| Uncommon Descent

_{Robert Sheldon

September 24, 2010

Intelligent Design}

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

Hidden Light The Fibonacci post has generated a longer comment thread than anything else I’ve written. I was just digging a little dirt and must have hit a power line. The question I tried to address, was “is there any physics in Fibonacci, or is it just a mathematician’s curiosity?”

Here’s the physics that came back:

a) AJ Meyer has looked at the galactic rotation curves, and pointed out that “rigid-body” rotation which is observed, can be obtained by having a mass which increases with radius. Now since we can look at galaxies from the side, and they don’t get thicker with radius, it would seem that this increase in mass must be due to something else. Gallo argues that it could be dust, or non-glowing “dark” matter. Meyer argues that a logarithmic spiral distribution, like the arms of spiral galaxies, would contribute more mass at larger radii, exactly as required to match the rotation curves. In other words, there is no “missing matter” in spiral galaxies, but precisely the rotation curve for being a spiral galaxy. Of course, Meyer has no explanation for why the stars are arranged in Fibonacci spirals.

Comments

Ellazimm, I wonder how much effort you have put into researching what research has been done by ID scientists. Have you seen this page of this website? http://evoinfo.org/publications/Collin_{September 30, 2010
September
09
Sep
30
30
2010
11:34 AM
11
11
34
AM
PDT}

Mark: Yes I find it strange. I have always stated clearly, in mt more detailed definitions (maybe not in the quick sum ups) that function can only be recognized by a conscious intelligent agent. But that is not a limit of ID theory: it is a characteristic of functions themselves. Function is one of the concepts which have sense only in a representational world. Strangely, most intelligent people, and especially most biologists, seem to have no difficulties with the notion, and all protein databases explicitly list those functions which you have such difficulties to grasp. Indeed, I suspect that you too have not great difficulties in identifying functions in your general life, except when you are discussing ID. Moreover, always in my longer posts about dFSCI, I have always specified that the function must not only be recognized, but also explicitly defined by the observer (so that other observer can share the definition), and the observe must also give an explicit method to measure it, and to assess its presence or absence. For instance, in the case of hemoglobin, the definition could be something like: a molecule which can bind oxygen with a range of affinity such and such in such and such conditions, and release it in such and such conditions. The more detailed the definition of the function, the better. And as you can say, all of that must become explicit and quantitative. You say: The defence that it is a common assumption in our culture that other minds will be similar in some respects is invalid. The fact that a lot of people believe something is not evidence at all I am well aware that "the fact that a lot of people believe something is not evidence at all". I am a minority guy, as you may know. But I mean that this particular assumption is IMO reasonable, and shared by many. If you have arguments to show that it is unreasonable, I will listen to you. The point is, to act or reason according to a reasonable assumption we need not be certain that it is true. Indeed, we have a lot of examples where different human minds believe differently about a lot of things (see you an me, for instance), and yet share many fundamental properties. I assume that can be true also for non human minds. And I reason accordingly. You say: You also write that you believe that the whole universe was designed (so actually everything has a function?) This is a very strong way to put it. I was only sating that I believe that the universe as a whole has a function. Not necessarily everything. That can be true or not, but I really don't know. I meant just the universe as a global entity. but we are only detecting local function I said that detecting local function is enough for ID theory. I did not say that we cannot detect higher level functions. Even in biological realities, there are many levels of function. I stick to the lower level (the biochemical function of single proteins) because it's easier. Again, that does not mean that higher level functions cannot be investigated. Not necessarily up to the whole universe. but surely everything has a local contribution to make to the universal master plan? I suppose that is sarcastic. But the only thing I bcan say is: I don't know. I believe there is a universal master plan, but that does not necessarily imply that everything has a local contribution to that plan. Instinctively, I would say that, like mutations, many things could be neutral, and some detrimental. But I am not necessarily sponsoring that view.gpuccio_{September 30, 2010
September
09
Sep
30
30
2010
09:06 AM
9
09
06
AM
PDT}

Gpuccio #191 Back in comment #78 you wrote: It’s strange that a concept quite simple and intuhitive like that of CSI may be so misinterpreted by intelligent people. I have given precise definitions and precise examples lots of times, and still the same gross equivocations come out. Now you write that recognising the function of an outcome (which is key to deciding whether it has CSI) can be done only by an appropriate “sensor”, and the only appropriate sensor for conscious representations is another conscious being. The fact is that objective patterns “imprinted” on an output by a consciousness have often the power of evoking the same representations, or similar ones, in the consciousness of an observer of that output. This doesn't appear to be very objective or precise! It seems to me that you are saying "we just know" that something has a function. In some cases without having the foggiest idea what the function is and even when the mind which created the function may be something totally beyond our experience. (The defence that it is a common assumption in our culture that other minds will be similar in some respects is invalid. The fact that a lot of people believe something is not evidence at all.) You also write that you believe that the whole universe was designed (so actually everything has a function?) but we are only detecting local function (but surely everything has a local contribution to make to the universal master plan?) Do you still find it strange that so many intelligent people struggle with the concept?markf_{September 30, 2010
September
09
Sep
30
30
2010
08:38 AM
8
08
38
AM
PDT}

Gpuccio. I have a personal message for you: Dou You know Focolari? If so, "vai corso, ne hai buonne cose per te". A great love for you, Obriton (Silav) CL&J AObriton_{September 30, 2010
September
09
Sep
30
30
2010
05:35 AM
5
05
35
AM
PDT}

Obriton: I am not sure I understand what you are saying, but I can certainly reciprocate your love :)gpuccio_{September 30, 2010
September
09
Sep
30
30
2010
05:12 AM
5
05
12
AM
PDT}

