Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

A Materialist Gets It (Almost)

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

A recent exchange with Allan Keith illustrates how materialists have allowed their intellect to become literally enslaved to their metaphysical commitments.  Allan proves one can understand the logic fully and even accept the logic.  And then turn right around and deny the conclusions compelled by the logic.  Let’s see how:

We will pick up the exchange where Allan has admitted that we have countless trillions of examples of functional complexity, semiosis and irreducible complexity caused by humans.

___________________________________________________________

Barry:

You admit that we have countless trillions of examples of functional complexity, semiosis and irreducible complexity from humans. So far so good.

What is it about humans that enables them to cause those things Allan? Intelligence.

So now we have countless trillions of examples of functional complexity, semiosis and irreducible complexity from humans on account of their intelligence.

We have observed exactly ZERO instances of any other cause accounting for functional complexity, semiosis and irreducible complexity.

Put it together Allan. Human intelligence is the only certainly known source of functional complexity, semiosis and irreducible complexity.

Therefore, when we see functional complexity, semiosis and irreducible complexity whose origins we do not know, we have a choice:

1 Attribute it to the only cause known with certainty to produce it, i.e. intelligence.
2 Attribute it to causes that have never been observed producing it.

Answer 1 is obviously best.

Allan responds:

Option 1 does not follow from your logic. The logical option 1 would be:  Attribute it to the only cause known with certainty to produce it, i.e. Human intelligence.

___________________________________________________________

I understand Allan’s metaphysical commitments prevent him from following the logic beyond a certain point, but his response is still very sad.  I wonder if he ever gets tired of wearing those blinkers.

What is wrong with Allan’s reply?  It steadfastly ignores the glaringly obvious fact that intelligence (not the more narrow “human intelligence”) is the causal factor.

In other words, the thing about humans that makes them a special case is not that they are a member of the Animalia kingdom, or the Chordata phylum, or the Mammalia class, or the Primate order, or the Homo genus or the Homo sapiens species.  The thing that distinguishes humans is reflected in the name of the species.  (“Homo sapiens” means literally “wise man.”) The distinguishing characteristic of the species is intelligence.

It is that characteristic and nothing else that accounts for the ability of Homo sapiens to cause functional complexity, semiosis and irreducible complexity.*

Now it is certainly true that the species Homo sapiens is the only species of which we have observational evidence that it causes functional complexity, semiosis and irreducible complexity.  Allan seems to believe that fact compels the conclusion that we can infer only “human design” from an observed instance of functional complexity, semiosis and irreducible complexity.

Nonsense.  Not even Allan’s fellow materialists agree with him:

BEN STEIN: What do you think is the possibility that Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in Darwinian evolution.

DAWKINS: Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Um, now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer. . . . And that Designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe.  But that higher intelligence would itself have had to have come about by some explicable, or ultimately explicable process. It couldn’t have just jumped into existence spontaneously. That’s the point

Dawkins understands, as Allan apparently does not, that it is the intelligence, not its instantiation in any particular species, that is important when it comes to inferring design.

UPDATE:

To his credit, Allan now admits the obvious:

Design inference is based almost solely on a comparison to human design. This can certainly be used to infer design in biology . . .

But he cannot resist adding an unwarranted disclaimer:

. . . but with only one known source of intelligence as a frame of reference, the inference is weak. That is statistical reality speaking, not me. But even a weak inference can strengthen support for ID if there were other avenues of examination that support ID.

Why does Allan consider the inference weak?  Because his metaphysical commitments, not logic, compel that conclusion.  Again, here is the logic:

  1. Object X exhibits functional complexity, semiosis and irreducible complexity.
  2. The ONLY KNOWN CAUSE of functional complexity, semiosis and irreducible complexity is design by an intelligent agent.
  3. Inferring to best explanation, the only known cause of functional complexity, semiosis and irreducible complexity (i.e., intelligent design) is the cause of the functional complexity, semiosis or  irreducible complexity in Object X.

Allan insists the inference is “weak,” even though he admits the inference as to cause is to the only known cause of the phenomenon.  Why?  Statistics.  Nonsense.  It is not a statistical analysis.  It is a logical analysis.

 

 

 

_____________

*Let’s not get bogged down with beavers and bees.  The international space station is obviously different in kind and not merely degree from a beaver dam.  Anyone who denies this disqualifies themselves from being considered serious.

