At Evolution News: For Darwinism, Pregnancy Is the “Mother of all Chicken-and-Egg Problems”

_{Eric Hedin

November 30, 2022

Intelligent Design

2}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

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

Here’s a really devilish problem to pose to your favorite friend, teacher, or relative who’s a Darwinist true believer. As Your Designed Body co-author Steve Laufmann observes, the relationship between an embryo and its mother is a relationship between unequals. The embryo’s systems are not yet complete so it depends on its mother for its life. This entails communication between the entities.
But as Laufmann asks, how could such a thing as pregnancy evolve gradually, without guidance or foresight, “when you have to have it in order to have a next generation. Nobody has ever addressed a problem like that.” No, they haven’t, at least not persuasively, which is why Laufmann calls it the “mother of all chicken-and-egg problems.” Darwinian evolution has many of those, as it takes an engineer like Steve Laufmann, or a physician like his co-author Howard Glicksman, to fully recognize. Evolutionary biologists tend to silently glide over such issues, which clearly point to intelligent design. Either that, or they are satisfied by vague speculations. Watch:

Evolution News

I’ve just ordered a copy of Your Designed Body and I look forward to reading it. Perceiving that the human body (or an animal’s body) is a designed system helps keep the wonder of life front and center. The reductionism approach, while useful for gaining knowledge of the biological details, carries the risk of losing sight of the big picture. Gandalf alludes to this in an argument against Saruman, “And he that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom.” [J. R. R. Tolkien, The Fellowship of the Ring, (Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston: 1994), p. 252).

Comments

AF, why do you insist on repeating corrected error? After a certain point, that is outright lying on your part. First, as was shown to you repeatedly, the DESCRIPTION, functionally specific, complex organisation and/or associated information is a label for a readily observable commonplace. The text of your comment is a case in point as is the PC, tablet or phone you composed it on. So is the complex organisation of cells in your body, as is the built in von Neumann kinematic self replicator in those cells, the foundation for reproduction of biological life. So is a watch (or a gear in it, or a screw or a nut and bolt), so is an Abu 6500 CT fishing reel. So would be Paley's self replicating, time keeping watch discussed in his Ch 2 right after the Ch 1 that too many Darwinists set up and knock over as a strawman. Basic fact, an observable reality cannot be self contradictory or incoherent. As, realities must all be so together. Next, you are willfully speaking in disregard to truth to try to attribute the description to me. As I have taken pains to acknowledge and point out, the matter was put in the literature in the 1970's by Orgel [1973] and Wicken [1979]. All I have done is to provide an acrostic abbreviation, also noting that as organisation is reducible to information in a description language [such as AutoCAD] organisation deserves to be recognised too. So, we see here an elaborate rhetorical ruse, a deception intended to set up ad hominem attacks. All too typical of the sort of advocates for darwinism, atheism and fellow traveller ideologies that are a penny a gross in the era of new atheists. Stop willfully misrepresenting, AF. On pain of being identified as willfully obtuse and outright irresponsible before evident, readily accessible and observable truth and facts. Repeat, just to object, you have yet again produced a case of FSCO/I and exemplified its cause, design. That sort of self referential self defeat SHOULD give pause to you and others who resort to tactics such as I am here answering for record. Kindly, see L&FP 55, for reference with illustrations https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/lfp-55-defining-clarifying-intelligent-design-as-inference-as-theory-as-a-movement/ (This also addresses the issues of design inference, theory and movement.) Then, actually deal seriously with the observable realities of complex function based on effective orientation, arrangement and coupling -- configuration -- of many parts in accord with Wicken wiring diagrams (such as the exploded view of an Abu 6500 CT reel you were too busy mocking to pause, rethink cynical dismissiveness and consider that this is empirical demonstration). Where, once such FSCO/I goes beyond 500 - 1,000 bits of descriptive length in a compact language [and yes, I allude to Kolmogorov, Chaitin et al], blind search is maximally implausible as a key cause of configuration. On trillions of actually OBSERVED -- notice, again, OBSERVED -- cases, the source of such FSCO/I is, reliably, design. This is only repetitive to the extent that a correct and well founded summary has had to again be made in the teeth of stubborn, hostile, accusatory, closed minded objection. AF, you have exposed yourself, letting cats out of the bag, utterly discrediting your rhetorical tactics. KFkairosfocus_{December 9, 2022
December
12
Dec
9
09
2022
01:30 AM
1
01
30
AM
PDT}