Mark: this is another aspect, which certainly deserved a deeper discussion. I understand that the concept of specification can be the most difficult, especially for people who don't usually attribute great importance to consciousness as an independent empirical factor (I am not referring to you, but to the general reductionst approach which tends in many ways to deny consciousness, or to consider it as a product of the complexity of brain software, as though the question has alredy been settled). For my approach, it is important to repeat that I do consider consciousness as an empirical factor, of undeniable importance, and whose nature has not been settled. I hope you can follow my reasoning on these premises. You say: I was always a bit unclear how a function differed simply from a consequence. Haemoglobin transports oxygen and gives blood its red colour – both are consequences, only the first is a function. I agree on that. On what basis do we make that decision? Well you have cleared that up. For you, something is a function if it is a consequence that a designer intended for his or her purposes. There is nothing in the object itself that makes a consequence functional. It is the correspondence of that consequence to a designer’s intentions. That's quite fine, I am happy that I have explained clearly my point of view. I consider the process of design a process where a conscious representation and intent are in some way "imprinted" on an objective output, and contribute to its final form. I also things that words like "meaning", "purpose", "intent" and "function" should be used only to describe conscious representations, and only secondarily their consequences "frozen" in the objective outputs. It is true that often those words and concepts are "externalized", especially in modern philosophy. I have seen that you distinguish between "natural meaning" and "unnatural meaning". For various reasons, I use the word "meaning" only for what you call "unnatural meaning". So, how can we recognize that there is a meaning or a function (the two things are similar, although probably not exactly the same; that could be ground for another discussion) "imprinted" in an objective output? That can be done only by an appropriate "sensor", and the only appropriate sensor for conscious representations is another conscious being. The fact is that objective patterns "imprinted" on an output by a consciousness have often the power of evoking the same representations, or similar ones, in the consciousness of an observer of that output. That is particular evident for language or art. Think of how emoptions and intuitions are often "transferred" through, let's say, a movie or a poem, even well beyond the literal meaning of words. Functions are recognized in a similar way. We see hemoglobin in RBCs. We3 observe that it attachs oxygen in the lungs, and releases it in periphery. We are aware that oxygen is needed to maintain cellular aerobic life. We are aware that air is inputted in the lungs to replenish them of oxygen. We represent all those things in our consciousness, and we very clearly perceive that hemoglobin is there to "transport" oxygen from the lungs to periphery. And we understand why that is necessary, why it is done that way. The capacity of hemoglobin to attach and release oxygen in different conditions is no more a blind "consequence" for us. We are recognizing a function. Now, the important point here is that we need not know the ultimate reason for which breathing beings exist on our planet. The function is evident in its local context. An understanding of vaster perspectives, such as why does the universe exist as it is, can certainly help, but it is not really necessary. We need not a theory of everything to recognize a local function. What we need is the sense of meaning and purpose, and a more general understanding of the local context where the function is performed. This kind of understanding, in principle, could be shared by any conscious intelligent being. There is no reason to believe it is only a property of the human mind. That brings us to the next problem. You say: But you also admit of non-human designers with unknown powers and motives. So anything might be fulfilling some unknown designer’s purpose. I think of the general category of conscious intelligent designers, and I assume that all conscious intelligent designers may share some fundamental inner representations: meaning, purpose, function, understanding of causal relationships, and probably many others. Minds can differ in many substantial points. That is true even of human minds, so there is no reason to think of the mind of God or of aliens to understand that purposes can be different, and perspectives extremely varied. But still, some fundamental properties can be the same for all minds, be them of different humans, of aliens, or of God. That means that conscious intelligent beings can always communicate, at least at some level. That is no revolutionary idea. Our culture is full of the notion, rather universally shared, that we could be able to communicate with aliens, given the right premises. And human culture of all times is full of the idea that we can communicate with God, and God with us. Be it true or not, the idea is not so extreme and is shared by many intelligent people. The problem, again, is not that some outputs could fulfill some purposes which we cannot recognize. That is often true also of human outputs. In principle, we can find what appears to be a semantic text, but still have no clue of how to decipher it. While we can still get some indirect clue that it is a text, we could never understand its meaning. And in some cases we could even be unable to recognize the output as a text. So, false negatives due to an incapacity to recognize a function where it is present are not really a problem. They are expected by the theory. False negatives are accepted by ID, even in great quantity. It is false positives that we have to avoid. So, when we do recognize a function, the potential functional specification is already there. We just have to be sure that it is not a false positive. That's why we restrict the detection to complex specifications, which cannot reasonably be false positives. That's common procedure in empirical science. You usually choose a threshold which minimizes both false negatives and false positives. But if your absolute priority is specificity (minimizing false positives) you can attain that by shifting your threshold: that will at the same time reduce sensitivity (maximize false negatives). That's what is done in ID when we take a very high threshold of complexity (which means a very low threshold of probability). Indeed some people on this forum believe that the whole universe was designed. If you define functional specification so broadly then, if you do not know an object was designed, you have no more reason to suspect it of one thing than another. Well, I am among those people. But remember that an analysis of the functional specification and complexity of the object is important to build a theory of how that object originated. So, if we take into consideration a possible functional specification of the whole universe, and try to compute its intrinsic complexity, we are in essence debating the cosmological argument. Now, I am a believer in the cosmological argument (not in the ontological), and especially in its modern version of fine tuning, such as it is given for instance by Penrose. And I do believe that the cosmological argument is pertinent to ID, in a large sense. But I usually don't debate those things here, because I believe that philosophers and physicists are already doing that much better than I can, and I have nothing personal to add to the current debate. IOWs, that is not my field. The origin of the universe has too many philosophical implications to be debated as merely a scientific theory. But biological ID is different. It is about local functions, which are often very easily recognizable, and biological information, which is often easily quantifiable. It is, in all ways, a scientific problem. Just to make an example, we may not have any idea of why cockroaches exist (many will have wondered at that), but still we can well understand why some specific biochemical reaction is necessary in their general metabolism, and recognize some specific cockroach enzyme (I really don't know of there are any) as functional. And I believe that any conscious intelligent being, given the necessary information, can do the same.gpuccio_{September 30, 2010
September
09
Sep
30
30
2010
05:10 AM
5
05
10
AM
PDT}