 

Comments
@EA my point is yes, it is circular to appeal to human intelligence, on both sides of the debate. ET at 340 gets this.EricMH
April 3, 2018
April
04
Apr
3
03
2018
08:26 PM
8
08
26
PM
PDT
EricMH@331:
The problem is that if human intelligence is the product of chance and necessity, then since chance and necessity cannot produce anything other than chance and necessity, human intelligence must also reduce to chance and necessity.
Well duh. If human intelligence is the product of chance and necessity then obviously human intelligence is reducible to chance and necessity. And yes that would make the word "artifact" superfluous as it would all trace back to mother nature (just as computer programs trace back to their programmers which in turn trace back to mother nature). This is why the origin of life is key. If mother nature did it then ID is basically done. On the other hand Intelligently Designed origins means they were intelligently designed with the ability to adapt/ evolve.ET
March 27, 2018
March
03
Mar
27
27
2018
05:38 PM
5
05
38
PM
PDT
Eh. I can build algorithms which build other algorithms in response to input; sensory or stored. The issue is, that algorithm can only produce lesser algorithms; or, every potential algorithm must be encoded between the input and the algorithm itself. Also, the effectiveness of the generated algorithms relies directly on a higher order process' (the coder's) understanding of the input set. For any significant portion of the output algorithms to be stored in the input...well, first, they have to be reliably found in the input. Then the generator algorithm has to be specifically coded to use the algorithm components stored in the input. And, again, it all still descends from a higher order process - the mind of the programmer that foresaw and built the algorithm around those properties of the input. So any generator that would build a greater generator would first have to be capable of generating a set of functions from which that greater generator can emerge - then it would have to be fed that larger generator formatted into an input set it understands. This wouldn't be random at all, of course. So, lower order CSI can be expressed by higher order CSI via necessity? (correction is quite welcome) But randomness could only determine what lesser order is expressed; and only within the repertoire of the higher order CSI. So, I would infer the human mind necessitates a higher order generator function, which is at the very least encoded with human intellect. For such a function to not be intelligent itself, but to be a pure template instancing function for human intellect...would have me searching eternally for an even greater Intellect preceding.LocalMinimum
March 27, 2018
March
03
Mar
27
27
2018
05:31 PM
5
05
31
PM
PDT
EricMH] if humans create the CSI in human artifacts, and humans are artificial intelligences, then since artificial intelligence is a purely a mechanism of chance and necessity, then human artifacts are an example of chance and necessity creating CSI. Well, that would certainly be an interesting thing to consider at 2 a.m. in a dorm room circa 1978. OTOH, your position is basically that chance and necessity is all that there is and this denies practical reality. IOW, if someone stole your credit card and emptied your bank account you would not accept that it was just chance and necessity as a reason why authorities ignore your complaint. Design is part of reality and if you say that humans are mere automatons programmed by nature hence all design is chance and necessity then forgive us for thinking you are silly and not taking you seriously.tribune7
March 27, 2018
March
03
Mar
27
27
2018
03:50 PM
3
03
50
PM
PDT
EricMH @331: Thanks for the additional response.
The problem is that if human intelligence is the product of chance and necessity, then since chance and necessity cannot produce anything other than chance and necessity, human intelligence must also reduce to chance and necessity.
I understand where you are heading, but it is the fallacy of begging the question. So there is no point in even pursuing the analogy. It breaks down at step 1.
So, if we then hold up human artifacts as examples of intelligence creating CSI, all this demonstrates, given the previous paragraph, is that chance and necessity can create CSI.
Again, I understand where you are trying to go. But consider that many materialists would argue that purely natural processes somehow produced intelligence, which is now a new type of cause that can do things chance and necessity originally on their own could not. Indeed, this is probably the most common approach taken by materialists, other than those who believe (or feign to believe) that intelligence, consciousness, free will and the like are all an illusion. I presume you acknowledge that intelligence is real, whatever its origin?
We have to first prove that human intelligence is not reducible to chance and necessity, i.e. can do something a Turing machine cannot do, in order use human artifacts as a definitive example of non-chance and necessity creating CSI.
No. That is not correct. Let's suppose that we have good reason to suspect that intelligence is real (i.e., the post you wrote was really produced through your intentional and thoughtful activity, rather than the chance outcome of some particles colliding). We are not then forced to explain the ultimate origin of that phenomenon to observe that it can do things that other causes cannot. You are committing a fallacy if you think that we cannot contrast what we witness about intelligence with what we witness about chance and necessity, and draw any rational observations. It is simply false that we have to "prove" something about the origin of intelligence in order to make the very rational observation (one observed multiple times every single day of your life) that intelligence is capable of things -- today, on the ground, in real time -- that chance and necessity by themselves are not. The "if" proposition you keep proposing is not a good answer. It is the final grasping at straws by the materialist to argue (circularly, as we have noted) that perhaps intelligence itself is the result of chance and necessity, thus saving the materialist's worldview -- a proposition for which there is little good evidence and much contrary evidence.Eric Anderson