KF repeats:
FSCO/I is _______. You cannot fill that blank.
KF can't fill in his own blank. FSCO/I is his own personal acronym, for a concept that he is unable to define coherently, let alone quantify. I'll let KF have the last words, incoherent and repetitive as they will be.Alan Fox_{December 8, 2022
December
12
Dec
8
08
2022
11:45 PM
11
11
45
PM
PDT}

A new talent . . . emerges.kairosfocus_{December 8, 2022
December
12
Dec
8
08
2022
01:54 PM
1
01
54
PM
PDT}

Thank you KF. This is the first play I’ve ever written and I'm very happy with it. It came to me out of nowhere, I must say. I cannot explain it. All I did was putting various elements of the discussion together, and next, unexpectedly, the play, somehow "emerged", for lack of a better word. And you are absolutely right about the setting: starting with darkness, somber music and then the dramatic rising of light …. it completes it.Origenes_{December 8, 2022
December
12
Dec
8
08
2022
03:28 AM
3
03
28
AM
PDT}

Origenes, 226. Really good bit of wit there. I think I am going to headline it as a guest original post. Thumbs up! KF PS, done: https://uncommondescent.com/ud-guest-posts/origenes-the-emergence-of-emergentism-a-play-for-two-actors/kairosfocus_{December 8, 2022
December
12
Dec
8
08
2022
02:20 AM
2
02
20
AM
PDT}

Jerry, more precisely, the boiling point is the point where saturated vapour pressure . . . a liquid exists in dynamic equilibrium with the atmosphere . . . equals atmospheric pressure allowing bubbles of vapour to form and escape, i.e. boiling. As for bonding angle, Wikipedia confesses:
Water (H2O) is a simple triatomic bent molecule with C2v molecular symmetry and bond angle of 104.5° between the central oxygen atom and the hydrogen atoms. Despite being one of the simplest triatomic molecules, its chemical bonding scheme is nonetheless complex as many of its bonding properties such as bond angle, ionization energy, and electronic state energy cannot be explained by one unified bonding model. Instead, several traditional and advanced bonding models such as simple Lewis and VSEPR structure, valence bond theory, molecular orbital theory, isovalent hybridization, and Bent's rule are discussed below to provide a comprehensive bonding model for H 2O, explaining and rationalizing the various electronic and physical properties and features manifested by its peculiar bonding arrangements.
In short, complex and not fully understood Q-mech [a familiar condition], thus going back to cosmological foundations of the universe. KFkairosfocus_{December 7, 2022
December
12
Dec
7
07
2022
08:34 AM
8
08
34
AM
PDT}