Hello friends, I have to give you a serious advice. Almost all are all wrong. The TRUE is near to come, and better that you are all prepared. With all my love for you, I guess all will be see the Light. Obriton (Silav) CL&J AObriton_{September 30, 2010
September
09
Sep
30
30
2010
05:08 AM
5
05
08
AM
PDT}

Gpuccio #187 OK. Here is another aspect of FSCI to think about. You place enormous importance on functional specification as the key indicator of design. But what do you mean by it and how do you recognise it? You write (my emphasis): We define them designed because a designer imparts them a form which in some way is functional for his intent. The function may not always be easy to recognize or define, but it is always there, because they are the product of a conscious representation and purpose. That’s why I say that functional specification is the real marker of design, even when it is complex. We could define designed things as those things where a conscious representation and intent contributes substantially to the final result. So, all outcomes in A share by definition this property, even if we may not always recognize it in the outcome: I was always a bit unclear how a function differed simply from a consequence. Haemoglobin transports oxygen and gives blood its red colour - both are consequences, only the first is a function. On what basis do we make that decision? Well you have cleared that up. For you, something is a function if it is a consequence that a designer intended for his or her purposes. There is nothing in the object itself that makes a consequence functional. It is the correspondence of that consequence to a designer's intentions. Then later on you write (of group B - those things that were not known to be designed by humans): But there is a minority of them where a functional specification can be suspected. But you also admit of non-human designers with unknown powers and motives. So anything might be fulfilling some unknown designer's purpose. Indeed some people on this forum believe that the whole universe was designed. If you define functional specification so broadly then, if you do not know an object was designed, you have no more reason to suspect it of one thing than another.markf_{September 30, 2010
September
09
Sep
30
30
2010
12:06 AM
12
12
06
AM
PDT}

El, The problem with your prime mover contention is that it is in no way what IDists are proposing. What ID states is simply that by the evidence at hand, irreducibly complex systems do not arise by random variation and natural selection alone, and that certain types of complex information such as that which is found in DNA do not arise out of these same or similar process. The burden is still out on this. There is no known mechanism other than intelligence for how these systems can arise, and the proposed Darwinian mechanism is lacking in specific observable evidence. What you do with this is up to you. If you want to believe that a prime mover is the answer you are free to do so, as many do. If you want to believe as the Raelians do that an alien named "Elohim" and his ancestors seeded life on Earth, you are free to do so. If you want to believe that some as yet unknown force started it all, you are free to do so. Two assumptions you are not free to give by the evidence at hand is that 1) these systems can arise out of unguided natural processes alone, unless you deal with the evidence that is against you and somehow show that they can. The second is the assumption that there cannot be any detectable evidence for a designer. In both of these you are assuming what you are trying to prove. There is no prior assumption involved in ID, since ID does not assert a prime mover. It allows for other views, while most supporters of ID happen to accept a theistic answer. But the evidence speaks for itself. Those who charge that IDists start with the God assumption are simply wrong. ID theorists have taken very careful steps in assuring that assumption is not made. Are they perfect in doing that? I would give you an inch there if you agree not to take a mile. Everyone begins with assumptions. What's important is in recognizing them and treating the evidence in a neutral manner - i.e., go wherever the evidence leads. If it leads to strong implications of theism, so be it. If the Darwinists are able to finally demonstrate a testable and verifiable naturalistic mechanism for these systems, then they have earned the right to assert naturalism as a viable basis for doing biological science. So far they haven't done so.CannuckianYankee_{September 29, 2010
September
09
Sep
29
29
2010
09:07 PM
9
09
07
PM
PDT}