March 27, 2018
March
03
Mar
27
27
2018
03:42 PM
3
03
42
PM
PDT
EricMH: ... yes the question is of proximate and ultimate cause. What I am saying is that if the mind is an algorithm, then the proximate cause of all human artifacts (spaceships) is chance and necessity.
No, it isn't. Your are equating them again. The proximate cause would be an algorithm — or rather the intelligent design which ensues. Now one could argue that the algorithm itself has an ultimate cause in chance & necessity (e.g. the big bang and/or evolution), but that would, obviously, not be the proximate cause of the spaceship.Origenes
March 27, 2018
March
03
Mar
27
27
2018
03:26 PM
3
03
26
PM
PDT
EricMH: "@Origenes, yes the question is of proximate and ultimate cause. What I am saying is that if the mind is an algorithm, then the proximate cause of all human artifacts (spaceships) is chance and necessity. You can argue the ultimate cause of the human mind AI is something other than chance and necessity, this mysterious “intelligence”, but then use of the human mind to support the inference to design is circular." This is the error in your reasoning. The human mind can be an algorithm (at least part of it certainly is), but it is an algorithm operated by a conscious subject. That makes all the difference. It's like the difference between the demo of a videogame, which goes on algorithmically, and a real play, where a conscious player continuously interacts with the game. So, "the ultimate cause of the human mind AI" and of what it can do that non conscious forms of AI cannot do, is not "mysterious" at all. It's consciousness, the presence of definite subjective experiences, so little mysterious that we can observe them at all times in ourselves.gpuccio
March 27, 2018
March
03
Mar
27
27
2018
02:41 PM
2
02
41
PM
PDT
EricMH: The "if" you suggest (without believing it, I think) completely avoids the problem that intelligence in humans is linked to the conscious experience of understanding meaning, and that no system based on chance and necessity taht we kinow of has conscious experiecnes, least of all the experiecne of meaning. A Turing machine is not conscious, therefore it cannot do the things that a human can do, least of all generating new original functional information. We don't have to "first prove that human intelligence is not reducible to chance and necessity". SWe know that human intelligence depends on conscious experiences, and there there is not even a trace of evidence or of rationale that shows that consciousness can originate from chance and necessity. Indeed, the opposite is true. So, anyone who wants to use that "if" in a sceintific reasoning must first prove that chance and necessity can be considered a valid explanation for conscious experiences. I am not holding my breath. Unless and until someone does that, we can definitely use conscious intelligent experiences as the best, observable explanation for the functional complexity linked to design, and to design only. That reasoning is not circular at all: it is simply the obvious (and true) empirical explanation.gpuccio
March 27, 2018
March
03
Mar
27
27
2018
02:36 PM
2
02
36
PM
PDT
@Origenes, yes the question is of proximate and ultimate cause. What I am saying is that if the mind is an algorithm, then the proximate cause of all human artifacts (spaceships) is chance and necessity. You can argue the ultimate cause of the human mind AI is something other than chance and necessity, this mysterious "intelligence", but then use of the human mind to support the inference to design is circular.EricMH
March 27, 2018
March
03
Mar
27
27
2018
02:31 PM
2
02
31
PM
PDT
EricMH@ Aren't you equating ultimate and proximate cause? In your scenario, saying that a spaceship comes about by chance and necessity (by way of evolution) is as meaningful as saying that the big bang did it. The scientific proximate cause of a spaceship is intelligent design, no matter what.Origenes
March 27, 2018
March
03
Mar
27
27
2018
01:58 PM
1
01
58
PM
PDT
@EA, I did respond, but I'll respond again. The problem is that if human intelligence is the product of chance and necessity, then since chance and necessity cannot produce anything other than chance and necessity, human intelligence must also reduce to chance and necessity. So, if we then hold up human artifacts as examples of intelligence creating CSI, all this demonstrates, given the previous paragraph, is that chance and necessity can create CSI. We have to first prove that human intelligence is not reducible to chance and necessity, i.e. can do something a Turing machine cannot do, in order use human artifacts as a definitive example of non-chance and necessity creating CSI. Otherwise, using human intelligence is circular, as you say. @KF, yes, the combinatorics of what humans produce belie a chance and necessity origin. I agree with that. Vertical no free lunch and all. So, either the human mind is some kind of halting oracle, or an artificial intelligence of divine origin. The former would be intelligence proper, the latter is a variant of chance and necessity, so could not properly be said to be the creator of CSI.EricMH
March 27, 2018
March
03
Mar
27
27
2018
01:16 PM
1
01
16
PM
PDT
EricMH @328: So very wrong. Maybe you missed my comment in the flurry. Please read 309.Eric Anderson
March 27, 2018
March
03
Mar
27
27
2018
12:26 PM
12
12
26
PM
PDT
EMH, the if game again. The basic search challenge issue undermines it utterly. KFkairosfocus
March 27, 2018
March
03
Mar
27
27
2018
11:33 AM
11
11
33
AM
PDT
@tribune7, if humans create the CSI in human artifacts, and humans are artificial intelligences, then since artificial intelligence is a purely a mechanism of chance and necessity, then human artifacts are an example of chance and necessity creating CSI.EricMH
March 27, 2018
March
03
Mar
27
27
2018
10:49 AM
10
10
49
AM
PDT
PS: Lewontin, let us realise the blunders of the entrenched secularist elite:
. . . to put a correct [--> Just who here presume to cornering the market on truth and so demand authority to impose?] view of the universe into people's heads
[==> as in, "we" the radically secularist elites have cornered the market on truth, warrant and knowledge, making "our" "consensus" the yardstick of truth . . . where of course "view" is patently short for WORLDVIEW . . . and linked cultural agenda . . . ]
we must first get an incorrect view out [--> as in, if you disagree with "us" of the secularist elite you are wrong, irrational and so dangerous you must be stopped, even at the price of manipulative indoctrination of hoi polloi] . . . the problem is to get them [= hoi polloi] to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world [--> "explanations of the world" is yet another synonym for WORLDVIEWS; the despised "demon[ic]" "supernatural" being of course an index of animus towards ethical theism and particularly the Judaeo-Christian faith tradition], the demons that exist only in their imaginations,
[ --> as in, to think in terms of ethical theism is to be delusional, justifying "our" elitist and establishment-controlling interventions of power to "fix" the widespread mental disease]
and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth
[--> NB: this is a knowledge claim about knowledge and its possible sources, i.e. it is a claim in philosophy not science; it is thus self-refuting]
. . . . To Sagan, as to all but a few other scientists [--> "we" are the dominant elites], it is self-evident
[--> actually, science and its knowledge claims are plainly not immediately and necessarily true on pain of absurdity, to one who understands them; this is another logical error, begging the question , confused for real self-evidence; whereby a claim shows itself not just true but true on pain of patent absurdity if one tries to deny it . . . and in fact it is evolutionary materialism that is readily shown to be self-refuting]
that the practices of science provide the surest method of putting us in contact with physical reality [--> = all of reality to the evolutionary materialist], and that, in contrast, the demon-haunted world rests on a set of beliefs and behaviors that fail every reasonable test [--> i.e. an assertion that tellingly reveals a hostile mindset, not a warranted claim] . . . . It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us [= the evo-mat establishment] to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes [--> another major begging of the question . . . ] to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute [--> i.e. here we see the fallacious, indoctrinated, ideological, closed mind . . . ], for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door . . . [--> irreconcilable hostility to ethical theism, already caricatured as believing delusionally in imaginary demons]. [Lewontin, Billions and billions of Demons, NYRB Jan 1997,cf. here. And, if you imagine this is "quote-mined" I invite you to read the fuller annotated citation here.]
kairosfocus
March 27, 2018
March
03
Mar
27
27
2018
04:22 AM
4
04
22
AM
PDT
AK, Actually, the matter is directly relevant, in terms of the power of plausibility. It seems that as is usual with a deeply rooted problem, there is a nest of mutually supportive but fundamentally flawed notions at work. And BTW, J B S Haldane is actually one of the co-founders of the Neo-Darwinian synthesis. His warning is well founded. And so is the force of the logic of self-referential incoherence. Let's look at the core of your response, perhaps just for record for now, as it is really hard to change a socially strongly supported view even if it is manifestly in serious error. Okay: >>there is no evidence that>> 1 --> This is a classic selectively hyperskeptical gambit of dismissing evidence one does not wish to acknowledge. Notice, that's where you start. A more accurate summary would be that there is no evidence you are willing to acknowledge as having warranting force. 2 --> Now, I have studied, designed and built computing systems, programming at machine code level. That's just to give background. Such are dynamic-stochastic entities (we try to keep glitches under control or manage them!), and process inputs based on stored information, feedback and organisation of functional units to give outputs. 3 --> Where, digital, analogue and for that matter neural systems (memristors being a technology I am currently slowly discussing at UD) all fall under this signal processing paradigm. Computation is about causally connected dynamic-stochastic signal processing, it is not about understanding, meaning, insight, rational inference etc, save where that has gone into the design and development or programming. 4 --> That is, computation is not rational contemplation, these are categorically distinct phenomena. 5 --> Where also, the first datum of our action as intelligent, rational, responsible, significantly free agents is that we are self-aware, conscious, rationally contemplative unified entities. It is through this first fact that we access all others and it is through this that we are able to reason, warrant, know, choose, decide and act. 6 --> Denying this simply engages the logic of self-referential incoherence and self-falsification. Which is what Reppert and Haldane highlighted:
REPPERT: . . . let us suppose that brain state A, which is token identical to the thought that all men are mortal, and brain state B, which is token identical to the thought that Socrates is a man, together cause the belief that Socrates is mortal. It isn’t enough for rational inference that these events be those beliefs, it is also necessary that the causal transaction be in virtue of the content of those thoughts . . . [But] if naturalism is true, then the propositional content is irrelevant to the causal transaction that produces the conclusion, and [so] we do not have a case of rational inference. In rational inference, as Lewis puts it, one thought causes another thought not by being, but by being seen to be, the ground for it. But causal transactions in the brain occur in virtue of the brain’s being in a particular type of state that is relevant to physical causal transactions. HALDANE: "It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. In order to escape from this necessity of sawing away the branch on which I am sitting, so to speak, I am compelled to believe that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter.” ["When I am dead," in Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209. (NB: DI Fellow, Nancy Pearcey brings this right up to date (HT: ENV) in a current book, Finding Truth.)]
>>there is no evidence that our mind/conscious/id/ego, whatever you want to call it, is not the outcome of the physical and chemical brain.>> 8 --> There is abundant evidence, some of which has been summarised, just you are declaring a policy of selective hyperskepticism. >> We know that we can alter these by altering the physical or chemical nature of the brain.>> 9 --> There is evidence of being able to warp brain and CNS function, that is not evidence that reduces mind to brain. We are cybernetic, reflexively causal embodied entities indeed [cf. my use of Eng Derek Smith's model here at UD etc] but we also have strong evidence that computation is categorically distinct from rational, insight driven, responsible contemplation. >> The mind may be something outside the brain, but their is no compelling evidence to suggest this.>> 10 --> Again, there is evidence that computational substrates are in effect glorified, refined rock. There is further evidence that such signal processing entities inherently are about mechanical dynamic-stochastic causal chains, not about insight and meaning. Which latter lie at the heart of mindedness. 11 --> Such evidence points to how mindedness is simply categorically distinct from a mechanically causal process such as computation, thence that matter and material, dynamic-stochastic processes do not exhaust reality as we experience it. 12 --> Moreover, it is through that rational, responsible contemplative, self-aware mindedness that we access even the physical world as unified selves. >> Sadly, the best explanation of the soul is that it is wish fulfilling.>> 13 --> Sadly, the best explanation for psychologising away the evidence of rational contemplation vs. mechanical, dynamic-stochastic computation, is that it is wish fulfillment. Especially in a day when there is a deeply entrenched, institutionalised ideology of evolutionary materialistic scientism that is in large part motivated by glorified teen ager rebellion against God as Father, seeking to lock God or anything remotely suggestive of God from the domain of what many wish to acknowledge. As, Lewontin so clearly but inadvertently let the cat out of the bag about. 14 --> In short, your objection has again become self-referential and self-defeating. KFkairosfocus
March 27, 2018
March
03
Mar
27
27
2018
04:21 AM
4
04
21
AM
PDT
Allan Keith:
Unfortunately, there is a huge difference between opinion and fact. This is obviously getting off topic, but there is no evidence that our mind/conscious/id/ego, whatever you want to call it, is not the outcome of the physical and chemical brain.
There isn't any evidence that it is the outcome of the physical and chemical brain.
We know that we can alter these by altering the physical or chemical nature of the brain.
And you can alter how the software operates by changing the hardware. Does that mean the software is the hardware?ET
March 27, 2018
March
03
Mar
27
27
2018
03:23 AM
3
03
23
AM
PDT
JVL:
I’m not wanting anyone to ‘believe’ anything. I’m going to keep an open mind about what sounds like a fascinating line of research.
And looking for a natural cause for Stonehenge sounds like a fascinating line of research. Looking for unicorns sounds like a fascinating line of research. Looking for the Loch Ness monster sounds like a fascinating line of research.ET
March 27, 2018
March
03
Mar
27
27
2018
03:19 AM
3
03
19
AM
PDT
JVL: "Flavobacterium existed prior to nylon or the strain that digests nylon? According to Wikipedia that strain was discovered in 1975." Please look at my comment at #312 and to my linked comments there. This is a good example of how a wrong idea is kept in the discussions for years. Indeed it has been known for years that Ohno's hypothesis of the emergence of nylonase by by a frameshit mutation was wrong. Even Wikipedia has been giving the right information for years, however cautiously. See at "nylon eating bacteria":
This discovery led geneticist Susumu Ohno in a paper published in April 1984 to speculate that the gene for one of the enzymes, 6-aminohexanoic acid hydrolase, had come about from the combination of a gene duplication event with a frameshift mutation.[3] Ohno suggested that many unique new genes have evolved this way. A 2007 paper that described a series of studies by a team led by Seiji Negoro of the University of Hyogo, Japan, suggested that in fact no frameshift mutation was involved in the evolution of the 6-aminohexanoic acid hydrolase[4]
The reference at [4] is: The paper by Negoro which cleraly shows that nylonase is derived from a penicillinase by a couple of AA substitutions is of 2005: X-ray crystallographic analysis of 6-aminohexanoate-dimer hydrolase: molecular basis for the birth of a nylon oligomer-degrading enzyme. http://www.jbc.org/content/280/47/39644.long
Abstract 6-Aminohexanoate-dimer hydrolase (EII), responsible for the degradation of nylon-6 industry by-products, and its analogous enzyme (EII?) that has only ?0.5% of the specific activity toward the 6-aminohexanoate-linear dimer, are encoded on plasmid pOAD2 of Arthrobacter sp. (formerly Flavobacterium sp.) KI72. Here, we report the three-dimensional structure of Hyb-24 (a hybrid between the EII and EII? proteins; EII?-level activity) by x-ray crystallography at 1.8 Å resolution and refined to an R-factor and R-free of 18.5 and 20.3%, respectively. The fold adopted by the 392-amino acid polypeptide generated a two-domain structure that is similar to the folds of the penicillin-recognizing family of serine-reactive hydrolases, especially to those of D-alanyl-D-alanine-carboxypeptidase from Streptomyces and carboxylesterase from Burkholderia. Enzyme assay using purified enzymes revealed that EII and Hyb-24 possess hydrolytic activity for carboxyl esters with short acyl chains but no detectable activity for D-alanyl-D-alanine. In addition, on the basis of the spatial location and role of amino acid residues constituting the active sites of the nylon oligomer hydrolase, carboxylesterase, D-alanyl-D-alanine-peptidase, and ?-lactamases, we conclude that the nylon oligomer hydrolase utilizes nucleophilic Ser112 as a common active site both for nylon oligomer-hydrolytic and esterolytic activities. However, it requires at least two additional amino acid residues (Asp181 and Asn266) specific for nylon oligomer-hydrolytic activity. Here, we propose that amino acid replacements in the catalytic cleft of a preexisting esterase with the beta-lactamase fold resulted in the evolution of the nylon oligomer hydrolase.
(emphasis mine) My personal contribution to the discussion, in the comments linked at #312, together with Paul Giem (we worked privately at the issue, by email exxhange) has been to reconstruct the supposed ancestral protein from the Ohno paper, and show that it has necer existed at all (by blasting it against all existing proteins and demonstrating that it has no detectable homology with any). Nylonase is just another example of simple microevolution by a couple of mutations, like penicillin resistance, interestingly mediated by the highly adaptational plasmid system. But a wrong idea of Ohno (1984) is still circulating and is still used as "evidence" against ID, even if the truth has been known at least since 2005. This is a clear example of the cognitive bias that affects biology and the debate about ID. As you said: "I shall do my best to be a critical thinker and be unbiased." I hope you apply it.gpuccio
March 26, 2018
March
03
Mar
26
26
2018
11:36 PM
11
11
36
PM
PDT
Eric Anderson I do hope you will maintain your goal of being unbiased and casting a critical eye. When we are at the beginning stage of looking into these issues, that is a key component and is perhaps all we can ask. We’ve all been there at one point or another. I try hard to make sure I always consider input from dissenters; it's important not to only listen to one choir. My only caution is that you have received fair warning about the sources you are currently reviewing. Feel free to continue reviewing them. But also look more broadly, including to those with a more critical and skeptical eye toward the traditional evolutionary story. You will discover a fascinating and amazing intellectual journey as soon as you are open to the possibility that the standard story might not be all it is cracked up to be. But you need to be willing to really consider the possibility, sincerely and deeply, not just as a matter of minor curiosity or as lip service. I understand. I think the fact that I did choose to participate here shows that I am trying to consider all points of view. Do feel free to return and report once you’ve had a chance to digest a bit more. We’d be happy to discuss the issues in more depth. Thanks! You've been very kind and I appreciate the time you've taken responding to me.JVL
March 26, 2018
March
03
Mar
26
26
2018
11:11 PM
11
11
11
PM
PDT
JVL: Thank you for your measured and reasonable response @319. I do hope you will maintain your goal of being unbiased and casting a critical eye. When we are at the beginning stage of looking into these issues, that is a key component and is perhaps all we can ask. We've all been there at one point or another. My only caution is that you have received fair warning about the sources you are currently reviewing. Feel free to continue reviewing them. But also look more broadly, including to those with a more critical and skeptical eye toward the traditional evolutionary story. You will discover a fascinating and amazing intellectual journey as soon as you are open to the possibility that the standard story might not be all it is cracked up to be. But you need to be willing to really consider the possibility, sincerely and deeply, not just as a matter of minor curiosity or as lip service. Do feel free to return and report once you've had a chance to digest a bit more. We'd be happy to discuss the issues in more depth. Best,Eric Anderson
March 26, 2018
March
03
Mar
26
26
2018
11:00 PM
11
11
00
PM
PDT
AK @318: So you disagree with Haldane and prefer to saw off the branch on which you are sitting? So be it. Also, it is simply silly to assert that there is "no evidence" that the mind is separate from the physical and chemical brain. There is an entire area of research devoted to the mind-body problem, participated in by committed materialists who are at least honest enough to recognize that this is a serious issue and that there are compelling arguments on the other side of the table. Oh well, I guess your opinion isn't surprising, though not to be taken at all seriously. After all, it is but the outcome of chemical reactions, rather than any independent thought . . .Eric Anderson
March 26, 2018
March
03
Mar
26
26
2018
10:46 PM
10
10
46
PM
PDT
ET Look, JVL, there are many people that absolutely NEED there to be a materialistic answer for the genetic code. These people will say and do anything to keep their hopes alive. You are wanting us to believe that blind and mindless processes can do the magical- do something that we can’t even do. That is the reason for any derision. I'm not wanting anyone to 'believe' anything. I'm going to keep an open mind about what sounds like a fascinating line of research. Eric Anderson JVL, this an old concept, thoroughly debunked in the 1970’s. The reason you are getting derision is that it is a complete non-starter and it has been known as a non-starter for decades. I’m glad you want to know the truth. In that case, you need to start looking at the issues and not just reading pro-evolution articles from places like Biologos. I'll try and stay unbiased. It has been known for many years, on the basis of biochemistry, that there is not a chemical basis for either the genetic code or the ordering of nucleotides in DNA. In addition, it is well known, on the basis of information theory, that an information-rich system requires that there not be a chemical basis. It cannot be “pure chemistry.” Further, the storage medium itself must be contingent. There is an inverse relationship between any process that drives toward a particular outcome (such as would be the case with a chemically-driven process) and the ability of a medium to store information. Serious researchers in the field have known this for decades. Like I said, I will try and stay unbiased. It took me less than 5 minutes to find that a key part of Venema’s argument seems to be that the information in DNA isn’t really information, but is just a convenience label we are applying. Is that consistent with your understanding of what he is saying? I don't remember that particular point but I will reread that section. You are on a very slippery intellectual slope if you allow Venema to be your guide in this area. He is absolutely mistaken — spectacularly so — and your honest search for the truth is in serious jeopardy if you buy into his grasping at straws and rejection of the clear role of information in biology, all so that he can deny the role of design in biology or whatever other agenda he is pushing. Do yourself a favor and look elsewhere for your information. I will try and think critically and stay unbiased. gpuccio ust two points: I don’t want you to doubt, you can believe as you like. But becoming a convinced discussant in favor of a theory that you don’t understand at the biological level makes you become just a sounding board for academic authority. Why do you want to personally discuss something that you don’t really understand? When I read about peer-reviewed research discussed in a highly visible public forum with a good academic reputation then my inclination is to take it seriously. The second point is: peer review. I am not saying that the data presented by Yarus are wrong (although doubts about his statistical methods have been proposed). But that’s not the point. The point is that his conclusions are practically irrelevant and do not provide any credible scenario for his hypotheses. So his work can be considered as side work which could have some relevance if and when supported by a real theory, but nothing more. The simple fact is that the genetic code is symbolic in the only place that counts: observed reality. I shall do my best to be a critical thinker and be unbiased. bill cole Salvador Cordova(used to post here) has recently shown through an extensive search that the Nylonese enzyme existed prior to Nylon so Venema”s example is wrong. Flavobacterium existed prior to nylon or the strain that digests nylon? According to Wikipedia that strain was discovered in 1975. If your were to wake up every morning and make random changes to the direct dial numbers stored in your cell phone do you think you would find new friends? DNA and Proteins are sequential information just like your cell phone. Random changes move it to non function over time. I understand the basics. Upright Biped JVL you might want to show a little mercy on us all. You’ve staked out your position fairly clearly; you don’t know and don’t want to know. From your comments, you very obviously think we are somewhat deluded, but you’ve adopted the weakest position among us. I don't think you or anyone else here is deluded. I think the research highlighted sounds fascinating and promising and apparently it has led to much follow-on work. I will do my best to cast a critical eye and stay unbiased.JVL
March 26, 2018
March
03
Mar
26
26
2018
10:33 PM
10
10
33
PM
PDT
Kairosfocus,
AK, it has also been shown that no computational substrate by itself rises above cause-effect chains triggered by functional organisation and signals processing. That is, such are NOT carrying out rational, responsible, freely contemplative, meaning-driven insight and inference. Brains are such a substrate.
Unfortunately, there is a huge difference between opinion and fact. This is obviously getting off topic, but there is no evidence that our mind/conscious/id/ego, whatever you want to call it, is not the outcome of the physical and chemical brain. We know that we can alter these by altering the physical or chemical nature of the brain. The mind may be something outside the brain, but their is no compelling evidence to suggest this. Sadly, the best explanation of the soul is that it is wish fulfilling. We would all like to think that there is something beyond what we have physically.Allan Keith
March 26, 2018
March
03
Mar
26
26
2018
09:26 PM
9
09
26
PM
PDT
AK, it has also been shown that no computational substrate by itself rises above cause-effect chains triggered by functional organisation and signals processing. That is, such are NOT carrying out rational, responsible, freely contemplative, meaning-driven insight and inference. Brains are such a substrate. Mind, contrary to the evolutionary materialistic thesis, is not accounted for on brains or the like computational substrate. Design is a result of mind at work. In short, the attempt to artificially inject the evolutionary materialistic reduction of mind to brain fails, and indeed that is further compounded by the idea of programming such by incrementally filtered lucky noise and yet again by the resulting self-referential undermining of reason. KF PS: Just as one example, Reppert again:
. . . let us suppose that brain state A, which is token identical to the thought that all men are mortal, and brain state B, which is token identical to the thought that Socrates is a man, together cause the belief that Socrates is mortal. It isn’t enough for rational inference that these events be those beliefs, it is also necessary that the causal transaction be in virtue of the content of those thoughts . . . [But] if naturalism is true, then the propositional content is irrelevant to the causal transaction that produces the conclusion, and [so] we do not have a case of rational inference. In rational inference, as Lewis puts it, one thought causes another thought not by being, but by being seen to be, the ground for it. But causal transactions in the brain occur in virtue of the brain’s being in a particular type of state that is relevant to physical causal transactions.
Haldane, similarly, long since noted:
"It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. In order to escape from this necessity of sawing away the branch on which I am sitting, so to speak, I am compelled to believe that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter.” ["When I am dead," in Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209. (NB: DI Fellow, Nancy Pearcey brings this right up to date (HT: ENV) in a current book, Finding Truth.)]
In short, evolutionary materialism is self-falsifying through self-referential incoherence.kairosfocus
March 26, 2018
March
03
Mar
26
26
2018
09:04 PM
9
09
04
PM
PDT
EA, I see that. I'll won't waste his time or mine. JVL you might want to show a little mercy on us all. You've staked out your position fairly clearly; you don't know and don't want to know. From your comments, you very obviously think we are somewhat deluded, but you've adopted the weakest position among us.Upright BiPed
March 26, 2018
March
03
Mar
26
26
2018
07:03 PM
7
07
03
PM
PDT
gpuccio
Please don’t tell me that they are still using nylonase as an argument pro evolution!
This is the data (Ono's) that Dennis Venema used when we discussed Doug Axes results. He used this paper to claim that Axe's experiment could not be right :-) Now we know that Doug's data is probably conservative for nuclear proteins based on your superb work on the spliceosome.bill cole
March 26, 2018
March
03
Mar
26
26
2018
06:39 PM
6
06
39
PM
PDT
Kairosfocus,
AK, it was long since pointed out that as we are contingent designers, we do not exhaust the set of possible designers.
And it has long since been pointed out that an equally strong inference can be made between all known design and a being who’s cerebral cortex comprises more than 80% of its brain.Allan Keith
March 26, 2018
March
03
Mar
26
26
2018
05:47 PM
5
05
47
PM
PDT
EricMH “Can something with CSI occur by law or chance? What?”. . . Human created artifacts, if humans are artificial intelligences. OK, you'll have to spell this out.tribune7
March 26, 2018
March
03
Mar
26
26
2018
05:39 PM
5
05
39
PM
PDT
bill cole: Please don't tell me that they are still using nylonase as an argument pro evolution! I am not aware of the discussion by Sal, but I have discussed that topic many times here, in the past. Paul Giem and I also did some good work to show how Ohno's theory was completely wrong. I remember that we discussed that with Piotr, a very good ID critic that I remember with great esteem. You can find my discussion with Piotr (and Mark Frank, another very good antagonist) in the discussion following my OP: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/four-fallacies-evolutionists-make-when-arguing-about-biological-function-part-1/ Starting from comment #10 and with a very detailed discussion at comment #21. And very good interventions by Paul Giem too! Piotr, being the honest and intelligent interlocutor that he is, admitted in the end that our case against the Ohno hypothesis was quite good. That's one of the few admissions fron the other field that I have ever witnessed! :) Piotr, Mark Frank, where are you?gpuccio
March 26, 2018
March
03
Mar
26
26
2018
04:40 PM
4
04
40
PM
PDT
1 2 3 12

Leave a Reply