Exactly right. Sometimes I feel like such a loser. The other day I heard that current science cannot even explain liquidity.”
But they can. So this should not be part of this play because if they were naturalist, they would know what does. Nearly all molecules have the three stages of matter, solid, liquid and gas. For water a lot of the specific temperatures is due to the 104.5 degree angle of the hydrogen covalent bonds.
The boiling point is the temperature when a liquid boils and becomes a gas, usually at normal atmospheric pressure. In the liquid phase, molecules are stuck together, rolling around each other. In the gas phase, molecules break apart from each other and move around in space, each separately. The boiling point is a measure of how much energy we need to separate molecules from each other. The two main things that affect the amount of energy needed to separate molecules are the masses of the molecules and the strengths of interactions between the molecules. In general, the heavier the molecule, the more energy—that is, the higher the temperature— we need to boil it. Based on this trend, we would expect H2O, a light molecule, to have a low boiling point. In reality, though, it has a high boiling point of 212 degrees Fahrenheit. This is because of the very strong hydrogen bonding interactions that exist in the water molecule that overwhelm the very low mass of the water molecule and make its boiling point unusually high There’s a property related to boiling point that is also unusual for water. For any material, it takes a certain amount of energy to change the phase from solid to liquid, or from liquid to gas. For the liquid-to-gas phase change, this amount of energy is called the heat of vaporization. Because we have to completely break four hydrogen bonds to separate water molecules and make a gas, it takes a fairly large amount of energy to do that, and water has an unusually high heat of vaporization.
https://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/the-nature-of-matter-understanding-the-physical-world The question becomes why does water have two hydrogen bonds of 104.5 degrees. And how is this angle predictable from the nature of the hydrogen and oxygen atoms? Maybe it is by the nature of the number of electrons and the orbits they are in and the mass of the two elements. Aside: why ice floats is due to the nature of the hydrogen bonds. They spread out in the solid phase causing a less dense over all material. A couple elements also exhibit this property though it is rare. Water is the only common compound that has this property.jerry_{December 7, 2022
December
12
Dec
7
07
2022
06:28 AM
6
06
28
AM
PDT}

The Emergence of Emergentism: A Play for Two Actors. Two desperate naturalists in a room. A: “I feel completely desperate. There is no way we will ever be able to explain life and consciousness.” B: “I feel the exact same way. The main issue is that we have nothing to work with. All we have is mindless particles in the void obeying mindless regularities. Starting from that, how can we possibly explain life, not to mention personhood, freedom, and rationality? There is simply no way forward.” A: “Exactly right. Sometimes I feel like such a loser. The other day I heard that current science cannot even explain liquidity.” B: “What did you just say?” **POOF**Origenes_{December 7, 2022
December
12
Dec
7
07
2022
05:27 AM
5
05
27
AM
PDT}

SG, while we await your response, more Wiki confessions on the construction of the pyramids:
The entire Giza Plateau is believed[by whom?] to have been constructed over the reign of five pharaohs in less than a hundred years, which generally includes: the Great Pyramid, Khafre and Menkaure's pyramids, the Great Sphinx, the Sphinx, and Valley Temples, 35 boat pits cut out of solid bedrock, and several causeways, as well as paving nearly the entire plateau with large stones. This does not include Khafre's brother Djedefre's northern pyramid, Abu Rawash, which would have also been built during this time frame of 100 years. In the hundred years prior to Giza—beginning with Djoser, who ruled from 2687 to 2667 BC, and amongst dozens of other temples, smaller pyramids, and general construction projects—four other massive pyramids were built: the Step pyramid of Saqqara (believed to be the first Egyptian pyramid), the pyramid of Meidum, the Bent Pyramid, and the Red Pyramid. Also during this period (between 2686 and 2498 BC) the Sadd el-Kafara dam, which used an estimated 100,000 cubic meters of rock and rubble, was built.[58] . . .
Generations indeed, to build the complex. Next, here is their confession regarding a recent theory:
Materials scientist Joseph Davidovits has claimed that the blocks of the pyramid are not carved stone, but mostly a form of limestone concrete and that they were "cast" as with modern concrete.[41] According to this hypothesis, soft limestone with a high kaolinite content was quarried in the wadi on the south of the Giza Plateau. The limestone was then dissolved in large, Nile-fed pools until it became a watery slurry. Lime (found in the ash of cooking fires) and natron (also used by the Egyptians in mummification) were mixed in. The pools were then left to evaporate, leaving behind a moist, clay-like mixture. This wet "concrete" would be carried to the construction site where it would be packed into reusable wooden moulds and in a few days would undergo a chemical reaction similar to the curing of concrete. New blocks, he suggests, could be cast in place, on top of and pressed against the old blocks. Proof-of-concept tests using similar compounds were carried out at a geopolymer institute in northern France and it was found that a crew of five to ten, working with simple hand tools, could agglomerate a structure of five, 1.3 to 4.5 ton blocks in a couple of weeks.[42] He also claims that the Famine Stele, along with other hieroglyphic texts, describe the technology of stone agglomeration. Davidovits's method is not accepted by the academic mainstream. His method does not explain the granite stones, weighing well over 10 tons, above the King's Chamber, which he agrees were carved. Geologists have carefully scrutinized Davidovits's suggested technique and concluded his concrete came from natural limestone quarried in the Mokattam Formation.[43] However, Davidovits alleges that the bulk of the soft limestone came from the same natural Mokkatam Formation quarries found by geologists, and insists that ancient Egyptians used the soft marly layer instead of the hard layer to re-agglomerate stones. Davidovits's hypothesis gained support from Michel Barsoum, a materials science researcher.[44] Michel Barsoum and his colleagues at Drexel University published their findings supporting Davidovits's hypothesis in the Journal of the American Ceramic Society in 2006. Using scanning electron microscopy, they discovered in samples of the limestone pyramid blocks mineral compounds and air bubbles that do not occur in natural limestone.[45]
Another recent theory, which has a greater impact:
Houdin's father was an architect who, in 1999, thought of a construction method that, it seemed to him, made more sense than any existing method proposed for building pyramids. To develop this hypothesis, Jean-Pierre Houdin, also an architect, gave up his job and set about drawing the first fully functional CAD architectural model of the Great Pyramid of Giza.[32] His/their scheme involves using a regular external ramp to build the first 30% of the pyramid, with an "internal ramp" taking stones up beyond that height.[33] The stones of the external ramp are re-cycled into the upper stories, thus explaining the otherwise puzzling lack of evidence for ramps. After four years working alone, Houdin was joined by a team of engineers from the French 3D software company Dassault Systèmes, who used the most modern computer-aided design technology available to further refine and test the hypothesis, making it (according to Houdin) the only one proven to be a viable technique.[34] In 2006 Houdin announced it in a book: Khufu: The Secrets Behind the Building of the Great Pyramid,[35] and in 2008 he and Egyptologist Bob Brier wrote a second book: The Secret of the Great Pyramid.[36] In Houdin's method, each ramp inside the pyramid ended at an open space, a notch temporarily left open in the edge of the construction.[37] This 10-square-meter clear space housed a crane that lifted and rotated each 2.5-ton block, to ready it for eight men to drag up the next internal ramp. There is a notch of sorts in one of the right places, and in 2008 Houdin's co-author Bob Brier, with a National Geographic film crew, entered a previously unremarked chamber that could be the start of one of these internal ramps.[38] In 1986 a member of the French team (see below) saw a desert fox at this notch, rather as if it had ascended internally. Houdin's thesis remains unproven and in 2007, Egyptologist David Jeffreys from the University College London described the internal spiral hypothesis as "far-fetched and horribly complicated", while Oxford University's John Baines, declared he was "suspicious of any theory that seeks to explain only how the Great Pyramid was built".[39] Houdin has another hypothesis developed from his architectural model, one that could finally explain the internal "Grand Gallery" chamber that otherwise appears to have little purpose. He believes the gallery acted as a trolley chute/guide for counterbalance weights. It enabled the raising of the five 60-ton granite beams that roof the King's Chamber. Houdin and Brier and the Dassault team are already credited with proving for the first time that cracks in beams appeared during construction, were examined and tested at the time and declared relatively harmless.[40]
On ramps:
Most Egyptologists acknowledge that ramps are the most tenable of the methods to raise the blocks, yet they acknowledge that it is an incomplete method that must be supplemented by another device. Archaeological evidence for the use of ramps has been found at the Great Pyramid of Giza[23] and other pyramids. The method most accepted for assisting ramps is levering[24] (Lehner 1997: 222). The archaeological record gives evidence of only small ramps and inclined causeways, not something that could have been used to construct even a majority of the monument. To add to the uncertainty, there is considerable evidence demonstrating that non-standardized or ad hoc construction methods were used in pyramid construction (Arnold 1991: 98,[25] Lehner 1997: 223). Therefore, there are many proposed ramps and there is a considerable amount of discrepancy regarding what type of ramp was used to build the pyramids.[26] One of the widely discredited ramping methods is the large straight ramp, and it is routinely discredited on functional grounds for its massive size, lack of archaeological evidence, huge labor cost, and other problems (Arnold 1991: 99, Lehner 1997: 215, Isler 2001: 213[27]). Other ramps serve to correct these problems of ramp size, yet either run into critiques of functionality and limited archaeological evidence. There are zig-zagging ramps, straight ramps using the incomplete part of the superstructure (Arnold 1991), spiraling ramps supported by the superstructure and spiraling ramps leaning on the monument as a large accretion are proposed. Mark Lehner speculated that a spiraling ramp, beginning in the stone quarry to the southeast and continuing around the exterior of the pyramid, may have been used. The stone blocks may have been drawn on sleds along the ramps lubricated by water.[28]
And more. This serves to sustain not only my narrower point that we do not know how the pyramids were built and that logistics issues are major, but to sustain my point that we can and readily do infer on tested, reliable signs of design, even when we do not have an understanding of the means by which such were effected. KF PS, BTW, a screw thread is in effect a spiral [strictly, helically coiled] ramp wrapped around a shaft. Think here of the principle of the screw jack.kairosfocus_{December 7, 2022
December
12
Dec
7
07
2022
12:45 AM
12
12
45
AM
PDT}