Mark: Just a few final comments, and then I will be happy that you remain confused. First of all, I don't agree that designed things may not be functional. We define them designed because a designer imparts them a form which in some way is functional for his intent. The function may not always be easy to recognize or define, but it is always there, because they are the product of a conscious representation and purpose. That's why I say that functional specification is the real marker of design, even when it is complex. We could define designed things as those things where a conscious representation and intent contributes substantially to the final result. So, all outcomes in A share by definition this property, even if we may not always recognize it in the outcome: indeed, in A we know that a conscious designer was the cause ot the outcome because we have independent evidence of that, and we need not derive that certainty from properties of the outcome. So, A could well correspond to your class of patients where we already know that prostate cancer is present (by other diagnostic tools), independently from high PSA levels, which can be there or not. So, in A we know the outcome is designed independently, we assume a functional specification in all cases, and we observe dFSCI in a very high number of cases. Here I must say that you underestimate the fact that most cases of dFSCI of which we are aware are in A. Especially for the digital subset. I believe that is true for all CSI, but for the digital subset the evidence is overwhelming. I must remind you that essentially almost all dFSCI we know is of the kind: a) language b) software programs Those are practically almost all part of A. The fact that some designed things may be simple in no way diminishes the astounding fact that most complex functional things are in A. That surely makes of complex functionality a very good marker for design. Let's go to B. All those outcomes where we have no independent evidence of a designer. Here, dFSCI is almost absent. By far the greatest majority of these outcomes exhibit no dFSCI. So, they are like the general population, which usually has low levels of PSA. And usually has not prostate cancer (is not designed). Among these outcomes, there are some which apparently have some form which could be considered a candidate for having been designed for a function. You obviously give analogic examples, because there the doubt is easier. It is much more difficult to give digital examples, because spontaneous digital strings which seem to have a function are nor exactly common. So, please remember that we have already observed that outcomes in B almost always do not exhibit dFSCI: they usually lack even the basic requisite for it, which is a functional specification. That vast majority of B, which lacks even a possible recognizable functional specification we call B1. At this point, we already have an amazing difference between A (designed things, patients with ascertained prostate cancer), where the majority of outcomes exhibits dFSCI (has high PSA values), and B, where the vast majority of outcomes (B1) has no functional specification and therefore no dFSCI (has low PSA values). But there is a minority of them where a functional specification can be suspected. Remember that we are in B, and we cannot assume that a functional specification is certainly present, because we have no evidence that a designer was involved in the generation of the output. So, we suspect a function, and therefore we cannot immediately rule out dFSCI. We have to verify if that function is implemented by a complex information. If that is not the case, we rule out dFSCI and don't make a tentative diagnosis of prostate cancer. That is my B2c: possible functional specification, but no complexity atc its basis. Please note that these patients (with low PSA) could still have cancer, but we have no reason to conclude that at this point. So, while most outcomes in B2c may be non designed, some of them will be simple designed things. The false negatives. But there are still two more sunsets in B2. Subsets where the functional specification really implies complex information. They do exhibit dFSCI, objectively and undeniably. One subset I have called B2b: they are the outcomes which are usually accepted as human artifacts, even in absence of independent evidence of design. I have made the example of a passage in latin found somewhere, of which we have no other information beyond the fact that it is a written passage of latin. All the example of this kind are accepted as human artifacts, id dFSCI is really present. And if the conclusion of a designer is not a cause for scandal. If my passage in latin were found on the moon, it would certainly arise scandal, and many would desperately try to explain it away in some way: but again, they should at least consider design as the best explanation, and then follow the way their scandal imposes them. The last subset, not so small, is B2a: biological information. There, and only there, we find true, obvious dFSCI in great abundance, and yet we have no direct or indirect independent evidence of a designer (at least, not a scientific one). But please note that B2a is a subset which is independently characterized: those are outcomes found only in living things. This is the true problem. This is the true scandal. This is the true scientific evidence which you try to deny: only living things exhibit dFSCI, and cannot easily be attributed to a known designer. So, only two possibilities exist: 1) dFSCI in biological information is explained in the same way all other known dFSCI is: by a designer. But the designer is probably not a human designer, and we have to ask ourselves who he can be. 2) dFSCI in biological information can be explained in some other way, which does not require a designer. But we have to find that "other way". Indeed, all darwinian theory is an effort to provide "another way". In that sense, it is a testimony to the importance of the concept of functional complexity. If there were not a problem of functional complexity suggesting design in living beings, all darwinian theory would be useless. Indeed, it is useless, but for another reason: because it does not work. It does not do what it is intended to do: it does not explain dFSCI in biological information. The design hypothesis does. Now you can remain confused, or just think that I am even more confused than you suspected. I am however happy that you have given me the opportunity to clarify many important aspects of my thought (as you always do: that's why I like you) :)gpuccio_{September 29, 2010
September
09
Sep
29
29
2010
05:29 PM
5
05
29
PM
PDT}

Gpuccio #184 I must say I found this post even more confusinging than its predecessors. You want to use dFSCI as an indicator of design. Now let us take the analogy with a medical test. Suppose we want to evaluate high PSA level as a test for prostate cancer. The usual way to do this would be to look at cases where we know the subject has prostate cancer and other cases where we know the subject has not got prostate cancer and measure the frequency of high PSA levels in the two cases. If high PSA levels are found in abundance in both cases, or very little in both cases, then it is not a good indicator. It only works if high PSA levels are found in one case and not the other. Then we can start to use high PSA levels to determine if a subject has prostate cancer. This is what I thought you were suggesting with that dFSCI could do for us - where the condition is "designed" and the test is "dFSCI" is present. But you want to do something different. You claim that dFSCI is present in most cases where we know design to be present (group A). This is clearly wrong. There are vast numbers of things that we design that are not complex and others that have no function or the function is not known. A flint axe is not complex. It might easily happen through chance. In fact there are probably many flint axes that we do not recognise as such because they are indistinguishable from chance. The doodles I make in a meeting have no function. However, suppose you were right and all designed things perform a function and are complex i.e. the probability of the outcome due to chance is very small. That is equivalent to establishing that high PSA levels are present when the patient has prostate cancer. But your next step is not to see whether dFSCI is also found in items that are known not to be designed - which would be logical. For some reason you ignore this conventional alternative. Instead you try to determine if dFSCI is present in outcomes "for which there are valid reasons for hypothesizing design" and if it is not present in all the others. But what is the valid reason for supposing hypothesizing design? That they exhibit functional specification. Which is one of the two criteria for dFSCI! To pursue the medical test analogy. You have determined that patients with prostate cancer have high PSA levels. Instead of seeing if PSA levels are also high in patients without prostate cancer you instead determine if high PSA levels are present in patients for which there are "valid reasons for hypothesising they have prostate cancer". This might be a legitimate procedure if your valid reasons were independent of PSA levels. But in fact the "valid reasons" turn out to be that they have high PSA levels! To your delight you find that the vast majority of patients with valid reasons have high PSA levels and the vast majority of patients without valid reasons do not. You ask why I reject dFCSI? I sort of understand the definition but I don't see its use. Functional specification has no correlation with design. Designed things may not be functional and functional things may not be designed. The argument from complexity is just saying - there is no known chance process which is likely to produce this result. It has a limited use. It draws attention to places where we do not understand how outcomes arose. It is a long step from there to concluding design.markf_{September 29, 2010
September
09
Sep
29
29
2010
02:46 PM
2
02
46
PM
PDT}

CY; some people say that by assuming the existence of an intelligent designer ID proponents are assuming that which they want to prove. Given an example of a system, which does look designed,on what basis do we give up the un-designed assumption? Some of us accept the idea of an otherwise undetected and unproven designer and some of us do not. I'd like to see some more evidence, aside from the thing under contention. Show me that extra evidence. gpuccio: I agree that some of the current research in OOL research is very tenuous. But it is testable. IF someone proposes a certain pathway then it can be looked at, step by step, in detail. The trouble with an intelligent designer (who has left no evidence aside from DNA) is that it's impossible to attempt to reproduce their work. If someone says: I think such and such molecule could spontaneously modify into this other structure then that can be tested given time and resources. CY: about the untestable prime mover . . . I was assuming an argument and that was not right. For a prime mover to be testable a particular aspect of their influence would have to be defined. IF there is a prime mover then . . . . in other words a hypothesis would have to be given. And that hypothesis would have to be falsifiable. Yeah?? More generally, the idea of an intelligent designer whose motives and goals are not spelled out is too slippery because it's always possible to say: Oh, the designer could have wanted it to look that way OR we can't possibly know what the design motivation was OR who are we to judge good vs bad design. If anything can be accepted in the design tent then it has no meaning. Given the truth of an intelligent designer then I agree those arguments are valid. But if the existence of such a designer is still in contention then you can't fall back on those arguments. First you have to show such a being exists. And if your main thread of argument is disputed, by lots of people, then you have two choices: invalidate their arguments OR find more evidence. Invalidating the arguments against an intelligent designer don't seem to work in that no one really changes their minds. This is just a practical assessment. ID is not winning this battle. You can say that's because of a bias in the system which just forces another 'truth' to prove, that there is a prejudice against the ID paradigm. And if it's NOT losing the battle . . . then why is it still acting like the underdog? The other obvious thing to do is: FIND MORE EVIDENCE!! Do more research. Look for the things that validate your ideas. The advantage with this is you are not depending so much on playing an acceptance game.I know there are lots of ID commentators criticising research but, frankly, there is a real lack of original ID research being done and published. It can't just be money. If over half the people in the US do not accept that man came about by unguided processes then it should be fairly easy to set up some labs which will pursue pertinent research issues. You can argue with dopes like me 'til you're blue in the face and, in the end, that doesn't matter a bit. Get some data. Publish some papers. If materialism is dead then it should be easy to generate tons and tons of research. And if the basic nature of science must be questioned then work on a new, solid, defined, supportable definition. It's late for me now. I'm glad to have spent some time with youse guys. :-) I hope your days and evenings are fulfilling and wonderful. See y'all later!!ellazimm_{September 29, 2010
September
09
Sep
29
29
2010
01:27 PM
1
01
27
PM
PDT}

zeroseven,
Well what is the actual evidence? You don’t have any either.
Physical sciences require the burden of physical evidence, and those making the claim for a self-replicating molecule should require evidence before they make the claim. Otherwise it is philosophy, something posited as a supposition, which is fine, but that isn't actual physical science. It is a place-holder in light of ignorance.
You cannot explain how the first replicating molecule, or the first cell, arose, apart from saying something designed it, which doesn’t add anything to our sum of knowledge. At least the biologists are trying to come up with theories that include mechanisms.
At the very least, these biologists are claiming a philosophy of science that requires methodological naturalism in how they see science and how it should be conducted, a philosophy of which you appear to agree as another philosopher. But lets not forget that methodological naturalism is a philosophy, not itself actually evidenced by anything physical, and on this head there are differing philosophies as to what science is with which reasonable people can disagree. Let's be clear in what we mean, a philosophy of science is distinct from the evidence. UB is perfectly right in claiming that there is no evidence, and perfectly right to disagree with this philosophy of methodological naturalism. There is nothing wrong with pointing out the shortcomings of either. And these shortcomings may be formidable, so formidable in fact that they create an impasse for any physical process as an explanation, which leads to validly questioning the salience of methodological naturalism in explaining the phenomena.Clive Hayden_{September 29, 2010
September
09
Sep
29
29
2010
11:21 AM
11
11
21
AM
PDT}

ellazimm: about OOL, theories and parsimony: there are assumptions I can accept, in science, and others which can be at best classified as fairy tales. Mpst of OOL theories fall heavily in the second category. You are worried about parsimony, about not assuming things for which we have no evidence. What about all the things assumed in OOL theories, for which we have absolutely no evidence, either direct or indirect? a) An original self replicating molecule independent from a living being b) RNA beings c) Molecular evolution in the absence of cell replication d) Life without the minimal (but highly complex) requisites we observe And so on. Can I remind you that it is absolutely impossible, even in today's labs, to generate life form non life, even if you have all the single pieces already available? Can I remind you that we still are practically unable to efficiently engineer completely new proteins. even with all the understanding we have? Can I remind you that no example of autonomous life exists in the universe we know which is not based on the whole basic system of DNA, RNA, proteins, RNA duplication, transcription, translation, metabolism, membrane, and so on? To be more clear: to hypothesize LUCA on the basis of what we see today is still a credible scientific assumption: it may be wrong or right, but it is not folly. But to hypothesize RNA beings, which have never been observed, of which there is not evidence, which cannot be produce in the lab, and so on, is really fairy tale. We have lost the sense of what is an admissible scientific theory and what is not. We badly need to get it again.gpuccio_{September 29, 2010
September
09
Sep
29
29
2010
11:02 AM
11
11
02
AM
PDT}

el, BTW, it is typical statements like that, which for me make materialism decidedly un-parsimonious, as in assuming what it is trying to prove.CannuckianYankee_{September 29, 2010
September
09
Sep
29
29
2010
10:48 AM
10
10
48
AM
PDT}

CY: I come to the assumption of an untestable prime mover 'cause . . . uh . . . Okay, touche. I shall think about that this evening. (See, he says to himself, that's why I'm on UD. People call me on things.) Really have to go now though . . .lellazimm_{September 29, 2010
September
09
Sep
29
29
2010
10:45 AM
10
10
45
AM
PDT}

Mark: I will try to remain adherent to your points: 1) I thought that complexity in ID speak meant the probability of arising through necessity or chance was incredibly small? This does not follow from this calculation at all. You have to also assume there is no known non-design cause which would lead you to the target in the search space. The probability of arising through necessity is 1. The rate between target space and search space gives the probability of finding the target space through a random search. Why do you say it is not so? Necessity is another matter. If a necessity mechanism can be described, then the result must happen. The two things are not related. In the case of a mixed mechanism, the necessity part must be credible and consistent, while the random part must be probabilistically credible. Again, the two things are different. 2)
B) we known not to be designed (because we know how they were produced) e.g. the pattern of iron filings on a magnetic field (C) we do not know for sure whether they are designed or not because we do not know how they were produced (which includes aspects of life such as proteins, but also such things as old marks on rocks).
While your rendition of A is fine, I have to object to B and C. B is not the set about which "we know how they are produced". Indeed, according to my argument there is only A and B. A is the set of outcomes for which we have direct (or indirect) knowledge of the intervention of a designer. B is the set of all other outcomes. In principle, all outcomes in B could be designed or not. In B, we can after determine two subsets: B1: outcomes for which we have no reason to hypothesize design. B2: outcomes for which there are valid reasons to do that. But to create those two subsets, we need some rule. You argue there is a correlation between dFSCI and group A. Correct. So it is. So if dFSCI is present in outcomes in group C we can conclude that they also are designed. Let's say that if we confirm that outcomes in subset B2 really exhibit dFSCI, design is the best explanation for them. You can ask how we divide outcomes in B1 and B2. Knowing how they originate is not the rule. The main reason why I would put an event in B2 is that it apparently exhibits functional specification (or meaning). I have said many times that functional specification and meaning are the real marks of design. So, we hypothesize design for the outcomes in B2 because we think we recognize function or meaning in them. With these premises, let's go to your argument: 3)
Now look at each of the defining characteristics of dFSCI and see to what extent it correlates with groups A and B. Is any charactistic rarely absent or rarely present in either group? I think you will find that, with two exceptions, they are all often present and often absent in both groups. (I expand on this in my blog). The exceptions are 4) Complexity is greater than 150 bits and 5) No explanatory necessity mechanism is know I will combine those as “there is no known plausible non-design mechanism”. I hope that makes sense?
No, it doesn't. Here is my definition of dFSCI: "a) A string of digital values b) Scarcely compressible c) Whose complexity is higher than 150 bits d) Which conveys the information for a well defined function… If you want, we can make explicit what is already implicit in b), and add: e) For which no explanatory necessity mechanism is known." The two strictly related points which essentially define dFSCI are c and d together. Those to points together strongly correlate with most outcomes in A, and with only a few in B. The reason is simple. Functional specification is the real mark of design. It is present in all designed outcomes, because it is an expression of the intention, or purpose, of the designer. Complexity in itself is often present everywhere. But complexity (at the level I have indicated) which essentially contributes to the functional specification is present only in A and in two specific subsets of B2: biological information and human artifacts for which we have not direct or indirect evidence of the intervention of a designer. Let's call those two subsets B2a and B2b. The human origin of outcomes on B2b is only an inference, but an inference which is universally accepted. Any string with the characteristics of dFSCI for which a human origin is not a scandal will be promptly recognized as a human artifact, even if there is no direct or indirect evidence of its human origin. So, if we find a piece of latin writing, we don't spend much time wondering if it is a human artifact, even of we have no evidence about who wrote it. The ouctomes in B2a are the object of our debate. So, what we are saying here is that a specific formal property, high complexity conveying the information for a function, is found only in A, B2a and B2b. Please note that those two subsets do not exhaust B2: we can call B2c the subset of B2 which apparently exhibits functional specification, but a functional specification which is not complex. So, without any circularity, we have mapped a formal property (complex functional specification) in a set of outcomes. You may ask: what about the other points in the definition? Well, each of them has a reason, but they are not really the essential definition, but necessary conditions to make that definition practically useful. a) is introduced by me in the definition to limit the discussion to digital CSI, which is easier to manage. I have explained many times that this is not an absolute requirement, but only a methodological one. Analogic CSI does exists, but I prefer not to deal with it in a discussion about biological information. b) The compressibility issue is really implicit on the concept of complexity, which must correspond to Kolmogorov complexity. A compressible string can easily be the output of a simple algorithm. If the algorithm can be explained as a natural system, then design is not needed to explain that outcome. The same can be said for point e), which as I have specified is only a different way to express b). You have discussed in a long and detailed way the supposed fundamental importance of this point for the supposed circularity. But the absence of a known non design mechanism is just necessary because a necessity mechanism would be a simpler explanation, and no design inference would be appropriate in that case. IOWs, an explicit necessity mechanism falsifies the design inference which, being an empirical inference, can certainly be falsified. The problem is that there are many reasons to believe that necessity algorithms cannot generate that kind of formal property that we observe in complex designed objects, bevasue they have not the required flexibility. For instance, no algorithm we can conceive could output the different sequences of the different 2000 basic protein superfamilies, because there is no simple rule which connects them: indeed, we are still trying to calculate protein folds, with very limited success. So, to sum up: The real mark of design is functional specification. The real tool to identify human design with great certainly (in absence of direct or indirect evidence) is the formal property of complex functional specification. The complexity excludes apparent specifications which are not the result of a conscious intent. The best way to be sure that the complex functional specification we observe is not apparently complex is to rigorously verify that it is not the output of a necessity law. That is specially important because there are many patterns which can appear designed (in the sense of "ordered", more than "functional"), but are essentially simple in their origin. Your magnet could be one, but self ordering systems are a better example. None of these systems has anything to do with the formal property we have described, but many people (especially darwinists) seem to think so, for unknown reasons. But the functional complexity of dFSCI is all another thing. No simple algorithm can generate it, be it the meaning in Hamlet or the function in a software program. Finally, I really don't understand what is your real position. Do you believe that there is nothing like functional information? If you accept that my definition of functional information excludes necessity mechanisms and random mechanisms, do you accept that design is different from both? And if you acc ept that dFSCI is present in biological strings, then how do you explain them? Circular or not circular, functionally complex strings do exist. So, either you believe that protein sequences can be generated by a necessity and random mechanism, and then you are simply saying that they do not exhibit dFSCI (which I could accept, if you could demonstrate that), or you believe that they do exhibit dFSCI, but that they are not designed. In that case, please, how do you think they originated? Your attempt to find circularity where there is none is really strange. If, like darwinists, you believe that biological information can be explained in non design ways, then you only have to do that: dFSCI will then be falsified in those outcomes, and you will be happy and we IDists will be very unhappy. So, why this desperate need to reject dFSCI? It is a good tool to scientific truth, both for you and for us. If you are right, and can explain biological information, then the concept of dFSCI is on your side: we will have conclude that human artifacts exhibit dFSCI and are designed (a conclusion which you can agree with), and that biological information does not exhibit dFSCI (because it can be explained by a necessity/random mechanism) and is not designed (a conclusion which you will certainly agree with). But if dFSCI is confirmed in biological information, then that concept is on our side. And everything changes.gpuccio_{September 29, 2010
September
09
Sep
29
29
2010
10:44 AM
10
10
44
AM
PDT}

UPB: just saw your answer. Thank you!! I shall look into that. Sorry I put your hackles up. I do that to lots of people.ellazimm_{September 29, 2010
September
09
Sep
29
29
2010
10:42 AM
10
10
42
AM
PDT}

El, "That is: the ability of life and information arising from inanimate material on one side. And the existence of a prime mover beyond the scope of testing on the other." Go back and read this again. This is your statement, and this is where your main assumption lies - particularly "a prime mover beyond the scope of testing." Where does this assumption come from? Do you believe that any "prime mover" is necessarily beyond the scope of testing? And what does that mean for you? Have you thought about this in-depth, or are you simply echoing what you have read from materialists? If you really believe materialism is the more parsimonious worldview, I think it's important for you to at least be able to recognize your own assumptions, and be as skeptical of them as you are with POVs you disagree with. You may be right about the prime mover, but what makes you come to that conclusion?CannuckianYankee_{September 29, 2010
September
09
Sep
29
29
2010
10:42 AM
10
10
42
AM
PDT}

If materialism is dead and you're right then why waste time arguing with me? I should think you would be asking question much like I did about what your outlook entails. I would think someone, somewhere would be pursuing research along those lines. Surely there is money available to do that. Why fight with the system if there's money and people who are willing to check out the every species is a new genome view. I never have got that to be honest. I read the statistics: less than half the US population accept that man came about by undirected processes. Okay, then you've got the numbers and the money behind you. You don't need to fight me or anyone else. Just do the research that must arise from whatever ID version you are ascribing to. Get the Templeton Foundation to fund it. Just do it! Millions of dollars are given to various denominations every year by the faithful. It should be easier for an ID researcher to find funds than for someone who has to beg for grants from the various government agencies. If I were on the ID side I'd be asking: where is the research? Anyway, enough from me for a while. Gotta do family stuff. Hope I haven't offended anyone too much.ellazimm_{September 29, 2010
September
09
Sep
29
29
2010
10:37 AM
10
10
37
AM
PDT}

UBP: I thought I had admitted that in my post where I said I thought the materialist paradigm had fewer assumptions and was more parsimonious but that I thought the assumptions of materialism were more subject to testing and experiment. I thought I was discussing the underlying assumptions on both sides. That is: the ability of life and information arising from inanimate material on one side. And the existence of a prime mover beyond the scope of testing on the other. I apologise if I've got it wrong but I am not intentionally dodging an issue or avoiding a question. I suspect you'll say that the impossibility of undirected, non-intelligent forces to have done what they are proposed to have done HAS been proven. But I think that brings up a lot of other assumptions about an intelligent designer which have not been proven. Am I'm not conceding that it has been proven that material processes are inadequate in case you were wondering. :-) I think that tracking down the material forces are incapable approach naturally brings up some of the questions I raised IF the assumption is that every new species had to be 'created'. Which is why I am asking you for your opinion on my questions. I can't quite figure out why you keep harping on about my stupidity and won't address my questions. It hardly matters what I think anyway whereas I think some of my questions do matter. Maybe they don't. What do you think?ellazimm_{September 29, 2010
September
09
Sep
29
29
2010
10:24 AM
10
10
24
AM
PDT}

Ella, quite honestly, it is a bit awkward for me personally to carry on a conversation about front-loading while you are still making categorically wrong statements about ID. It's a bit like carrying on a conversation with a smiling pick-pocket. Of course, that is just my personal view, others will no doubt be happy to provide you with information. I can assure you VJTorely is more than capable of a stimulating conversation in all matters of ID. (Glad to see you back VJ). If you want an in-depth contribution to the notion of front-loading, I suggest The Design Matrix by Mike Gene.Upright BiPed_{September 29, 2010
September
09
Sep
29
29
2010
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PDT}

Ella, You are still just NOT getting it. Do this. Always remember that ID is NOT A CHALLENGE TO ANYTHING WHATSOEVER THAT HAS EVER BEEN PROVEN BY EXPERIMENT. Now, if you can get that firmly situated in your view, then all the uneccesary ramblings about ID will just fade away. What you will then be left with is what is actually at issue. You see, it is the assumptions that are unproven by experiment which are at the heart of the matter. And those assumptions are being challenged by the results of EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE and VALID REASONING. That evidence and reasoning is being denigrated and disallowed, based upon the ideological protection of those assumptions which are unproven by experiment DO you understand? So once again, remember ID is not a challenge to anything whatsosever which has been proven by experiment. ID people think that the Law of Gravity is a good thing. We think that dog are related to wolves. We think that when a person gets sick it is because they have taken on an infectious pathogen of some sort. We think that the DNA in an ant uses the same coding as the DNA in an antelope. Now, please do try to remember what the issues really are, and perhaps, cut back on the flag waiving about what is not even in play.Upright BiPed_{September 29, 2010
September
09
Sep
29
29
2010
10:04 AM
10
10
04
AM
PDT}

Actually, I suppose a better name for what I was asking about would be reloading: the idea that an intelligent designer steps in on occasion and introduces a new genome, similar to an old but unviable existing genome. And it seems like anyone who agrees that there is an edge to evolution would have to accept something like what I was bringing up. And that some of my questions would have to be looked at.ellazimm_{September 29, 2010
September
09
Sep
29
29
2010
09:59 AM
9
09
59
AM
PDT}

UBP: am I to assume you have no opinion on the front-loading questions I brought up in comments 85 - 87?ellazimm_{September 29, 2010
September
09
Sep
29
29
2010
09:47 AM
9
09
47
AM
PDT}

UBP: "There ya go . . " hahahahahahahahah :-) Parsimonious in that it requires fewer assumptions and generates fewer follow-on questions. Occam's razor and all that. Why is it so hard for me to come to grips with what you are saying? I could be very, very stupid. I have my moments. The big notion IS untestable but the small, individual steps that are hypothesised are testable. And in OOL research (I think) what is being done is that the path is being traced backwards. So if someone proposes that such-and-such could be a precursor for what we have now that guess can be tested. I'm not familiar with the notion of symbollic mapping but there is no one-to-one correspondence between the body and the genome. If there was then there'd be a leg segment which could be subdivided into a knee segment and a thigh segment, etc. The DNA is a complication recipe with lots of branches for differing chemical situations. You can not completely predict the final 'product' based on a particular genome because the sequences contain instructions that are activated based partly on the environmental conditions.ellazimm_{September 29, 2010
September
09
Sep
29
29
2010
09:17 AM
9
09
17
AM
PDT}

Ella, "So, the way I see it, we have two options: life somehow managed to spontaneous arise from non-life OR there is at least one ~~unknowable and~~ un detectable intelligence who at some time, at least, brought into existence a complex and self-replicating molecule upon which all life on our planet is based. I hope I am being fair to both sides here." There ya go, I fixed that for ya. - - - - - - - "I find the materialist assumptions more parsimonious." Parsimoniuos with what? The emperical observation that semiotic content is a byproduct of the weak nuclear force, or, that gravity explains language? Ella, you seriously need to get it in your head what evolution (descent with variation) does and does not explain. What is explained by evolution is not in doubt. Why is this so hard for you to come to grips with? - - - - - - - "I find the materialist paradigm to be more explanatory and scientific owing to there being the possibility of testing those hypotheses." What is the test for the notion that unguided forces are all that is at work in the cosmos? That is, after all, the core assumption you have repeatedly espoused on this forum? It is also the core assumption of those whose work you point to as a validation of the notion. Does it bother you at all that the notion is untestable? Or, it that a requirement you faithfully reserve only for your intellectual opponents? And by the way, the presence of symbollic mapping within the genome is fully testable.Upright BiPed_{September 29, 2010
September
09
Sep
29
29
2010
09:06 AM
9
09
06
AM
PDT}

VJ: Your link was very interesting. Thanks! I admit that we have never observed life spontaneously arising from non-life but to argue that it never could . . . how do you get life in the first place? I mean anywhere. That forces the belief in a supernatural being who exists outside of space and time. And, some would say, we have no evidence of such a being. So, the way I see it, we have two options: life somehow managed to spontaneous arise from non-life OR there is at least one unknowable and undetectable intelligence who at some time, at least, brought into existence a complex and self-replicating molecule upon which all life on our planet is based. I hope I am being fair to both sides here. I find the materialist assumptions more parsimonious. I find the materialist paradigm to be more explanatory and scientific owing to there being the possibility of testing those hypotheses. AND I know of a lot of very smart researchers who think the materialist model is worth exploring and examining. Maybe some of them ARE just going through the motions 'cause that's what expected of them; I think that is a distinct possibility. I can easily see how someone could think: this is all just rubbish but I gotta do it to keep my publication record respectable. OR I'll teach my class and try and keep a straight face but . . . . do these guys really think a bunch of chemicals just, somehow, incredibly, came together and starting making copies of themselves? Don't make me laugh. IF there are people like that then I feel really sorry for them and I empathise; I've done work that I had no interest or faith in and it's awful. Every day you feel like you're selling a bit of your soul to feed a beast. And I feel really sorry for the rest of us if the vast consensus of the scientific community is just a lot of scared people saying they 'believe' in order to toe the line and keep their jobs.ellazimm_{September 29, 2010
September
09
Sep
29
29
2010
08:33 AM
8
08
33
AM
PDT}

markf: You may think, that by combining the magnetic and the filings, you have created, from two items, a magnet: simple and specified, and filings: complex and mostly unspecified (apart from being collected in a jar), a new entity which is both complex and specified. And, in fact, the whole does exceed the strict sum of the parts, because in the act adding the filings to the magnetic you have added a new specification; you have imparted new information into the system that did not exist. But it is a very small thing; you have modified the existing location and distribution of the filings in a very specific way, by pouring, say, instead of throwing them up in the air, and by placing them on the magnetic instead of a meter away. It is not always a simple thing to decompose a system to determine what about it is simple/complex/specified/unspecified, and the difficulty we often have in doing so is not an indication that such distinctions are meaningless, but that we are still developing both the vocabulary and methodology to do so. The magnet/filings example is one where the accounting can be doneSCheesman_{September 29, 2010
September
09
Sep
29
29
2010
07:18 AM
7
07
18
AM
PDT}

#164 Gpuccio You are confusing function and mechanism for performing that function. All the haemoglobin has to do is get the oxygen to the tissue. Now in practice this turns out to require a complicated mechanism but if the haeomglobin succeeded in some other way then its function is fulfilled.markf_{September 29, 2010
September
09
Sep
29
29
2010
07:03 AM
7
07
03
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 … 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply