What makes citing problems with Darwinism heresy?

seversky:

The problem with this is that the only alternative is that everything, including all information, must always have existed.

That is only a problem for you.

The other issue is that, while you can certainly label as ‘information’ the functional complexity we observe in biological structures, you need to make clear it is of a different order to the semantic information which you and I are exchanging through these posts and which requires intelligent agents as both sender and receiver that are capable of understanding meaning.

information: b : the attribute inherent in and communicated by one of two or more alternative sequences or arrangements of something (such as nucleotides in DNA or binary digits in a computer program) that produce specific effects Looks the same to me. ET

Seversky,

which requires intelligent agents as both sender and receiver

Sev, I can set up an arrangement of matter that will send me information that I can then translate and do something with (e.g. a thermometer). I can also set up an arrangement of matter that I can send information to, which has the constraints required to translate it and do something with that information (e.g. a garage door opener). In neither of these cases is there a requirement for an intelligent agent to be at both ends of the exchange of information. I can even set up one arrangement of matter to send information to another arrangement of matter, which again, has the constraints required to translate that information into a concrete effect. Thus, your claim is just flat wrong; demonstrably false. The fundamental capacity to exchange information requires one arrangement of matter to serve as a representational token, and a second arrangement of matter to serve as a constraint to interpret that representation. This fact is well documented in the literature and has a significant pedigree in terms of history and observation.

There is a fundamental mystery about the origin of information

The origin of information on Earth requires an organization to achieve semantic closure – where the organization has the informational capacity required to describe its interpretive constraints and organize the process by which it is to be successfully interpreted. This allows the constraints to persist over time and establishes the origin of the system. It requires the capacity for multiple referents from a single medium, as well as transcribability – in other words, it requires a system of spatially-oriented representations (a reading frame code) like the one you are reading now. Your desire to cast the issue in terms of Ultimate Causes is just another stale attempt to drag up an unknowable that’s big enough to hide behind. Yawn. It seems like that kind of defense would grow old after a while. Upright BiPed

Seversky, to make your comment just now you exerted intelligent action. What would be a statistical miracle would be to generate such from lucky noise and/or mechanical necessity not driven by intelligence. Complex, functionally specific organisation in biological living entities is also highly informational, as is generally recognised. And IT INCLUDES SEMANTIC CODED INFORMATION USING ALPHANUMERIC CODES. As is also generally recognised. Such coded information readily functions in suitably set up communication systems that match encoders and/or stored information to decoders, as we for instance see in protein synthesis. All of these strongly point to intelligent sources. Last but not least, what is pointed to is that intelligence always existed, a capable source of relevant information. KF kairosfocus

kairosfocus @ 29

Seversky, no-one argues that information cannot be created by intelligent action. The matter at stake is that functionally specific complex organisation and associated information credibly cannot come about by blind mechanical necessity and/or blind chance on the gamut of the observed cosmos [due to search challenge and deep isolation of islands of function created by need for multiple properly arranged and coupled parts in vast configuration spaces], and, that once created, information of such character is at best conserved by blind processes, i.e. it faces noise. In short, there is no free lunch for information and informational equivalents of perpetual motion machines will predictably fail. KF

There is a fundamental mystery about the origin of information as there is about the origin of the universe. If you cannot create something out of absolutely nothing then you cannot create information out of nothing. As we have agreed, if there had ever been absolutely nothing, there would still be absolutely nothing, including no information. The problem with this is that the only alternative is that everything, including all information, must always have existed. The other issue is that, while you can certainly label as 'information' the functional complexity we observe in biological structures, you need to make clear it is of a different order to the semantic information which you and I are exchanging through these posts and which requires intelligent agents as both sender and receiver that are capable of understanding meaning. Seversky

AK, please. Nowhere have I said islands of function must only have a fixed topography in a config space, only that by necessity that they will be hard to find per isolation. On the former I have used barrier islands and sand dunes as examples of variable functional configs. On the latter, function depending on the proper arrangement and coupling of sufficiently many parts will naturally be deeply isolated in a large configuration space, for fairly obvious reasons. In short, you have tried to turn a dismissive argument on a strawman caricature while failing to address the core issue, needle in haystack search challenge. Also, the first search challenge is to get to a first metabolising, von Neuman self-replicator using living cell, OOL. The tendency to skip over the root of the tree of life and to discuss on variation within existing functional life forms begs the critical question of getting TO shores of function. KF kairosfocus

All of this only moves the problem around and makes it worse for Darwinism. It still has all of its original problems, such as how a living thing came about before the expression of its genes caused it to vary many ways. The answers to that are similarly located within the Giant Mountain of Evidence which appears substantial until you see the shell game in which "evolution" appears in every title but isn't the substance, and each paper is filled with citations to supporting research, and then each of those are more of the same. Turtles, all the way down. Now one must also explain how genetic variation and selection produced living things pre-loaded with the ability to evolve all sorts of new variations and behaviors by means of varying expression of their existing genes. How very thoughtful of evolution to grant them that amazing ability. OldAndrew

From the cited writing:

A vast body of comparative studies has revealed that morphological differences among taxa are correlated with differences in developmental gene expression patterns, which has supported the proposal that evolutionary modifications of gene expression (i.e., “regulatory evolution”) are the basis of morphological diversification.

If you remove "evolutionary" and "regulatory evolution" the sentence is far less speculative. In so many words it's saying that morphological diversification doesn't come primarily from different genes, it comes from variation in the expression of genes. So far, so good. The words "evolution" and "evolutionary" are narrative gloss, wound throughout so that the casual reader is compelled to accept the assumption along with the weightier conclusions. It's difficult to separate them. The evidence presented is that morphological variations arise from modifications to genetic expression, and then those modifications are attributed to evolution with no explanation. Notice that the word "selection" is limited to describing what natural selection would "tolerate." There is, as usual, no mention of was selected. There's only the built-in assumption that what exists was selected. Those who don't read carefully see the paper as scientific support for evolution even though it makes no claims about the evolution of anything. It just uses the word. And then they toss it on the Giant Mountain of Scientific of Evidence Supporting Evolution which only the ignorant choose to ignore. OldAndrew

KF,

The matter at stake is that functionally specific complex organisation and associated information credibly cannot come about by blind mechanical necessity and/or blind chance on the gamut of the observed cosmos [due to search challenge and deep isolation of islands of function created by need for multiple properly arranged and coupled parts in vast configuration spaces], and, that once created, information of such character is at best conserved by blind processes, i.e. it faces noise.

But you assume that these isolated islands of function are fixed. They change with changes in genes and with environment. As Wiki says, it is more of a seascape than a landscape. Allan Keith

Seversky, no-one argues that information cannot be created by intelligent action. The matter at stake is that functionally specific complex organisation and associated information credibly cannot come about by blind mechanical necessity and/or blind chance on the gamut of the observed cosmos [due to search challenge and deep isolation of islands of function created by need for multiple properly arranged and coupled parts in vast configuration spaces], and, that once created, information of such character is at best conserved by blind processes, i.e. it faces noise. In short, there is no free lunch for information and informational equivalents of perpetual motion machines will predictably fail. KF kairosfocus

Materialism, the belief that all reality is reducible to matter, sucks the life out of everything. It's an assault on reality instead. :) :) Upright BiPed

Who’s walking away?

You are. You did it unambiguously in March, and you've now done it three times on this very thread.

I have asked you twice to provide examples of ID proponents being chastised for claiming that complex multi-protein structures can’t evolve in a single step either.

And I've responded that I have no intention of playing your rhetorical game. I suppose you expect no one to notice that the question you ask has nothing whatsoever to do with the actual merits and evidence of IC - the very thing from which you walk away.

Which is what Hunter’s statement asserts.

That is your wholly opportunistic and self-serving reading of Hunter, which is why I posted his exact words. Upright BiPed

Origenes,

That is not your typical evolutionistic speech, now is it?

Most probably wouldn't use that exact terminology, but few would argue with the gist of the statement. Allan Keith

UB,

Allow me to be somewhat more direct. I already know that you won’t engage in earnest in a discussion of the actual merits and evidence of IC. You very clearly walked away from engaging me back in March, and at every turn you’ve avoided engaging me now (see my post at #9 and your response at #10, and see my post at #11 and your response at #13). You want instead to argue an insignificant rhetorical nothing. I wouldn’t lift a finger to help you in that endeavor. I find it utterly ridiculous. If I was in your shoes I would be embarrassed by the insignificance of the point. You, on the other hand, seem positively committed to it. Good for you.

Who's walking away? I have asked you twice to provide examples of ID proponents being chastised for claiming that complex multi-protein structures can’t evolve in a single step either. Which is what Hunter's statement asserts. Allan Keith

Allan Keith- I wouldn't know where to start. With all of your socks and all of your flailing personal attacks you have left behind a smorgasbord to pick from. Anyone can read TSZ- search for postings by "Acartia". Over in the swamp (AtBC) read the postings by "Acartia bogart". Here on UD and on Darwin's God there is William Spearshake - all of those socks are infamous for quote-mines and unsubstantiated accusations. You cannot fool anyone here. ET

The origin of information on this planet, Sev. Upright BiPed

Upright BiPed @ 4

What “information dilemma” would that be?

That would be the one where information is made possible to begin with, so that we can all be here talking about it

So we are talking about the origins of information? But was there an origin? If Dembski's Law of Conservation of Information is correct when it asserts that information can be neither created nor destroyed, doesn't that imply that all information - even that which describes you and me - must always have existed? Seversky

Allan Keith @

Allan Keith: I don’t see what is so controversial here. Evolutionists have never suggesting that complex, multi-protein structures arose in a single step.

Your focus is on the wrong sentence. It is about this line:

Carrol: ... the gain of genetically complex traits ... requires the deployment of multiple gene products in a coordinated spatial and temporal manner ....

That is not your typical evolutionistic speech, now is it? Origenes

I quoted Hunter’s words in full, just like I intended, and I included the “it” that Hunter was referring to in his text; that is ”the gain of genetically complex traits…requires the deployment of multiple gene products in a coordinated spatial and temporal manner” To this you say:

Yes, you used Hunter’s words, but you included a partial quote from the original article that Hunter was responding to. Conveniently leaving out the last sentence of that quote. Quote mines are wonderful things.

Let’s put your claim in play, shall we:

When a design person says it [“it” being ”the gain of genetically complex traits…requires the deployment of multiple gene products in a coordinated spatial and temporal manner…this is unlikely to happen in a single step, because it requires potentially numerous changes at multiple loci.”], it is heresy. When an evolutionist says it, it is the stuff of good solid scientific research.

If this is what you think is some powerful and important difference, then good for you.

I guess this means that you can’t provide any examples of ID proponents being chastised for claiming that multi-protein complex structures can’t evolve in a single step.

Allow me to be somewhat more direct. I already know that you won’t engage in earnest in a discussion of the actual merits and evidence of IC. You very clearly walked away from engaging me back in March, and at every turn you’ve avoided engaging me now (see my post at #9 and your response at #10, and see my post at #11 and your response at #13). You want instead to argue an insignificant rhetorical nothing. I wouldn’t lift a finger to help you in that endeavor. I find it utterly ridiculous. If I was in your shoes I would be embarrassed by the insignificance of the point. You, on the other hand, seem positively committed to it. Good for you. Upright BiPed

ET,

You should know because you do that, too.

Evidence please. If you have any. Allan Keith

Allan:

Unsubstantiated accusations are also a wonderful thing.

You should know because you do that, too. ET

ET,

You should know because you do it.

Unsubstantiated accusations are also a wonderful thing. Allan Keith

Allan:

Quote mines are wonderful things.

You should know because you do it. ET

Nope, no evidence for natural selection producing IC structures there, Allan ET

ET,

That isn’t the claim. The claim is there isn’t any evidence and no way to test that IC structures evolved by means of blind and mindless processes such as natural selection and drift.

So, you can’t provide any examples of ID proponents being chastised for claiming that complex multi-protein structures can’t evolve in a single step either. Good to know. Allan Keith

UB,

I didn’t conveniently leave out anything Skippy. The quote I was providing was Hunter’s, start to finish.

Yes, you used Hunter’s words, but you included a partial quote from the original article that Hunter was responding to. Conveniently leaving out the last sentence of that quote. Quote mines are wonderful things.

Powerful and Important!!!! The fact that Darwinian evolution can only be enabled by an IC system simply vanishes in the midst of such thoroughbred intellectual curiosity.

I guess this means that you can’t provide any examples of ID proponents being chastised for claiming that multi-protein complex structures can’t evolve in a single step. Which is what Hunter was claiming. Allan Keith

Allan:

What is criticized is the claim that irreducibly complex structures cannot arise through evolutionary processes.

That isn't the claim. The claim is there isn't any evidence and no way to test that IC structures evolved by means of blind and mindless processes such as natural selection and drift. ET

You conveniently left out the last sentence in that very short 49 word paragraph.

I didn't conveniently leave out anything Skippy. The quote I was providing was Hunter's, start to finish.

If he or you can find any ID proponent who has been criticized for making this claim, I would sure love to see it.

Powerful and Important!!!! The fact that Darwinian evolution can only be enabled by an IC system simply vanishes in the midst of such thoroughbred intellectual curiosity. Upright BiPed

UB,

When a design person says it [“it” being ”the gain of genetically complex traits…requires the deployment of multiple gene products in a coordinated spatial and temporal manner”], it is heresy. When an evolutionist says it, it is the stuff of good solid scientific research. And he is correct.

You conveniently left out the last sentence in that very short 49 word paragraph.

Obviously, this is unlikely to happen in a single step, because it requires potentially numerous changes at multiple loci.

If he or you can find any ID proponent who has been criticized for making this claim, I would sure love to see it. Allan Keith

What is criticized is the claim that irreducibly complex structures cannot arise through evolutionary processes.

Darwinian evolution is made possible by the capacity to specify a thing among alternatives, and record that specification in a heritable memory that can be subsequently translated by a daughter organism – a function that requires an irreducibly complex organization. If A requires B for A to exist, then A cannot be the source of B.

Nobody is arguing that there are no irreducibly complex structures.

In order to assuage themselves of the need to address any required functions of IC systems, materialists merely assume that any function that requires IC was either a) ultimately unnecessary to the origin of life, or b) the function was previously provided by an unknown non-IC organization.

He [Dr. Hunter] is arguing that ID proponents get attacked when they claim that complex multi-proteins structures cannot arise in a single step.

His exact words were: When a design person says it [“it” being ”the gain of genetically complex traits…requires the deployment of multiple gene products in a coordinated spatial and temporal manner”], it is heresy. When an evolutionist says it, it is the stuff of good solid scientific research. And he is correct. Upright BiPed

UP,

Every example of irreducible complexity is attacked by materialists. This is hardly news.

What is criticized is the claim that irreducibly complex structures cannot arise through evolutionary processes. Nobody is arguing that there are no irreducibly complex structures. But that is not Hunter's argument. He is arguing that ID proponents get attacked when they claim that complex multi-proteins structures cannot arise in a single step. This is simply a false claim. Allan Keith

Okay. And my comment refers to your comment. (?) Every example of irreducible complexity is attacked by materialists. This is hardly news. Upright BiPed

UB,

Interesting strategy. Perhaps repeating the problem in a dismissive tone helps ease the burden of an coherent answer.

My comment refers only to the following statement OP.

Obviously, this is unlikely to happen in a single step, because it requires potentially numerous changes at multiple loci. [from the article]

Followed by Hunter's statement:

When a design person says it, it is heresy. When an evolutionist says it, it is the stuff of good solid scientific research.

Unless he has examples of design people being chastised for saying that it is unlikely for a complex multi-protein structure to evolve in a single step, then he is just suggesting a double standard that does not exist. Allan Keith

Evolutionists have never suggesting that complex, multi-protein structures arose in a single step.

Interesting strategy. Perhaps repeating the problem in a dismissive tone helps ease the burden of an coherent answer. Upright BiPed

What “information dilemma” would that be?

That would be the one where information is made possible to begin with, so that we can all be here talking about it -- i.e. the one where enough symbol vehicles and non-integrable constraints are coordinated together in order to have the capacity required for the organization to describe itself and implement the physical interpretation of its description. Upright BiPed

When a design person says it, it is heresy. When an evolutionist says it, it is the stuff of good solid scientific research. I don't see what is so controversial here. Evolutionists have never suggesting that complex, multi-protein structures arose in a single step.

Allan Keith

What "information dilemma" would that be? Seversky

When evolutionist says it-- "Science!" When ID says it-- "Creationism in a cheap suit!" Latemarch