AF, we know that designers act by intelligently directed configuration, and that they impose configuring, organisational work that creates an architecture and its systemic implementation; which is of course full of the invisible ingredient, information. That is doubtless full of the mysteries of rational, responsible freedom, but it is also a known reality. It is not poof, magic, just so story. And you know I have put on the table as an ID reference model, a molecular nanotech lab some generations beyond Venter and let's add -- in the spirit of Clarke's HAL, the z9 series [heir of the classic s360 of 58 years ago], using informationally controlled manipulators to effect the key elements of cell based life. I further suggest miniaturisation, say do ribosomes as an early part and using what was already built to carry forward the work. None of that would be a something from the not-being, by poof magic. KFkairosfocus_{December 7, 2022
December
12
Dec
7
07
2022
12:33 AM
12
12
33
AM
PDT}

...it sounds good instead of using POOF.
Wasn't Mike Behe heard using that expression to describe an intervention by the "Designer"?Alan Fox_{December 6, 2022
December
12
Dec
6
06
2022
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT}

"Emerged" is a euphemism for we don't know/we can't explain, but it will be thrown around like it means something important and it sounds good instead of using POOF. Andrewasauber_{December 6, 2022
December
12
Dec
6
06
2022
11:48 AM
11
11
48
AM
PDT}

Jerry ....
They may understand why some day but not at present.
Right [setting aside the fact that current science can explain water liquidity bottom-up from the bonding properties of the H2O molecule; as already pointed out in #190, but ignored or perhaps not understood], however those who argue in favor of strong emergentism, which is the main subject at hand here, claim that no one can, in principle, explain water bottom-up; that is from its parts. Strong emergence insists on magic. Magic **poof** is indeed involved.
Mark A.Bedau: " ... it is uncomfortably like magic. How does an irreducible but supervenient downward causal power arise, since by definition it cannot be due to the aggregation of the micro-level potentialities? Such causal powers would be quite unlike anything within our scientific ken. This not only indicates how they will discomfort reasonable forms of materialism. Their mysteriousness will only heighten the traditional worry that emergence entails illegitimately getting something from nothing.”
And it is arguing in favor of strong emergence when one writes:
Jerry: .. no one can predict the characteristics of water from the atomic structure of hydrogen and oxygen. Similarly no one can predict the characteristics of salt (NaCL) from sodium and chlorine atoms. Their characteristics emerged.
"Emerged" .... **POOF** " No one can" as in "by definition", as in "never", as in "not even God", as in strong emergence.Origenes_{December 6, 2022
December
12
Dec
6
06
2022
11:32 AM
11
11
32
AM
PDT}

By saying this, you have just removed yourself as a member of the Emergentists Society
That has always been my position. There was no removal required. My statements have all been accurate. From Michael Egnor.
Emergence always refers to a perceptual or intellectual surprise. A property is said to be emergent if we didn’t expect it to be characteristic of a whole based on our understanding of its parts. Emergence is a mental phenomenon. It is a perceptual surprise, not a magical property somehow evoked by adding a lot of little parts together.
Our understanding of the characteristics of water and many other molecules (I repeated this over and over) do not flow from our understanding of the atomic properties of the constituent atoms. They may understand why some day but not at present. That has been a common usage of the term “emergence.”jerry_{December 6, 2022
December
12
Dec
6
06
2022
10:37 AM
10
10
37
AM
PDT}

Jerry, I suggest, while we cannot naively predict properties of water or NaCl by simple linear extrapolation from those of parent elements, the patterns of chemical and physical interactions involved have been studied through Chemistry and Physics and correspond to the more detailed dynamics thereby exposed. NaCl is a matter of packing of ions to yield an ionic crystalline solid, a salt . . . indeed that term comes in key part from this case. Water has properties tying to polar covalent bonds and the differing agglomerations in the liquid and the solid, hence my semi polymerisation remark. Where also there are several more exotic forms reached under different pressure-temperature conditions. And more. KF PS, a diagram and discussion https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/346750/phase-diagram-of-waterkairosfocus_{December 6, 2022
December
12
Dec
6
06
2022
10:22 AM
10
10
22
AM
PDT}

SG, why do you twist what I actually said into pretzels? My reference to generations was to the overall Giza plateau and the nearby Nile echoing Orion and the Milky Way. Several pyramids involving generations. Where, as is admitted there are no records of how this was done, and the logistics of multi ton stone blocks mounted at ever increasing height at a rate of one per three minutes for decades has not been properly explained -- see the Wiki confession below. There are still serious questions on that, ponder ramp slope and scale issues as compounding the scale of challenge. You doubled down on a distraction, and distraction it is: you still have no case of observation of FSCO/I coming about by blind chance and mechanical necessity. As for tectonic scale try the energy to say lift a mile thick 39 sq mile block of rock of density 2.7 g/cc six inches. Something like 6.5*10^14 J. Extend that to continental scale processes. The energy to uplift masses of rock into mountain ranges is demonstrably, observationally present, as is the motion. Your attempt to suggest a Newton rule failure, fails. You have no observationally anchored explanation of complex coded information by blind forces, and to make arguments you are still showing how FSCO/I routinely comes about by design. KF PS, as usual, Wiki confesses:
Egyptian pyramid construction techniques are the controversial subject of many hypotheses. These techniques seem to have developed over time; later pyramids were not constructed in the same way as earlier ones. Most of the construction hypotheses are based on the belief that huge stones were carved from quarries with copper chisels, and these blocks were then dragged and lifted into position. Disagreements chiefly concern the methods used to move and place the stones. In addition to the many unresolved arguments about the construction techniques, there have been disagreements as to the kind of workforce used. The Greeks, many years after the event, believed that the pyramids must have been built by slave labor. Archaeologists now believe that the Great Pyramid of Giza (at least) was built by tens of thousands of skilled workers who camped near the pyramids and worked for a salary or as a form of tax payment (levy) until the construction was completed, pointing to workers' cemeteries discovered in 1990.
That's a whole lot different from, it's all pretty settled conclusive knowledge; which is what you suggested in attempting to pounce on me as ill informed. I predict, you will not concede that I had a point in highlighting that we can know the pyramids were designed, on FSCO/I, without knowing just how. And ditto for other cases. I hope, for your sake, this prediction will be wrong.kairosfocus_{December 6, 2022
December
12
Dec
6
06
2022
09:47 AM
9
09
47
AM
PDT}

Jerry @
At some time in the future one might be able to explain this but I understand no one knows now.
That is good to hear, Jerry. By saying this, you have just removed yourself as a member of the Emergentists Society.Origenes_{December 6, 2022
December
12
Dec
6
06
2022
09:26 AM
9
09
26
AM
PDT}

Jerry:
Everything I say is true.
I could accept that you believe most of what you say. It is pretty obvious, however, that a goodly proportion of what you write in these comment columns has a tenuous hold on accuracy.Alan Fox_{December 6, 2022
December
12
Dec
6
06
2022
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PDT}

KF: SG, work out the effort to create a pyramid including the logistics and you will see it is a far more difficult challenge than you try to imagine
Nobody said it was easy. But it didn’t take generations and it didn’t take ID’s powerful tools to conclude that they were designed and made by humans.
In biology, micro vs macro, body plan level origin issues are a highly significant issue, your sneering notwithstanding.
And it has also been pointed out that significant changes to body plan can be caused by very small genetic changes, your sneering not withstanding.
You are also resorting to repeating already answered objections elsewhere, a sure sign that confirms trollish mentality.
If repetition in response to opposing arguments is a sign of trollish behaviour, I refer everyone to the thousands of comments and dozens of OPs that you have posted on this site, most of which are just a series of repeating already posted opinions.
You know that I am ten miles away from a mountain…
I am happy for you, but irrelevant. Continental mountain ranges are not created and eroded by volcanic eruptions.
But all of this is distractive, you are trying to pretend that there is no observed cause of FSCO/I,
As there is no observed cause of the formation of mountain ranges. But we have a well accepted theory based on the extrapolation from observations of small events. As is the case for evolution.
Your actually observed case of blind chance and mechanical necessity forming FSCO/I is [nylonase, antibiotic resistance, pesticide resistance, peppered moths, bedbugs, coy wolves, changing from egg laying to live births in three toed skinks……]
Sir Giles_{December 6, 2022
December
12
Dec
6
06
2022
08:19 AM
8
08
19
AM
PDT}

That is what you are arguing
Everything I say is true. Incredible that anyone should dispute anything I have said. If anyone can point to how the properties of water and salt are determined by the structure of each atoms structure., be my guess. At some time in the future one might be able to explain this but I understand no one knows now. When they do, the conclusion will be it was built into the design of the universe. Interesting this has nothing to do with biology but atomic physics. Again, one should read the discussion from two years ago linked to above.jerry_{December 6, 2022
December
12
Dec
6
06
2022
08:16 AM
8
08
16
AM
PDT}

Jerry @210
Ori: Yes, you have defended emergentism from the start, and you are mistaken to do so.
Nonsense. I have done just the opposite. Why do you claim that I do?
Because you argue in favor of emergentism, e.g. here:
Jerry: … no one can predict the characteristics of water from the atomic structure of hydrogen and oxygen. Similarly no one can predict the characteristics of salt (NaCL) from sodium and chlorine atoms. Their characteristics emerged.
That is exactly what emergentists claim. So, you are consistently saying what they are saying. And that’s why I say that you defend emergentism. When you say that “no one can predict the characteristics of water from the atomic structure of hydrogen and oxygen”, you are saying that water is fundamentally unpredictable from its parts. That is precisely the thesis of emergentism. In effect, you are saying that even an omniscient being with a complete knowledge of the atomic structure of hydrogen and oxygen and a complete knowledge of the laws of physics, and unlimited powers of calculation could not predict what would happen once hydrogen and oxygen are combined. God created oxygen and hydrogen, but he was taken by surprise to find out that they formed water. That is what you are arguing, Jerry.Origenes_{December 6, 2022
December
12
Dec
6
06
2022
06:56 AM
6
06
56
AM
PDT}

@211
You cannot just point to a book and say there it is. Be specific. A tried and true way to convince someone is to take an example or two to show your point and that it relevant. Then the onus is to show it is more wide spread.
I'm not trying to convince anyone. I'm definitely not trying to educate anyone! (I get paid for that.) I indicated a book that others could read if they were interested in understanding my point of view. If they decide not to read it, or that it's just not worth their time, that's their choice.PyrrhoManiac1_{December 6, 2022
December
12
Dec
6
06
2022
06:36 AM
6
06
36
AM
PDT}

but the science of self-organizing systems shows that it is not true.
Why don’t you provide some examples? You cannot just point to a book and say there it is. Be specific. A tried and true way to convince someone is to take an example or two to show your point and that it is relevant. Then the onus is to show it is more wide spread and it must be reproducible. Until you do that, it is just words and no one will pay attention. Aside: we have been down this road of self organization before and it led nowhere. There are examples of self organization such as crystals and meteorological events but these have nothing to do with life or Evolution. Maybe there are some relevant ones.jerry_{December 6, 2022
December
12
Dec
6
06
2022
06:31 AM
6
06
31
AM
PDT}

Yes, you have defended emergentism from the start, and you are mistaken to do so.
Nonsense. I have done just the opposite. Why do you claim that I do? Is there an explanation for why salt, water and some other molecules have the properties that they do based solely on their atomic structure and the atomic structure of their component atoms? No one has suggested that an explanation exists. It may in time come or someone has already done it. But no one has pointed to an explanation. Interesting question is why did you make such a disparaging remark based on nonsense? Aside: the Davies quote has zero to do with what I have been saying. There is a better discussion two years ago on emergence. Maybe you should read it first. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/emergence-and-the-dormitive-principle/jerry_{December 6, 2022
December
12
Dec
6
06
2022
06:10 AM
6
06
10
AM
PDT}

@208
The book you link was published in 1993. I’ve never heard of it, so I’m guessing the only impact it’s had in 30 years is in people’s imaginations.
It helped catalyze the formation of many scientific research projects at universities and research centers around the world, none of which you know anything about. The fact that you don't know about them doesn't mean that they don't exist.PyrrhoManiac1_{December 6, 2022
December
12
Dec
6
06
2022
05:57 AM
5
05
57
AM
PDT}

PM1, The book you link was published in 1993. I've never heard of it, so I'm guessing the only impact it's had in 30 years is in people's imaginations. Andrewasauber_{December 6, 2022
December
12
Dec
6
06
2022
05:43 AM
5
05
43
AM
PDT}

@195
Order does not emerge from disorder – spontaneously. Order emerges from order.
This might feel intuitively certain to you, but the science of self-organizing systems shows that it is not true.PyrrhoManiac1_{December 6, 2022
December
12
Dec
6
06
2022
05:20 AM
5
05
20
AM
PDT}

But no one can predict the characteristics of water from the atomic structure of hydrogen and oxygen. Similarly no one can predict the characteristics of salt (NaCL) from sodium and chlorine atoms. Their characteristics emerged.
**POOF** Jerry, you bought into the fake story of emergentism. I'm sorry to inform you that you have been fooled. Do read the Paul Davies quote at #132
that there is no explanation is what I have been saying from the start.
Yes, you have defended emergentism from the start, and you are mistaken to do so.Origenes_{December 6, 2022
December
12
Dec
6
06
2022
05:18 AM
5
05
18
AM
PDT}

You can call it moondancing if you like, it still doesn’t explain anything.
I didn’t say it did. If you read all my comments - that there is no explanation is what I have been saying from the start. In fact I say it in the comment you quoted from. Absolutely no desperation at all.jerry_{December 6, 2022
December
12
Dec
6
06
2022
05:08 AM
5
05
08
AM
PDT}

"Their characteristics emerged." You seem desperate to use the word "emerged." You can call it moondancing if you like, it still doesn't explain anything. Andrewasauber_{December 6, 2022
December
12
Dec
6
06
2022
05:05 AM
5
05
05
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 … 8 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply