by reconstructing history and assessing current utility, they also tell just so stories – and the agent is natural selection. Virtuosity in invention replaces testability as the criterion for acceptance. https://books.google.com/books?id=tRj7EyRFVqYC&pg=PA530 “Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science — the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain.” Ernst Mayr – Darwin’s Influence on Modern Thought – Nov. 2009 – Originally published July 2000 “... another common misuse of evolutionary ideas: namely, the idea that some trait must have evolved merely because we can imagine a scenario under which possession of that trait would have been advantageous to fitness... Such forays into evolutionary explanation amount ultimately to storytelling... it is not enough to construct a story about how the trait might have evolved in response to a given selection pressure; rather, one must provide some sort of evidence that it really did so evolve. This is a very tall order.…” — Austin L. Hughes, The Folly of Scientism - The New Atlantis, Fall 2012

And indeed, Darwinists have ZERO evidence of molecular machines coming into existence by Darwinian processes:

,,,we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.’ Franklin M. Harold,* 2001. The way of the cell: molecules, organisms and the order of life, Oxford University Press, New York, p. 205. *Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry, Colorado State University, USA “The argument that random variation and Darwinian gradualism may not be adequate to explain complex biological systems is hardly new […} in fact, there are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation for such a vast subject — evolution — with so little rigorous examination of how well its basic theses works in illuminating specific instances of biological adaptation or diversity.” Prof. James Shapiro – “In the Details…What?” National Review, 19 September 1996, pp. 64. Molecular Machines: - Michael J. Behe Excerpt: JME is a journal that was begun specifically to deal with the topic of how evolution occurs on the molecular level. It has high scientific standards, and is edited by prominent figures in the field.,,, In the past ten years JME has published 886 papers. Of these, 95 discussed the chemical synthesis of molecules thought to be necessary for the origin of life, 44 proposed mathematical models to improve sequence analysis, 20 concerned the evolutionary implications of current structures, and 719 were analyses of protein or polynucleotide sequences. There were zero papers discussing detailed models for intermediates in the development of complex biomolecular structures. This is not a peculiarity of JME. No papers are to be found that discuss detailed models for intermediates in the development of complex biomolecular structures in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, Nature, Science, the Journal of Molecular Biology or, to my knowledge, any journal whatsoever. http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_mm92496.htm

And where Darwinists have zero evidence of molecular machines coming into existence by Darwinian processes, on the other hand, ID advocates do have evidence of Intelligent agents creating molecular machines:

2016 Nobel Prize in Chemistry Points Strongly to Purposeful Design of Life - Michael Behe - December 6, 2016 Excerpt: The 2016 Nobel Prize in Chemistry was awarded to three scientists who built simple “nano” machines out of individual molecules.,,, Articles reporting on the Prize were filled with praise for the ingenuity of the scientists. Yet there was also an undertone of skepticism about the whole project. One German chemist foresaw looming technical difficulties, “I’ve always been a bit skeptical of artificial motors. They’re too difficult to make, too difficult to scale up.” An overview article remarked that “Some chemists argue that although these motors are cute, they are ultimately useless by themselves.” So far the nanomachinery hasn’t been put to any practical use,,, Many of the pioneers of the field drew inspiration from molecular machines discovered in biology such as the bacterial flagellum, a whip-like outboard motor that can propel bacteria through liquid. Yet the molecular machines laboriously constructed by our brightest scientists are Tinkertoys compared to the nanotechnology found in living cells.,,, ,,, right at this very moment sophisticated molecular robot walkers à la Star Wars are transporting critical supplies from one part of your cells to others along molecular highways, guided by information posted on molecular signposts. Molecular solar panels that put our best technology to shame are found in every leaf. Molecular computer control systems run the whole show with a reliability that exceeds that of, say, a nuclear reactor.,,, http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/michael-behe/2016-nobel-prize-chemistry-points-strongly-purposeful-design-life

What is especially interesting in Darwinists being wholly reliant on imagination instead of evidence is that science, via experimentation and falsification, is SUPPOSE to reliably separate what humans imagine to be true from what is actually true. Yet, since Darwinists refuse to accept experimental falsification for their theory,,, such as the following experimental falsification,,

Michael Behe - Observed (1 in 10^20) Edge of Evolution - video - Lecture delivered in April 2015 at Colorado School of Mines 25:56 minute quote - "This is not an argument anymore that Darwinism cannot make complex functional systems; it is an observation that it does not." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9svV8wNUqvA The Scientific Method - Richard Feynman - video Quote: 'If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is… If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL6-x0modwY

,,,, Darwinists have simply abandoned experimental science altogether, and have thus forsaken any right they might have had to call their theory 'scientific' in the first place, but have instead wound up with a pseudoscientific theory along the lines of tea-leaf reading.bornagain77

February 24, 2018

February

02

Feb

24

24

2018

01:01 PM

1

01

01

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Your pointing out ID is defined in such a way that makes it a bad explanation for the biosphere, doesn’t somehow result in it not being a bad explanation for the biosphere.

And yet reality demonstrates that we do not have to knw who the intelligent designer was before determining it (intelligent design) exists. Reality says that we don't even ask about the designing intelligence until after that determination is made. How do we know the ancients were capable of producing Stonehenge? The existence of Stonehenge. The point being is we know about the intelligent designers' capabilities by what they left behind.

Terraforming doesn’t explain this order because you’d have to assume the designer didn’t posses the knowledge of how to terraform a planet without starting with simpler organisms.

And that is OK. Sometimes you have to make assumptions given your knowledge.ET

February 24, 2018

February

02

Feb

24

24

2018

11:37 AM

11

11

37

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

CR:

Who dispatched it? When?

CR, you are an inveterate liar. If I thought you truly did not know the answer to that, I would respond to it. But you do. There is a reason we call them "Frequently Raised but Weak Arguments." See https://uncommondescent.com/faq/#desdesnrBarry Arrington

February 24, 2018

February

02

Feb

24

24

2018

11:20 AM

11

11

20

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Indeed. The “who designed the designer” canard has been dispatched countless times in these pages.

Who dispatched it? When? See above. Just as there are no non-physical examples of commuters, There are no non-physical examples of information. When we bring information into fundamental physics by defining via which tasks must be possible, which tasks must be impossible and why. This includes which tasks must be possibly to copy information, which ID's designer must have done if it put the information there. Why is that important? Because it means the designer must have possessed that very knowledge in physical form. At which point, it represents the very same problem you claim need to be explained with a designer, etc.critical rationalist

February 24, 2018

February

02

Feb

24

24

2018

10:41 AM

10

10

41

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

@ET

ID is NOT about the designer.

Your pointing out ID is defined in such a way that makes it a bad explanation for the biosphere, doesn't somehow result in it not being a bad explanation for the biosphere. Specifically, what is the origin of the knowledge the supposed designer would have put in organisms? If it didn't possess that knowledge then did it spontaneously appear when the organisms were created? Is it the case that the designer "just was" complete with that knowledge already present? This makes ID's designer an authoritative source of knowledge, which is bad philosophy. On the other hand, if the designer did posses that knowledge then it was well adapted for the purpose of designing organisms. It too meets the criteria for having to had been designed. How can being well adapted to serve a purpose (designing organisms) be an explanation for being well to serve a purpose? Furthermore, ID's designer is abstract and has no defined limitations. As such, it's a bad explanation for the biosphere. Example? Why did organisms appear in the order of least to most complex? That's just what the designer must have wanted. Terraforming doesn't explain this order because you'd have to assume the designer didn't posses the knowledge of how to terraform a planet without starting with simpler organisms. According to you, ID isn't about the designer, so that's not an assumption you can made, either. Apparently, ID doesn't say anything about the designer, except when it does?critical rationalist

February 24, 2018

February

02

Feb

24

24

2018

10:39 AM

10

10

39

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

gpuccio

No hope with CR.

Indeed. The "who designed the designer" canard has been dispatched countless times in these pages. Yet he seems to be impervious to reason. A truly sad case.Barry Arrington

February 24, 2018

February

02

Feb

24

24

2018

10:37 AM

10

10

37

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Sev:

Biologists were able to suggest conceivable ways in which it could have happened thus refuting Behe’s claim.

No they did not. That you think they did means only that you suspend your skepticism when it is necessary to cling to your cherished metaphysical beliefs.Barry Arrington

February 24, 2018

February

02

Feb

24

24

2018

10:35 AM

10

10

35

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

LocalMinimum @ 1

Science stopper: Everything came from nothing instantly some time ago and made all that is or will be. Everything that didn’t happen here happened somewhere we’ll never be able to visit or even observe so there’s no reason why. Gravity did it

More like a science-pauser. WDK - we don't know - yet - is a perfectly good answer. Anyway, why would any one expect that we have the answer to life, the Universe and everything after just a few hundred years of looking? At least the knowledge we do have we dug up for ourselves because we seem to be getting sweet FA in the way of help from the Designer/God.Seversky

February 24, 2018

February

02

Feb

24

24

2018

10:10 AM

10

10

10

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Intelligent Design proponent Jonathan McLatchie and theistic evolutionist Keith Fox debate whether Behe’s theory has stood the test of time, the bacterial flagellum and whether ID is a science stopper or theologically helpful.

Behe's initial claim was that there was no conceivable way that an organelle like the bacterial flagellum could have come about through incremental processes such as Darwin proposed for evolution. Biologists were able to suggest conceivable ways in which it could have happened thus refuting Behe's claim. An omnipotent and omniscient 'Designer' is as much of a science-stopper as the equivalent God because it can explain anything. What point is there in looking any further if all questions can be satisfactorily answered by 'God/Designer did it'?Seversky

February 24, 2018

February

02

Feb

24

24

2018

09:58 AM

9

09

58

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

CR --inexplicable means and methods.-- How is that different than your claim? FWIW, ID doesn't address the designer but only what can be observed and measured.tribune7

February 24, 2018

February

02

Feb

24

24

2018

09:37 AM

9

09

37

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

ET: No hope with CR. He is one of the worst examples of stereotyped self-referential thought I have ever met. (With respect, CR. At least you are exceptional, in a sense! :) )gpuccio

February 24, 2018

February

02

Feb

24

24

2018

07:48 AM

7

07

48

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

ID is NOT about the designer. Your whining, while amusing, is meaningless.ET

February 24, 2018

February

02

Feb

24

24

2018

07:45 AM

7

07

45

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Science stopper: Everything came from nothing instantly some time ago and made all that is or will be. Everything that didn’t happen here happened somewhere we’ll never be able to visit or even observe so there’s no reason why. Gravity did it.

ID's designer is an inexplicable mind that exists in an inexplicable ream that works by inexplicable means and methods. ID is left with the same problem in that its designer now fits the criteria of needed to be designed, etc. A designer that "just was" complete with the knowledge of which genes would result in just the right proteins that would results in just the right features, already present, doesn't serve an explanatory purpose. This is because one could more efficiently state that organisms "just appeared" complete with the knowledge of which genes would result in just the right proteins that would results in just the right features, already present. You've just pushed the problem up a level without improving it. Making the initial conditions fundamental when they are intractable is a science stopper. Most of that isn't relevant to what we really care about, which is to solve problems. What we want is to cause transformation to solve problems. That's knowledge.critical rationalist

February 24, 2018

February

02

Feb

24

24

2018

07:36 AM

7

07

36

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Jonathan M. has now loaded last week Marks's video up on Youtube:

Artificial Intelligence and Human Exceptionalism: Dr. Robert Marks – video (Feb. 2018) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIvAg-NY5eQ

Related notes

Podcast: (AI) Robert Crowther “Why Artificial Intelligence Will Never Replace Humanity,” Interview with Robert J Marks, ID the Future, December 18, 2017. https://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/2017/12/why-artificial-intelligence-will-never-replace-humanity/ Podcast: (AI) Robert Crowther “The Dangers, Limits and Promise of Artificial Intelligence.” Interview with Robert J Marks, ID the Future, January 8, 2018. https://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/2018/01/the-dangers-limits-and-promise-of-artificial-intelligence/#more-33468 https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/evolutionary-informatics-has-come-a-long-way-since-a-baylor-dean-tried-to-shut-down-the-lab/ Podcast - Don’t Raise the White Flag to Our AI Overlords Just Yet - January 22, 2018 https://www.podomatic.com/podcasts/intelligentdesign/episodes/2018-01-22T08_58_45-08_00 On this episode of ID The Future, computer engineer Robert Marks,,, Yes, computing power doubles every couple of years or so, but Dr. Marks insists that a qualitative gulf separates humans from computers, a difference that no amount of computing power can ever overcome. Robert Marks on the Lovelace Test – January 23, 2018, Marks explains the Lovelace test which, unlike the better-known Turing test, focuses precisely on this hard limit to what computer algorithms can do. AI cannot, in this sense, truly create. https://evolutionnews.org/2018/01/robert-marks-on-the-lovelace-test/

Of particular interest from the following article by Marks is this quote: "There exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. Hard sciences are built on foundations of mathematics or definitive simulations. Examples include electromagnetics, Newtonian mechanics, geophysics, relativity, thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, optics, and many areas in biology. Those hoping to establish Darwinian evolution as a hard science with a model have either failed or inadvertently cheated. These models contain guidance mechanisms to land the airplane squarely on the target runway despite stochastic wind gusts. Not only can the guiding assistance be specifically identified in each proposed evolution model, its contribution to the success can be measured, in bits, as active information.,,,",,, "there exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. According to our current understanding, there never will be.,,,"

Top Ten Questions and Objections to 'Introduction to Evolutionary Informatics' - Robert J. Marks II - June 12, 2017 Excerpt: There exists no (computer) model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. Period. By “model,” we mean definitive simulations or foundational mathematics required of a hard science.,,, We show that no meaningful information can arise from an evolutionary process unless that process is guided. Even when guided, the degree of evolution’s accomplishment is limited by the expertise of the guiding information source — a limit we call Basener’s ceiling. An evolutionary program whose goal is to master chess will never evolve further and offer investment advice.,,, There exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. Hard sciences are built on foundations of mathematics or definitive simulations. Examples include electromagnetics, Newtonian mechanics, geophysics, relativity, thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, optics, and many areas in biology. Those hoping to establish Darwinian evolution as a hard science with a model have either failed or inadvertently cheated. These models contain guidance mechanisms to land the airplane squarely on the target runway despite stochastic wind gusts. Not only can the guiding assistance be specifically identified in each proposed evolution model, its contribution to the success can be measured, in bits, as active information.,,, Models of Darwinian evolution, Avida and EV included, are searches with a fixed goal. For EV, the goal is finding specified nucleotide binding sites. Avida’s goal is to generate an EQU logic function. Other evolution models that we examine in Introduction to Evolutionary Informatics likewise seek a prespecified goal.,,, The most celebrated attempt of an evolution model without a goal of which we’re aware is TIERRA. In an attempt to recreate something like the Cambrian explosion on a computer, the programmer created what was thought to be an information-rich environment where digital organisms would flourish and evolve. According to TIERRA’s ingenious creator, Thomas Ray, the project failed and was abandoned. There has to date been no success in open-ended evolution in the field of artificial life.5,,, We show that the probability resources of the universe and even string theory’s hypothetical multiverse are insufficient to explain the specified complexity surrounding us.,,, If a successful search requires equaling or exceeding some degree of active information, what is the chance of finding any search with as good or better performance? We call this a search-for-the-search. In Introduction to Evolutionary Informatics, we show that the search-for-the-search is exponentially more difficult than the search itself!,,, ,,,we use information theory to measure meaningful information and show there exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution.,,, ,,, if the fitness continues to change, it is argued, the evolved entity can achieve greater and greater specified complexity,,, ,,, We,, dub the overall search structure 'stair step active information'. Not only is guidance required on each stair, but the next step must be carefully chosen to guide the process to the higher fitness landscape and therefore ever increasing complexity.,,, Such fine tuning is the case of any fortuitous shift in fitness landscapes and increases, not decreases, the difficulty of evolution of ever-increasing specified complexity. It supports the case there exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution.,,, Turing’s landmark work has allowed researchers, most notably Roger Penrose,26 to make the case that certain of man’s attributes including creativity and understanding are beyond the capability of the computer.,,, ,,, there exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. According to our current understanding, there never will be.,,, https://evolutionnews.org/2017/06/top-ten-questions-and-objections-to-introduction-to-evolutionary-informatics/

bornagain77

February 24, 2018

February

02

Feb

24

24

2018

06:44 AM

6

06

44

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Science stopper: Everything came from nothing instantly some time ago and made all that is or will be. Everything that didn't happen here happened somewhere we'll never be able to visit or even observe so there's no reason why. Gravity did it.LocalMinimum

February 24, 2018

February

02

Feb

24

24

2018

06:31 AM

6

06

31

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link