Intelligent Design Science, worldview issues/foundations and society

At Evolution News: Günter Bechly repudiates “Professor Dave’s” attacks against ID

Spread the love

Günter Bechly, Senior Fellow of the Center for Science and Culture, addresses the off-base accusations made against ID and the Discovery Institute.

Dave Farina is an atheist American YouTuber who runs a channel called Professor Dave Explains with almost two million subscribers.

The clichés and misrepresentations Farina recycles about intelligent design are beyond tired. Still, those new to the debate might find it helpful to see Farina’s false claims debunked.

Farina seems more interested in caricaturing those he disagrees with than understanding them.

Three Major Problems 

Farina also thinks that intelligent design theory “cannot be validated as real science because it does not explain or predict anything.” Here are three major problems with this statement:

Who defines what qualifies as “real science”? It is certainly not Dave Farina. It is not judges in court rooms. And it is not even the scientists themselves who define “science.” Reasonably, it is philosophers of science who address this question. But Farina seems to be totally ignorant of the fact that there is no consensus among philosophers of science about a demarcation criterion that could reliably distinguish science from non-science. Any criterion yet suggested, including Karl Popper’s criterion of falsifiability, either excludes too much (e.g., scientific fields like string theory or evolutionary biology) or includes too much (e.g., homeopathy or parapsychology).

Of course, intelligent design has explanatory power. Otherwise, we could not even explain the existence of Romeo and Juliet by the intelligent agency of William Shakespeare. There is no doubt that the designing activity of an intelligent agent is a perfectly valid explanation for complex specified patterns. The only question under debate is whether such patterns are confined to the realm of human cultural artifacts or if they are also found in nature. But this question should not be decided by dogmatic a priorirestrictions of certain worldviews that do not allow for design explanations whatever the evidence might be, but should rather follow the evidence wherever it leads. It is an empirical question to be decided by the data.

It is simply false that intelligent design does not predict anything. Indeed, this is yet another common stereotype that has been refuted so many times by ID proponents that any further use of this argument can be based only on a total ignorance of the facts (or perhaps deliberate lying, but I prefer not to apply that interpretation). Stephen Meyer (2009) included in his book Signature in the Cell a whole chapter with a dozen predictions inspired by intelligent design theory. These are often very precise and easily falsifiable, for example: “No undirected process will demonstrate the capacity to generate 500 bits of new [specified] information starting from a nonbiological source.” Just write a computer simulation that achieves this, without smuggling the information in through a backdoor, and you can claim victory over a core prediction of intelligent design.

Evolution News

Dr. Bechly addresses numerous additional misfires attempted by Professor Dave. With such a voluble spray of baseless accusations coming from someone like Professor Dave, it can be helpful to be reminded of the proverb, “Like a sparrow in its flitting, like a swallow in its flying, a curse that is causeless does not alight.” (Proverbs 26:2)

767 Replies to “At Evolution News: Günter Bechly repudiates “Professor Dave’s” attacks against ID

  1. 1
    ET says:

    it sucks that they have to respond to garbage. But it has to be done.

  2. 2
    Querius says:

    What’s especially telling is when a high school teacher with 2 million YouTube subscribers takes on professor of chemistry, computer science, and a nanotechnologist on YouTube, posts garbage, gets destroyed, but still announces “victory.”

    “Professor” Dave merely demonstrates the triumph of clueless rhetoric, ad hominem attacks, and unsupported assertions over anything resembling science. It’s the victory of the mouth over the brain.

    Of course, we’ve seen the same dynamic with the trolls/trollbots here. My contention is that the same type of trollbot responses will work for any subject, regardless of subject or any meaningful expertise.

    Maybe we should have a sign somewhere on this forum that reads, “Please don’t feed the trollbots.”

    What do you think?

    -Q

  3. 3
    Querius says:

    How about it, Kairosfocus?

    -Q

  4. 4
    kairosfocus says:

    Q, we have taken time over a decade ago to create a resources tab, accessible on every UD page. It exposes and corrects the sort of weak claims in the OP. We have taken further time to address and correct various cases including this youtuber. Necessary, for record and for those who lurk. Beyond a certain point abusers of commentary privilege are banned. The point is, ID has been subjected to a big lie, domination of the message sources campaign driven by the manifestly nihilistic. Big lies backed by power — look up Wikipedia on ID as a case in point — cannot be ignored or answered with a one liner. There has to be accessible substance. The unresponsiveness to cogent correction speaks loud and clear. Yes, do not feed the trolls, beyond the point where their insistent disruptive behaviour is clear ban them. Whining about our censorship is little more than defence of trollish misconduct, especially when the same objectors are not seen leading the charge for correction of slander, big lie misinformation and censorship at Wikipedia. Not to mention, lawfare. KF

  5. 5
    kairosfocus says:

    PS, look at the comment policy tab and come back to us.

  6. 6
    chuckdarwin says:

    ET/1

    Actually, I think Discovery Institute folks relish these faux controversies with bloggers like Professor Dave. It’s like taking candy from a baby. These fights appeal to the ID base and are about the only way these days that IDers can keep the narrative alive. The actual, real scientists out there have better things to do with their time than get sucked into pointless spats with Discovery Institute people……..

  7. 7
    ET says:

    What a joke. Your alleged “actual, real scientists” don’t have a scientific explanation for our existence. They don’t even know what determines biological form. Meaning they don’t know what determines the type of organism that will develop. But that is moot as they don’t have a scientific explanation for sexual reproduction.

    So yes, obviously they have better things to do with their time. Things like finding evidentiary support for their asinine position.

  8. 8
    kairosfocus says:

    CD, no true scotsman. KF

  9. 9
    asauber says:

    “The actual, real scientists out there have better things to do”

    CD,

    I doubt it.

    Andrew

  10. 10
    AaronS1978 says:

    @6
    Good thing no one really cares what you think

  11. 11
    Silver Asiatic says:

    CD

    It’s like taking candy from a baby.

    I agree that it’s unfortunate to see someone as qualified as Dr. Bechly having to take candy from baby Dave, but its for the sake of 2 million subscribers there.

    The actual, real scientists out there have better things to do with their time than get sucked into pointless spats with Discovery Institute people……..

    They think they’re above the fray because nobody in their bubble questions their theory. But in the outside world there are people like Professor Dave and his fanclub, and they’re making a mess of evolution. The professional scientists think they don’t have to defend themselves but they’ll be blindsided by it. ID is ignored by them, but not by the general public.

  12. 12
    Querius says:

    Thank you, Kairosfocus. I did read it again, including, “Put a Sock Into It.”

    One thing that I look for is additional, meaningful content. What I mean by this includes the following:

    – The comment is informed and doesn’t require others to write a chapter of a book for them.
    – The comment raises an honest, scientifically based question or objection.

    So let’s dissect an example.

    Actually, I think Discovery Institute folks relish these faux controversies with bloggers like Professor Dave.

    “Actually, I think”? Yes, who cares. Maybe I think you don’t think. So what?

    It’s like taking candy from a baby.

    Trite statement and meaningless in context–a supposedly immutable fact. Others include assertions like “own goal,” “leg before wicket, “easy as falling off a log,” etc. Ultimately decreases the signal to noise ratio of the conversation. “Actually.”

    These fights appeal to the ID base and are about the only way these days that IDers can keep the narrative alive.

    An unsupported pejorative assertion. One can simply substitute “evolutionists” for “IDers” or any other label resulting in more noise.

    The actual, real scientists out there have better things to do with their time than get sucked into pointless spats with Discovery Institute people……..

    As Kairosfocus pointed out, this is the “No True Scotsman” fallacy. It’s also an ad hominem attack against some highly educated scientists who make the case that the presumption of design accelerates scientific progress. This is certainly not “pointless.”

    So, let me suggest that trollbot posts should receive the response they deserve, which is no response. If such a post is very obviously something that a trollbot would automatically generate, then no more than a “troll” or “trollbot” designation might also be appropriate.

    Why?

    The purpose of trolling is to waste other people’s time, deflect from the OP, and generate confusion and hostility. Such posts do not attempt to enlighten, compare, contrast, explain, correct, or otherwise engage intelligently with the information from the OP and are destructive.

    Please note that an informed objection is not a troll if it provides a scientific or logical basis for that objection.

    -Q

  13. 13
    chuckdarwin says:

    Querius writes:

    So, let me suggest that trollbot posts should receive the response they deserve, which is no response.

    And then, of course, he immediately ignores his own advice and proceeds to respond with “signal to noise ratios” and other such obscurities oblivious to the fact that no true Scots-person would waste his or her precious time trying to teach the unteachable…. 😉

  14. 14
    Rob Davis says:

    “Farina seems to be totally ignorant of the fact that there is no consensus among philosophers of science about a demarcation criterion that could reliably distinguish science from non-science.” That in itself, is a lie. The key difference between science and pseudoscience is that science is based on scientific and factual evidence, whereas pseudoscience is not. ID offers an appeal to mysterious “intelligence”, which in a fallacious act, is deemed responsible for aspects of our reality.
    This unfalsifiable claims per no meaningful definition an explanation. One mystery is not solved by appealing to a bigger mystery. That is why a theological one never replaced a naturalistic explanation. That’s why ID has never contributed anything to our understanding on nature.
    It was Michael Behe himself , a senior fellow of the only institution there is which is advocating for ID, who, under oath was obliged to admit that the definition of “theory” supplied by the US National Academy of Sciences did not encompass ID, and that his broader definition would allow astrology to be included as a scientific theory.
    There is an unambiguous consensus amongst scholars, that astrology is not science, the same applies for ID.

  15. 15
    Rob Davis says:

    “Of course, intelligent design has explanatory power. Otherwise, we could not even explain the existence of Romeo and Juliet by the intelligent agency of William Shakespeare.”
    ID does not explain who the author of Romeo and Juliet is. We know this due to the overwhelming, falsifiable, empirical evidence that points to Shakespeare. The scientific aspect of historiography is evident in the painstaking search, collection, and evaluation of the available evidence and consequently points to a conclusion that has a demonstrable correaltion with reality.
    Those aspects are both absent in ID.
    “The only question under debate is whether such patterns are confined to the realm of human cultural artifacts or if they are also found in nature.” There is no such debate for good reasons.
    Any supposed alternative to a naturalistic explanation is per definition supernatural. A purely fictional concept. There is not even a methodology to investigate it. The supernatural only exists in the minds of those who believe in it. A belief fuelled by various variations of fallacies, wishful thinking and a religious bias.

  16. 16
    Rob Davis says:

    “It is an empirical question to be decided by the data.”

    Until the supernatural has a demonstrable correaltion with reality, concluding that an ill-defined metaphysical substance/ entity/ force/intelligence/power, whatever…not subject to the known laws of physics, that interacts with the fabric of our reality in ways that have thus far eluded every controlled experiment ever performed in the history of science….is supposingly responsible for aspects of our reality, will always, without exception pseudoscience.

    “It is simply false that intelligent design does not predict anything.” Is that why ID has demonstrably never contributed anything to our understanding of nature?
    “No undirected process will demonstrate the capacity to generate 500 bits of new [specified] information starting from a nonbiological source.”

    That is not a prediction to begin with, but a claim. A demonstrable false one. Meyer deliberately uses the term “information” here in a very vague manner. He wants his audience to believe that “information” is a material substance that needs to be forged by an intelligence, than what it really is: a pattern or sequence of items.
    If nucleotides polymerize to form a nucleic acid, and that sequence acts as a template for the synthesis of another molecule, it’s information. It’s just a word we use to describe something that exists, that applies to biological and nonbiological sequences alike and has zero implications toward intelligence.
    “Just write a computer simulation that achieves this, without smuggling the information in through a backdoor, and you can claim victory over a core prediction of intelligent design.

    Meyer is counting on the ignorance of his target audience here, again. Self-modifying code, which uses feedback mechanisms are widely in use. Just like Evolution, they are capable of generating new information without any outer influence.
    Evolution is not just mutations, it’s mutations AND natural selection. When we want to engineer enzymes to perform a novel activity, the best strategy is to speed up nature; we use random mutagenesis and select the best mutant.
    Run the cycle ten times, each time picking the best mutant, and you get a highly efficient enzyme.

    It’s evolution in vitro, not design. Similarly, if you let a program change its code with a feedback mechanism in place analogous to natural selection, the code will improve. This concept is not just an analogy but actually directly relevant to the concept of evolution by natural selection.

  17. 17
    bornagain77 says:

    As to:

    RD “Until the supernatural has a demonstrable correaltion with reality, concluding that an ill-defined metaphysical substance/ entity/ force/intelligence/power, whatever…not subject to the known laws of physics, that interacts with the fabric of our reality in ways that have thus far eluded every controlled experiment ever performed in the history of science…”

    Says the man who himself just intelligently, and apparently ‘supernaturally’, wrote far more information than has ever been witnessed being generated by unguided material/natural processes.

    Assessing the Damage MN Does to Freedom of Inquiry
    Epistemology — how we know — and ontology — what exists — are both affected by methodological naturalism. If we say, “We cannot know that a mind caused x,” laying down an epistemological boundary defined by MN, then our ontology comprising real causes for x won’t include minds.
    MN entails an ontology in which minds are the consequence of physics, and thus, can only be placeholders for a more detailed causal account in which physics is the only (ultimate) actor. You didn’t write your email to me. Physics did, and informed you of that event after the fact.
    “That’s crazy,” you reply, “I certainly did write my email.” Okay, then — to what does the pronoun “I” in that sentence refer?
    Your personal agency; your mind. Are you supernatural?,,,
    You are certainly an intelligent cause, however, and your intelligence does not collapse into physics. (If it does collapse — i.e., can be reduced without explanatory loss — we haven’t the faintest idea how, which amounts to the same thing.) To explain the effects you bring about in the world — such as your email, a real pattern — we must refer to you as a unique agent.
    https://evolutionnews.org/2014/09/do_you_like_set/

    Supplemental notes:

    Premise One: Despite a thorough search, no material causes have been discovered that demonstrate the power to produce large amounts of specified information.
    Premise Two: Intelligent causes have demonstrated the power to produce large amounts of specified information.
    Conclusion: Intelligent design constitutes the best, most causally adequate, explanation for the information in the cell.
    – Stephen Meyer

    “There remains one and only one type of cause that has shown itself able to create functional information like we find in cells, books and software programs — intelligent design. We know this from our uniform experience and from the design filter — a mathematically rigorous method of detecting design. Both yield the same answer. “
    (William Dembski and Jonathan Witt, Intelligent Design Uncensored: An Easy-to-Understand Guide to the Controversy, p. 90 (InterVarsity Press, 2010).)

    “Our experience-based knowledge of information-flow confirms that systems with large amounts of specified complexity (especially codes and languages) invariably originate from an intelligent source from a mind or personal agent.”
    (Stephen C. Meyer, “The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories,” Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 117(2):213-239 (2004).)

    Information Enigma (Where did the information come from?) – 21 minute video (Oct. 2015)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aA-FcnLsF1g
    Information drives the development of life. But what is the source of that information? Could it have been produced by an unguided Darwinian process? Or did it require intelligent design? The Information Enigma is a fascinating 21-minute documentary that probes the mystery of biological information, the challenge it poses to orthodox Darwinian theory, and the reason it points to intelligent design. The video features molecular biologist Douglas Axe and Stephen Meyer, author of the books Signature in the Cell and Darwin’s Doubt.

  18. 18
    kairosfocus says:

    RD, strawman alert. While there is a tendency of objectors to talk in terms of natural vs supernatural causes, from Plato in the laws bk X 2360 years ago design thinkers have understood the proper contrast to be nature vs art, that is blind chance and/or mechanical necessity vs intelligently directed configuration. Where, too, the design inference is on tested reliable signs, to process not agent. Just as one identifies arson from signs before addressing who did it. See the UD weak argument correctives under the resources tab. KF

  19. 19
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    Rob Davis
    One mystery is not solved by appealing to a bigger mystery. That is why a theological one never replaced a naturalistic explanation.

    🙂 Explain in naturalistic terms what is the process of checking and correcting “errors” inside the cell (in DNA,RNA,proteins ) and the feedback loop that confirms( or not )that error was corrected and is not necessary to restart the repair process. To scan an entire cell for detecting errors you need a control room that centralize all alerts about specific errors that are detected. That control room will call a specific repairing team for every specific error. After that team repairs the error must report back to central control room that will delete the alarm for that error.

    So… to detect an error you have to have an original map that constantly is compared with the changing territory of cell and when a change take place(map and territory in dissonance ) triggers an alarm in control room that will send a specific intervention team to a specific address. There are 3 billions of addresses ( only in DNA headquarter )and if you don’t know the exact address of the error you will spend years till you reach the exact error site. 🙂

  20. 20
    ET says:

    Rob Davis:

    Any supposed alternative to a naturalistic explanation is per definition supernatural.

    You need a new dictionary. Did supernatural processes build Stonehenge? We know there isn’t any naturalistic explanation for it.

    Meyer deliberately uses the term “information” here in a very vague manner.

    That is a lie. He uses it as everyone uses it. Crick even defined information with respect to biology.

    Natural selection includes mutations, Rob. NS is a process of elimination. It is nothing more than contingent serendipity.

  21. 21
    ET says:

    Rob Davis:

    The key difference between science and pseudoscience is that science is based on scientific and factual evidence, whereas pseudoscience is not.

    Evolution by means of blind and mindless processes isn’t based on scientific and factual evidence.

    Intelligent Design can be falsified by demonstrating that nature can produce coded information processing systems.

    As for astrology, it makes more sense than evolution by means of blind and mindless processes.

  22. 22
    Rob Davis says:

    @ ET
    “Did supernatural processes build Stonehenge? We know there isn’t any naturalistic explanation for it.”
    No. It was build by humans. What about this is supernatural?

  23. 23
    Rob Davis says:

    @ET
    Is this Joe?
    “Intelligent Design can be falsified by demonstrating that nature can produce coded information processing system”
    First off, no…one does not falsify ID. ID has to make falsifiable predictions…which it does not.
    Second…ID relies on the existence and interference of the supernatural…a concept that does not qualify as real.
    Last but not least: The very systems we use to produce coded information processing systems, meaning our very intelligences, are themselves code information processing systems. We have to be able to cope with encoded information. We need to be able to produce abstractions, work with them, put them together, infer, test, infer further, etc, before we can produce any other code. That means that making codes via “intelligent agency volition” requires systems able to process encoded information. So, if you wanted to propose an intelligence, other than the human one, you’d still be engaged in a silly impossible circularity.
    Thus, the only possible way out, is for code information processing systems to be producible in ways other than “intelligent agency volition,” again, given that such intelligences are themselves and work on the foundations of pre-existing code information processing systems.

  24. 24
    ET says:

    Rob Davis:

    No. It was build by humans. What about this is supernatural?

    TELIC PROCESSES. You are just unable to think.

  25. 25
    ET says:

    Earth to Rob Davis:

    ID is based on three premises and the inference that follows (DeWolf et al., Darwinism, Design and Public Education, pg. 92):

    1) High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design.
    2) Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity.
    3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.
    4) Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.

    So, yes, ID can be falsified just as I said. And ID does not require the supernatural. ID just requires TELIC PROCESSES

  26. 26
    Rob Davis says:

    @ Bornagain77
    “Says the man who himself just intelligently, and apparently ‘supernaturally’, wrote far more information than has ever been witnessed being generated by unguided material/natural processes.”
    What about writing a comment is supernatural?

    You ID Fanboyz all seem to be under the impression that information is some kind of magic ingredient that needs to be sprinkled over material to function. That is utter nonsense.
    Information in its many forms is nothing but a particular arrangement or sequence of particles and their interactions. which we know the laws of nature are perfectly capable to take care of.
    Nature creates complexity and with it, information all the time via the laws of nature, simple rules that apply as long as there is energy driving it…

  27. 27
    Rob Davis says:

    @ET
    “TELIC PROCESSES” build Stonhenge?
    so it is you Joe!
    New pseudonym..same old BS
    Joe G. Aka ET aka “somebodysdad” (one can just hope that this is one of his many lies) Joe Gallien, aka joe g, joe, joseph, john paul, ID guy, jim, frisbee kid, frankie, virgil cain, Robert O. Adai, Joe “I could tell you what I do for a living if you get a top secret security clearance” Gallien
    etc.
    has a habit of ignoring counterarguments and simply repeating his bullshit over and over again. As Hanlon´s razor states, “never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity” I’ve scraped dog shit off of my shoe that is smarter than Joe, who simultaneously represents one of the greatest intellects of Intelligent Design.

    His digital fingerprint shows him stating and claiming and bragging about being an Iraqi war hero, and a research scientist, and a world class power lifter, and an accomplished pilot, and a software guru with a top secret clearance who wrote genetic algorithms for encryption projects.
    Guess that’s just the tip if your garbage pile of lies from Mr “..scientific genius“ toaster repair man.

    Just as a warning for anyone else, don’t engage into a conversation with this one, the insight into a weirdos mind aside, it is a waste of time, he claims that all of the following quotes “are facts”

    “Naturalism hasn’t added anything to our knowledge”
    “Evidence for geology kills archaeology”
    “astrology makes testable claims about nature.”
    “there is still no scientific theory of evolution”
    “natural selection can´t do anything”
    “Evolutionists are such a bunch of lowlife losers who love to entertain the rest of us.“
    “I see that most, if not all, anti-IDists are raving lunatics”
    “Wet electricity. Whereas the electricity that powers our computers is comes from the flow of electrons through a conducter and “hates” water, the electricity that runs our bodies is designed for a wet environment and uses pumped ions to convey differing messages to our command center.”

    Lying, shifting, insulting, dissembling, equivocating, diverting, continuingly repeating nonsense ad nauseam that falls apart under the slightest pressure of scrutiny and ignoring everything that is in odds with his twisted toaster repair man logic is all that will ever come from this clown. Tedious and depressing in a very odd way.

  28. 28
    Silver Asiatic says:

    RD

    The very systems [that] produce coded information processing systems, [are] our very intelligences

    That’s the ID proposal. The prediction is that information processing systems can only be produced by intelligence and cannot be produced by blind, unintelligent natural causes.

    We have to be able to cope with encoded information. We need to be able to produce abstractions, work with them, put them together, infer, test, infer further, etc, before we can produce any other code.

    That’s why blind, unguided evolution fails. It cannot create all of those things you’ve listed there.

  29. 29
    ET says:

    Rob Davis is obviously just a strawman maker. There isn’t any evidence that natural can produce coded information processing systems and living organisms are ruled by them. There isn’t even any way to test the claim that nature can produce coded information processing systems.

    Where did those laws come from? Rob doesn’t have a clue.

  30. 30
    ET says:

    Rob Davis is just another troll liar. Clearly it is just another one of Timmy Horton’s socks.

    Lying, shifting, insulting, dissembling, equivocating, diverting, continuingly repeating nonsense ad nauseam that falls apart under the slightest pressure of scrutiny and ignoring everything…

    That is Rob Davis, aka Timmy Horton, to a tee.

  31. 31
    ET says:

    “Naturalism hasn’t added anything to our knowledge”
    “Evidence for geology kills archaeology”
    “astrology makes testable claims about nature.”
    “there is still no scientific theory of evolution”
    “natural selection can´t do anything”
    “Evolutionists are such a bunch of lowlife losers who love to entertain the rest of us.“
    “I see that most, if not all, anti-IDists are raving lunatics”
    “Wet electricity. Whereas the electricity that powers our computers is comes from the flow of electrons through a conducter and “hates” water, the electricity that runs our bodies is designed for a wet environment and uses pumped ions to convey differing messages to our command center.”

    All true! I don’t know what Timmy’s point was

  32. 32
    Rob Davis says:

    @Silver Asiatic
    “The prediction is that information processing systems can only be produced by intelligence and cannot be produced by blind, unintelligent natural causes.”
    Again: That is not a prediction, that is a demonstrable false claim.

    As long as there is no demonstrable correletion between the supernatural, it’s existence, let alone its’s interference with reality… natural causes for anything in nature have NO CREDIBLE ALTERNATIVE.

    No amount of baseless claims or fallacious assumptions is going to change that.

  33. 33
    ET says:

    ID doesn’t require the supernatural. And all you have are baseless claims, timmy.

  34. 34
    Rob Davis says:

    I still neither know nor care who Jimmy Horten is but I encurage everyone to look up Joe “toaster repair man” Gallien. And his digital fingerprint.

  35. 35
    ET says:

    Great, now that the lowest swamp rat is here- ie timmy horton- we can look forward to its Lying, shifting, insulting, dissembling, equivocating, diverting, continuingly repeating nonsense ad nauseam that falls apart under the slightest pressure of scrutiny and ignoring everything…

  36. 36
    ET says:

    Timmy Rob, I am comforted by the fact that I could easily destroy you in a debate on science.

  37. 37
    Silver Asiatic says:

    RD

    I still don’t neither know nor care who Jimmy Horten …

    You deliberately misconstrued the name. That’s a giveaway.

  38. 38
  39. 39
    Silver Asiatic says:

    RD

    natural causes for anything in nature have NO CREDIBLE ALTERNATIVE

    Natural causes cannot produce the effects we observe. If they could, you’d just report on it.
    We know that intelligence can model what we observe, and unintelligent natural causes cannot, so that’s more than enough to draw an inference, as even atheists who propose multiverse ideas have to do.

  40. 40
    Rob Davis says:

    Günter Bechly is a liar and a fraud just like the rest of the Discovery Institute ilk…an institution where there is no reaserch done whatsoever, of which of its founders Howard F. Ahmanson, Jr. openly wants to replace democracy with a fundamentalist theocracy.

  41. 41
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Rob – your first day here and you’re bringing all sorts of animosity and wounds from the past.
    That’s not the most attractive showing for the evolutionary side. Why not set that aside and engage in a more conciliatory dialogue?

  42. 42
    Silver Asiatic says:

    RD

    Günter Bechly is a liar and a fraud just like the rest of the Discovery Institute ilk

    All the members of the DI are liars and frauds?

  43. 43
    Silver Asiatic says:

    RD

    We’re going to refer to Jerry Coyne, Larry Moran and Biologos for an understanding of ID?
    They might be a bit biased, don’t you think?

  44. 44
    Rob Davis says:

    “Why not set that aside and engage in a more conciliatory dialogue”
    I did..I took Günter Bechlys desperate reply to Dave Farinas videos and dismanteled every lie and misrepresentation in it. Maybe you should start by watching the original videos on the output of the ill-named DI, which is a thorough insight on the motivation and lies of this pseudoscientific propaganda factory.

  45. 45
    ET says:

    “Rob Davis”, aka Timmy Horton, is a liar and a coward.

  46. 46
    ET says:

    Dave Farina is also a liar and a coward. That is why timmy luvs him

  47. 47
    asauber says:

    “Lying, shifting, insulting, dissembling, equivocating, diverting, continuingly repeating nonsense ad nauseam”

    “Günter Bechly is a liar and a fraud just like the rest of the Discovery Institute ilk”

    “Tedious and depressing in a very odd way.”

    Sounds like someone needs some hostility management classes and maybe a trip to see a mental health specialist.

    Andrew

  48. 48
    ET says:

    Intelligent Design is not anti-evolution. ID is ok with a change in allele frequency over time, ie evolution. ID is ok with descent with modification, ie evolution. ID is ok with speciation, ie evolution.

    The problem is that evos are just dishonest cowards.

  49. 49
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    The omnipotence of the matter! Nobody seen it , nobody proved that but even we don’t know how must be true whisper the atheist. :)))

  50. 50
    ET says:

    If anyone wants to observe the dishonesty and obfuscation that is Biologos, just read what transpired on the link “Rob Davis” provided.

  51. 51
    bornagain77 says:

    Rob Davis at 26 you claim,

    You ID Fanboyz all seem to be under the impression that information is some kind of magic ingredient that needs to be sprinkled over material to function. That is utter nonsense.
    Information in its many forms is nothing but a particular arrangement or sequence of particles and their interactions. which we know the laws of nature are perfectly capable to take care of.
    Nature creates complexity and with it, information all the time via the laws of nature, simple rules that apply as long as there is energy driving it…

    Well Rob, here’s your chance to scientifically falsify ID, embarrass ID advocates, and earn yourself a cool 10 million dollars to boot.. Just show ‘Nature’ creating a code.

    Evolution 2.0 Prize: Unprecedented $10 Million Offered To Replicate Cellular Evolution – 2020
    Excerpt: An incentive prize ten times the size of the Nobel – believed to be the largest single award ever in basic science – is being offered to the person or team solving the largest mystery in history: how genetic code inside cells got there, and how cells intentionally self-organize, communicate, then purposely adapt.
    This $10 million challenge, the Evolution 2.0 Prize can be found at http://www.evo2.org.
    ,,, A germ resisting antibiotics does more programming in 12 minutes than a team of Google engineers can do in 12 days,” said Marshall. “One blade of grass is 10,000 years ahead of any computer. If a single firm in Silicon Valley held a fraction of the secrets of this natural code inside a single cell, they’d set the NASDAQ on fire. Organisms self-edit and reprogram in real time in a way that dwarfs anything manmade. If we crack this, it will literally change the course of aging, disease, A.I. and humanity.”
    https://www.prnewswire.com/in/news-releases/evolution-2-0-prize-unprecedented-10-million-offered-to-replicate-cellular-evolution-875038146.html

    Artificial Intelligence + Origin of Life Prize, $10 Million USD
    Where did life and the genetic code come from? Can the answer build superior AI? The #1 mystery in science now has a $10 million prize.
    https://www.herox.com/evolution2.0?_ga=2.109943685.1072307718.1654186933-1313874461.1654186933

  52. 52
    Silver Asiatic says:

    RD

    The key difference between science and pseudoscience is that science is based on scientific and factual evidence, whereas pseudoscience is not.

    You’re saying that science is based on science and pseudoscience is not.

  53. 53
    Rob Davis says:

    “Well Rob, here’s your chance to scientifically falsify ID”
    What is there to falyify? It is the God of the gaps argument in a wig. The whle thing is one big fallacy.
    ID appeals to a fantasy “intelligence” and sells this as an explanation to brainless morons…just like creationism does, because they are the same thing.

  54. 54
    Rob Davis says:

    “You’re saying that science is based on science and pseudoscience is not.”

    I am saying that science is based on emperical evidence that actually exists in this reality and pseudoscience is not…as it is clearly demonstrated by ID.
    Fallacious assumptions about some “intelligence” with no demonstrable correaltion with reality, are not a substitute for empirical evidence.

  55. 55
    Rob Davis says:

    “The omnipotence of the matter! Nobody seen it , nobody proved that but even we don’t know how must be true whisper the atheist. :)))”

    Nobody in science claims that matter is omnipotent.
    Matter and the laws of nature are demonstably real, they demonstrably exist and guide natural processes.
    The “God”…sorry “intelligence” you seem to be so keen on, has no demonsttrable correaltion with reality, and no amount of baseless claims or fallacious assumptions is going to change that.

  56. 56
    Rob Davis says:

    “All the members of the DI are liars and frauds?”
    Yes.
    That includes William Dembski the founder of this blog. I hope you read this Bill.

  57. 57
    Rob Davis says:

    I’m still waiting to hear the ID explanation for ….antibiotic research, ring species, domesticated animals, vestigial organs, endogenous retroviruses, pseudogenes, syncytin, Biogeography, chromosome 2 in humans, cytochrome c and b, nested Hierarchs and classification, homologous structures, divergence, endemism and the observable speciation in American Goatsbeard flowers.

    I’m still waiting to hear the ID explanation for …why are there are no mammals or freshwater-fish, only animals that could swim or fly there in the first place, on Islands of volcanic origin, which specified there shown severe genetic overlap with animals on the nearest mainland? Whereas the animal population on islands which were former connected to mainland, contains freshwater-fish and mammals?
    In the light of Evolution this makes perfect sense.
    Let’s have a look at the ID explanation for all that: “An not further defined “Intelligence”, that is in no way detectable arranged that so…”
    The ID attempt of an “Explanation” is not different from claiming “Magic did it”.
    I don’t know what’s worse, that the ID frauds think that their followers are so gullible, ill-informed, brainwashed, ignorant, and depended on this God fantasy to fall for this crap, or that they are predominantly right in thinking so.

  58. 58
    Rob Davis says:

    The typical ID fanboy keeps ignoring the your bigger problem…: Nothing in regards to abiogenesis or evolution (even their complete and utter disproval) , adds substance to anything supernatural, including the God, sorry “Intelligence” they imagine is real. God…sorry…some intelligence is not the default position for anything….it is in fact no position at all until it’s existence is demonstrated.

    Which has not happened yet and given that you lack a method to do so, probably never will happen.
    A fallacious assumption is not a replacement for a demonstrable correaltion with reality.

    You can’t just wish things into existence. Provoking God/some intelligence, is just the attempt to solve one mystery by appealing to another one.

  59. 59
    bornagain77 says:

    Rob Davis at 53,

    “Well Rob, here’s your chance to scientifically falsify ID”
    What is there to falyify (sic)?

    You specifically claimed that, “Nature creates complexity and with it, information all the time via the laws of nature,”. ID holds that the laws of nature cannot create “information all the time via the laws of nature”.

    Thus, “here’s your chance to scientifically falsify ID, embarrass ID advocates, and earn yourself a cool 10 million dollars to boot.. Just show the laws of ‘Nature’ creating a code.”

    Evolution 2.0 Prize: Unprecedented $10 Million Offered To Replicate Cellular Evolution – 2020
    Excerpt: An incentive prize ten times the size of the Nobel – believed to be the largest single award ever in basic science – is being offered to the person or team solving the largest mystery in history: how genetic code inside cells got there, and how cells intentionally self-organize, communicate, then purposely adapt.
    This $10 million challenge, the Evolution 2.0 Prize can be found at http://www.evo2.org.
    ,,, A germ resisting antibiotics does more programming in 12 minutes than a team of Google engineers can do in 12 days,” said Marshall. “One blade of grass is 10,000 years ahead of any computer. If a single firm in Silicon Valley held a fraction of the secrets of this natural code inside a single cell, they’d set the NASDAQ on fire. Organisms self-edit and reprogram in real time in a way that dwarfs anything manmade. If we crack this, it will literally change the course of aging, disease, A.I. and humanity.”
    https://www.prnewswire.com/in/news-releases/evolution-2-0-prize-unprecedented-10-million-offered-to-replicate-cellular-evolution-875038146.html

    Artificial Intelligence + Origin of Life Prize, $10 Million USD
    Where did life and the genetic code come from? Can the answer build superior AI? The #1 mystery in science now has a $10 million prize.
    https://www.herox.com/evolution2.0?_ga=2.109943685.1072307718.1654186933-1313874461.1654186933

  60. 60
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    Rob Davis
    …some intelligence is not the default position for anything….it is in fact no position at all until it’s existence is demonstrated.

    😆 Your own mind is ID evidence. You can’t explain mind in terms of physical laws. End of story.

  61. 61
    Bob O'H says:

    You specifically claimed that, “Nature creates complexity and with it, information all the time via the laws of nature,”. ID holds that the laws of nature cannot create “information all the time via the laws of nature”.

    Any gene duplication event increases information. Come to that, if you use Shannon information, genetic drift increases information.

  62. 62
    bornagain77 says:

    As to Rob’s claim that “Nature creates complexity and with it, information all the time via the laws of nature”, it is interesting to note that, as Ernst Mayr himself conceded, “there are no natural laws in biology corresponding to the natural laws of the physical sciences.”

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

    And as Roger Highfield stated, “Whatever the case, those universal truths—’laws’—that physicists and chemists all rely upon appear relatively absent from biology.”

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

    And as Murray Eden of MIT stated, “an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.”

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

    Even wikipedia itself (no friend of ID) honestly conceded, “Whether or not Natural Selection is a “law of nature” is controversial among biologists.”

    “Whether or not Natural Selection is a “law of nature” is controversial among biologists.”
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law#Laws_of_biology

    Thus, directly contrary to what Rob implied, there simply is no agreed upon ‘law of evolution’ that corresponds to the natural laws of the physical sciences.

    And with no law of nature to ever build a realistic mathematical model upon, Darwinian evolution simply fails to qualify as a hard and testable science,

    As Dr. Robert Marks noted, “There exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. Hard sciences are built on foundations of mathematics or definitive simulations. Examples include electromagnetics, Newtonian mechanics, geophysics, relativity, thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, optics, and many areas in biology. Those hoping to establish Darwinian evolution as a hard science with a model have either failed or inadvertently cheated.,,, there exists no (mathematical) model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. According to our current understanding, there never will be.,,,”

    “There exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. Hard sciences are built on foundations of mathematics or definitive simulations. Examples include electromagnetics, Newtonian mechanics, geophysics, relativity, thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, optics, and many areas in biology. Those hoping to establish Darwinian evolution as a hard science with a model have either failed or inadvertently cheated. These models contain guidance mechanisms to land the airplane squarely on the target runway despite stochastic wind gusts. Not only can the guiding assistance be specifically identified in each proposed evolution model, its contribution to the success can be measured, in bits, as active information.,,,”,,, “there exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. According to our current understanding, there never will be.,,,”
    – Robert J. Marks II – Top Ten Questions and Objections to ‘Introduction to Evolutionary Informatics’ – June 12, 2017
    https://evolutionnews.org/2017/06/top-ten-questions-and-objections-to-introduction-to-evolutionary-informatics/

    And whereas Darwinian evolution has no known law of nature to appeal to so as to establish itself as a proper, testable, ‘hard’ science, Intelligent Design does not suffer from such an embarrassing disconnect from physical reality. In other words, Intelligent Design can appeal directly to ‘the laws of conservation of information’ (Dembski, Marks, etc..) in order to establish itself as a proper, testable, ‘hard’ science.

    Conservation of information, evolution, etc – Sept. 30, 2014
    Excerpt: Kurt Gödel’s logical objection to Darwinian evolution:
    “The formation in geological time of the human body by the laws of physics (or any other laws of similar nature), starting from a random distribution of elementary particles and the field is as unlikely as the separation of the atmosphere into its components. The complexity of the living things has to be present within the material [from which they are derived] or in the laws [governing their formation].”
    Gödel – As quoted in H. Wang. “On `computabilism’ and physicalism: Some Problems.” in Nature’s Imagination, J. Cornwall, Ed, pp.161-189, Oxford University Press (1995).
    Gödel’s argument is that if evolution is unfolding from an initial state by mathematical laws of physics, it cannot generate any information not inherent from the start – and in his view, neither the primaeval environment nor the laws are information-rich enough.,,,
    More recently this led him (Dembski) to postulate a Law of Conservation of Information, or actually to consolidate the idea, first put forward by Nobel-prizewinner Peter Medawar in the 1980s. Medawar had shown, as others before him, that in mathematical and computational operations, no new information can be created, but new findings are always implicit in the original starting points – laws and axioms.,,,
    http://potiphar.jongarvey.co.u.....ution-etc/

    Evolutionary Computing: The Invisible Hand of Intelligence – June 17, 2015
    Excerpt: William Dembski and Robert Marks have shown that no evolutionary algorithm is superior to blind search — unless information is added from an intelligent cause, which means it is not, in the Darwinian sense, an evolutionary algorithm after all. This mathematically proven law, based on the accepted No Free Lunch Theorems, seems to be lost on the champions of evolutionary computing. Researchers keep confusing an evolutionary algorithm (a form of artificial selection) with “natural evolution.” ,,,
    Marks and Dembski account for the invisible hand required in evolutionary computing. The Lab’s website states, “The principal theme of the lab’s research is teasing apart the respective roles of internally generated and externally applied information in the performance of evolutionary systems.” So yes, systems can evolve, but when they appear to solve a problem (such as generating complex specified information or reaching a sufficiently narrow predefined target), intelligence can be shown to be active. Any internally generated information is conserved or degraded by the law of Conservation of Information.,,,
    What Marks and Dembski (mathematically) prove is as scientifically valid and relevant as Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem in mathematics. You can’t prove a system of mathematics from within the system, and you can’t derive an information-rich pattern from within the pattern.,,,
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....96931.html

    And since Intelligent Design is mathematically based upon the ‘law of conservation of information’, that makes Intelligent Design very much testable and potentially falsifiable, and thus makes Intelligent Design, unlike Darwinism, a rigorous science instead of, basically, a unfalsifiable pseudoscience .

    In fact, to repeat, there is currently a 10 million dollar prize being offered for the first person that can “Show an example of Information that doesn’t come from a mind. All you need is one.”

    The Origin of Information: How to Solve It – Perry Marshall
    Where did the information in DNA come from? This is one of the most important and valuable questions in the history of science. Cosmic Fingerprints has issued a challenge to the scientific community:
    “Show an example of Information that doesn’t come from a mind. All you need is one.”
    “Information” is defined as digital communication between an encoder and a decoder, using agreed upon symbols. To date, no one has shown an example of a naturally occurring encoding / decoding system, i.e. one that has demonstrably come into existence without a designer.
    A private equity investment group is offering a technology prize for this discovery (up to 10 million dollars). We will financially reward and publicize the first person who can solve this;,,, To solve this problem is far more than an object of abstract religious or philosophical discussion. It would demonstrate a mechanism for producing coding systems, thus opening up new channels of scientific discovery. Such a find would have sweeping implications for Artificial Intelligence research.
    http://cosmicfingerprints.com/solve/

  63. 63
    bornagain77 says:

    So Bob O’H at 61, according to your simplistic reasoning, if I make a copy of a book you believe I have created coded information?

    And if you actually believe that, are you going to submit gene duplication, (or something similar to that), to Perry Marshall and company as a candidate for the 10 million dollar prize? 🙂

  64. 64
    kairosfocus says:

    RD, kindly read the UD resources tab items, including definition of ID and the weak argument correctives. Your uncivil, slanderously accusatory behaviour has you on track for banning for cause. You may also find the OP and discussion here useful. Particularly note the postulational framework and structure of ID as an inference, as a research programme/ paradigm/ theory with growing publication record and as a movement involving thinkers and supporters. BTW direct design is not inferred to explain every adaptation, even by current young earth creationists, they speak to adaptive radiation up to family level or thereabouts, the Cichlids may be a particularly good case in point and we have seen how American Elk and European Red Deer freely interbred in New Zealand. I think cross genus breeding of salmonids also occurs, if memory serves. Mules, Wipers and the like show where infertility can come up. Of course cross species breeding of Galapagos finches is a key point. I think the issue is, origin of life and that of basic body plans, where from Thaxton et al on, it has been pointed out that in effect a molecular nanotech lab some generations beyond Venter would be a serious candidate explanation. It is, as Plato pointed out, cosmological fine tuning that requires extracosmic intelligently directed configuration, and it is the new order of being, mind governed by knowable first principle, self evident first duties of reason that points to the awesomely powerful, inherently good and utterly wise as necessary being root of reality and ground world, W0. Where, successful random document creation beyond 500 – 1,000 bits would suffice to shatter the core design inference. I am sure, you are or could easily be aware that efforts have not gone beyond 1 in 10^100 of the lower end of that threshold range. And yes, that is just one example of empirical testing of ID. KF

  65. 65
    Rob Davis says:

    “You can’t explain mind in terms of physical laws. End of story.”
    All our minds, no matter what beliefs they hold, are housed in material brains, which can be boiled down to the particles and their interactions as they are described in the Standard Model of Physics.
    There in nothing special about a mind in naturalistic terms…interacting matter. Like the rest of our reality.

    ID on the other hand explains NOTHING. It claims a fantasy is interacting with nature.
    A fantsay solely based on a fallacious assumtion.

  66. 66
    Rob Davis says:

    “And since Intelligent Design is mathematically based upon the ‘law of conservation of information’, that makes Intelligent Design very much testable and potentially falsifiable, …”

    ID is not based on any math. You claim it is, so please show the math that underpins the claim “some non-detectable “Intelligence” is interacting with nature.
    Answer: There is no such math.

    The ‘law of conservation of information’ is one of Dembski’s Brainfarts that ” Information does not appear out of nowhere, but can always be traced to a prior source”. Where he again acts as if information is some kind of entity, a magic ingredient that needs to be added to matter for it to work properly. When in reality it is nothing but a particular arrangement or sequence of particles and their interactions.
    “that makes Intelligent Design very much testable and potentially falsifiable” With what method do you propose we demonstrate a correaltion between this “intelligence” and reality? Please elaborate!
    Answer: There is none

    Name one prediction ID makes that is falsifiable by an empirical evidence and how you plan to produce this evidence. Please elaborate!
    Answer: There is none

    ID is usless nonsense.

  67. 67
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    Rob Davis
    All our minds, no matter what beliefs they hold, are housed in material brains, which can be boiled down to the particles and their interactions as they are described in the Standard Model of Physics.
    There in nothing special about a mind in naturalistic terms…interacting matter.

    To say that atoms are producing the mind it’s like saying that wood produce books. Pages from books are made from cellulose and ink . Do cellulose and ink produce letters by themselves? If yes ,tell us what physical law made them to create letters.

  68. 68
    Rob Davis says:

    @Bornagain77, Bill…
    Regarding the “Evolution 2.0 prize” No outcome of anyOrigin Of Information experiment is going to add credibility to this supposed “intelligence” of your ID fantasy.
    That’s not how this works.
    Until it’s existence is demonstrated you got nothing.

    Which has not happened yet and given that you lack a method to do so, probably never will happen.
    A fallacious assumption is not a replacement for a demonstrable correaltion with reality.

    You can’t just wish things into existence. Provoking God/some intelligence, is just the attempt to solve one mystery by appealing to another one.

  69. 69
    bornagain77 says:

    Rob, so you have collected the 10 million dollar prize and falsified ID by showing, as you claimed, “Nature creates complexity and with it, information all the time via the laws of nature,”?

    Or are you now backing off your claim that the laws of nature can create coded information?

    Fame, fortune, and a Nobel prize, awaits your proof that the laws of nature can create coded information

  70. 70
    ET says:

    Bob O’H:

    Any gene duplication event increases information.

    Two copies of the same thing does not increase information.

  71. 71
    ET says:

    “Rob Davis” is a scientifically illiterate coward. It couldn’t find evidentiary support for evolution by means of blind and mindless processes if its life depended on it.

  72. 72
    ET says:

    Intelligent Design’s concepts on evolution are used in the form of genetic algorithms, which are goal-oriented programs that utilize targeted searches to solve problems.

    No one uses evolution by means of blind and mindless processes for anything. It is useless and worthless

  73. 73
    ET says:

    There isn’t any evidence that nature produced itself.

    There isn’t any evidence that nature produced the laws that govern it.

    There isn’t any evidence that nature can produce coded information processing systems and living organisms are ruled by them.

    Given starting populations of prokaryotes there isn’t any naturalistic process capable of producing eukaryotes. Endosymbiosis doesn’t help as we have learned from the new article on the topic.

    So evos don’t have anything. No evidence. No science. Just pure belligerence.

  74. 74
    ET says:

    “Rob Davis” is confused. There is no way that evolution by means of blind and mindless process could produce a nested hierarchy. All of the required transitional forms would ruin any and all attempts at making nice, distinct groupings.

    Evolution by means of blind and mindless processes can’t account for the existence of eukaryotes. You lose, timmy. All you have is your ignorance and gullibility.

  75. 75
    Fred Hickson says:

    The bottom line is however poor, unbelievable or laughable ID proponents find evolutionary theory, evolutionary theory is the only viable scientific theory which attempts to explain what we observe that makes testable predictions.

    There is no testable scientific hypothesis of “Intelligent Design”.

  76. 76
    ET says:

    Earth to Fred- There isn’t any scientific theory of evolution. The testable hypothesis for ID is as follows:

    1) High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design.
    2) Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity.
    3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.
    4) Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.

    And that is by far more than evolution by means of blind and mindless processes can muster.

    Fred Hickson is either willfully ignorant, stupid or blatantly dishonest.

  77. 77
    ET says:

    All our minds, no matter what beliefs they hold, are housed in material brains, which can be boiled down to the particles and their interactions as they are described in the Standard Model of Physics.

    Just because you can say it doesn’t make it so. How does evolution by means of blind and mindless processes even account for brains, seeing they can’t even produce eukaryotes?

  78. 78
    ET says:

    kairosfocus- “Rob Davis” isn’t interested in learning about ID nor science.

  79. 79
    ET says:

    The bottom line is however poor, unbelievable or laughable evolution proponents find Intelligent Design, Intelligent Design is the only viable scientific concept which attempts to explain what we observe that makes testable predictions.

    There is no testable scientific hypothesis of evolution by means of blind and mindless processes

  80. 80
    jerry says:

    only viable scientific theory which attempts to explain what we observe that makes testable predictions

    And all predictions have failed.

    Darwin’s ideas are all self refuting especially natural selection. Natural selection while real by definition can only lead to very minor changes. Certainly not to a new species.

  81. 81
    Silver Asiatic says:

    RD

    …is just the attempt to solve one mystery …

    After all the bluster, that part is right. Materialism cannot penetrate the mystery of the origins of anything. Some of the anti-IDists here have already admitted that, and their “attempt to solve” the mystery is to provide the conclusion “we don’t know”.
    That basically works for everything.
    ID, on the other hand, takes what we do know and has discovered that it applies to observations we have throughout nature. ID opens up understanding of reality where materialism closed it down (as any blind, unintelligent thing would do).

  82. 82
    Silver Asiatic says:

    RD

    No outcome of anyOrigin Of Information experiment is going to add credibility to this supposed “intelligence” of your ID fantasy.

    A deceptive answer that clearly shows you’ve got nothing.
    The challenge is for you to back up your claim and produce a coded information system (sender, translator, receiver, functional-logic based response) minus intelligence.
    You know you can’t do it. But instead of just admitting the failure, you turn it around and attack intelligence itself, which is the only means capable of producing the result.
    Why not just admit that?

  83. 83
    Silver Asiatic says:

    RD

    There in nothing special about a mind in naturalistic terms…interacting matter. Like the rest of our reality.

    Nothing special.
    That’s just the marketing campaign for irrational nihilism.
    You’re killing your own credibility, self-worth and reason for existence.
    Is there some reason anyone should care about what you have to say?
    ID points to meaning and purposeful design.

    All our minds, no matter what beliefs they hold, are housed in material brains, which can be boiled down to the particles and their interactions as they are described in the Standard Model of Physics.

    As pathetic and tragic as that belief-system is, it’s also good to see in some ways.
    There are anti-IDists here who deny that materialists like you exist any more.
    But we’ve got it right here. Everything is “boiled down” to physics. There’s really no need even for biology.

  84. 84
    kairosfocus says:

    RD, 65:

    First, no gigo limited computation on a substrate — a dynamic-stochastic, cause effect system not a ground consequent reasoning entity — is free enough to be rational, so to warrant and to know. Consequently, your computationalist materialism is self referentially incoherent, as was pointed out by Haldane before either of us was born: it would destroy the credibility of the knowledge that it claims to be.

    Contrary to your impositions, the fact that we self evidently are rational and can warrant and know is itself excellent reason to infer that materialism is falsified.

    Next, we do have a framework, first, the Smith two-tier cybernetic loop controller, https://uncommondescent.com/atheism/reference-the-smith-model-an-architecture-for-cybernetics-and-mind-body-free-will-determinism-compatibilism-analysis/ in which there is a higher order supervisory controller that influences the loop. A likely candidate is quantum influence.

    In that context, we see the relevance of an oracle machine, an extension of the Turing controller that in one step issues decisions once the system enters an ask state, based on its own resources that are not an expression of the Turing model.

    This outperforms a Turing device and of course is highly relevant to the Smith Model. For example, Wikipedia is forced to confess:

    An oracle machine can be conceived as a Turing machine connected to an oracle. The oracle, in this context, is an entity capable of solving some problem, which for example may be a decision problem or a function problem. The problem does not have to be computable; the oracle is not assumed to be a Turing machine or computer program. The oracle is simply a “black box” that is able to produce a solution for any instance of a given computational problem:

    A decision problem is represented as a set A of natural numbers (or strings). An instance of the problem is an arbitrary natural number (or string). The solution to the instance is “YES” if the number (string) is in the set, and “NO” otherwise.

    A function problem is represented by a function f from natural numbers (or strings) to natural numbers (or strings). An instance of the problem is an input x for f. The solution is the value f(x).

    An oracle machine can perform all of the usual operations of a Turing machine, and can also query the oracle to obtain a solution to any instance of the computational problem for that oracle. For example, if the problem is a decision problem for a set A of natural numbers, the oracle machine supplies the oracle with a natural number, and the oracle responds with “yes” or “no” stating whether that number is an element of A.

    So, we have a framework for going beyond the first level Turing machine.

    This has room for a view of reality in which the necessary being root of reality can design a world fine tuned for C chem, aqueous medium, cell based, information and cybernetic system rich life. So the notion that one cannot bridge to physics is moot, and onward to the root of the tree of life. Where the functionally specific complex organisation and/or associated information [FSCO/I] in cell based life points to intelligently directed oracular controlled configuration as best explanation. Design is there from the root, OoL. Oo Body Plans [OoBP] then becomes a free corollary, as origin of a body plan hosting responsible rational freedom.

    KF

    PS, Haldane, framed as a skeletal argument:

    “It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For

    if

    [p:] my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain

    [–> taking in DNA, epigenetics and matters of computer organisation, programming and dynamic-stochastic processes; notice, “my brain,” i.e. self referential]
    ______________________________

    [ THEN]

    [q:] I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true.

    [–> indeed, blindly mechanical computation is not in itself a rational process, the only rationality is the canned rationality of the programmer, where survival-filtered lucky noise is not a credible programmer, note the functionally specific, highly complex organised information rich code and algorithms in D/RNA, i.e. language and goal directed stepwise process . . . an observationally validated adequate source for such is _____ ?]

    [Corollary 1:] They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically.

    And hence

    [Corollary 2:] I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. [–> grand, self-referential delusion, utterly absurd self-falsifying incoherence]

    [Implied, Corollary 3: Reason and rationality collapse in a grand delusion, including of course general, philosophical, logical, ontological and moral knowledge; reductio ad absurdum, a FAILED, and FALSE, intellectually futile and bankrupt, ruinously absurd system of thought.]

    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. Cf. here on (and esp here) on the self-refutation by self-falsifying self referential incoherence and on linked amorality.]

  85. 85
    kairosfocus says:

    PPS, on the infinite monkeys theorem, wikipedia saw the thumbscrews and chose to admit:

    The theorem concerns a thought experiment which cannot be fully carried out in practice, since it is predicted to require prohibitive amounts of time and resources. Nonetheless, it has inspired efforts in finite random text generation.

    One computer program run by Dan Oliver of Scottsdale, Arizona, according to an article in The New Yorker, came up with a result on 4 August 2004: After the group had worked for 42,162,500,000 billion billion monkey-years, one of the “monkeys” typed, “VALENTINE. Cease toIdor:eFLP0FRjWK78aXzVOwm)-‘;8.t” The first 19 letters of this sequence can be found in “The Two Gentlemen of Verona”. Other teams have reproduced 18 characters from “Timon of Athens”, 17 from “Troilus and Cressida”, and 16 from “Richard II”.[27]

    A website entitled The Monkey Shakespeare Simulator, launched on 1 July 2003, contained a Java applet that simulated a large population of monkeys typing randomly, with the stated intention of seeing how long it takes the virtual monkeys to produce a complete Shakespearean play from beginning to end. For example, it produced this partial line from Henry IV, Part 2, reporting that it took “2,737,850 million billion billion billion monkey-years” to reach 24 matching characters:

    RUMOUR. Open your ears; 9r”5j5&?OWTY Z0d

    A mere factor of 10^100 shy of the lower end of the FSCO/I threshold range.

  86. 86
    Rob Davis says:

    You can keep asking how nature produced this and that..it really does not matter and you know that it does not.

    The difference between the position of naturalism and ID have one decisive distention. Every component for naturalism is demonstrably real. Whereas the key component for ID is NOT.

    NO amount of wishful thinking, an no amount of fallacious assumptions is going to change that.

    “You can’t explain xy with naturalism..so magic is real” That is basically the ID position.

    ID relies in the existence and interference of some ill-defined God/metaphysical substance/ entity/ force/intelligence/power/ supernatural whatever, not subject to the known laws of physics, that supposingly interacts with the fabric of our reality in ways that have thus far eluded every controlled experiment ever performed in the history of science.

    That puts your God …sorry, “intelligence” on the same level as magical unicorns.

    ID proponents consist of three major groups. Moronic clowns like Joe g. here, DI employees who are usually lacking even the tiniest bit of integrity who make a living by telling lies and of course their prey, scientific illiterate, childhood indoctrinated victims of intellectual neglect.

  87. 87
    JHolo says:

    RD@86. Ouch.

  88. 88
    bornagain77 says:

    RD claims; “Every component for naturalism is demonstrably real. Whereas the key component for ID is NOT.

    Really? I guess someone forgot to send RD a memo on the falsification of realism. 🙂

    Quantum physics says goodbye to reality – Apr 20, 2007
    Excerpt: Many realizations of the thought experiment have indeed verified the violation of Bell’s inequality. These have ruled out all hidden-variables theories based on joint assumptions of realism, meaning that reality exists when we are not observing it; and locality, meaning that separated events cannot influence one another instantaneously. But a violation of Bell’s inequality does not tell specifically which assumption – realism, locality or both – is discordant with quantum mechanics.
    Markus Aspelmeyer, Anton Zeilinger and colleagues from the University of Vienna, however, have now shown that realism is more of a problem than locality in the quantum world. They devised an experiment that violates a different inequality proposed by physicist Anthony Leggett in 2003 that relies only on realism, and relaxes the reliance on locality. To do this, rather than taking measurements along just one plane of polarization, the Austrian team took measurements in additional, perpendicular planes to check for elliptical polarization.
    They found that, just as in the realizations of Bell’s thought experiment, Leggett’s inequality is violated – thus stressing the quantum-mechanical assertion that reality does not exist when we’re not observing it. “Our study shows that ‘just’ giving up the concept of locality would not be enough to obtain a more complete description of quantum mechanics,” Aspelmeyer told Physics Web. “You would also have to give up certain intuitive features of realism.”
    http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/27640

    Should Quantum Anomalies Make Us Rethink Reality?
    Inexplicable lab results may be telling us we’re on the cusp of a new scientific paradigm
    By Bernardo Kastrup on April 19, 2018
    Excerpt: ,, according to the current paradigm, (materialism and/or physicalism), the properties of an object should exist and have definite values even when the object is not being observed: the moon should exist and have whatever weight, shape, size and color it has even when nobody is looking at it. Moreover, a mere act of observation should not change the values of these properties. Operationally, all this is captured in the notion of “non-contextuality”: ,,,
    It turns out, however, that some predictions of QM are incompatible with non-contextuality even for a large and important class of non-local theories. Experimental results reported in 2007 and 2010 have confirmed these predictions. To reconcile these results with the current paradigm would require a profoundly counterintuitive redefinition of what we call “objectivity.” And since contemporary culture has come to associate objectivity with reality itself, the science press felt compelled to report on this by pronouncing, “Quantum physics says goodbye to reality.”
    https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/should-quantum-anomalies-make-us-rethink-reality/

    And since ‘intelligence’ is the key component for ID, apparently RD is also trying to claim that Intelligence is not demonstrably real. What is ironic in his claim is that RD typed that claim out on a computer. A computer which is itself undeniable proof that intelligence is real.

    As George Ellis stated, “The mind is not a physical entity, but it certainly is causally effective: proof is the existence of the computer on which you are reading this text. It could not exist if it had not been designed and manufactured according to someone’s plans, thereby proving the causal efficacy of thoughts, which like computer programs and data are not physical entities.”

    How Does The World Work: Top-Down or Bottom-Up? – September 29, 2013
    Excerpt: To get an handle on how top-down causation works, Ellis focuses on what’s in front of all us so much of the time: the computer. Computers are structured systems. They are built as a hierarchy of layers, extending from the wires in the transistors all the way up to the fully assembled machine, gleaming metal case and all.
    Because of this layering, what happens at the uppermost levels — like you hitting the escape key — flows downward. This action determines the behavior of the lowest levels — like the flow of electrons through the wires — in ways that simply could not be predicted by just knowing the laws of electrons. As Ellis puts it:
    “Structured systems such as a computer constrain lower level interactions, and thereby paradoxically create new possibilities of complex behavior.”
    Ellis likes to emphasize how the hierarchy of structure — from fully assembled machine through logic gates, down to transistors — changes everything for the lowly electrons. In particular, it “breaks the symmetry” of their possible behavior since their movements in the computer hardware are very different from what would occur if they were just floating around in a plasma blob in space.
    But the hardware, of course, is just one piece of the puzzle. This is where things get interesting. As Ellis explains:
    “Hardware is only causally effective because of the software which animates it: by itself hardware can do nothing. Both hardware and software are hierarchically structured with the higher level logic driving the lower level events.”
    In other words, it’s software at the top level of structure that determines how the electrons at the bottom level flow. Hitting escape while running Word moves the electrons in the wires in different ways than hitting escape does when running Photoshop. This is causation flowing from top to bottom.
    For Ellis, anything producing causes is real in the most basic sense of the word. Thus the software, which is not physical like the electrons, is just as real as those electrons. As Ellis puts it:
    “Hence, although they are the ultimate in algorithmic causation as characterized so precisely by Turing, digital computers embody and demonstrate the causal efficacy of non-physical entities. The physics allows this; it does not control what takes place. Computers exemplify the emergence of new kinds of causation out of the underlying physics, not implied by physics but rather by the logic of higher-level possibilities. … A combination of bottom-up causation and contextual affects (top-down influences) enables their complex functioning.”
    The consequences of this perspective for our view of the mind are straightforward and radical:
    “The mind is not a physical entity, but it certainly is causally effective: proof is the existence of the computer on which you are reading this text. It could not exist if it had not been designed and manufactured according to someone’s plans, thereby proving the causal efficacy of thoughts, which like computer programs and data are not physical entities.”
    http://www.npr.org/sections/13.....-bottom-up

  89. 89
    Silver Asiatic says:

    RD

    “You can’t explain xy with naturalism..so magic is real” That is basically the ID position.

    You can’t explain the origin of a functional coded information system with naturalism …
    but we can explain the origin of such a system by use of intelligence – we can model and produce that kind of system and observe it empirically using intelligence so naturalism fails and ID Is best inference for an explanation.

    It’s not that difficult to get it right. But if you’ll insist on distorting what ID is saying then you’re just trying to score some points. But nobody here is going to be impressed with that.

  90. 90
    Fred Hickson says:

    There really is no testable scientific hypothesis of “Intelligent Design”, as I said but let’s have a look at what ET claims:

    1) High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design.

    This is a sock-gnome argument. There’s no way to link “CSI” (whatever that might be, I’ve never seen anyone produce figures for biological features) to “Designer did it”. Complete non-sequitur and typical reversion to the default-without-justification negative argument. Evolution sucks so design wins.

    2) Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity.

    Meaningless.

    3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.

    Back to the negative “evolution sucks so ID wins” routine.

    4) Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.

    Meaningless.

  91. 91
    Fred Hickson says:

    PS @ ET (though of course anyone can answer),

    How do you propose to test your “hypothesis”?

  92. 92
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Intelligent causes have demonstrated the power to produce large amounts of specified/functional information (and integrated circuitry).

  93. 93
    Querius says:

    Trollbot alert @86.

    “Rob Davis” submitted a trash bin’s worth of unsupported assertions, accusations, and vituperation without a shred of evidence. Let me demonstrate.

    Here’s the trollbot’s assertions with simple substitution and negation:

    You can keep asking how nature produced this and that..it really does matter and you know that it does. The difference between the position of naturalism and ID have one decisive distention [lol sic]. Every component for naturalism is speculation. Whereas the key component for ID is demonstrably real.

    NO amount of wishful thinking, an no amount of fallacious assumptions is going to change that.
    “You can’t explain xy with ID..so Darwinism is real” That is basically the Darwinist position.

    Darwinism relies in the existence and interference of some ill-defined process/ principle/ force/infinite amounts of random interaction whatever, not subject to the known laws of physics, that supposingly [sic] interacts with the fabric of our reality in ways that have thus far eluded every controlled experiment ever performed in the history of science.

    That puts your Darwinism …sorry, “evolution” on the same level as magical unicorns.

    Darwinist proponents consist of three major groups. Moronic clowns like Rob Davis. Ideologically motivated hacks who are usually lacking even the tiniest bit of integrity who make a living by telling lies and of course their prey, scientific illiterate, childhood indoctrinated victims of a failed, racist, 19th century speculation.

    See what I mean?

    -Q

  94. 94
    Fred Hickson says:

    Intelligent causes have demonstrated the power to produce large amounts of specified/functional information (and integrated circuitry).

    Let’s stick to Dembski’s CSI (Complex Specified Information) if we can. Which of Dembski’s definitions shall we use to calculate the CSI of something, preferably something biological?

    Then we need to establish what an “Intelligent Cause” is. How does an “Intelligent Cause” impinge on biological reality?

  95. 95
    Fred Hickson says:

    Querius:

    See what I mean?

    No. Evolutionary theory stands on its own bottom (ask KF).

  96. 96
    Querius says:

    Also note that the trollbot’s “arguments” are based on modern educational norms that elevate passion to “emotional truth, and that unsupported assertions, when they agree with the current narrative, whatever that might be and subject to change without warning, constitutes IRREFUTABLE TRUTH.

    And anything or anybody challenging those cherished doctrines are acts of verbal violence, microaggression against [fill in the blank], and threaten to destroy civilization through [fill in the blank].

    Conversely, if the current narrative changes, then all previous statements and positions are null and void through good intentions and are immediately forgotten.

    In Darwinism, examples include

    – Spontaneous generation and abiogenesis
    – Darwin’s colonialist and genocidal book, The Descent of Man
    – Over a hundred vestigial organs in humans (including ductless glands such as the thyroid)
    – Inherited criminality among humans
    – Criminality among “primitive” and “less evolved” humans (treated as subhumans)
    – “Junk” DNA (now renamed to non protein-coding DNA)
    – Pervasive Lamarckian descriptions of evolution
    – Iterative evolution and parallel evolution (magical explanations of falsifying evidence)
    – “Living fossils” (how some creatures magically stopped evolving for 60-70 million years)
    – The presence of modern phenotypes among dinosaur fossils
    – Dinosaur fossils that are not mineralized. (they’re bones, not stones)
    – The presence of “stretchy” tissue and intact red blood cells in dinosaur bones (ignored)

    Enjoy your brave new world.

    -Q

  97. 97
    Querius says:

    Fred Hickson @95,

    Oh, there you are! Looks like you caved on . . .

    Fred Hickson,
    Have you punted on 20 cm hydra, Susumu Ohno’s Evolution by Gene Duplication, and your skepticism on my experimental results?

    Since you claim you still enjoy hydra, why not try my experiment for yourself? I also recommend getting a binocular dissection (aka inspection) microscope. Mine is an amazingly sweet B&L 10.5-45X ZOOM with circular-lighted stage. They’re not cheap, but it all depends on one’s priorities.

    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/from-the-scientist-genome-reveals-clues-to-giraffes-blatantly-strange-body-shape/

    -Q

  98. 98
    Fred Hickson says:

    No, Querius. Not convinced about your hydra enough to investigate further.

  99. 99
    kairosfocus says:

    FH, lying again. You know full well that any production of FSCO/I beyond 500 – 1,000 bits by blind chance and/or mechanical necessity without intelligently directed configuration would shatter the design inference. This is so blatant that we can see it lurking as Wiki tries to explain away the realities of Dawkins’ Weasel in the same infinite monkeys article as was already cited:

    Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins employs the typing monkey concept in his book The Blind Watchmaker to demonstrate the ability of natural selection to produce biological complexity out of random mutations. [–> notice, meant to mimic chance and necessity only] In a simulation experiment Dawkins has his weasel program produce the Hamlet phrase METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL, starting from a randomly typed parent, by “breeding” subsequent generations and always choosing the closest match from progeny that are copies of the parent, with random mutations. [–> so this is target directed and selects from non functional strings the one that is closer to the target] The chance of the target phrase appearing in a single step is extremely small, yet Dawkins showed that it could be produced rapidly (in about 40 generations) using cumulative selection of phrases. [–> cumulative, intelligent selection, illustrating intelligent design] The random choices furnish raw material, while cumulative selection imparts information. [–> sneaking in the back door] As Dawkins acknowledges, however, the weasel program is an imperfect analogy for evolution, as “offspring” phrases were selected “according to the criterion of resemblance to a distant ideal target.”

    [–> that is, selecting from equally non functional due to warmer/colder active information, the real challenge being skipped is to arrive at shorelines of function beyond which one may hill climb with improved function]

    In contrast, Dawkins affirms, evolution has no long-term plans [–> and cannot reward non function] and does not progress toward some distant goal (such as humans). The weasel program is instead meant to illustrate the difference between non-random cumulative selection, and random single-step selection.[20] [–> really! it illustrates intelligent design] In terms of the typing monkey analogy, this means that Romeo and Juliet could be produced relatively quickly if placed under the constraints of a nonrandom, Darwinian-type selection

    [–> of course, the selection has to be between functional forms but the problem is Dawkins rewards non function, implicitly placing the strings on islands of function. Islands, as multi part function depending on arrangement, orientation and coupling of parts will only be functional for a relatively few configs in the sea of possibilities]

    because the fitness function [–> smuggling in the implied assumption that every possible string is functional enough to count] will tend to preserve in place any letters that happen to match the target text, improving each successive generation of typing monkeys.

    Fail. KF

  100. 100
    kairosfocus says:

    RD, doubling down on slander in the face of correction. You demonstrate that you are not responsible or responsive to evidence or argument. Ideology pushing fail. KF

  101. 101
    Fred Hickson says:

    FH, lying again.

    Big frog, small pond.

  102. 102
    Fred Hickson says:

    @ Querius.

    Email me.

    fredhickson@protonmail.com

    If you want.

  103. 103
    kairosfocus says:

    FH, doubling down again. You full well know that the design inference is testable, has been informally tested trillions of times and passes. FSCO/I comes about by design, intelligently directed configuration. You know it, it rankles, you choose to assert what you know is false to dismiss what you know is true. Sad. KF

  104. 104
    Querius says:

    Fred Hickson @98,

    No, Querius. Not convinced about your hydra enough to investigate further.

    Interesting denial of reality. Did you even bother looking at the link that I provided you, where it reports the following:

    “Hydra has a cylindrical, radially symmetric body from 2 to 20 mm in length. It is visible to the naked eyes when fully extended. Their tentacles may extend much longer – some species of green hydra may measure about 5 cm to 20 cm when extended. The body of a hydra may retract (while sensing a danger), making the organism appear shorter and rounded.”
    https://rsscience.com/hydra/

    The Rsscience website describes its mission as follows:

    “My husband and I are both scientists working in the Boston area. During the day, we try hard to solve problems in biology and cure human diseases in the laboratory. When we think of the next generation, we realized the fundamental way to advance science is to cultivate our curiosity through education.”
    https://rsscience.com/about-me/

    So, when faced with mounting evidence against your skepticism, you simply announce you’re “not convinced” and abandon one conversation to make vacuous statements in another one. Why would I want to correspond with you?

    However, my suggestions for cultivating hydra are based on my experience and worked well. My recommendation for getting a binocular dissection (aka inspection) microscope such as the one I use, a B&L 10.5-45X ZOOM with a toroidal lighted stage, is a wonderful tool for studying the wonders of biology in detail.

    -Q

  105. 105
    Fred Hickson says:

    Nope, GEM, I don’t know what the “Design” inference is.

  106. 106
    Fred Hickson says:

    Yes, Querius, I looked at your link.

  107. 107
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    Querius
    Interesting denial of reality.

    🙂 Well you also deny the reality by trying to break a wall with your head.

  108. 108
    Querius says:

    Fred Hickson @106,

    My observations were confirmed by the two research biologists who run the rsscience.com website, but you’re “not convinced.” Yet, you haven’t lifted a finger (other than typing a seven-word, non-committal response) to do any research yourself. This says a lot.

    I ask myself, what would it take to convince “Fred Hickson,” and get him to admit that his skepticism was prejudicial and unscientific?

    – Do I crawl on my hands and knees bearing five more references that he’ll simply wave off disdainfully?

    – After twenty references, will he say, “Maybe you could be right, but this doesn’t matter” or something like that?

    – After more a few more references and two published papers, will he simply disappear again, smirking over the amount of time he got me to waste?

    How about doing your own research for a change?

    -Q

  109. 109
    Querius says:

    Lieutenant Commander Data @107,

    Well you also deny the reality by trying to break a wall with your head.

    Haha! Yes, I sometimes do that because it feels so good when I stop!

    -Q

  110. 110
    Fred Hickson says:

    What time have you wasted, Querius?

  111. 111
    ET says:

    Frecd Hickson:

    There really is no testable scientific hypothesis of “Intelligent Design”, as I said but let’s have a look at what ET claims:

    OK. As evidence that you don’t know anything, please present a testable hypothesis with regard to evolution by means of blind and mindless processes, so we can compare.

    Your ignorant trope is meaningless:

    This is a sock-gnome argument. There’s no way to link “CSI” (whatever that might be, I’ve never seen anyone produce figures for biological features) to “Designer did it”. Complete non-sequitur and typical reversion to the default-without-justification negative argument. Evolution sucks so design wins.

    Look, your ignorance is not an argument.

    First, Crick gave us a definition of information with respect to biology. Shannon gave us a methodology to measure the information carrying capacity of a sequence of nucleotides. So, the high information content of living organisms is already a given. And the link is in the way real investigations transpire. The link is cause-and-effect relationships.

    The genetic code involves a coded information processing system in which mRNA codons represent amino acids. This is the epitome of a code. The ribosome is a genetic compiler, complete with error detection. There isn’t any evidence that nature can produce that nature can produce coded information processing systems. Codes, themselves, are not reducible to physics or chemistry. And error detection requires knowledge. You don’t have anything to account for it. So, we understand you are butthurt.

    There is one and only one known cause for producing error detection, error correction and coded information processing systems and that is via intelligent agency volition. So, using our KNOWLEDGE of cause-and-effect relationships, in accordance with Newton’s 4 rules of scientific reasoning, we infer the genetic code is intelligently designed. Science 101- for those who understand science, anyway.

    However, as with all scientific inferences, you and yours can falsify that claim by stepping up and showing that premise 3 is false! You have all of the power and yet you choose willful ignorance and whining.

    Thank you for proving that you don’t understand science. Newton’s four rules of scientific reasoning (and Occam’s Razor) DEMAND that nature, the processes described in #3, must be eliminated before a design inference can be considered. You are obviously just a troll. You are clearly Alan Fox or another evoBabble baby. It is a mandatory negative argument. One that archaeologists and forensic scientists have to make. You really are clueless.

    So, go ahead Fred. Please post your testable hypothesis for:

    3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.

    I would vote for booting you out if you refuse.

  112. 112
    kairosfocus says:

    FH, this is now selectively hyperskeptical denialism, oh what could it possibly mean to infer on tested reliable signs that the best current explanation of some object or state of affairs is intelligently designed configuration. Never mind, it includes the inference that the text we see in posts comes from such. As though abductive inference to the best explanation were some dubious idiosyncrasy rather than a major aspect of scientific, historical, forensic, managerial and common sense reasoning. Your rhetorical gambit cannot be sincere. KF

  113. 113
    ET says:

    Fred Hickson:

    Nope, GEM, I don’t know what the “Design” inference is.

    How do you think archaeologists determine a rock from an artifact? How do forensic scientists determine if a crime has been committed? How would SETI know if they received an artificial signal?

    All of them rely on a design inference.

    An archaeologist’s claim of an artifact can be over-ruled by a geologist showing that geological processes can produce it. A claim of homicide can be over-ruled by showing agency intervention wasn’t required, ie a natural death.

    How do you not know this basic stuff?

  114. 114
    ET says:

    Rob Davis:

    Every component for naturalism is demonstrably real.

    Naturalism is a failed philosophy. Did nature produce itself? Natural processes only exist in nature, so they couldn’t have produced nature.

    Saying that the laws of nature just are, the way they are, as Hawkins did, isn’t a scientific claim. There isn’t anything demonstrably real about that. There isn’t anything demonstrably real about the claim that nature produced life.

    All you can do is demonstrably deny reality. Pathetic, really.

  115. 115
    ET says:

    The bottom line is however poor, unbelievable or laughable evolution proponents find Intelligent Design, Intelligent Design is the only viable scientific concept which attempts to explain what we observe that makes testable predictions.

    There is no testable scientific hypothesis of evolution by means of blind and mindless processes.

    Both Fred and Rob will avoid that demonstrable reality.

  116. 116
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Querius

    Here’s another one:

    Common species include Hydra vulgaris (brown Hydra) and Chlorohydra viridissima (green Hydra). Green Hydra differ from brown Hydra in that their green color is caused by their symbiont, an alga (Chlorella) Green Hydra are also smaller than brown Hydra, ranging from about 0.5 to 2 cm.
    https://www.wardsci.com/assetsvc/asset/en_US/id/16920426/contents

  117. 117
    Fred Hickson says:

    Querius,

    I’m puzzled about what you want me to do about hydra. The only issue for me is that you claim your hydra could extend their tentacles from a habitually observed length of a few millimetres to a length of 25+ centimetres. It seemed an odd thing when you claimed which is why I queried it. If you insist your hydra had tentacles extensible to the 8″ to 10″ range then fine. I remain unconvinced.

  118. 118
    Fred Hickson says:

    Back to a testable scientific hypothesis of “Intelligent Design”. The rebuttal to my claim there is no such thing would be to cite one.

  119. 119
    Rob Davis says:

    @Silver Asiatic89

    “You can’t explain the origin of a functional coded information system with naturalism …
    but we can explain the origin of such a system by use of intelligence – we can model and produce that kind of system and observe it empirically using intelligence so naturalism fails and ID Is best inference for an explanation.”

    You are not explainng anything when the “intelligence” you appeal to, does not exist. Then you are appealing to one mystery to solve anther…that has no explantory power. That is a fallacious assumtion.
    You can’t explain xy with naturalism..so magic is real” That is basically the ID position.

    As long as there is no demonstrable correletion between the supernatural, it’s existence, let alone its’s interference with reality… natural causes for anything in nature have NO CREDIBLE ALTERNATIVE.

    No amount of baseless claims or fallacious assumptions is going to change that.

    That is the reason ID has never contributed anything to our understanding if nature ever.

  120. 120
    Rob Davis says:

    This moronic fever dream of the knownliar Berlinsky, that nature can not produce “information” is laughable nonsese, when in fact nature does that all the time.

    “information” is not a material substance that needs to be forged by an intelligence, It is: a pattern or sequence of items. In the case of DNA: nucleotides.
    If nucleotides polymerize to form a nucleic acid, and that sequence acts as a template for the synthesis of another molecule, it’s information. It’s just a word we use to describe something that exists, that applies to biological and nonbiological sequences alike and has zero implications toward intelligence.

    There is neither an credible alternatve to natural causes for DNAand the sequence it’s nucleotides are arranged (those change with completely natural mutations), nor is there reason to believe that there is someting beyond the natural world in general, that could have a hand in this.

    You are sticking with this fallacious assumption because you like to have scientific backing for your God. Be it for yourself or to fool others, I neither know nor care . The fact remains: Only a fallacious assumption leads to this supposed”intelligence”.

    ID proponents consist of three major groups. Moronic clowns like Joe G. here, DI employees who are usually lacking even the tiniest bit of integrity who make a living by telling lies (That would be you BIll!) and of course their prey, scientific illiterate, childhood indoctrinated victims of intellectual neglect

    The

  121. 121
    Querius says:

    Yet another trollbot alert @120.

    All of the content consists of unsubstantiated claims without a shred of evidence or logic. Once again, you can easily substitute any names you want. Notice the vacuous repetition and pointless vituperation. All easily refuted.

    The trollbot @120 is completely clueless that the wavefunction, a foundation of quantum mechanics, is non-material information. But this has only been known for close to 100 years. Someone needs to update its script.

    Please don’t feed the trollbots.

    It’s a waste of your time and the script kiddie who wrote it is laughing.

    -Q

  122. 122
    kairosfocus says:

    RD, further doubling down on hyperskeptical, irresponsible denialism. In 85 above you have a record of actual testing of the hyp, that functionally specific, complex organisation and/or information [FSCO/I as identified in the 70’s by Orgel and Wicken] beyond 500 to 1,000 bits will only be found to occur through intelligently directed configuration. The history of this actually extends as far as Cicero. In this case, they document that string generation exercises that unlike Weasel and descendants do not inject active information are a factor of 1 in 10^100 of the lower end of the threshold. KF

    PS, Orgel 1973:

    living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals are usually taken as the prototypes of simple well-specified structures, because they consist of a very large number of identical molecules packed together in a uniform way. Lumps of granite or random mixtures of polymers are examples of structures that are complex but not specified. The crystals fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; the mixtures of polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity . . . .

    [HT, Mung, fr. p. 190 & 196:]

    These vague idea can be made more precise by introducing the idea of information. Roughly speaking, the information content of a structure is the minimum number of instructions needed to specify the structure.

    [–> this is of course equivalent to the string of yes/no questions required to specify the relevant J S Wicken “wiring diagram” for the set of functional states, T, in the much larger space of possible clumped or scattered configurations, W, as Dembski would go on to define in NFL in 2002, also cf here,

    here and

    here

    — (with here on self-moved agents as designing causes).]

    One can see intuitively that many instructions are needed to specify a complex structure. [–> so if the q’s to be answered are Y/N, the chain length is an information measure that indicates complexity in bits . . . ] On the other hand a simple repeating structure can be specified in rather few instructions.  [–> do once and repeat over and over in a loop . . . ] Complex but random structures, by definition, need hardly be specified at all . . . . Paley was right to emphasize the need for special explanations of the existence of objects with high information content, for they cannot be formed in nonevolutionary, inorganic processes [–> Orgel had high hopes for what Chem evo and body-plan evo could do by way of info generation beyond the FSCO/I threshold, 500 – 1,000 bits.] [The Origins of Life (John Wiley, 1973), p. 189, p. 190, p. 196.]

  123. 123
    kairosfocus says:

    RD, you are continuing with slander. Final warning to desist. KF

    PS, per Newton’s rules as appealed to by Lyell in Principles of Geology, Vol III, kindly provide a case of known, actually observed cause of a string of alphanumerical characters expressing meaningful functional coded information at or beyond 500 to 1000 binary digits or equivalent rather than gibberish and/or empty repetition. Failing which, you have no epistemic right to postulate that such occurred. In reality you are refusing to acknowledge a fact with trillions of observations to back it. There are trillions of observed cases of origin of FSCO/I, in every case it is by intelligently directed configuration. This entitles us to infer that the best explanation of such FSCO/I in D/RNA or proteins or the cellular process flow metabolic network is design, per inference on reliable sign.

    PPS, I clip:

    PRINCIPLES OF GEOLOGY:

    BEING

    AN INQUIRY HOW FAR THE FORMER CHANGES OF THE EARTH’S SURFACE ARE REFERABLE TO CAUSES NOW IN OPERATION. [–> appeal to Newton’s Rules, in the title of the work]

    BY

    CHARLES LYELL, Esq, F.R.S.

    PRESIDENT OF THE GEOLOGICAL SOCIETY OE LONDON . . . JOHN MURRAY , , , 1835 [–> later, publisher of Origin]

  124. 124
    JVL says:

    ET: There is no testable scientific hypothesis of evolution by means of blind and mindless processes.

    I don’t understand why you keep saying that. As you very well know even Darwin himself mentioned ways it could be tested or falsified, finding an irreducibly complex structure is one way in particular. Every time someone finds a fossil it’s a test of unguided evolution. And you yourself make similar statements about ID: all anyone has to do is to show natural processes could have ‘done it’. The funny thing is: you can’t or won’t say what kind of evidence you would accept that unguided, natural processes are sufficient.

    If you mean to say that there is no ‘scientific’ theory of unguided evolution you also know that is not true; even Dr Behe admits there is a scientific theory of unguided evolution. And you know what the ‘mechanisms’ are, in part: natural selection, sexual selection, genetic drift, etc.

    You have not provided a mechanism for the implementation of design which is the real issue since design itself does nothing. Only implementation has an effect. You can’t even say when design was implemented. Your notion of there being extra coding in the cell has not been shown to be true as no one can show where that programming is, how it is encoded biologically and how it affects development. You can’t explain how life is ‘programmed’ to evolve, that is: how does the programming survive unaffected by copying errors over billions of years. Nor can you explain how the programming works under different environmental conditions . . . is it like some giant case statement with lots of options depending on surroundings. Or what? Can you explain how humans develop from infants to adults? Is that also through some extra programming (since you don’t believe DNA affects phylogeny)?

    You don’t have a ‘theory’ of intelligent design that actually explains anything. You just say: this and that looks designed, I can’t understand how it could have happened via natural processes and stop asking me about when or how design is implemented because . . . well . . . there must be some . . . stuff inside cells which makes it all work even though no one can find it. Even you aren’t looking for it.

    (Cue ET‘s calling me a liar and then absolutely refusing to accept any statement of the theory of unguided evolution without being able to actually specify what is unscientific about it.)

  125. 125
    Fred Hickson says:

    GEM writes

    FH, this is now selectively hyperskeptical denialism, oh what could it possibly mean to infer on tested reliable signs that the best current explanation of some object or state of affairs is intelligently designed configuration. Never mind, it includes the inference that the text we see in posts comes from such. As though abductive inference to the best explanation were some dubious idiosyncrasy rather than a major aspect of scientific, historical, forensic, managerial and common sense reasoning. Your rhetorical gambit cannot be sincere. KF

    I repeat:

    The best way to refute my claim that there is no testable scientific hypothesis of “Intelligent Design” that proposes an alternative explanation for observed biological reality is to present one.

    The best way to show that complex specified information can be used to measure biological systems in some quantitative way is to present the calculation.

    Origin of Species confirms there is a theory of evolution, much modified and extended since Darwin’s time.

  126. 126
    bornagain77 says:

    JVL states “even Darwin himself mentioned ways it (his theory) could be tested or falsified,”

    Indeed he did. And, as far as I am aware, these are the four lines of evidence that Darwin himself offered that could potentially falsify his theory:

    “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”
    –Charles Darwin, Origin of Species – 1860 – pg 189

    “to the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer.” So “the case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.”
    – Charles Darwin – Origin of Species – 1860 – pg 308

    “If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.”
    – Charles Darwin, Origin of Species – 1866 – pg. 241

    “The foregoing remarks lead me to say a few words on the protest lately made by some naturalists, against the utilitarian doctrine that every detail of structure has been produced for the good of its possessor. They believe that very many structures have been created for beauty in the eyes of man, or for mere variety. This doctrine, if true, would be absolutely fatal to my theory.”
    – Charles Darwin Origin of Species – 1859 – pg. 199

    And all four of those falsification criteria, laid out by Charles Darwin himself, have now been met (although Darwinists dogmatically, and unscientifically, steadfastly refuse to accept these empirical falsifications of their theory that Darwin himself laid out):

    “Charles Darwin said (paraphrase) “If anyone could find anything that could not be had through a number of slight, successive, modifications my theory would absolutely breakdown.” Well, that condition has been met time and time again now. Basically every gene and every new protein fold, there is nothing of significance that we can show that can be had in that gradualistic way. It’s all a mirage. None of it happens that way.”
    – Douglas Axe – 200 Years After Darwin – What Didn’t Darwin Know? – (5:30 minute mark) video – Part 2 of 2
    https://youtu.be/VKIgNroTj54?t=329

    When Charles Darwin finished The Origin of Species, he thought that he had explained every clue, but one. Though his theory could explain many facts, Darwin knew that there was a significant event in the history of life that his theory did not explain. During this event, the Cambrian explosion, many animals suddenly appeared in the fossil record without apparent ancestors in earlier layers of rock. In Darwin s Doubt, Stephen C. Meyer tells the story of the mystery surrounding this explosion of animal life. A mystery that has intensified,
    https://www.amazon.com/Darwins-Doubt-Dilemma-Book-DVD/dp/B00FZ5DMIM/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=Darwin%27s+doubt&qid=1654424167&s=movies-tv&sr=1-1

    Darwin’s Dilemma – The very “un-Darwinian” Cambrian Explosion – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxh9o32m5c0

    Plant Galls and Evolution
    How More than Twelve Thousand1 Ugly Facts are Slaying a Beautiful Hypothesis: Darwinism2
    Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig – 7 September 2017
    Excerpt: in the case of the galls, in thousands of plant species often entirely new organs have been formed for the exclusive good of more than 132,930 other species, these ‘ugly facts’ have annihilated Darwin’s theory as well as the modern versions of it. The galls are not ‘useful to the possessor’, the plants. There is no space for these phenomena in the world of “the selfish gene” (Dawkins). Moreover, the same conclusion appears to be true for thousands of angiosperm species producing deceptive flowers (in contrast to gall formations, now for the exclusive good of the plant species) – a topic which should be carefully treated in another paper.
    http://www.weloennig.de/PlantGalls.pdf

    As to the existence of beauty, in the Darwinian worldview beauty is considered ‘illusory’ and simply has no ‘external reality’.

    Beauty Evades the Clutches of Materialism – March 27, 2013
    Excerpt: Evolutionary materialists must believe, at some level, that the experience of beauty can be reduced to actions of neurons in the brain. This would bring beauty into the purview of neuroscience — a subtopic known as neuroaesthetics — that could be probed and explained with the tools of science. If the materialists are right, the Prince doesn’t really love Cinderella because she is beautiful. She is beautiful to him because he loves her, and he loves her because certain neurons fire in response to a stimulus. Beauty is “merely” an experience in the physical brain, not an external reality.
    https://evolutionnews.org/2013/03/beauty_evades_t/

    Yet, as these following two videos point out, we are literally surrounded by an ‘external reality’ of ‘real’ beauty.

    Beauty, Darwin & Design – video – 2019
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ax-lkRoES8

    The Biology of the Baroque – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FothcJW-Quo

    In short, the existence of ‘real’ beauty is an argument for Theism and its ‘real’ existence, as Darwin himself conceded, is simply fatal to Darwin’s theory.

    “Beauty… can be appreciated only by the mind. This would be impossible, if this ‘idea’ of beauty were not found in the Mind in a more perfect form…. This consideration has readily persuaded men of ability and learning… that the original “idea” is not to be found in this sphere.”
    (Augustine, City of God).

    The argument for God from beauty can be succinctly stated like this,

    1. If God does not exist then beauty does not objectively exist but it is merely illusory.
    2. Beauty does objectively exist.
    3. Therefore God exists.

    Supplemental note:

    The Reason Why God Is the Beauty We All Seek – Sept. 4, 2019
    Excerpt: God loves beauty. As Thomas Aquinas asserts, God “is beauty itself”[1] St. Anselm argues that “God must be the supreme beauty for the same reasons that He must be justice and other such qualities.”[2] As the contemporary theologian Michael Horton so aptly states in his book The Christian Faith, “God would not be God if he did not possess all his attributes in the simplicity and perfection of his essence.”[3] The reason why we gravitate toward beauty is because God created us in his image.,,,
    In a chapel sermon titled, “Can Beauty Save the World,” Albert Mohler explains,
    “The Christian worldview posits that anything pure and good finds its ultimate source in the self-existent, omnipotent God who is infinite in all his perfections. Thus the Christian worldview reminds us that the “transcendentals”—the good, the true, and the beautiful—are inseparable. Thus when Psalm 27 speaks of the beauty of the Lord, the Psalmist is also making a claim about the goodness of the Lord and the truthfulness of the Lord. While we distinguish God’s attributes from one another in order to understand them better, we must also recognize that these attributes are inseparable from one another.[19]”
    Mohler goes on to state, “Our job as Christians is to remember the difference between the beautiful and the pretty,” because pure beauty is found in goodness and truth.[20] When we gaze upon ascetically pleasing objects or witness kind deeds in this world, we are at best seeing imperfect versions of the pure beauty that can only be found in God.
    https://www.beautifulchristianlife.com/blog/reason-why-god-is-the-beauty-we-all-seek

    Verses:

    Isaiah 33:17
    Your eyes will see the king in his beauty and view a land that stretches afar.

    Philippians 4:8
    Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things.

  127. 127
    kairosfocus says:

    FH, you know you have it, intelligently directed configuration, where you also know genetic engineering and associated molecular nanotechnology are facts, just ponder the name Venter. More doubling down on falsities. KF

  128. 128
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL, the trick was in the could not possibly he used. This imposed a default by the back door. Statistical thermodynamics tells us, it is possible for every oxygen molecule in the room you are in to rush to one end. However, such is not plausibly observable on the lifespan of the cosmos. Kindly explain to us how on observed so plausible dynamics, cell based life came about through blind chance and mechanical necessity, including the language, coded algorithms and proteins created through DNA, and the cellular process flow metabolic network as well as encapsulation with smart gating. As a mere corollary explain chirality. That gets you to the root of the tree of life so you can go on to the much worse information challenge of explaining origin of main body plans then of mind. KF

    PS, just to be clear, let me borrow from BA77 (who so many proudly but ill advisedly announce they studiously ignore):

    “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”
    –Charles Darwin, Origin of Species – 1860 – pg 189

    “Charles Darwin said (paraphrase) “If anyone could find anything that could not be had through a number of slight, successive, modifications my theory would absolutely breakdown.” Well, that condition has been met time and time again now. Basically every gene and every new protein fold, there is nothing of significance that we can show that can be had in that gradualistic way. It’s all a mirage. None of it happens that way.”
    – Douglas Axe – 200 Years After Darwin – What Didn’t Darwin Know? – (5:30 minute mark) video – Part 2 of 2
    https://youtu.be/VKIgNroTj54?t=329

  129. 129
    Fred Hickson says:

    “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”
    –Charles Darwin, Origin of Species – 1860 – pg 189

    And the very next sentence is:

    But I can find out no such case.

    http://darwin-online.org.uk/Va.....-1859.html

  130. 130
    Fred Hickson says:

    FH, you know you have it, intelligently directed configuration, where you also know genetic engineering and associated molecular nanotechnology are facts, just ponder the name Venter. More doubling down on falsities. KF

    So, no, you can’t tell me of any scientific, testable hypothesis based on “Intelligent Design”. And, no, you can’t tell me how to quantize the CSI of any biological system.

  131. 131
    JVL says:

    Bornagain77: Indeed he did. And, as far as I am aware, these are the four lines of evidence that Darwin himself offered that could potentially falsify his theory:

    Don’t tell ET. And don’t call it a ‘theory’ as apparently there isn’t one for unguided evolution.

  132. 132
    JVL says:

    Kairosfocus: the trick was in the could not possibly he used.

    What? I can’t parse that.

    Statistical thermodynamics tells us, it is possible for every oxygen molecule in the room you are in to rush to one end. However, such is not plausibly observable on the lifespan of the cosmos.

    And that has WHAT to do with the conversation?

    Kindly explain to us how on observed so plausible dynamics, cell based life came about through blind chance and mechanical necessity, including the language, coded algorithms and proteins created through DNA, and the cellular process flow metabolic network as well as encapsulation with smart gating.

    No one can explain it, as well you know. BUT that doesn’t mean you get design by default, as well you know. That would be a false argument. Plus, not knowing how something happened via certain methods doesn’t mean it didn’t happen via those methods, as well you know.

    Also, let me point out, that you cannot explain in detail how life came about either. You say some intelligent designer did it but you can’t say when or how. Also, you only have one, slender, thread of evidence, contested by the way, that supports design. Unguided evolution has multiple, independent threads of evidence all of which converge on the same conclusion and are consistent with that conclusion.

    Please don’t repeat your oft used phrases such as ‘hyperskepticism’ and ‘warranted in the teeth of’ or ‘the something in the room’ or ‘islands of function’; we’ve heard them all before. Do you have anything new to add except to claim that a certain amount of what you perceive to be FCSI is a slam dunk for design? You know that not convinced very many people in the past and it’s not likely to change anyone’s mind now.

    Have you got anything new?

  133. 133
    ET says:

    Fred Hickson:

    Back to a testable scientific hypothesis of “Intelligent Design”.

    You choked on it because you are a scientifically illiterate coward.

  134. 134
    ET says:

    Earth to JVL- Darwin’s wasn’t a scientific theory. He didn’t understand the workings of the cell. He didn’t understand reproduction. So, all he had was “some unknown natural processes did something”. And that is not the makings of a scientific theory.

  135. 135
    ET says:

    There is no testable scientific hypothesis of evolution by means of blind and mindless processes.
    JVL

    I don’t understand why you keep saying that.

    It’s true. And saying how to falsify something is NOT the same as saying how to test it. He NEVER said how to test the claim that blind and mindless processes could produce any bacterial flagellum because he didn’t have any clue. He didn’t say how to test the claim that blind and mindless processes produced eukaryoytes because he didn’t have any clue.

    You clearly are just desperate and delusional

  136. 136
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    The best way to refute my claim that there is no testable scientific hypothesis of “Intelligent Design” that proposes an alternative explanation for observed biological reality is to present one.

    :)A proven false claim doesn’t became true if there are no alternative explanations. So if there would be only the darwinian evolution as explanation (no other known alternatives like ID or ET civilisations ) and that explanation is proven false then should be discarded not “considered” true until other explanations emerge.

    Darwinism is proven false but somehow is kept in the school books to brainwash children to become atheists . Why? Because is an ideology and not a science. It’s a make belief ideology like the new transgender ideology that started to produce transgender people AFTER was taught in the school. Same method used for creating atheists(darwinism) now is used to create atheists that think they are the opposite sex.
    This is insanity and the country that allows that to happen is a sick country and not an example for other countries.
    https://twitter.com/AldoButtazzoni/status/1533178289229004800

  137. 137
    ET says:

    Fred Hickson is clueless- quoting Darwin:

    But I can find out no such case.

    Umm, Darwin was ignorant of cellular biology. However, today science has uncovered many such structures that no one on this planet can demonstrate that blind and mindless processes produced them.

  138. 138
    Fred Hickson says:

    OK so LCD can’t answer a straight question either.

    I repeat:

    The best way to refute my claim that there is no testable scientific hypothesis of “Intelligent Design” that proposes an alternative explanation for observed biological reality is to present one.

    The best way to show that complex specified information can be used to measure biological systems in some quantitative way is to present the calculation.

    Anyone?

  139. 139
    Fred Hickson says:

    Umm, Darwin was ignorant of cellular biology. However, today science has uncovered many such structures that no one on this planet can demonstrate that blind and mindless processes produced them.

    So what did? “Intelligent Design” offers no clue, apparently.

  140. 140
    ET says:

    Again, there isn’t any scientific theory of evolution. No one can reference it. No one can say who authored it. No one can say when and where it was published. No one can say what predictions are borne from blind and mindless processes.

    JVL, Fred and Rob are all scientifically illiterate cowards.

  141. 141
    ET says:

    Fred Hickson:

    And, no, you can’t tell me how to quantize the CSI of any biological system.

    Your willful ignorance is not an argument. And all you have is your ignorance.

    Here ya go: Measuring the functional sequence complexity of proteins– those who are not willfully ignorant understand that functional sequence complexity is complex specified information.

    And for those cowards who don’t like the paper, we await your rebuttal in peer-review.

  142. 142
  143. 143
    JVL says:

    ET: Darwin’s wasn’t a scientific theory. He didn’t understand the workings of the cell. He didn’t understand reproduction. So, all he had was “some unknown natural processes did something”. And that is not the makings of a scientific theory.

    Perhaps you should review Darwin’s work where he clearly understood and stated that working with inherited variation cumulative NATURAL SELECTION slowly, step-by-step, created new species. Of course, things have moved on a lot since then, we now know what carries inheritable variation. We now know there are other kinds of selection and influences. But Darwin got the basic outline correct.

    And saying how to falsify something is NOT the same as saying how to test it. He NEVER said how to test the claim that blind and mindless processes could produce any bacterial flagellum because he didn’t have any clue

    Of course he didn’t speak about the flagellum! He didn’t know they existed!

    So, what do you mean by test then? Can ID be tested with the same criteria?

    He didn’t say how to test the claim that blind and mindless processes produced eukaryoytes because he didn’t have any clue.

    Again, what do you mean by test? He supported his theory with lots and lots of evidence, it became accepted by the biological community after quite a bit of opposition, he mentioned ways to falsify his theory. What testing do you want?

    Umm, Darwin was ignorant of cellular biology. However, today science has uncovered many such structures that no one on this planet can demonstrate that blind and mindless processes produced them.

    That doesn’t mean they were designed just because we don’t know every single unguided step that created them. We weren’t there to observe it happening so we can never say for absolute sure how it happened but we can check parts of plausible pathways.

  144. 144
    ET says:

    In the spring of 1982 I was invited to the Pius IV Pavilion in the Vatican gardens for a meeting of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. The subject was the evolution of primates. At the close of the meeting everyone felt that some conclusion should be drawn, and the South African paleontologist Phillip Tobias proposed a motion to the effect that the origin of man and the primates was covered by the theory of evolution. Jerome Lejeune, the French cytologist, objected: “There is not theory of evolution!”. No one disagreed, and the meeting concluded with a Solomonic pronouncement that the evidence renders the application of the concept of divergent descent to man and other primates beyond dispute.

    There never really has been a scientific “theory” of evolution.– Giuseppe Sermonti, geneticist and former editor of a peer-reviewed journal

  145. 145
    Fred Hickson says:

    Here ya go: Measuring the functional sequence complexity of proteins– those who are not willfully ignorant understand that functional sequence complexity is complex specified information.

    Initial nitpick. Functional sequence complexity? Is that synonymous with complex specified information? Anyway some bells are ringing over Durston’s 2007 paper. I think this has been done to death elsewhere.

  146. 146
    ET says:

    Thank you, Fred, for proving that you are a willfully ignorant and scientifically illiterate coward.

    Anyone who understands CSI knows that CSI and FSC are the same.

  147. 147
    ET says:

    JVL:

    Perhaps you should review Darwin’s work where he clearly understood and stated that working with inherited variation cumulative NATURAL SELECTION slowly, step-by-step, created new species.

    Again, Darwin did NOT understand reproduction. He didn’t understand genetics.

    Can ID be tested with the same criteria?

    Absolutely.

    Look, JVL, you are a scientifically illiterate troll

  148. 148
    ET says:

    Fred Hickson doesn’t know what a scientific theory entails. Not one of his links are to a scientific theory of evolution.

  149. 149
    ET says:

    Neither Darwin, nor anyone else since, has demonstrated there is a step-by-step pathway from prokaryotes to eukaryotes. The same goes for sexual reproduction. The same goes for any bacterial flagellum. The list is very, very long

    And it is very telling that neither JVL nor Fred posted any alleged predictions borne from evolution by means of blind and mindless processes. That’s because blind and mindless processes only predicts genetic diseases and deformities.

  150. 150
    JVL says:

    ET: Again, Darwin did NOT understand reproduction. He didn’t understand genetics.

    Of course he didn’t understand genetics! No one said he did. He certainly did understand that variation can be inherited.

    Look, the only difference between breeding for a certain trait or characteristic and natural selection is what is doing the ‘selecting’ and whether or not there is a conscious goal. In both cases new types are formed over generations of cumulative selection. That’s because the variation IS NOT part of the selection. It’s what selection works with.

    So, what is the test for unguided evolution that you want to use? The one that can also be used on ID? Can you use it to find the extra programming you’re so fond of trusting is there?

    Neither Darwin, nor anyone else since, has demonstrated there is a step-by-step pathway from prokaryotes to eukaryotes. The same goes for sexual reproduction. The same goes for any bacterial flagellum. The list is very, very long

    No one claims to know the individual steps yet. But, all the evidence, all the data, the multiple, converging threads of data are consistent with unguided natural processes.

    And it is very telling that neither JVL nor Fred posted any alleged predictions borne from evolution by means of blind and mindless processes. That’s because blind and mindless processes only predicts genetic diseases and deformities.

    Not at all. Unguided evolution predicts that bacteria will gain resistance to antibiotics. Unguided evolution predicts that there will be ‘arms races’ between prey and predators. Unguided evolution predicts that there will be convergent evolution, that is similar functionality will evolve in different lineages along different pathways. Unguided evolution predicts that the results found in Dr Lenski’s work will be observed in particular that some strains will gain an adaptation to conditions and others will not. Which is something you’re programming can’t account for . . . why did only one strain change but not the others? Unguided evolution predicts ring species. Unguided evolution predicts odd adaptations like the giraffe’s laryngeal nerve and the human retina which is backwards from many other species. Unguided evolution predicts that some different species will have different numbers of colour receptors in their eyes. Unguided evolution predicts that some species will have more ‘junk’ DNA than others.

    ID predicts nothing because no one knows what the designer was trying to accomplish, when design was implemented, how design has been maintained and directed over billions of years. In fact, ID proponents are very, very careful NOT to say anything about the designer . . . they want God back in science but don’t want to be accused of such. The plan is, I assume, to spring that on everyone once ID is taught in biology classes. IF ID is ever taught in biology classes.

    Let’s start with your test that can be used on ID and unguided evolution. Go on . . .

  151. 151
    ET says:

    I presented a testable hypothesis for Intelligent Design. Fred choked on it because Fred is a scientifically illiterate coward.

  152. 152
    ET says:

    Natural selection does not select. JVL doesn’t even understand the basics. The paper “waiting for TWO mutations” proves that cumulative selection nis nothing more than wishful thinking.
    AGAIN:

    In the spring of 1982 I was invited to the Pius IV Pavilion in the Vatican gardens for a meeting of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. The subject was the evolution of primates. At the close of the meeting everyone felt that some conclusion should be drawn, and the South African paleontologist Phillip Tobias proposed a motion to the effect that the origin of man and the primates was covered by the theory of evolution. Jerome Lejeune, the French cytologist, objected: “There is not theory of evolution!”. No one disagreed, and the meeting concluded with a Solomonic pronouncement that the evidence renders the application of the concept of divergent descent to man and other primates beyond dispute.

    There never really has been a scientific “theory” of evolution.– Giuseppe Sermonti, geneticist and former editor of a peer-reviewed journal

  153. 153
    ET says:

    Fred Hickson:

    So what did? “Intelligent Design” offers no clue, apparently.

    No, Fred. YOU don’t have any clue, obviously. You clearly don’t understand how science operates.

  154. 154
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL, statistical thermodynamics rules the roost for molecular scale phenomena. As you know. In this case, it helps us distinguish bare logical or physical possibility from plausibly observable phenomena. A fluctuation in which all of the Oxygen molecules in your room spontaneously go to one end for an appreciable time is strictly possible but not plausibly observable in the cosmos’ lifespan 10^25 s. Similarly, Darwin’s “could not possibly” as cited, smuggles in bare physical or logical possibility and uses it to award effective default to his theory; making it empirically immune to testing. That is not sound science. And, the chain of utterly implausible things required to get to spontaneous OoL and Oo body plans, alike, falls under the same challenge. This of course has been pointed out by modern design theory since Thaxton et al. Remember, the heart of TMLO is thermodynamics. KF

  155. 155
    ET says:

    “Some unknown naturalistic processes did something”, is NOT the makings of a scientific theory. And that is what Darwin offered. That is what we still have today.

  156. 156
  157. 157
    bornagain77 says:

    FH: “But I (Darwin) can find out no such case.”

    And indeed Darwin was not a molecular biologist. Molecular biology wasn’t even a science then. So he could have known of no ‘case’. But Axe is a molecular biologist and has such ‘cases’,

    “Charles Darwin said (paraphrase) “If anyone could find anything that could not be had through a number of slight, successive, modifications my theory would absolutely breakdown.” Well, that condition has been met time and time again now. Basically every gene and every new protein fold, there is nothing of significance that we can show that can be had in that gradualistic way. It’s all a mirage. None of it happens that way.”
    – Douglas Axe – 200 Years After Darwin – What Didn’t Darwin Know? – (5:30 minute mark) video – Part 2 of 2
    https://youtu.be/VKIgNroTj54?t=329

    “Enzyme Families — Shared Evolutionary History or Shared Design?” – Ann Gauger – December 4, 2014
    Excerpt: If enzymes can’t be recruited to genuinely new functions by unguided means, no matter how similar they are, the evolutionary story is false.,,,
    Taken together, since we found no enzyme that was within one mutation of cooption, the total number of mutations needed is at least four: one for duplication, one for over-production, and two or more single base changes. The waiting time required to achieve four mutations is 10^15 years. That’s longer than the age of the universe. The real waiting time is likely to be much greater, since the two most likely candidate enzymes failed to be coopted by double mutations.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....91701.html

    Claim: New Proteins Evolve Very Easily – Cornelius Hunter – April 25, 2017
    Excerpt:  It is now clear that for a given protein, only a few changes to its amino acid sequence can be sustained before the protein function is all but eliminated. Here is how one paper explained it:
    “The accepted paradigm that proteins can tolerate nearly any amino acid substitution has been replaced by the view that the deleterious effects of mutations, and especially their tendency to undermine the thermodynamic and kinetic stability of protein, is a major constraint on protein evolvability—the ability of proteins to acquire changes in sequence and function.”
    In other words, protein function precipitously drops off with only a tiny fraction of its amino acids altered. It is not a gradual fitness landscape. Another paper described the protein fitness landscape as rugged.
    Therefore it is not surprising that various studies on evolving proteins have failed to show a viable mechanism. One study concluded that 10^63 attempts would be required to evolve a relatively short protein. And a similar result (10^65 attempts required) was obtained by comparing protein sequences. Another study found that 10^64 to 10^77 attempts are required, and another study concluded that 10^70 attempts would be required.
    So something like 10^70 attempts are required yet evolutionists estimate that only 10^43 attempts are possible. In other words, there is a shortfall of 27 orders of magnitude.
    But it gets worse. The estimate that 10^43 attempts are possible is utterly unrealistic. For it assumes billions of years are available, and that for that entire time the Earth is covered with bacteria, constantly churning out mutations and new protein experiments. Aside from the fact that these assumptions are entirely unrealistic, the estimate also suffers from the rather inconvenient fact that those bacteria are, err, full of proteins. In other word, for evolution to evolve proteins, they must already exist in the first place.
    This is absurd. And yet, even with these overly optimistic assumptions, evolution falls short by 27 orders of magnitude.
    https://www.evolutionnews.org/2017/04/claim-new-proteins-evolve-very-easily/

    Right of Reply: Our Response to Jerry Coyne – September 29, 2019
    by Günter Bechly, Brian Miller and David Berlinski
    Excerpt: David Gelernter observed that amino acid sequences that correspond to functional proteins are remarkably rare among the “space” of all possible combinations of amino acid sequences of a given length. Protein scientists call this set of all possible amino acid sequences or combinations “amino acid sequence space” or “combinatorial sequence space.” Gelernter made reference to this concept in his review of Meyer and Berlinski’s books. He also referenced the careful experimental work by Douglas Axe who used a technique known as site-directed mutagenesis to assess the rarity of protein folds in sequence space while he was working at Cambridge University from 1990-2003. Axe showed that the ratio of sequences in sequence space that will produce protein folds to sequences that won’t is prohibitively and vanishingly small. Indeed, in an authoritative paper published in the Journal of Molecular Biology Axe estimated that ratio at 1 in 10^74. From that information about the rarity of protein folds in sequence space, Gelernter—like Axe, Meyer and Berlinski—has drawn the rational conclusion: finding a novel protein fold by a random search is implausible in the extreme.
    Not so, Coyne argued. Proteins do not evolve from random sequences. They evolve by means of gene duplication. By starting from an established protein structure, protein evolution had a head start.
    This is not an irrational position, but it is anachronistic.
    Indeed, Harvard mathematical biologist Martin Nowak has shown that random searches in sequence space that start from known functional sequences are no more likely to enter regions in sequence space with new protein folds than searches that start from random sequences. The reason for this is clear: random searches are overwhelmingly more likely to go off into a non-folding, non-functional abyss than they are to find a novel protein fold. Why? Because such novel folds are so extraordinarily rare in sequence space. Moreover, as Meyer explained in Darwin’s Doubt, as mutations accumulate in functional sequences, they will inevitably destroy function long before they stumble across a new protein fold. Again, this follows from the extreme rarity (as well as the isolation) of protein folds in sequence space.
    Recent work by Weizmann Institute protein scientist Dan Tawfik has reinforced this conclusion. Tawfik’s work shows that as mutations to functional protein sequences accumulate, the folds of those proteins become progressively more thermodynamically and structurally unstable. Typically, 15 or fewer mutations will completely destroy the stability of known protein folds of average size. Yet, generating (or finding) a new protein fold requires far more amino acid sequence changes than that. Finally, calculations based on Tawfik’s work confirm and extend the applicability of Axe’s original measure of the rarity of protein folds. These calculations confirm that the measure of rarity that Axe determined for the protein he studied is actually representative of the rarity for large classes of other globular proteins. Not surprisingly, Dan Tawfik has described the origination of a truly novel protein or fold as “something like close to a miracle.” Tawfik is on Coyne’s side: He is mainstream.
    https://quillette.com/2019/09/29/right-of-reply-our-response-to-jerry-coyne/

    “A Thermodynamic Analysis of the Rarity of Protein Folds” by Dr. Brian Miller – 2019
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvSpN_3tFN4
    “Research by Douglas Axe demonstrated that amino acid sequences that correspond to a functional beta-lactamase protein fold are extremely rare. In response, critics have raised questions related to the accuracy of his analysis. This presentation describes how more recent research on the effects of mutations on the thermodynamic stability of protein folds has confirmed Axe’s result and its general relevance to most proteins.”

  158. 158
    ET says:

    And it is very telling that neither JVL nor Fred posted any alleged predictions borne from evolution by means of blind and mindless processes. That’s because blind and mindless processes only predicts genetic diseases and deformities.

  159. 159
    ET says:

    Intelligent Design’s concepts on evolution have proven useful in the form of genetic algorithms which are goal-oriented programs that use targeted searches to solve various problems.

    No one uses evolution by means of blind and mindless processes for anything beyond predicting genetic diseases and deformities.

  160. 160
    ET says:

    “Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.”

    ” Might there be some as-yet-undiscovered natural process that would explain biochemical complexity? No one would be foolish enough to categorically deny the possibility. Nonetheless, we can say that if there is such a process, no one has a clue how it would work. Further, it would go against all human experience, like postulating that a natural process might explain computers.” – Dr Michael Behe in “Darwin’s Black Box”

  161. 161
    kairosfocus says:

    FH,

    you seem to want to pose hyperskeptically on oh there is no meaning to functionally specific, complex organisation and associated information, taking the general form, complex specified information as meaningless. The reality is, just to pose objections you generated, intelligently, ASCII text strings at 7 bits of FSCO/I per character, showing cases in point. D/RNA is related, actually expressing algorithms using coded alphanumeric symbolic elements. Where, this is language.

    Crick knew that in the 50’s as you were shown from his March 19 1953 letter to his son, but refuse to acknowledge.

    Orgel as cited above pretty much said the same in 1973, twenty years later. Wicken said the same.

    Nor is such a surprise, the genetic code is well known, as is the fact that last I checked there were about two dozen dialects. Rather as BASIC had ever so many dialects.

    As to definition on strings, as configuration based functional organisation is describable through description languages [think, AutoCAD], discussion on strings is WLOG.

    In that context, Dembski’s use of CSI is an elaboration and generalisation on Orgel et al, as is evident save to the adamant objector. Let me clip, the discussion also echoes statistical thermodynamics:

    CONCEPT: NFL, p. 148:“The great myth of contemporary evolutionary biology is that the information needed to explain complex biological structures can be purchased without intelligence. My aim throughout this book is to dispel that myth . . . . Eigen and his colleagues must have something else in mind besides information simpliciter when they describe the origin of information as the central problem of biology.

    I submit that what they have in mind is specified complexity [cf. p 144 as cited below], or what equivalently we have been calling in this Chapter Complex Specified information or CSI . . . .

    Biological specification always refers to function. An organism is a functional system comprising many functional subsystems. . . .

    In virtue of their function [a living organism’s subsystems] embody patterns that are objectively given and can be identified independently of the systems that embody them. Hence these systems are specified in the sense required by the complexity-specificity criterion . . . the specification can be cashed out in any number of ways

    [through observing the requisites of functional organisation within the cell, or in organs and tissues or at the level of the organism as a whole. Dembski cites:

    Wouters, p. 148: “globally in terms of the viability of whole organisms,”

    Behe, p. 148: “minimal function of biochemical systems,”

    Dawkins, pp. 148 – 9: “Complicated things have some quality, specifiable in advance, that is highly unlikely to have been acquired by ran-| dom chance alone. In the case of living things, the quality that is specified in advance is . . . the ability to propagate genes in reproduction.”

    On p. 149, he roughly cites Orgel’s famous remark on specified complexity from 1973, which exactly cited reads:

    ” In brief, living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals are usually taken as the prototypes of simple well-specified structures, because they consist of a very large number of identical molecules packed together in a uniform way. Lumps of granite or random mixtures of polymers are examples of structures that are complex but not specified. The crystals fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; the mixtures of polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity . . .”

    And, p. 149, he highlights Paul Davis in The Fifth Miracle: “Living organisms are mysterious not for their complexity per se, but for their tightly specified complexity.”] . . .”

    DEFINITION: p. 144: [Specified complexity can be more formally defined:] “. . . since a universal probability bound of 1 [chance] in 10^150 corresponds to a universal complexity bound of 500 bits of information, [the cluster] (T, E) constitutes CSI because T [effectively the target hot zone in the field of possibilities] subsumes E [effectively the observed event from that field], T is detachable from E, and and T measures at least 500 bits of information . . . ”

    Just for completeness, let’s make a bridge:

    let us consider a source that emits symbols from a vocabulary: s1,s2, s3, . . . sn, with probabilities p1, p2, p3, . . . pn. That is, in a “typical” long string of symbols, of size M [say this web page], the average number that are some sj, J, will be such that the ratio J/M –> pj, and in the limit attains equality. We term pj the a priori — before the fact — probability of symbol sj. Then, when a receiver detects sj, the question arises as to whether this was sent. [That is, the mixing in of noise means that received messages are prone to misidentification.] If on average, sj will be detected correctly a fraction, dj of the time, the a posteriori — after the fact — probability of sj is by a similar calculation, dj. So, we now define the information content of symbol sj as, in effect how much it surprises us on average when it shows up in our receiver:

    I = log [dj/pj], in bits [if the log is base 2, log2] . . . Eqn 1

    This immediately means that the question of receiving information arises AFTER an apparent symbol sj has been detected and decoded. That is, the issue of information inherently implies an inference to having received an intentional signal in the face of the possibility that noise could be present. Second, logs are used in the definition of I, as they give an additive property: for, the amount of information in independent signals, si + sj, using the above definition, is such that:

    I total = Ii + Ij . . . Eqn 2

    For example, assume that dj for the moment is 1, i.e. we have a noiseless channel so what is transmitted is just what is received. Then, the information in sj is:

    I = log [1/pj] = – log pj . . . Eqn 3

    This case illustrates the additive property as well, assuming that symbols si and sj are independent. That means that the probability of receiving both messages is the product of the probability of the individual messages (pi *pj); so:

    Itot = log1/(pi *pj) = [-log pi] + [-log pj] = Ii + Ij . . . Eqn 4

    So if there are two symbols, say 1 and 0, and each has probability 0.5, then for each, I is – log [1/2], on a base of 2, which is 1 bit. (If the symbols were not equiprobable, the less probable binary digit-state would convey more than, and the more probable, less than, one bit of information. Moving over to English text, we can easily see that E is as a rule far more probable than X, and that Q is most often followed by U. So, X conveys more information than E, and U conveys very little, though it is useful as redundancy, which gives us a chance to catch errors and fix them: if we see “wueen” it is most likely to have been “queen.”)

    Further to this, we may average the information per symbol in the communication system thusly (giving in terms of -H to make the additive relationships clearer):

    – H = p1 log p1 + p2 log p2 + . . . + pn log pn

    or, H = – SUM [pi log pi] . . . Eqn 5

    H, the average information per symbol transmitted [usually, measured as: bits/symbol], is often termed the Entropy; first, historically, because it resembles one of the expressions for entropy in statistical thermodynamics. As Connor notes: “it is often referred to as the entropy of the source.” [p.81, emphasis added.] Also, while this is a somewhat controversial view in Physics, . . . there is in fact an informational interpretation of thermodynamics that shows that informational and thermodynamic entropy can be linked conceptually as well as in mere mathematical form. Though somewhat controversial even in quite recent years, this is becoming more broadly accepted in physics and information theory, as Wikipedia now discusses [as at April 2011] in its article on Informational Entropy (aka Shannon Information,. . . ):

    At an everyday practical level the links between information entropy and thermodynamic entropy are not close. Physicists and chemists are apt to be more interested in changes in entropy as a system spontaneously evolves away from its initial conditions, in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics, rather than an unchanging probability distribution. And, as the numerical smallness of Boltzmann’s constant kB indicates, the changes in S / kB for even minute amounts of substances in chemical and physical processes represent amounts of entropy which are so large as to be right off the scale compared to anything seen in data compression or signal processing.

    But, at a multidisciplinary level, connections can be made between thermodynamic and informational entropy, although it took many years in the development of the theories of statistical mechanics and information theory to make the relationship fully apparent. In fact, in the view of Jaynes (1957), thermodynamics should be seen as an application of Shannon’s information theory: the thermodynamic entropy is interpreted as being an estimate of the amount of further Shannon information needed to define the detailed microscopic state of the system, that remains uncommunicated by a description solely in terms of the macroscopic variables of classical thermodynamics. For example, adding heat to a system increases its thermodynamic entropy because it increases the number of possible microscopic states that it could be in, thus making any complete state description longer. (See article: maximum entropy thermodynamics.[Also,another article remarks: >>in the words of G. N. Lewis writing about chemical entropy in 1930, “Gain in entropy always means loss of information, and nothing more” . . . in the discrete case using base two logarithms, the reduced Gibbs entropy is equal to the minimum number of yes/no questions that need to be answered in order to fully specify the microstate, given that we know the macrostate.>>]) Maxwell’s demon can (hypothetically) reduce the thermodynamic entropy of a system by using information about the states of individual molecules; but, as Landauer (from 1961) and co-workers have shown, to function the demon himself must increase thermodynamic entropy in the process, by at least the amount of Shannon information he proposes to first acquire and store; and so the total entropy does not decrease (which resolves the paradox).

    Summarising Harry Robertson’s Statistical Thermophysics (Prentice-Hall International, 1993) — excerpting desperately and adding emphases and explanatory comments, we can see, perhaps, that this should not be so surprising after all. (In effect, since we do not possess detailed knowledge of the states of the vary large number of microscopic particles of thermal systems [typically ~ 10^20 to 10^26; a mole of substance containing ~ 6.023*10^23 particles; i.e. the Avogadro Number], we can only view them in terms of those gross averages we term thermodynamic variables [pressure, temperature, etc], and so we cannot take advantage of knowledge of such individual particle states that would give us a richer harvest of work, etc.)

    For, as he astutely observes on pp. vii – viii:

    . . . the standard assertion that molecular chaos exists is nothing more than a poorly disguised admission of ignorance, or lack of detailed information about the dynamic state of a system . . . . If I am able to perceive order, I may be able to use it to extract work from the system, but if I am unaware of internal correlations, I cannot use them for macroscopic dynamical purposes. On this basis, I shall distinguish heat from work, and thermal energy from other forms . . .

    KF

  162. 162
    Fred Hickson says:

    Ah yes, it was Joshua Swamidass and this paper

    https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/114132v2

    Discussed here:

    http://theskepticalzone.com/wp...../#comments

    I see Kirk Durston joined in an earlier discussion here:

    http://theskepticalzone.com/wp...../#comments

  163. 163
    ET says:

    Rob Davis, aka Timmy Horton:

    ID proponents consist of three major groups.

    And each of those groups is more intelligent and scientifically literate than you will ever be. You are a coward’s coward. Even when you were surrounded by other evoTARDs you were too chicken to ante up and debate me on which side has the science and which side is full of droolers, like you.

    Even when one of the swamp minions was ready to ante up, he was exposed as an equivocating coward and ran away.

  164. 164
    ET says:

    Earth to Fred- Swamidass is an equivocator. And he NEVER demonstrates that blind and mindless processes can produce any proteins.

  165. 165
    ET says:

    Swamidass:

    Here, one of my brilliant MD PhD students and I study one of the “information” arguments against evolution.

    Moron. It is NOT an argument against evolution. It is an argument against evolution by means of blind and mindless processes. Swamidass is the worst type of Christian who bears false witness

  166. 166
    Fred Hickson says:

    There’s a succinct point made by one Allan Miller in the comments of Swamidass’s thread:

    But the main thrust is the unreliability of using a set of surviving and commonly descended sequences as if it were an unbiased sample of an entire space.

    link

  167. 167
    ET says:

    Neither Allan Miller nor anyone else over on TSZ can explain how blind and mindless processes produced any functional sequence complexity.

    The point remains that CSI can be quantified.

  168. 168
    ET says:

    The testable hypothesis for ID is as follows:

    1) High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design.
    2) Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity.
    3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.
    4) Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.

    And that is by far more than evolution by means of blind and mindless processes can muster.

    My response (111) to Fred’s clueless attempt at a rebuttal (90) proves that Fred doesn’t understand science.

  169. 169
    kairosfocus says:

    FH, the problem there is first you have to get TO functional sequences and linked functional organisation. That is why Darwin’s pond or the like is central. That, as Smithsonian admitted, is the root of the tree of life. No root, no shoots. KF

  170. 170
    kairosfocus says:

    ET, I would add, there are trillions of observed cases of FSCO/I by intelligently directed configuration, indeed all actually observed cases are by this means. Including objecting comments in this thread. As objectors know or should acknowledge. KF

  171. 171
    chuckdarwin says:

    ET/168
    Your so-called “testable” hypothesis is nothing more than a circular argument…..

  172. 172
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    Many people do not understand what a symbol means.
    We have the word “dog” that is the symbol of a real dog. There is no deterministic causality between word “dog”(symbol) and a real dog . A real dog don’t tell you that it is “a dog” , don’t create the word dog so between the animal and d,o,g letters there is no causal link it’s a CONVENTION that is created by 3rd party to link an animal with its symbol “dog”. It’s a convention because could be called different without losing it’s meaning in its system(the word dog in chinese it’s a different symbol ).In the cell same thing happens with 3 DNA bases (word “dog” ) that are the symbol of an amino acid (a real dog).
    The same convention happens in the cell (but infinitely more complex) because in the cell the word “dog” (=3 bases ) is the blueprint that “will build” a real dog(3D protein) .
    How is that working? How would be to build a real computer from the words “Personal Computer”? This kind of technology exists in cell .

  173. 173
    ET says:

    Earth to chuckdarwin- Just saying it doesn’t make it so. And that hypothesis is the same type as used by archaeologists and forensic scientists.

  174. 174
    bornagain77 says:

    Finally, some have said we should have used the ancestral enzyme as our starting point, because they believe modern enzymes are somehow different from ancient ones. Why do they think that? It’s because modern enzymes can’t be coopted to anything except trivial changes in function. In other words, they don’t evolve!

    That is precisely the point we are making.,,
    https://evolutionnews.org/2014/12/a_new_paper_fro/

  175. 175
    JVL says:

    ET: And it is very telling that neither JVL nor Fred posted any alleged predictions borne from evolution by means of blind and mindless processes.

    I did. You’re just not paying attention.

    AND I didn’t see the test that can be applied to ID and unguided evolution. A testable hypothesis is not the same thing. You really do need to keep up with your claims.

  176. 176
    JVL says:

    Kairosfocus: In that context, Dembski’s use of CSI is an elaboration and generalisation on Orgel et al, as is evident save to the adamant objector. Let me clip, the discussion also echoes statistical thermodynamics:

    Fine. If I give you a sequence of symbols can you apply that criteria? I’d just like to see it ‘in action’ so to speak.

  177. 177
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL, you too, that’s disappointing. But if you have to pick on that strawman it is an implicit acknowledgement that naturalism does not have much of a case. Just for one example, FSCO/I will only be seen to be caused by intelligently directed configuration. Go, show an observed cases where say 500 bits of functional DNA are composed by blind chance and mechanical necessity without intelligent direction, whether in DNA or a random document generation exercise that does not sneak intelligence in the back door as weasel and kin do. That is, find an island of function. KF

  178. 178
    JVL says:

    Kairosfocus: Go, show an observed cases where say 500 bits of functional DNA are composed by blind chance and mechanical necessity without intelligent direction, whether in DNA or a random document generation exercise that does not sneak intelligence in the back door as weasel and kin do. That is, find an island of function.

    I think the case has been made that life, as we know it, arose via unguided and undirected means. You know I think that so what are you asking for? Stuff you already acknowledge you disagree with. We know we disagree on this. What do you want?

    What I’d like is for you to show me an application of your complex, specified information detection algorithm given an input provided by me. Okay? Can you do that?

  179. 179
    ET says:

    Where did JVL post these alleged predictions of evolution by means of blind and mindless processes? A comment # would be nice.

  180. 180
    JVL says:

    ET: Where did JVL post these alleged predictions of evolution by means of blind and mindless processes? A comment # would be nice.

    Go look. Or shut up. Your call.

  181. 181
    ET says:

    Nevermind. I found JVL’s equivocation:

    Unguided evolution predicts that bacteria will gain resistance to antibiotics. Unguided evolution predicts that there will be ‘arms races’ between prey and predators. Unguided evolution predicts that there will be convergent evolution, that is similar functionality will evolve in different lineages along different pathways.

    Except none of that has anything to do with unguided evolution. Not one of your “predictions” has anything to do with unguided evolution. You can change “unguided evolution” with telic evolution and nothing changes.

    Thanks to unguided evolution evolutionary biologists don’t even know what determines biological form! Given populations of prokaryotes there aren’t any naturalistic mechanisms capable of producing eukaryotes.

    This is the problem. You don’t have any clue at all. Science is definitely not your forte.

  182. 182
    ET says:

    JVL:

    I think the case has been made that life, as we know it, arose via unguided and undirected means.

    We know that you are unable to think. No such case has ever been made.

    Read the paper that I inked to that measures functional sequence complexity. Submit your rebuttal to peer-review

  183. 183
    JVL says:

    ET: Except none of that has anything to do with unguided evolution. Not one of your “predictions” has anything to do with unguided evolution. You can change “unguided evolution” with telic evolution and nothing changes.

    Except that, without a designer, it’s all about unguided evolution. And, since you haven’t provided it, there seemingly isn’t a ‘test’ for unguided evolution. One that can be applied to ID as well. You said you had one. Where is it?

    This is the problem. You don’t have any clue at all. Science is definitely not your forte.

    Your should work on providing the test you claimed you had that could be applied to ID and unguided evolution. Where is it?

    Read the paper that I inked to that measures functional sequence complexity. Submit your rebuttal to peer-review

    Provide the test you said you had which you can apply to ID and unguided evolution. And, while you’re at it, see if you can find the extra programming you’ve claimed for years exists in cells but which no one has found. And explain how it affects development.

  184. 184
    ET says:

    JVL:

    Let’s start with your test that can be used on ID and unguided evolution.

    Irreducible complexity:

    IC- A system performing a given basic function is irreducibly complex if it includes a set of well-matched, mutually interacting, non-arbitrarily individuated parts such that each part in the set is indispensable to maintaining the system’s basic, and therefore original, function. The set of these indispensable parts is known as the irreducible core of the system. Page 285 NFL

    Numerous and Diverse Parts If the irreducible core of an IC system consists of one or only a few parts, there may be no insuperable obstacle to the Darwinian mechanism explaining how that system arose in one fell swoop. But as the number of indispensable well-fitted, mutually interacting, non-arbitrarily individuated parts increases in number & diversity, there is no possibility of the Darwinian mechanism achieving that system in one fell swoop. Page 287

    Minimal Complexity and Function Given an IC system with numerous & diverse parts in its core, the Darwinian mechanism must produce it gradually. But if the system needs to operate at a certain minimal level of function before it can be of any use to the organism & if to achieve that level of function it requires a certain minimal level of complexity already possessed by the irreducible core, the Darwinian mechanism has no functional intermediates to exploit. Page 287

    Then there is the fact that ID’s concepts of evolution are being used in genetic algorithms. No one uses evolution by means of blind and mindless processes for anything.

  185. 185
    ET says:

    JVL:

    Except that, without a designer, it’s all about unguided evolution.

    Except that isn’t how science works. Perhaps you should just shut up.

    And, since you haven’t provided it, there seemingly isn’t a ‘test’ for unguided evolution.

    It is up to YOU to provide a way to test YOUR claims. What is wrong with you?

  186. 186
    ET says:

    Again, for the learning impaired:

    Immaterial information within cells is the only explanation for error detection, error correction, editing and splicing. It is the only explanation for the assembly of multi-protein structures. Why? All of that requires knowledge. How do I know this? 100% of all of our observations and experiences says so. Only sheer desperation, guided by delusions, says that blind and mindless processes can produce such things.

  187. 187
    JVL says:

    ET: Irreducible complexity:

    Please show how it can be determined, objectively, that a biological structure is irreducibly complex.

    It is up to YOU to provide a way to test YOUR claims. What is wrong with you?

    Does that mean you don’t have a test for unguided evolution? I’m sure you said you did. One you could apply to ID as well.

    Only sheer desperation, guided by delusions, says that blind and mindless processes can produce such things.

    Really? So, because you can’t imagine it or haven’t experienced it then it didn’t happen? Is that your reasoning?

  188. 188
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL:

    I think the case has been made that life, as we know it, arose via unguided and undirected means.

    I freely challenge, false. I suggest, it has been a priori imposed that this must have happened, not that we have empirically shown such.

    Accordingly, I challenge you:

    1: How was this SHOWN to be the case ________

    2: Where _____ and when _______

    3: By whom ___________

    4: With what Nobel and/or other prizes ________

    5: To what headlines ___________

    I strongly believe you cannot fill in those blanks.

    To compare, Wikipedia:

    In biology, abiogenesis or the origin of life is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. [–> assumption, stated as if fact, typical] The prevailing scientific hypothesis [–> 50c word for guess, not demonstration] is that the transition from non-living to living entities was not a single event, but an evolutionary process [–> so how do we get reproduction before the cell] of increasing complexity that involved the formation of a habitable planet, the prebiotic synthesis of organic molecules, molecular self-replication, self-assembly, autocatalysis, and the emergence of cell membranes. Many proposals [–> guesses again] have been made for different stages of the process.

    The study of abiogenesis aims to determine [–> not, has determined] how pre-life chemical reactions gave rise to life under conditions strikingly different from those on Earth today. [–> and by what means] It primarily uses tools from biology and chemistry, with more recent approaches attempting a synthesis of many sciences. Life functions through the specialized chemistry of carbon and water, and builds largely upon four key families of chemicals: lipids for cell membranes, carbohydrates such as sugars, amino acids for protein metabolism, and nucleic acids, DNA and RNA for the mechanisms of heredity. Any successful theory of abiogenesis must explain [–> notice, intellectual IOU not an announced achievement] the origins and interactions of these classes of molecules. Many approaches to abiogenesis investigate how self-replicating molecules, or their components, came into existence. Researchers generally think that current life descends from an RNA world, although other self-replicating molecules may have preceded RNA. [–> they are still guessing]

    NWE is telling:

    The various scientific models are necessarily speculative. Proposals for the origin of life remain at the stage of hypotheses, meaning they are working assumptions for scientists researching how life began. If test results provide sufficient support for acceptance of a hypothesis, then that is the point at which it would become a theory.

    Origin of life studies is a limited field of research, despite its profound impact on biology and human understanding of the natural world. Progress in this field is generally slow and sporadic, though it still draws the attention of many due to the eminence of the question being investigated. A few facts give insight into the conditions in which life may have emerged, but the mechanisms by which non-life became life are still elusive.

    KF

  189. 189
    JVL says:

    Kairosfocus: I freely challenge, false. I suggest, it has been a priori imposed that this must have happened, not that we have empirically shown such.

    I know that’s what you believe.

    Accordingly, I challenge you:

    Can I just point out that you cannot fill in those blanks either. So, for you to criticise unguided evolutionary theory for gaps that you can’t address either is hypocritical. And, can I also just point out, at least unguided evolution researchers are trying to answer those questions. Are any ID researchers even attempting to address those issues?

  190. 190
    ET says:

    JVL:

    Please show how it can be determined, objectively, that a biological structure is irreducibly complex.

    By checking to see if the criteria are met, duh.

    Does that mean you don’t have a test for unguided evolution?

    No, it means that you are scientifically illiterate. And irreducible complexity is the test. Do try to follow along.

    So, because you can’t imagine it or haven’t experienced it then it didn’t happen?

    Imagination is not science. And no one has ever observed it nor experienced it. It definitely isn’t in any peer-reviewed papers.

    Saying that accidental mutations produced a system to allow cells to guard against accidental mutations, is just stupid. So, without any evidentiary support for it, we can dismiss it and go with our knowledge of cause-and-effect relationships. Science 101.

  191. 191
    ET says:

    And also AGAIN- evolution by means of blind and mindless processes is the mechanistic scenario. That means it is up to them to provide one. And they cannot.

    ID has a process to allow us to differentiate between intelligent design and nature, operating freely. ID is not about the how nor the who for the simple reason that we do not have to know the how or the who BEFORE making that determination of designed or not.

    This has been explained to JVL so many times it is clear that he is just an infantile troll

  192. 192
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    JVL
    Please show how it can be determined, objectively, that a biological structure is irreducibly complex.

    :))) Choose one system that you can exclude and organism still can function : nervous system, muscular system, reproductive system, respiratory system, skeletal system, endocrine system, immune system, lymphatic system , integumentary system, urinary system.

    PS: You can’t do biology without thinking in intelligent design frame: how do you find a new function ?
    By assuming there must be a functional purpose . 😆

  193. 193
    Fred Hickson says:

    Here’s an interesting study. I’ve made the point here that morphological ang molecular trees of relatedness show remarkably good agreement. This paper shows molecular trees to be better!

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-022-03482-x

  194. 194
    jerry says:

    paper shows molecular trees to be better!

    But if you look closely, they disprove natural Evolution.

    Natural Evolution is impossible. Each ecology requires hundreds if not thousands of organisms to function to keep the ecology functional. The probability of this happing is a number so large it would take someone a thousand years to count the digits in the exponent of 10.

  195. 195
    JHolo says:

    Jerry: But if you look closely, they disprove natural Evolution.

    And how closely could you look in the 13 minutes between when Fred posted the link and you responded? Colour me skeptical. And picture me laughing.

  196. 196
    Fred Hickson says:

    Natural Evolution is impossible. Each ecology requires hundreds if not thousands of organisms to function to keep the ecology functional. The probability of this happing is a number so large it would take someone a thousand years to count the digits in the exponent of 10.

    This makes no sense but let’s suppose it does for the moment. It leaves us with no explanation, as ID proponents stop at rejecting evolutionary explanations and don’t trouble to propose alternative ones.

  197. 197
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    Molecular phylogenies map to biogeography better than morphological ones

    🙂 Nope. There is a widespread occurrence of phylogenetic incongruence . So they cherry-pick what fit better to their religious dogma of darwinism. ( and just ignore everything else)
    They even admit that : …”when morphological and molecular trees conflict the latter are often preferred.”

  198. 198
    bornagain77 says:

    FH claims, “morphological and molecular trees of relatedness show remarkably good agreement.”

    Well actually, no they don’t

    Forbidden Question: Common Descent or Common Design? – Jonathan Witt – October 22, 2021
    Excerpt: “In 1965 one of the most important scientists of the last century, Linus Pauling, and biologist Emil Zuckerkandl, considered by some as the father of molecular biology, suggested a way that macroevolution could be tested and proved; If the comparison of anatomical and DNA sequences led to the same family tree of organisms, this would be strong evidence for macroevolution. According to them, only evolution would explain the convergence of these two independent chains of evidence. By implication, the opposite finding would count against macroevolution.
    So what were the results? Over the past 28 years, experimental evidence has revealed that family trees based on anatomical features contradict family trees based on molecular similarities, and at many points. They do not converge. Just as troubling for the idea of macroevolution. family trees based on different molecules yield conflicting and contradictory family trees. As a 2012 paper published in Biological Reviews of the Cambridge philosophical Society reported, “Incongruence between phylogenies derived from morphological versus molecular analysis, and between trees based on different subsets of molecular sequences has become pervasive as datasets have expanded rapidly in both characters and species”.
    Another paper published the following year in the journal Nature, highlighted the extent of the problem. The authors compared 1,070 genes in twenty different yeasts and got 1,070 different trees.
    https://evolutionnews.org/2021/10/forbidden-question-common-descent-or-common-design/

    Logged Out – Scientists Can’t Find Darwin’s “Tree of Life” Anywhere in Nature by Casey Luskin – Winter 2013
    Excerpt: “battles between molecules and morphology are being fought across the entire tree of life,” leaving readers with a stark assessment: “Evolutionary trees constructed by studying biological molecules often don’t resemble those drawn up from morphology.”10,,,
    A 2012 paper noted that “phylogenetic conflict is common, and [is] frequently the norm rather than the exception,” since “incongruence between phylogenies derived from morphological versus molecular analyses, and between trees based on different subsets of molecular sequences has become pervasive as datasets have expanded rapidly in both characters and species.”12,,,
    http://www.salvomag.com/new/ar.....ed-out.php

    Toward a Consensus: An Open Letter to BioLogos on the Genetic Evidence – Cornelius Hunter – May 27, 2016
    Excerpt: One of Venema’s basic points (see here and here) is that the genomes of different species are what we would expect if they evolved.,,,
    What Does the Evidence Say?
    For starters, phylogenetic incongruence is rampant in evolutionary studies. Genetic sequence data do not fall into the expected evolutionary pattern. Conflicts exist at all levels of the evolutionary tree and throughout both morphological and molecular traits.,,,
    As one evolutionist explained, “The tree of life is being politely buried.”,,,
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....02879.html

    “The lay-person reading this, or watching the (Richard Dawkins) video above, is given the clear impression that every gene or pseudogene in every living organism gives essentially the same phylogenetic tree, when analysed with its homologs from other species. This is simply not true.
    If this were true, then phylogeny building in the genomic era would be a walk in the park. But, as many of my readers will know from personal experience, it is not.
    If this were true, terms like horizontal gene transfer, incomplete lineage sorting, introgression, and molecular convergence would be rare curiosities in the genomic literature. But they are common (click on the links in the previous sentence to see searched for these terms on Google Scholar).
    If this were true, commonly-used phylogenetic software like ASTRAL, ASTRID and BUCKy, designed to deal with gene tree incongruence, would be seldom used. But they are used often.
    I hardly need to labour my point to the present audience. Dawkins’ statements are simply wrong. Gloriously and utterly wrong.”
    Richard Buggs, “Obsolete Dawkinsian evidence for evolution” at Nature: Ecology & Evolution
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/dawkinss-claim-every-gene-delivers-approximately-the-same-tree-of-life-contested-at-nature-journal/

  199. 199
    Silver Asiatic says:

    RD

    You are not explainng anything when the “intelligence” you appeal to, does not exist.

    The mechanisms and environments of early earth do not exist. We assume they were the same as we see today and draw an inference from what we observe to what we cannot directly observe.
    We observe the actions of intelligent agents and draw an inference from what we observe to what we cannot directly observe.

    Then you are appealing to one mystery to solve anther…that has no explantory power

    Intelligence is not a mystery. We’re appealing to that which we can observe and what we know of it – intelligence can produce certain effects that a blind, unintelligent cause cannot produce.

    As long as there is no demonstrable correletion between the supernatural

    Where’s your evidence to support that? No IDists are making a claim about the supernatural – that’s something you’re adding. So, we’ll have to assume that you’ve looked for correlations with the supernatural – you’d have to define and identify the supernatural first. Again, ID has no need to address this – it’s entirely your own construction, so you’d need to define and explain your attempts to find correlations.

  200. 200
    Silver Asiatic says:

    JVL

    Every time someone finds a fossil it’s a test of unguided evolution.

    A fossil does not tell us that evolution is unguided.

  201. 201
    JVL says:

    ET: By checking to see if the criteria are met, duh.

    What criteria, exactly? Can you apply these criteria to a biological structure of my choice?

    No, it means that you are scientifically illiterate. And irreducible complexity is the test. Do try to follow along.

    Okay. How do you determine if something is actually irreducibly complex? C’mon, you said you had a test and now it’s taking a long time to figure out what it is.

    Imagination is not science. And no one has ever observed it nor experienced it. It definitely isn’t in any peer-reviewed papers.

    Have you observed a non-human intelligence capable of high-level design like genomes? Do you have any experience of that? Is it in any peer-reviewed journals?

    Saying that accidental mutations produced a system to allow cells to guard against accidental mutations, is just stupid. So, without any evidentiary support for it, we can dismiss it and go with our knowledge of cause-and-effect relationships. Science 101.

    Accidental mutations didn’t produce such a system. Accidental mutations coupled with millennia of cumulative selection did. Please try and at least keep up.

    And also AGAIN- evolution by means of blind and mindless processes is the mechanistic scenario. That means it is up to them to provide one. And they cannot.

    Design requires implementation. That takes some mechanics. Can you provide that? The blind and mindless process is selection and some other mechanisms which have been clearly and obviously documented and measured and tested. What is the mechanism for design implementation?

    ID has a process to allow us to differentiate between intelligent design and nature, operating freely. ID is not about the how nor the who for the simple reason that we do not have to know the how or the who BEFORE making that determination of designed or not.

    ID is not about much of anything. Which is why it’s not a better explanation. It doesn’t explain anything like when or how or why. And, funnily enough, no one in the ID community is even trying to address those questions even though they’ve been claiming design has been detected for a couple of decades now.

    This has been explained to JVL so many times it is clear that he is just an infantile troll

    Meanwhile . . . ET has never been able to point to the ‘extra programming’ they claim exists in cells. ET has never been able to give clear criteria for determining which mutations are guided and which aren’t. ET has never really stepped up to the plate and proposed when design was implemented. ET has not been able to offer a functional explanation for the large amount of repeated genetic material in the human genome. And, most recently, ET has suggested that irreducible complexity is a test that can be used to determine the truth of ID and unguided evolution without offering a way of determining what biological structures are irreducibly complex. No doubt they will fall back on the trope of: we haven’t seen it OR it’s too improbable (making a probabilistic argument) which is not the same as establishing that some structure actually is irreducibly complex.

    And, guess what? You can’t actually ‘prove’ something is irreducibly complex. You can say it’s improbable, you can say no one knows how it could have come about via step-by-step unguided methods. But that’s not the same as establishing that something is/was definitely irreducibly complex. Because you can’t prove a negative. You cannot prove that something did not come about via unguided methods. The whole idea is bankrupt.

    And, clearly, you cannot ‘prove’ that unguided processes could not have come up with this or that structure. You can’t.

    That means that bailing out and invoking design is a leap of faith. Which is fine as long as you admit it.

    Can ET admit he’s a theist?

  202. 202
    JVL says:

    Silver Asiatic: A fossil does not tell us that evolution is unguided.

    A fossil is a data point. One data point. One data point is meaningless. A lot of data points might mean something if they show a clear trend or tendency; if they support an explanation. If they support an explanation that is also consistent with other independent threads of data which are also consistent with the same explanation then you might have something. This is why a vast, vast majority of working biologists agree with unguided evolutionary theory. All the data is consistent with that idea, all the independent lines of data converge on the same conclusion, it requires no supposition of forces or influences that we cannot observe or measure now. Why would you come to another conclusion based on the data?

  203. 203
    jerry says:

    Colour me skeptical. And picture me laughing.

    Should be

    Colour me stupid. And picture me confused.

    How do I know that what was posted was stupid? Similar things have been discussed hundreds of times. If what was said was anywhere close to true, a Nobel prize and millions of dollars awaits.

    Besides did you read the abstract. It says nothing about how it occurred. It couldn’t.

  204. 204
    JVL says:

    Jerry: Natural Evolution is impossible.

    Gotta love it when someone proves a negative. Pure poetry.

  205. 205
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    🙂 Morality is the most important element when somebody do science of the past/of origins. Not the case for modern/technological side of science where morality is not so important because you can’t escape without presenting hard evidences that everybody can see so you are “forced” to be moral .:)

    Not the same with darwinism that is a compilation of stories after stories . When something doesn’t fit to dogma then immediately are imagined other ways to explain everything without any direct evidence . Ideology disguised as science.
    If somebody believe in darwinism then doesn’t believe in morality so I have a problem in trusting anything they say.

  206. 206
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL,

    in short you bluffed, were called and had no answer for your confident manner assertion. You now want to suggest I cannot answer so there; stalemate. Actually, we can apply Newton’s rules, Lyellian form. In steps,

    1: We are intelligent and contingent, exemplifying but not exhausting intelligence, we are language using and create technologies. In particular

    2: we have created molecular nanotechnologies in crude form so we know such is possible. Where

    3: The cell exhibits molecular nanotech and a process flow metabolic chemical reaction framework of high sophistication dwarfing our chemical engineering and doing it on the nano scale.

    4: Marks of advanced technology that as a first model we could assign to a molecular nanotech lab well beyond ours. Generations.

    5: In particular, part uses coded algorithms to create proteins, so language and cybernetic systems.

    6: Language is diagnostic of high intelligence; antecedent to cell based life on earth.

    7: Algorithms are finite, goal directed stepwise processes, thus reflective of intent or purpose so we are looking at agency.

    8: The world of life, embracing origin and the span of diverse body plans, reflects purposeful agency and sophisticated technology at mastery level. That is, intelligent design.

    9: Moreover, the observed cosmos is fine tuned in many ways that support C-Chem, aqueous medium, cell based life. This includes that our local solar system seems set to an operating point, atypical of exoplanets seen so far, now about 5,000.

    10: Thus, we have reason to infer a cosmos designed for life as we see. That is already telling us a lot on the chief agency.

    11: Further to this, our rational intelligence cannot be accounted for on computation on a substrate, as we know such are non rational dynamic stochastic systems with gigo constraint.

    12: So our choice is, computationalism and surrender rationality thus credibility of mind and knowledge claims, or recognising that we are not Turing type first level machines.

    13: Turing and those after, also had a level two machine: oracle machine. The first level machine interacts with an oracle that gives one step non computational answers, transforming its power by opening up what we may term wisdom.

    14: This opens up the Smith model with a two tier controller cybernetic loop, where we now understand the supervisor to be oracular. Quantum influence has been suggested.

    15: As has been discussed many times just studiously and ill advisedly ignored.

    16: So, we ourselves become evidence.

    17: With logic of being analysis extending that which shows why math at core is universal, we can bring in other aspects of our being, but this is enough for the moment.

    18: Of course no prizes as such is too alien to those who rule the roost.

    KF

  207. 207
    ET says:

    JVL:

    What criteria, exactly? Can you apply these criteria to a biological structure of my choice?

    I posted it. And yes.

    Have you observed a non-human intelligence capable of high-level design like genomes?

    Not required. Do try to keep up.

    Accidental mutations didn’t produce such a system. Accidental mutations coupled with millennia of cumulative selection did.

    I know the propaganda. I also know that throwing time at an issue is a sure sign that you don’t have anything. Also, DNA based life is impossible without existing error detection and correction machinery. DNA is too unstable to exist without it.

    Design requires implementation. That takes some mechanics. Can you provide that? The blind and mindless process is selection and some other mechanisms which have been clearly and obviously documented and measured and tested. What is the mechanism for design implementation?

    Yes, blind and mindless processes have been documented to produce genetic diseases and deformities. Intelligent agency volition is how design is implemented.

    Again, we do NOT have to know how the design was implemented in order to determine design exists.

    ID is not about much of anything.

    Your willful ignorance is not an argument.

    ET has never been able to point to the ‘extra programming’ they claim exists in cells.

    And yet I just did, earlier today!

    If living organisms are reducible to physics and chemistry then scientists are complete imbeciles because they are unable to produce a living organism in a lab. They know all of the chemicals. They understand all of the reactions. The biophysics is also well understood. Yet, no one can do it.

    You can’t actually ‘prove’ something is irreducibly complex.

    I can. You are too stupid to even understand the concept.

    And, clearly, you cannot ‘prove’ that unguided processes could not have come up with this or that structure.

    Again, if you and yours can’t provide evidentiary support nor a way to test your claims, we don’t have to consider them. No one has to disprove unicorns. No one has to disprove giant humanoid cyclops once threatened mere humans.

    No one has to disprove the claim that nature produced Stonehenge.

    The SCIENCE of Intelligent Design is in the determination that design exists, and then studying it so we can understand it. And the only way you can hope to understand something that is intelligently designed is to study it as such. Meaning scientists wouldn’t have any hope of understanding Stonehenge if looked at as a natural formation. Something engineered should be able to be reverse engineered. And by doing that we can understand it all that much better.

    But it is our KNOWLEDGE of cause-and-effect relationships that brought us to the design inference. And as with ALL design inferences, if someone can step up and demonstrate that nature can do it, the design inference will be falsified.

  208. 208
    ET says:

    Fred Hickson- Why do you continue to be an equivocating troll?

    It leaves us with no explanation, as ID proponents stop at rejecting evolutionary explanations and don’t trouble to propose alternative ones.

    No one rejects “evolutionary explanations”. ID is not anti-evolution. We say there aren’t any explanations that evolution BY MEANS OF BLIND AND MINDLESS PROCESSES did it. And “Not By Chance” was published in 1997.

    But first, grow up and stop equivocating. Evolutionary explanations are not the same as blind watchmaker evolutionary explanations.

  209. 209
    ET says:

    Fred Hickson:

    Here’s an interesting study. I’ve made the point here that morphological ang molecular trees of relatedness show remarkably good agreement. This paper shows molecular trees to be better!

    Only as long as you ignore the fact that mechanisms determine patterns! But that is your MO- willful ignorance.

  210. 210
    ET says:

    Apologies to the clueless evolutionists but DNA is NOT the miracle, magical molecule that you need it to be.

  211. 211
    kairosfocus says:

    ET it is increasingly obvious that we are dealing with locked in accusatory talk points as a rhetorical tactic. Utterly unresponsive to evidence or correction. This we should take as a sign of how those who choose to be deaf to first duties of reason become. KF

  212. 212
    ET says:

    It’s an endless loop of PRATTs, denials, equivocation and bloviation. At least you are understanding my frustration.

  213. 213
    Silver Asiatic says:

    JVL

    a vast, vast majority of working biologists agree with unguided evolutionary theory

    This is a good admission. Fred Hickson, for example, claims he doesn’t know what blind, unguided means and that it’s irrelevant. You, however, rightly say that a majority of evolutionists claim that evolution is unguided.
    But that’s an unscientific claim – untestable.

  214. 214
    ET says:

    From Whether Intelligent Design is Science:

    Again, as I made abundantly clear at trial, it isn’t “evolution” but Darwinism — random mutation and natural selection — that ID challenges. Darwinism makes the large, crucial claim that random processes and natural selection can account for the functional complexity of life. Thus the “burden of proof” for Darwinism necessarily is to support its special claim — not simply to show that common descent looks to be true. How can a demand for Darwinism to convincingly support its express claim be “unreasonable”?- Michael Behe

    That is why Theobald says that his “evidences” for macroevolution are not dependent on any mechanism. Which itself is weird because he uses patterns as evidence, yet mechanisms determine patterns.

    Slight of hand equivocation is they have ever had. That and the blind insistence that DNA is some sort of magical, miracle molecule.

    They don’t realize that their proposed mechanism of differential accumulations of heritable genetic changes, has as much chance as producing the diversity of life as any vehicle powered by a V12 engine has of reaching the Moon.

  215. 215
    Silver Asiatic says:

    FH gives examples of evolutionary theory – and one from National Geographic magazine that just says a mechanism for natural selection exists (that’s not a theory).
    Then Theobald says evolutionary theory excludes a mechanism.
    They don’t care that there’s a contradiction here. They’ll use whatever they want, no matter how incoherent.

  216. 216
    JVL says:

    ET: I posted it. And yes.

    Okay. How about a number sequence? Can you use your test on that?

    Not required. Do try to keep up.

    If there was no designer about then design couldn’t have happened or been implemented.

    Yes, blind and mindless processes have been documented to produce genetic diseases and deformities.

    How can you tell the difference between guided (based on programming) mutations and unguided mutations? Why would the programming allow unguided mutations? What’s to stop the programming from becoming corrupted as it too is copied over and over and over again? If there are structures to prevent that then why don’t those structures stop unguided mutations from happening?

    Intelligent agency volition is how design is implemented.

    How exactly? Where are the tools, the workshops, the energy stores? Volition alone can’t do it, you need energy to push particles around or bring them into existence.

    And yet I just did, earlier today!

    Tell us all where the extra programming is then. How is it encoded, transcribed and implemented during development and reproduction?

    I can. You are too stupid to even understand the concept.

    Okay, prove the bacteria flagellum is irreducibly complex. Will you be using a probabilistic argument?

    Again, if you and yours can’t provide evidentiary support nor a way to test your claims, we don’t have to consider them.

    But that’s been done. There’s the fossil evidence, consistent with unguided evolution. There’s the genetic evidence, consistent with unguided evolution. There’s the biogeographic evidence, consistent with unguided evolution. There’s the morphological evidence, consistent with unguided evolution. Also, consider how any mammal grows from a single cell to adulthood. Is that being guided by some hidden, intelligent hand? Or maybe that extra programming you can’t ever seem to display? Plus we’ve observed what can happen with breeding programs and how it’s possible to radically change morphology fairly quickly working with a base of inherited variation. Then there’s the clear evidence of how bacteria and viruses mutation and change (hopefully not based on some design paradigm), sometimes even ‘learning’ how to jump from one species to another.

    No one has to disprove unicorns. No one has to disprove giant humanoid cyclops once threatened mere humans.

    But somehow we have to try and disprove some undefined, undetected, unknowable designer who did something, sometime. No one can really say what or when. They think they know why however so I guess that’s alright.

    if someone can step up and demonstrate that nature can do it, the design inference will be falsified.

    So, since I think it has been demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that nature can do it are we finished? Oh, wait, just because you’re not convinced we have to keep repeating the evidence, the data, the research, the arguments over and over and over again? Sigh.

  217. 217
    JVL says:

    Just out of curiosity . . . can anyone determine if the following sequence is intelligently designed or contains complex, specified information?

    1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 1, 1, 3, 1, 3, 4, 1, 1, 6, 5, 1, 4, 10, 6, 1, 1, 10, 15, 7, 1, 5, 20, 21, 8, 1, 15, 35, 28, 6, 35, 56, 1, 21, 70, 7, 56, 1, 28, 8, 1

    Or this one:

    1, 1, 2, 1, 4, 4, 1, 6, 12, 8, 1, 8, 24, 32, 16, 1, 10, 40, 80, 80, 32, 1, 12, 60, 160, 240, 192, 64, 1, 14, 84, 280, 560, 672, 448, 128

  218. 218
    kairosfocus says:

    RD, 16, this caught my eye:

    Meyer is counting on the ignorance of his target audience here, again. Self-modifying code, which uses feedback mechanisms are widely in use. Just like Evolution, they are capable of generating new information without any outer influence.

    Of course, confession by projection to the other.

    Self modifying code is of course DESIGNED, so it is not a counter example to the origin of FSCO/I by intelligently directed configuration. Your notion of Evolution generating information (notice your lack of an indicator of a threshold pf complexity that swamps blind search) is little more than an ideologically driven assertion.

    BTW, Paley in Ch 2 on his self replicating watch thought exercise is highly relevant and generally not addressed:

    Suppose, in the next place, that the person who found the watch [in a field and stumbled on the stone in Ch 1 just past, where this is 50 years before Darwin in Ch 2 of a work Darwin full well knew about] should after some time discover that, in addition to

    [–> here cf encapsulated, gated, metabolising automaton, and note, “stickiness” of molecules raises a major issue of interfering cross reactions thus very carefully controlled organised reactions are at work in life . . . ]

    all the properties [= specific, organised, information-rich functionality] which he had hitherto observed in it, it possessed the unexpected property of producing in the course of its movement another watch like itself [–> i.e. self replication, cf here the code using von Neumann kinematic self replicator that is relevant to first cell based life] — the thing is conceivable [= this is a gedankenexperiment, a thought exercise to focus relevant principles and issues]; that it contained within it a mechanism, a system of parts — a mold, for instance, or a complex adjustment of lathes, baffles, and other tools — evidently and separately calculated for this purpose [–> it exhibits functionally specific, complex organisation and associated information; where, in mid-late C19, cell based life was typically thought to be a simple jelly-like affair, something molecular biology has long since taken off the table but few have bothered to pay attention to Paley since Darwin] . . . .

    The first effect would be to increase his admiration of the contrivance, and his conviction of the consummate skill of the contriver. Whether he regarded the object of the contrivance, the distinct apparatus, the intricate, yet in many parts intelligible mechanism by which it was carried on, he would perceive in this new observation nothing but an additional reason for doing what he had already done — for referring the construction of the watch to design and to supreme art

    [–> directly echoes Plato in The Laws Bk X on the ART-ificial (as opposed to the strawman tactic “supernatural”) vs the natural in the sense of blind chance and/or mechanical necessity as serious alternative causal explanatory candidates; where also the only actually observed cause of FSCO/I is intelligently configured configuration, i.e. contrivance or design]

    . . . . He would reflect, that though the watch before him were, in some sense, the maker of the watch, which, was fabricated in the course of its movements, yet it was in a very different sense from that in which a carpenter, for instance, is the maker of a chair — the author of its contrivance, the cause of the relation of its parts to their use [–> i.e. design].

    . . . . We might possibly say, but with great latitude of expression, that a stream of water ground corn ; but no latitude of expression would allow us to say, no stretch
    cf conjecture could lead us to think, that the stream of water built the mill, though it were too ancient for us to know who the builder was.
    What the stream of water does in the affair is neither more nor less than this: by the application of an unintelligent impulse to a mechanism previously arranged, arranged independently of it and arranged by intelligence, an effect is produced, namely, the corn is ground. But the effect results from the arrangement. [–> points to intelligently directed configuration as the observed and reasonably inferred source of FSCO/I] The force of the stream cannot be said to be the cause or the author of the effect, still less of the arrangement. Understanding and plan in the formation of the mill were not the less necessary for any share which the water has in grinding the corn; yet is this share the same as that which the watch would have contributed to the production of the new watch . . . .

    Though it be now no longer probable that the individual watch which our observer had found was made immediately by the hand of an artificer, yet doth not this alteration in anywise affect the inference, that an artificer had been originally employed and concerned in the production. The argument from design remains as it was.

    Marks of design and contrivance are no more accounted for now than they were before. In the same thing, we may ask for the cause of different properties. We may ask for the cause of the color of a body, of its hardness, of its heat ; and these causes may be all different. We are now asking for the cause of that subserviency to a use, that relation to an end, which we have remarked in the watch before us. No answer is given to this question, by telling us that a preceding watch produced it. There cannot be design without a designer; contrivance, without a contriver; order [–> better, functionally specific organisation], without choice; arrangement, without any thing capable of arranging; subserviency and relation to a purpose, without that which could intend a purpose; means suitable to an end, and executing their office in accomplishing that end, without the end ever having been contemplated, or the means accommodated to it. Arrangement, disposition of parts, subserviency of means to an end, relation of instruments to a use, imply the presence of intelligence and mind. No one, therefore, can rationally believe that the insensible, inanimate watch, from which the watch before us issued, was the proper cause of the mechanism we so much admire m it — could be truly said to have constructed the instrument, disposed its parts, assigned their office, determined their order, action, and mutual dependency, combined their several motions into one result, and that also a result connected with the utilities of other beings. All these properties, therefore, are as much unaccounted for as they were before.

    Nor is any thing gained by running the difficulty farther back, that is, by supposing the watch before us to have been produced from another watch, that from a former, and so on indefinitely. Our going back ever so far brings us no nearer to the least degree of satisfaction upon the subject. Contrivance is still unaccounted for. We still want a contriver. A designing mind is neither supplied by this supposition nor dispensed with. If the difficulty were diminished the farther we went back, by going back indefinitely we might exhaust it. And this is the only case to which this sort of reasoning applies. “Where there is a tendency, or, as we increase the number of terms, a continual approach towards a limit, there, by supposing the number of terms to be what is called infinite, we may conceive the limit to be attained; but where there is no such tendency or approach, nothing is effected by lengthening the series . . . ,

    And the question which irresistibly presses upon our thoughts is. Whence this contrivance and design ? The thing required is the intending mind, the adapted hand, the intelligence by which that hand was directed. This question, this demand, is not shaken off by increasing a number or succession of substances destitute of these properties; nor the more, by increasing that number to infinity. If it be said, that upon the supposition of one watch being produced from another in the course of that other’s movements, and by means of the mechanism within it, we have a cause for the watch in my hand, namely, the watch from which it proceeded — I deny, that for the design, the contrivance, the suitableness of means to an end, the adaptation of instruments to a use, all of which we discover in the watch, we have any cause whatever. It is in vain, therefore, to assign a series of such causes, or to allege that a series may be carried back to infinity; for I do not admit that we have yet any cause at all for the phenomena, still less any series of causes either finite or infinite. Here is contrivance, but no contriver; proofs of design, but no designer. [Paley, Nat Theol, Ch 2]

    KF

  219. 219
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL, the design inference is not a general design detector or puzzle solver. It is applicable to cases where recognised signs are detected, and as the signs reliably point to design they point to process. Detection of design on sign is evidence that a — not the specific — capable designer is or was present. It is interesting to note again your confident manner assertion on OoL and how rapidly you had to back away. I notice no onward response to 206 given 188. KF

  220. 220
    JVL says:

    Kairosfocus: the design inference is not a general design detector or puzzle solver.

    Can you determine if those sequences have complex, specified information?

  221. 221
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL, I do not particularly recognise said sequences and you will observe that I focus on the relevant subset of Dembski’s generalisation, FUNCTIONALLY SPECIFIC, complex organisation and/or information. Show me strings of 500 – 1,000 bits or more exhibiting observable function and we have something to talk about. Not hard, there are trillions of cases starting with the Internet. Can you identify a text string of 72 to 143 or more ascii characters that is a recognisable sentence or functioning program running on a substrate and which observably came about by blind chance and mechanical necessity? If not then you are leading a red herring off to a convenient strawman. And as one time message pads are not crackable by cryptanalysis, there can be no general decoder as you know. KF

    PS, Wolfram Alpha’s pattern finder, which is a puzzle solver returns blank on your first case and the second, they have the feel of population boom and crash models.

  222. 222
    ET says:

    JVL:

    How about a number sequence?

    Yes. Nature cannot produce number sequences, duh.

    If there was no designer about then design couldn’t have happened or been implemented.

    If there isn’t any evidence that nature did it we can dismiss that claim

    Tell us all where the extra programming is then.

    IT PERMEATES THE CELL JUST AS I HAVE BEEN TELLING YOU FOR YEARS YOU WILLFULLY IGNORANT TROLL

    Okay, prove the bacteria flagellum is irreducibly complex.

    Already done.

    But that’s been done. There’s the fossil evidence, consistent with unguided evolution.

    Unguided evolution cannot account for the organisms that were fossilized. You are clueless.

    But somehow we have to try and disprove some undefined, undetected, unknowable designer who did something, sometime.

    No, moron. All you have to do is demonstrate that blind and mindless processes are capable. But you can’t.

    So, since I think it has been demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that nature can do it are we finished?

    No one cares what you think. There isn’t anything in peer-review. The paper “waiting for two mutations” exists because there isn’t any such evidence. So you are a liar and a fool.

    Good luck with that.

  223. 223
    ET says:

    JVL:

    Just out of curiosity . . . can anyone determine if the following sequence is intelligently designed or contains complex, specified information?

    1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 1, 1, 3, 1, 3, 4, 1, 1, 6, 5, 1, 4, 10, 6, 1, 1, 10, 15, 7, 1, 5, 20, 21, 8, 1, 15, 35, 28, 6, 35, 56, 1, 21, 70, 7, 56, 1, 28, 8, 1

    Or this one:

    1, 1, 2, 1, 4, 4, 1, 6, 12, 8, 1, 8, 24, 32, 16, 1, 10, 40, 80, 80, 32, 1, 12, 60, 160, 240, 192, 64, 1, 14, 84, 280, 560, 672, 448, 128

    Both are the result of an intelligent agency as nature is incapable of producing a sequence of numbers such as those.

    JVL is obviously just a dolt.

  224. 224
    asauber says:

    A sequence of decimals delineated by commas?

    A pile of rocks did it.

    Andrew

  225. 225
    JVL says:

    Kairosfocus: I do not particularly recognise said sequences and you will observe that I focus on the relevant subset of Dembski’s generalisation, FUNCTIONALLY SPECIFIC, complex organisation and/or information. Show me strings of 500 – 1,000 bits or more exhibiting observable function and we have something to talk about.

    But that’s begging the question surely. How do you know if some sequence contains functionally specific, complex information? Only if you see it exhibiting such? There’s no way to detect that independent of it being used?

    So . . . if you don’t see the information being used you can’t tell if it was designed?

    Wolfram Alpha’s pattern finder, which is a puzzle solver returns blank on your first case and the second, they have the feel of population boom and crash models.

    That’s not where they came from. Try again.

  226. 226
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    JVL
    Just out of curiosity . . . can anyone determine if the following sequence is intelligently designed or contains complex, specified information?

    1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 1, 1, 3, 1, 3, 4, 1, 1, 6, 5, 1, 4, 10, 6, 1, 1, 10, 15, 7, 1, 5, 20, 21, 8, 1, 15, 35, 28, 6, 35, 56, 1, 21, 70, 7, 56, 1, 28, 8, 1

    Or this one:

    1, 1, 2, 1, 4, 4, 1, 6, 12, 8, 1, 8, 24, 32, 16, 1, 10, 40, 80, 80, 32, 1, 12, 60, 160, 240, 192, 64, 1, 14, 84, 280, 560, 672, 448, 128

    Can you determine if those sequences have complex, specified information?

    🙂 This explain why darwinists are clueless about codes/symbols/languages . Glorifying the invisible power of matter(“to create” codes in living systems )with an unknown method but they have the feeling that must be true .

    The scientists[ENCODE] didn’t broke the code of DNA they just recorded the letters of the code . To brake a code you need the key and if you have the key you don’t need to do experiments anymore because you know everything about that code. That’s why scientists try to brake the code by external method (by experiments) but this is almost impossible to provide all the information to understand the cell.

    In conclusion your numbers can’t signify a code outside the system that coded/or run them in the first place. We need the key +the system where this code belong.
    DNA outside the cell is not a code because there is no decoder to understand and use the code as was programmed. The world of cryptography is 100% the result of a mind (locked info-key-unlocked info) and randomness have no place in it..

    counting the lengths of the gaps between the pulses of quasars is not nature producing a sequence?

    Who is counting and with what is counting? :))) Do the numbers come through air and your eyes just see them or a signal is translated into numbers by a device produced by humans?

  227. 227
    JVL says:

    ET: Nature cannot produce number sequences, duh.

    Really? So . . . counting the lengths of the gaps between the pulses of quasars is not nature producing a sequence? The rings of Saturn is not a pattern that can be represented numerically?

    If there isn’t any evidence that nature did it we can dismiss that claim

    Fortunately, we do have such evidence. Whew eh?

    IT PERMEATES THE CELL JUST AS I HAVE BEEN TELLING YOU FOR YEARS YOU WILLFULLY IGNORANT TROLL

    What does that mean? It’s everywhere? DNA doesn’t permeate the cell, it’s found in a particular locus. I don’t think you can demonstrated this supposed extra programming at all. You can’t say how it’s encoded or stored or read or transcribed or how it affects development. Your caps lock is working though.

    Already done.

    With probabilistic arguments as I recall. Which is not the same as saying natural processes couldn’t possibly have come up with it, just that it seems very unlikely.

    No, moron. All you have to do is demonstrate that blind and mindless processes are capable. But you can’t.

    I know you can’t actually answer the obvious question but I’ll ask it anyway: what kind of evidence would you accept?

    The paper “waiting for two mutations” exists because there isn’t any such evidence. So you are a liar and a fool

    Uh huh. You know you have misinterpreted the mathematics in that paper because you’ve been told many times. It’s kind of a bummer when you don’t understand the mathematics isn’t it?

    Both are the result of an intelligent agency as nature is incapable of producing a sequence of numbers such as those.

    How do you know? They could be the gaps in minutes between observable solar flares. They could be the direction in degrees a bacterium travels. Because of your lack of imagination you just decide they were created by a human being. Which means you can’t really analyse the sequences at all to tell if they were designed. So you don’t really have a numerical design detection tool at all. Is that about right?

    How about this sequence:

    2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, 31, 37, 41, 43, 47, 53, 59, 61, 67, 71, 73, 79, 83, 89, 97, etc

    No human came up with that sequence, it comes out of the properties of the numbers themselves. So, was that designed? By whom?

    How about this sequence:

    2, 3, 5, 7, 13, 17, 19, 31, 61, 89, 107, 127, 521, 607, 1279, 2203, 2281, 3217, 4253, 4423, 9689, 9941, 11213, 19937, 21701, 23209, 44497, 86243, 110503, 132049, 216091, 756839, 859433, 1257787, 1398269, 2976221, 3021377, 6972593, 13466917, 20996011, 24036583, 25964951, 30402457, 32582657, 37156667, 42643801, 43112609

    I know you’ll just bail on the whole issue ’cause you can’t actually analyse sequences for design or even specified complex information.

  228. 228
    ET says:

    Oh, my!

    JVL:

    How do you know if some sequence contains functionally specific, complex information?

    It’s an observation, duh. With living organisms we OBSERVE function. Then we observe only specific sequences provide functionality. Then we apply Shannon to see if we can measure the information carrying capacity of the sequence.

    So . . . if you don’t see the information being used you can’t tell if it was designed?

    Wow! People make observations and then use science to try to explain them. That is what science is all about- explaining what we OBSERVE.

    What is wrong with you? How can you be that ignorant with respect to science?

  229. 229
    ET says:

    Really, nature cannot produce sequences of numbers. Really, JVL is lying about the evidence. Really, JVL is ignorant of IC. Really, JVL is ignorant of science. Really JVL is lying about me misrepresenting the mathematics. And he is too stupid to understand the argument I just used!

    Again, for the learning impaired- the ONLY reason the paper “waiting for two mutations” was published is because there isn’t any evidence for evolution by means of blind and mindless processes. Fact.

    Now JVL is moving the goal posts. The numbers, as JVL presented them, are just numbers. And only intelligent agencies can produce number sequences on a computer. JVL, being ignorant of science, doesn’t understand that CONTEXT matters. He is a clueless loser. And he thinks its scientific ignorance means something.

    Why are you so freaking desperate that you have to prove to everyone that you are an infant, JVL? How is that helping you?

  230. 230
    asauber says:

    “counting the lengths of the gaps between the pulses of quasars is not nature producing a sequence?”

    Counting is done by humans. Reducing to numbers is done by humans. Nature doesn’t know what a sequence is.

    Andrew

  231. 231
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    01000101 01110110 01101111 01101100 01110101 01110100 01101001 01101111 01101110 00100000 01101001 01110011 00100000 01100001 00100000 01101000 01101111 01100001 01111000
    or
    45 76 6F 6C 75 74 69 6F 6E 20 69 73 20 61 20 68 6F 61 78

    https://www.rapidtables.com/convert/number/binary-to-ascii.html
    Find the message. 🙂

    A message/information/code is rubbish without a very specific key to decrypt it.

  232. 232
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL, we know that a string of alphanumerical characters or a structure reducible to description is FSCO/I by observation. Is it complex, beyond 500 – 1,000 bits explicitly or implicitly, is it functional in a cell, device, process etc, is it fairly sensitive to random perturbation. Those are observations with some totting up, they are not question begging. You know for years from a case in point, a 6500CT fishing reel, which shows the difference between a reel and a pile of parts or even getting grit inside. Compare the protein synthesis system. I know there has been silly mockery which does not realise I chose a simpler illustration than a watch, I think a galvanometer which is even simpler is too specialised. As Paley showed in ch 2, self replication ADDS to the FSCO/I. So, objection fails. And the strings are obviously intelligently made being place value notation, comma separated decimal values even if by virtue of an odd function or random or partly random process. KF

  233. 233
    kairosfocus says:

    AS, precisely correct. KF

  234. 234
    kairosfocus says:

    ET, correct. KF

  235. 235
    JVL says:

    ET:

    So, you cannot analyse or study the sequences I gave you not knowing anything else and determine if they are random or designed. Is that correct?

    And only intelligent agencies can produce number sequences on a computer.

    They were reproduced on a computer but they were not generated by a computer. Anyway, what difference does it make where they are recorded? The question is: was the sequence designed or not? I didn’t create them. Especially the very famous one.

  236. 236
    JVL says:

    Asauber: Counting is done by humans. Reducing to numbers is done by humans. Nature doesn’t know what a sequence is.

    I keep being told how uncanny it is that nature can be modelled by mathematics. Or that atomic particles ARE probability waves.

  237. 237
    JVL says:

    Kairosfocus: we know that a string of alphanumerical characters or a structure reducible to description is FSCO/I by observation

    Well, observe the sequences I gave you and determine whether or not they contain FSCO. Or admit you can’t. Your call.

  238. 238
    JVL says:

    LCD: A message/information/code is rubbish without a very specific key to decrypt it.

    The sequences I gave you are not encoded or encrypted. IF there is a design or pattern it is discernible just considering the numerical values alone.

  239. 239
    JVL says:

    From Dr Dembski’s 2005 monograph: Specification: The Pattern That Signifies Intelligence

    Can objects, even if nothing is known about how they arose, exhibit features that reliably signal the action of an intelligent cause?

    The fundamental claim of this paper is that for a chance hypothesis H, if the specified complexity ? = –log2[10120 ·?S(T)·P(T|H)] is greater than 1, then T is a specification and the semiotic agent S is entitled to eliminate H as the explanation for the occurrence of any event E
    25
    that conforms to the pattern T (S is similarly entitled to eliminate H when the context-dependent specified complexity ?~ = –log2[M·N·?S(T)·P(T|H)] is greater than one, only this time, because M·N will be less than 10120 , the strength with which ?~ eliminates H will be less than what it is for ?).

    Apologies for some of the symbols not being reproduced properly on this site (there are ways to fix that) but the upshot is: here is a way to detect design without knowing anything about where the sequence in question came from.

    The argument from ignorance, also known as the appeal to ignorance or by the Latin argumentum ad ignorantiam, is
    the fallacy of arguing that something must be true because nobody can prove it false or, alternatively, that something must be false because nobody can prove it true. Such arguments involve the illogical notion that one can view the lack of evidence about a proposition as being positive evidence for it or against it. But lack of evidence is lack of evidence, and supports no conclusion.

    I mention that quote in response to Et‘s continual claim that ID must be true because no one can prove it false. Looks like Dr Dembski disagrees with you there.

  240. 240
    JVL says:

    Also from Dr Dembski’s monograph:

    One final difference that should be pointed out regarding my past work on specification is the difference between specified complexity then and now. In the past, specified complexity, as I characterized it, was a property describing a relation between a pattern and an event delineated by that pattern. Accordingly, specified complexity either obtained or did not obtain as a certain relation between a pattern and an event. In my present treatment, specified complexity still captures this relation, but it is now not merely a property but an actual number calculated by a precise formula (i.e., ? = –log2[10120 ·?S(T)·P(T|H)]). This number can be negative, zero, or positive. When the number is greater than 1, it indicates that we are dealing with a specification.

    I’m just asking if any of you can calculate the associated value for the sequences I provided. Clearly Dr Dembski thinks it’s possible.

  241. 241
    asauber says:

    “I keep being told how uncanny it is that nature can be modelled by mathematics.”

    JVL,

    By “modeled” you mean interpreted, reduced, and represented by humans to humans. Mathematics can only attempt to model an aspect of nature, not all of nature. Besides, “nature” itself is not scientifically definable. It’s not reduceable to mathematics.

    Andrew

  242. 242
    JVL says:

    Asuaber: Mathematics can only attempt to model an aspect of nature, not all of nature. Besides, “nature” itself is not scientifically definable. It’s not reduceable to mathematics.

    I don’t have a problem with that statement. Except for your spelling.

    Let’s say we detect a signal originating from a point in outer space. It’s a series of pulses, dots and dashes, something like that. In order to decide if that signal is designed is it not essential to represent that signal in some kind of abstract form? Possibly mathematical? Like, for instance, to check to see if the signal carries the Fibonacci numbers?

    Given that, is there a problem making sure that any given sequence can be determined to be caused by design or unguided natural processes?

  243. 243
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    JVL
    The sequences I gave you are not encoded or encrypted. IF there is a design or pattern it is discernible just considering the numerical values alone.

    You have no clue. The sequences are encoded.

    , is there a problem making sure that any given sequence can be determined to be caused by design or unguided natural processes?

    You make no sense. You compare broccoli with candy bar. We see the function of a signal in the cell what is the function of your signal ?

  244. 244
    JVL says:

    LCD: You have no clue. The sequences are encoded.

    Whether or not they are designed or random requires no interpretation other than considering the values alone. Your need to consider the relationship between the values NOT what they might represent or mean.

    IF you cannot determine if they are designed or random then just say so. It seems that you can’t but an honest and honourable person would say so.

    By the way, this sequence is extremely famous:

    2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, 31, 37, 41, 43, 47, 53, 59, 61, 67, 71, 73, 79, 83, 89, 97, etc.

    Not encoded at all.

  245. 245
    JVL says:

    LCD: You have no clue. The sequences are encoded.

    Whether or not they are designed or random requires no interpretation other than considering the values alone. Your need to consider the relationship between the values NOT what they might represent or mean.

    IF you cannot determine if they are designed or random then just say so. It seems that you can’t but an honest and honourable person would say so.

    By the way, this sequence:

    2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, 31, 37, 41, 43, 47, 53, 59, 61, 67, 71, 73, 79, 83, 89, 97

    Is extremely famous. One you should recognise. One not encoded or encrypted.

    We see the function of a signal in the cell what is the function of your signal ?

    No function. It’s just a sequence of numbers that either are related by some pattern or not. Can you tell the difference?

  246. 246
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, 31, 37, 41, 43, 47, 53, 59, 61, 67, 71, 73, 79, 83, 89, 97, etc.

    Not encoded at all.

    OK. I quote from a site for kids if you still don’t understand I can’t help you:

    “A number is a basic unit of mathematics. Numbers are used for counting, measuring, and comparing amounts. A number system is a set of symbols, or numerals, that are used to represent numbers. The most common number system uses 10 symbols called digits—0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9—and combinations of these digits.
    (https://kids.britannica.com)

    No function. It’s just a sequence of numbers that either are related by some pattern or not. Can you tell the difference?

    We talk about coding systems with functions(cell’s code). Real functions that have the code as source for function . Your argumentation is void.

  247. 247
    ET says:

    JVL:

    So, you cannot analyse or study the sequences I gave you not knowing anything else and determine if they are random or designed. Is that correct?

    So, science is a parlor game to you? What you are asking has absolutely NOTHING to do with ID and how we detect design. Letters on a page in a book would appear random to anyone who doesn’t know the language or something about what humans do. But the investigator would understand that nature didn’t do it and it took an intelligent agency to produce.

    The design inference pertains to what nature can do vs what intelligent agencies can. Intelligent agencies can carve random doodles in a cave wall. It is still an artifact.

    Unfortunately, people like JVL don’t understand science, investigating or what the design inference pertains to.

    They were reproduced on a computer but they were not generated by a computer. Anyway, what difference does it make where they are recorded? The question is: was the sequence designed or not? I didn’t create them. Especially the very famous one.

    Obviously, CONTEXT matters with respect to scientific investigations. But you are just desperate and want to try to turn science into so cheap parlor game.

    I keep being told how uncanny it is that nature can be modelled by mathematics.

    And you keep being told that is because it was intelligently designed using mathematics.

  248. 248
    ET says:

    JVL:

    I know you can’t actually answer the obvious question but I’ll ask it anyway: what kind of evidence would you accept?

    Here it is, AGAIN:

    Start by demonstrating that living organisms are reducible to physics and chemistry. To do that all scientists would need to do is synthesize a population of prokaryotes. They know all of the chemicals and reactions involved. They understand the biophysics. Yet, they can’t even solve that problem.

    But yours is the most difficult position to demonstrate. How can anyone test the claim that the Earth/ Moon system and solar system is the result of innumerable atomic accidents and cosmic collisions? It has nothing to do with what anyone would accept. It has everything to do with your inability to demonstrate anything beyond your ignorance of science.

  249. 249
    JVL says:

    LCD: We talk about coding systems with functions(cell’s code). Real functions that have the code as source for function . Your argumentation is void.

    That has nothing to do with actually trying to determine if the sequences I posted, which are not a code or a representation of something else, are designed or random values.

    Since you clearly cannot make that determination then why don’t you just admit it.

  250. 250
    JVL says:

    ET: o, science is a parlor game to you? What you are asking has absolutely NOTHING to do with ID and how we detect design. Letters on a page in a book would appear random to anyone who doesn’t know the language or something about what humans do. But the investigator would understand that nature didn’t do it and it took an intelligent agency to produce.

    You guys are the ones who claim to be able to detect design. I gave you some simple, clear mathematical sequences and asked if you could discern if they were designed or random. I gave you quotes from a monograph by Dr Dembski where he gives a method for determining specified information in possibly random sequences. And you still can’t admit that you cannot make the determination.

    The design inference pertains to what nature can do vs what intelligent agencies can. Intelligent agencies can carve random doodles in a cave wall. It is still an artifact.

    Could nature have generated the sequences I gave you? Yes or no?

    Obviously, CONTEXT matters with respect to scientific investigations. But you are just desperate and want to try to turn science into so cheap parlor game.

    Sometimes you have to work with what you’ve got. Can you determine if the sequences I gave you are designed or not? Yes or no?

    And you keep being told that is because it was intelligently designed using mathematics.

    That should make it even easier to decide if the mathematical sequences I gave you are designed or not.

    And, clearly, you have bailed on the sequence questions. I’ll take that as a: no, I cannot figure out if those sequences are random or designed from you then. Weird since one of them is really famous.

  251. 251
    asauber says:

    “Let’s say we detect a signal originating from a point in outer space. It’s a series of pulses, dots and dashes, something like that. In order to decide if that signal is designed is it not essential to represent that signal in some kind of abstract form?”

    JVL,

    Sure, but it would depend on further information. Context.

    Andrew

  252. 252
    Silver Asiatic says:

    JVL

    Could nature have generated the sequences I gave you? Yes or no?

    You’re looking for some kind of refutation of ID here, but as Dawkins says, there are aspects of nature that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose. The strings of text you provided do not show any functional purpose. Unlike DNA they do not direct functions or logic-based responses. They’re just patterns. ID does not claim to be able to analyze every artifact on earth and determine “designed or not”. It only takes what is obviously designed, since it will be a functioning system or irreducible complexity. Asking if the pattern of raindrops on the ground show evidence of design is to misunderstand what ID is.
    There’s nowhere in nature that shows those numbers you produced. So, you extracted them from a source. Hiding the source and quizzing people on “design or not” is not how science works. We look at everything we know and not just on what a human being feels like revealing.

  253. 253
    asauber says:

    “You’re looking for some kind of refutation of ID here”

    Desperately, I reckon.

    Andrew

  254. 254
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    Silver Asiatic
    So, you extracted them from a source. Hiding the source and quizzing people on “design or not” is not how science works. We look at everything we know and not just on what a human being feels like revealing.

    The funny thing is he shot himself in the foot because he knows what is the source of his numbers but in the same time he try to make the case that is impossible to know the difference. You can’t make this thing up!

  255. 255
    JVL says:

    Asauber: Sure, but it would depend on further information. Context.

    And if you had none?

  256. 256
    JVL says:

    Silver Asiatic: There’s nowhere in nature that shows those numbers you produced. So, you extracted them from a source. Hiding the source and quizzing people on “design or not” is not how science works. We look at everything we know and not just on what a human being feels like revealing.

    So you think then that Dr Dembski was wrong to propose that it was possible to detect design or specified information knowing nothing at all except the design itself?

    You don’t know where those numbers came from by the way. They could be natural. I didn’t make them up myself. AND one of the sequences is very famous and clearly not made up by humans.

  257. 257
    JVL says:

    LCD: The funny thing is he shot himself in the foot because he knows what is the source of his numbers but in the same time he try to make the case that is impossible to know the difference. You can’t make this thing up!

    Clearly Dr Dembski indicated that it should be possible to discern design or specified information knowing nothing at all about the source of the potential design. He thought it was not impossible to know the difference, just study the design itself as ET always says.

    So, study the potential design and make a call.

  258. 258
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    JVL
    Clearly Dr Dembski indicated that it should be possible to discern design or specified information knowing nothing at all about the source of the potential design. He thought it was not impossible to know the difference, just study the design itself as ET always says.
    So, study the potential design and make a call.

    Your trick failed miserably .
    Life have (1)code, (2)function and (3)system(context) you provided only a possible (1)code without function and context . It’s obviously why: because you are a moral and objective person and you try to find the truth . 🙂

    I could provide you a bunch of numbers that could be codes from bought applications, product keys from Operating Systems, passwords of accounts, codes for top-up credit for phones,etc.,etc.but without providing you context it’s impossible to know if are random or designed. For some tribe from Amazon Jungle are gibberish but for some hackers are “pretty” designed.

  259. 259
    ET says:

    JVL:

    Could nature have generated the sequences I gave you?

    Nature is incapable of producing numeric sequences.

    Sometimes you have to work with what you’ve got.

    Not really. No one cares about your out-of-context numeric sequences.

    There needs to be a reason to investigate. And trying to placate an infantile troll is not such a reason.

  260. 260
    ET says:

    JVL:

    Clearly Dr Dembski indicated that it should be possible to discern design or specified information knowing nothing at all about the source of the potential design.

    Yes, that is true. However, it is clear that nature did NOT write down those numeric sequences. So, the context is all messed up.

    As I said, you are obviously a scientifically illiterate infant.

  261. 261
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL, of course function is observed in a real contest, as you full well know. That function is like text in this thread in English, or the coded algorithms of DNA you and so many others are running away from, or the arrangement of parts in a 6500CT reel, or the interconnections of process flow networks whether a petroleum refinery or the metabolic network of the cell. We do not need to get into red herring guessing games as to mystery collections of digits. The designs Dembski had in mind were cells, body plans and the like. As to math, I long since published a paper on how logic of structure and quantity is embedded in possible worlds. As for oh Fibonacci sequences are common, yes they are and there are related proportions in our body shape, faces etc. There is a debate about why. We need not try to answer to every case or suggestion in order to deal with key ones sufficient to make the point, a part of the paradigms concept. Newton started with a falling apple and an orbiting moon, Galileo with a pendulum. KF

  262. 262
    Silver Asiatic says:

    JVL

    So you think then that Dr Dembski was wrong to propose that it was possible to detect design or specified information knowing nothing at all except the design itself?

    No I don’t disagree with that. I can detect that your sentences are designed with specified information. I know also that the numbers you provided are the product of human intelligence, since nature does not produce numbers.

    You don’t know where those numbers came from by the way.

    They came to me via a laptop screen and a blog post. So, I know they were intelligently designed.

  263. 263
    JVL says:

    This is all pretty funny I think. In 2005 Dr Dembski published a monograph, Specification: the pattern that signifies intelligence, where he clearly lays out a mathematical tool that could be used to detect design in objects and mathematical sequences. He uses mathematical sequences as some of his examples. He uses those sequences and asks how it could be determined if those sequences were randomly generated or came about via some scheme or design. He also, specifically, develops his tool so that foreknowledge of how they were generated is not necessary.

    That’s what I’m asking you folks: can you examine the sequences I gave you and see if they were randomly generated or came about via some kind of specification or scheme or design or plan.

    I didn’t say they came about by measuring some natural cause although I didn’t rule it out either. That shouldn’t matter according to Dr Dembski. In fact, when trying to determine if some mysterious object or thing was designed there would be no need for such a test if the source of the object was known!! It’s only use is when the source is NOT known.

    Again, the question is: were the sequences I gave you randomly generated or did they come about via some design or scheme, do they contain complex, specified information because of how they were generated?

    I’ve been told over and over and over again that there are design detection methods; I’d like to see you use those methods on the above sequences.

    Additionally, I find it incredibly amusing that not one of you recognised one of the sequences which I would expect a primary school child to know. That is just priceless!

  264. 264
    Fred Hickson says:

    JVL

    I find it incredibly amusing that not one of you recognised one of the sequences which I would expect a primary school child to know.

    Hmm. I didn’t learn about that sequence till secondary*. Maybe because the primary number was excluded and it starts now with the secondary one. 😉

    *Or I did and forgot. I am very old.

  265. 265
    ET says:

    Yes, JVL, your ignorance of science and ID are hilarious.

    That’s what I’m asking you folks: can you examine the sequences I gave you and see if they were randomly generated or came about via some kind of specification or scheme or design or plan.

    Your “challenge” doesn’t have anything to do with ID nor what Dembski has said.

    Clearly you are just an ignorant infant and apparently proud of it.

    Additionally, I find it incredibly amusing that not one of you recognised one of the sequences…

    That doesn’t follow at all. Clearly you are just a clueless child.

  266. 266
    ET says:

    JVL:

    Clearly Dr Dembski indicated that it should be possible to discern design or specified information knowing nothing at all about the source of the potential design.

    Right. We don’t know the source of living organisms. And yet we are able to discern intelligent design given our KNOWLEDGE of cause-and-effect relationships. And Dembski’s math helps us to do so.

    Archaeologists didn’t know the source of Stonehenge until they started to study it and all relevant evidence.

  267. 267
    JVL says:

    ET: Right. We don’t know the source of living organisms. And yet we are able to discern intelligent design given our KNOWLEDGE of cause-and-effect relationships. And Dembski’s math helps us to do so.

    Too bad you can’t use Dr Dembski’s mathematical tool yourself. Ah well, maybe someone else can.

  268. 268
    asauber says:

    JVL,

    Why don’t you, as an open-minded explorer, show us how Dembski’s tool does in the case of your mystery sequences?

    Andrew

  269. 269
    JVL says:

    Asauber: Why don’t you, as an open-minded explorer, show us how Dembski’s tool does in the case of your mystery sequences?

    a) I don’t have to ’cause I know where the sequences came from and b) I don’t believe his tool is a valid or useable way to detect design. I do understand what he was trying to accomplish however. I think some of his comments in the monograph are quite good and pertinent in fact. I just don’t find his final formulation valid or even useable in some situations. Considering how often it ever got used I think my views on it are correct.

    One of the sequences you should recognise.

  270. 270
    ET says:

    JVL:

    Too bad you can’t use Dr Dembski’s mathematical tool yourself.

    Too bad you are a willfully ignorant tool. Dembski’s mathematical tool doesn’t have anything to do with your idiotic challenge.

    Again, the purpose of the design inference is to be able to determine when nature, operating freely, produced some effect or was an intelligent agency involved. That said, if we saw any of JVL’s numeric sequences etched into a wall of a cave, we would infer an intelligent agency was involved. The question of randomness or a distinct pattern is secondary. And coded messages can appear to be random.

    The bottom line is JVL’s “challenge” is that of a desperate child who doesn’t understand science and is clueless about detecting intelligent design.

  271. 271
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL, games with empty sequences do not tell us anything, whether fib’s numbers or succession of primes. In Contact, the issue was a SIGNAL recognised as it is so implausible for the primes to be produced by noise. Where, signal vs noise shows how deeply embedded the design inference is in a central field of science and technology, information and communication. Well do I remember my awe at looking at grass on a D52 scope screen. Then, looking at signal. I remember being told I danced a jig when my first, phase shift oscillator circuit as a de novo design, duly popped up with a clean sinusoid. Which of course would be something else pointing to design as a clean carrier is hard to do. KF

    Scope grass https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Znwp0pK8Tzk

  272. 272
    JVL says:

    ET: Again, the purpose of the design inference is to be able to determine when nature, operating freely, produced some effect or was an intelligent agency involved.

    Funny that Dr Dembski used coin flipping as an example then.

    And coded messages can appear to be random.

    Which is the point of Dr Dembski’s test is it not?

    The bottom line is JVL’s “challenge” is that of a desperate child who doesn’t understand science and is clueless about detecting intelligent design.

    Look, Dr Dembski clearly designed his tool so it could be used against numerical sequences; he used numerical sequences as some of his examples. If you are unable to apply his rule to the sequences I gave you then why not just say so instead of calling names?

  273. 273
    JVL says:

    Kairosfocus: games with empty sequences do not tell us anything, whether fib’s numbers or succession of primes

    Why should that be? If you think the Fibonacci sequence or the primes are designed then should not Dr Dembski’s test flag them up as so? (The question of the primes is a good one, almost philosophical. Where DO they come from? Not from our representation of them. Not from our culture(s).)

    If Dr Dembski, who used numerical sequences as examples, did not mean his test to be valid for testing such things then why did he use them as examples?

    Plus . . . since you brought it up . . . Let’s say we did detect a signal from deep space, like in the movie Contact, but with no pattern we could discern. How would you attempt to decide if it was natural or random or designed?

  274. 274
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL, coin flipping trains give binary sequences, if you do a simple coin flip of 500 coins and it comes up ascii message in English for 71 characters, head to Vegas before the hot streak fades. And this is a valid use as well you know, red herrings, strawmen and confusing clouds notwithstanding. KF

    PS, if it looks like noise unless you have a decoding key, the safe bet made by the design inference filter as well you know is, it’s noise. Earlier you gave a sequence you note I said looks like a population boom bust chain. It did and does.

  275. 275
    JVL says:

    Kairosfocus: coin flipping trains give binary sequences, if you do a simple coin flip of 500 coins and it comes up ascii message in English for 71 characters, head to Vegas before the hot streak fades. And this is a valid use as well you know, red herrings, strawmen and confusing clouds notwithstanding.

    Where in Dr Dembski monograph does he state that only coin flip sequences are allowed?

    Look, if you can’t use Dr Dembski’s tool on the sequences I provided then just say so. What’s wrong with that? If there is a particular aspect or sub-section of his metric that you find confusing why not just bring that up and see if someone else can help with that?

    Earlier you gave a sequence you note I said looks like a population boom bust chain. It did and does.

    That’s not where it came from though. And wouldn’t a population boom/bust chain also be designed or have a pattern?

  276. 276
    ET says:

    JVL:

    Funny that Dr Dembski used coin flipping as an example then.

    CONTEXT is provided. And the check is to see if it was a fair coin toss. CONTEXT.

    And coded messages can appear to be random.

    Which is the point of Dr Dembski’s test is it not?

    It is not.

    Look, Dr Dembski clearly designed his tool so it could be used against numerical sequences;

    Clearly you cannot give an example of his using it in such a way.

  277. 277
    ET says:

    JVL:

    Where in Dr Dembski monograph does he state that only coin flip sequences are allowed?

    Where, in ANYTHING he has written, does he state it can be used as you are suggesting? I will tell you- he NEVER does.

    And when he uses it for coin tosses we know the CONTEXT. We know what he is trying to uncover.

    JVL erected a strawman because he is ignorant and desperate. Then when he is exposed he just continues down the path to prove he just doesn’t care.

  278. 278
    JVL says:

    ET: And coded messages can appear to be random.

    And surely the point of a test is to distinguish between what is actually random and what appears to be random. Isn’t that what Dr Dembski was addressing?

    Clearly you cannot give an example of his using it in such a way.

    I guess you haven’t read the monograph then.

    Where, in ANYTHING he has written, does he state it can be used as you are suggesting? I will tell you- he NEVER does.

    Where does he say it can’t be used that way? In fact, does he not state that his test or method should be widely applicable to lots of situations? As does he not use simple, mathematical sequences as examples?

    What do you think Dr Dembski’s test was for? If he intended it to be used then surely the examples he used would be the kind of things he intended it to be used for. Why else would they be examples?

    And when he uses it for coin tosses we know the CONTEXT. We know what he is trying to uncover.

    So, let me get this straight . . . you think you can only use Dr Dembski’s test when you already know how a sequence was generated? What’s the point of that? I’m sure that’s not what he intended. I’m sure he was trying to propose a test that could be used when no clear generation was available. Again, what would be the point otherwise?

    JVL erected a strawman because he is ignorant and desperate. Then when he is exposed he just continues down the path to prove he just doesn’t care.

    Just think about it. What’s the point of proposing a test for complex, specified information, design, if you only apply it when you know how the thing came about? There is no point in doing that. And I don’t think that’s what Dr Dembski was working towards.

    Since you don’t seem able to follow through on his mathematics to see if his metric works then I understand why you would fall back to an argument which he clearly was trying to supersede. Again, what is the point of proposing a test if using the test supposes knowing how the pattern arose?

    I tell you what, why don’t you suggest a situation where Dr Dembski’s test could and should be applied. Make something up and let’s see.

    And, why don’t you actually address the sequences I put forward. Why don’t you actually try and see if they were randomly generated or show some trace of design or complex, specified information.

    Or admit that you cannot do that. As any honourable person would do. Your call.

  279. 279
    ET says:

    JVL:

    What’s the point of proposing a test for complex, specified information, design, if you only apply it when you know how the thing came about?

    You are one willfully ignorant infant.

    We apply it to biological organisms to DETERMINE HOW THEY CAME ABOUT- via intelligent design or blind and mindless processes. So, obviously you are just stupid and shouldn’t be discussing this.

    And shut up. I have read more of Dembski’s writings than you have. He NEVER proposes a case that is without context. He NEVER presents a numeric sequence and says guess/ determine the cause.

    Again, in the coin-toss scenario we apply Dembski’s methodology to see if that coin-toss was fair or not.

  280. 280
    ET says:

    JVL:

    And surely the point of a test is to distinguish between what is actually random and what appears to be random. Isn’t that what Dr Dembski was addressing?

    It depends on the CONTEXT. Random or not is only when we know that intelligent agencies were involved and wanted to know if their involvement biased the results.

    You may have read something he wrote. But you clearly did not understand it.

  281. 281
    JVL says:

    ET: We apply it to biological organisms to DETERMINE HOW THEY CAME ABOUT- via intelligent design or blind and mindless processes.

    But you already think biological systems were intelligently designed so you’ll never use it for that.

    Again, in the coin-toss scenario we apply Dembski’s methodology to see if that coin-toss was fair or not.

    Fair or unbiased or random. That’s what I’m asking you to determine about the sequences I provided.

    It depends on the CONTEXT. Random or not is only when we know that intelligent agencies were involved and wanted to know if their involvement biased the results.

    So, you can’t use the test on biological systems because the whole point is to determine if intelligent agencies were involved!

    Too funny. In the end you never actually use the test.

    What if I gave you a coin flip sequence, just like what Dr Dembski used. Could you apply the test then?

  282. 282
    ET says:

    JVL:

    But you already think biological systems were intelligently designed so you’ll never use it for that.

    You are clearly an imbecile. We infer living organisms were designed because we used it.

    Fair or unbiased or random. That’s what I’m asking you to determine about the sequences I provided.

    CONTEXT. Without the CONTEXT no one cares. Clearly you are just a moron.

    So, you can’t use the test on biological systems because the whole point is to determine if intelligent agencies were involved!

    We used it on living organisms. That is how and why we know they were intelligently designed.

    On the other hand you have nothing. No evidence. No science. And no methodology.

    What if I gave you a coin flip sequence, just like what Dr Dembski used. Could you apply the test then?

    Why don’t you shut up and stop acting like a belligerent infant? You clearly don’t know what you are talking about. And you have been exposed as an ignorant and petulant child.

  283. 283
    JVL says:

    ET: We infer living organisms were designed because we used it.

    Okay. I’d like to see how you used the formula from Dr Dembski’s 2005 monograph to determine organisms were designed. I’m interested in the actual calculations.

    CONTEXT. Without the CONTEXT no one cares. Clearly you are just a moron.

    I don’t understand the point of a test unless the context in which the thing be tested came about is unknown. But, I let it pass.

    Why don’t you shut up and stop acting like a belligerent infant? You clearly don’t know what you are talking about. And you have been exposed as an ignorant and petulant child.

    If I gave you a coin flip sequence like those used as examples by Dr Dembski in his monograph could you do the calculations, yes or no?

  284. 284
    ET says:

    Do it for yourself. Or read more from Dembski, Behe and Meyer. Why are you so hung up on Dembski’s paper on specification?

    And no, I will not play your childish games. Only losers think that science is a game and here you are. So far in this thread you have been proven to be a liar, an ignorant child and a clueless twit.

  285. 285
    JVL says:

    ET: Do it for yourself. Or read more from Dembski, Behe and Meyer. Why are you so hung up on Dembski’s paper on specification?

    It’s a actual procedure that potentially could be used to detect design. But I don’t think it’s ever actually been used so I’m curious if anyone here can actually or has actually used it. I’d just like to see someone step through the calculations. If I do it you could accuse me of getting it wrong so I’d rather you or another ID proponent do it.

    And no, I will not play your childish games. Only losers think that science is a game and here you are. So far in this thread you have been proven to be a liar, an ignorant child and a clueless twit.

    One of the smartest ID proponent around proposed a testing tool for design and I’d like to know if anyone has used it or can use it. What’s wrong with that? If you can’t use it then just admit it, what’s wrong with that? Why do you always have to get so abusive when someone starts asking serious questions? It’s like you’re afraid to answer honestly or something.

    I would think you’d be interested in seeing if the thing works or not. It seems to me that if it does it would give you a real objective leg up in the ongoing debate.

  286. 286
    ET says:

    No one cares what you think, JVL. No one. It has been used and intelligent design was the result. I know it works. And you don’t have anything. So there really isn’t any debate.

  287. 287
    JVL says:

    ET: It has been used and intelligent design was the result. I know it works.

    Well, can you show me some documentation of how and when it was used and hopefully the calculations made? If you can’t just say so.

  288. 288
    Upright BiPed says:

    .
    JVL,

    You have been given an inference to design in biology that you cannot refute. In fact, you were eventually forced to agree to the historical and experimental facts that support the inference. But you chose to deny that inference based on the use of a common logical fallacy. You denied the inference not based on the actual experimental facts and data that researchers have documented in the literature, but by the undemonstrated beliefs of authorities. You actually reasoned that recorded history and documented experimental results are invalidated by the mere speculation of authority figures. When this was brought to your attention, you simply repeated the fallacy, and can now do no more than repeat it again and again.

    This has all been documented in excruciating detail on these pages over a long period of time. The exchanges where you launch your fallacies have been copied and pasted (and put back in front of you) dozens of times. In fact, you have basically become is a lab rat – a demonstration – on how an educated ID critic repeatedly avoids and denies documented science and history that they cannot even begin to refute — universal physical evidence that is not even controversial. You then made matters worse by enthusiastically endorsing the exact same design inference that you completely deny to ID. This is the double-standard fallacy we’ve talked about many many times. And here again, when confronted with this, you became patently dishonest – suggesting that you said things you never said. You were even willing to blow up your entire (enthusiastic) reasoning — just to avoid having to deal with the obvious contradictions you put on the table. And all along, you attack me in order to divert attention away from the incoherence in your reasoning.

    You admit to none of this. You admit to none of this, no matter how many times your own words are copied and pasted and put back in front of you. This is the lab rat demonstration – which you never fail, and will not fail the next time I put it in front of you (as we all will observe). If you respond to this comment with a defense of your reasoning, you will do it then.

  289. 289
    JVL says:

    Upright BiPed:

    At the moment the question is: can anyone show me how to use the test laid out in Dr Dembski’s 2005 monograph? I’ve provided some mathematical sequences to test and offered to provide others but no one has stepped up to deal with those. I’ve asked for examples of how that test has actually been used in the past and no one has stepped up.

    Perhaps you’d like to fill in some of those gaps? Can you show me how to apply Dr Dembski’s test or not?

    If you’d rather dredge over past conversations well, I guess I can do that, but I’d rather address the current topic on the table.

  290. 290
    Upright BiPed says:

    .

    If you’d rather dredge over past conversations well, I guess I can do that, but I’d rather address the current topic on the table.

    You’d rather skip over the blatant logical fallacies you use to deny the documented history and experimental results behind design inference? You’d rather skip over your enthusiastic endorsement of the exact design inference that you deny to ID?

    No doubt.

  291. 291
    Upright BiPed says:

    .
    JVL,

    In 1948, John Von Neumann gave a series of lectures where he used Alan Turing’s 1933 machine to predict the necessary logical conditions required for autonomous open-ended self-replication. The prediction required (among other things) two sets of objects: a sequence of symbols and a set of encoded constraints that would establish what the symbols represented within the system. This arrangement would enable the use of machine language to specify a system of three critical functions — construction, copying, and control. In 1953, Francis Crick and James Watson discovered the necessary sequence structure of Von Neumann’s prediction, using an image (Image #51) produced by Rosalind Franklin. Later, working with Sydney Brenner in 1955, Crick predicted that a second set of objects (a set of 20 proteins) would be found working in the system, and it would be the role of this second set of objects to establish what the genetic symbols were to represent within the system. That second set of objects (aaRS) were discovered in 1956-58 by Paul Zamecnik and Mahlon Hoaglon, not only confirming Crick’s “adapter hypothesis”, but also Von Neumann’s prediction that the association between symbol and referent would be established by an encoded “quiescent” description. Then in 1961, Crick and Brenner demonstrated that the genetic symbol (the codon) was indeed three bases in length, and later that same year Marshall Nirenberg established the first symbolic relationship within the gene, setting off a race to decipher the entire Genetic Code, which was completed in 1966. This represents a complete confirmation of Von Neumann’s prediction, and has been widely-acknowledged. As a later extension of that confirmation, the genetic symbol system was analyzed using the language of physics and described as a system of “rate-independent control of a rate-dependent process”, establishing the necessary “epistemic cut” (Von Neumann), and requiring “semiotic closure” in order to function. This is all well documented in the literature.

    The design inference is thus a matter of historical record. And you say its invalid.

    Since you reason that undemonstrated belief invalidates historical and experimental facts, can you explain to us what metric you used to determine exactly when belief invalidates experimental result?

  292. 292
    JVL says:

    Upright BiPed: You’d rather skip over the blatant logical fallacies you use to deny the documented history and experimental results behind design inference? You’d rather skip over your enthusiastic endorsement of the exact design inference that you deny to ID?

    While I am honoured and flattered that you stalk me about this site, interrupting conversations I am having with other people to bring up the same topics we have already discussed I’m not sure what else or new I can bring to our previous conversations. Would you like me to send a signed photograph?

    I am really interested in your view of the topic I was actually discussing with ET and Kairosfocus if you’d care to offer your view.

  293. 293
    Upright BiPed says:

    .

    While I am honoured and flattered that you stalk me about this site

    JVL,

    You sometimes seem to intimate that it is somehow impolite or unsavory to keep asking you about your past comments here. Then I think, well, that can’t be true, since you are here now demanding a bunch of non-mathematicians justify what a mathematician wrote more than a decade ago.

    With that in mind, would you please unscramble this mess (after all, this is your current position):

    JVL: I would not be surprised at all if we find electromagnetic evidence of intelligent beings in other solar systems

    UB: How would we know if we found “electromagnetic evidence of intelligent beings”? What would that be?

    JVL: Something like in the movie Contact. A signal that’s very clearly NOT produced by unguided processes. A signal which, after inspection, was shown to have compressed data.

    UB: So you accept encoded symbolic content as a universal inference to the presence of an unknown intelligence in one domain, while immediately denying that same physical evidence in another domain.

    Why the double standard?

    JVL: Because there is no plausible designer available.

    (…)

    And after you are asked “Then who is the designer in your signal from space”, (suddenly realizing that you cannot answer that question without clearly demonstrating the double-standard in your reasoning), you reply:

    JVL: There isn’t one.

    (thud)

    This may be a point where you need to remember the reason I keep putting your own words back in front of you is because of your intent to stay here and berate ID proponents even after your position (that there is no valid evidence of design in biology) has been refuted — refuted to the point that you must rely on logical fallacies, double-standards, (and digs me of course) in order to maintain your position.

    You might also want to remember that you were never asked to believe ID, but only to acknowledge the validity of the history and experimental results behind the inference. You chose not to.

  294. 294
    JVL says:

    Upright BiPed: You sometimes seem to intimate that it is somehow impolite or unsavory to keep asking you about your past comments here. Then I think, well, that can’t be true, since you are here now demanding a bunch of non-mathematicians justify what a mathematician wrote more than a decade ago.

    I hear from you guys that you fully support what Dr Dembski wrote in his monograph. So, reasonably, I ask if you’ve actually used it and if you can provide an example of it being used. It’s really down to you: do you think that Dr Dembski’s work is a useful and useable tool for design detection or isn’t it? If it is then you should be able to provide examples of how it it used and is useful. Perfectly reasonable questions. AND, if you can’t answer those questions you can always say so.

    With that in mind, would you please unscramble this mess (after all, this is your current thinking):

    Since I’ve already addressed those issues several times I’m wondering why you keep asking me to do it again.

    Is it because you are so enamoured of my deathless prose that you just want to have another example to fawn over?

    Is it because you didn’t get what I’ve already said many times?

    Is it because you’re just a jerk who thinks it’s funny making me repeat myself?

    Is it because you think I’m going to eventually fade in the face of your continual onslaught of intellectually challenging queries?

    I just don’t get it. I’ve got nothing new to add. Unlike you, I’m not following you around this site demanding that you capitulate; I’ve accepted the fact that we’re going to disagree on some things and I’m happy with that. You are not. I guess you just can’t get over the fact that someone disagrees with you. Good luck with that.

    This may be a point where you need to remember the reason I keep putting your own words back in front of you is because of your intent to stay here and berate ID proponents even after your position (that there is no valid evidence of design in biology) has been refuted — refuted to the point that you must rely on logical fallacies, double-standards, (and digs me of course) in order to maintain your position.

    If you’ve already invalidated my view why do you insist on following me around and saying it over and over and over again? Are you afraid that someone might take me seriously? Might think that I have a point worth considering? Might forget that the great Upright BiPed has another view? Which they could express without being so personally directed?

    You might also want to remember that you were never asked to believe ID, but only to acknowledge the validity of the history and experimental results behind the inference. You chose not to.

    I agreed with all of Dr Pattee’s work. But since he did not endorse ID I didn’t take that step. You know he didn’t endorse ID. You cannot find a place where he did endorse ID. I’ve found at least one time when he criticised ID.

    The semiotics community has not come out in support of ID. That is a fact. The SETI researchers have not come out in support of ID. That is a fact. You want to assume and extend what they have said and support so that it supports your beliefs and views. But they have not done so. Until you learn to live with that AND find out why they have not extended their support you are always just going to be on the fringe of the science. And it’s not just down to them all being scared of losing their pensions. That is a fallacy. NO ONE has expressed that feor or brought that up. That’s just you trying to defend your position by making something up.

    If you want to do science then work with the real data, not the made up data. Work with the real research, the published work, the actual statements made by the researchers. Do not suppose and guess what you think they really meant. Just deal with what they actually said. And didn’t say.

  295. 295
    Upright BiPed says:

    Since I’ve already addressed those issues several times I’m wondering why you keep asking me to do it again.

    You’ve addressed the logical fallacy in your reasoning — that the undemonstrated beliefs of authority figures invalidate recorded history and experimental result?? Where? What’s your answer? Is it not just a repetition of the fallacy itself?

  296. 296
    JVL says:

    Upright BiPed: You’ve addressed the logical fallacy in your reasoning — that the undemonstrated beliefs of authority figures invalidate recorded history and experimental result?? Where? What’s your answer? Is it not just a repetition of the fallacy itself?

    You know I’ve said my piece. I know I’ve said my piece. What else do you want me to say?

    How many times are you going to follow me around this site and ask me to repeat my reasons again? How long are you going to stalk me? You need to stop your weird and strange fixation on what I’ve said. You need to learn that some things you cannot change. You need to grow up.

    You must think my particular objections and stance are dangerous to your beliefs or you wouldn’t persecute me as you do. Unless you’re personally fascinated by me like some weird teenager. Which is it? Why do you have to keep pestering me? Why should you care so much? Because i pointed out that one of your heroes had not actually supported your interpretation of their work? Does that hurt? Had no one actually pointed that out before? Why didn’t you admit that to yourself before?

    You need to learn to deal with the actual data and not just your suppositions.

  297. 297
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    JVL
    How long are you going to stalk me?

    Poor JVL always somebody persecute you because you tell the truth as it is. :)))
    One day you might understand that a number is a coded symbol that stand for something else. A convention decided by an intelligence(as opposed to a frozen natural law ).

  298. 298
    Upright BiPed says:

    .
    That was truly quite juvenile, JVL.

    Spitting at the wind. Rocking back and forth in your seat.

    Here are a couple of tidbits for you:

    #1. The undemonstrated beliefs of investigators do not invalidate recorded history or experimental result. Full stop. You, of course, know this very well because you yourself have made this very point on these pages. This means you know it to be a logical fallacy, yet it is the very thing you use to claim that the design inference as invalid.

    #2. The use of language in a system of symbols is a universal correlate of intelligence. Full stop. And here again, you know this to be true, given that you enthusiastically endorsed that exact reasoning in your own design inference from outer space. And yet, when confronted with the contradiction in your position, you immediately deploy an ad hoc double-standard to avoid the design inference in ID — even going so far as to summersault into complete incoherence just to avoid the obvious.

    And yet, you still want to stay here and attack design proponents over their use of logic and reason.

    It is truly anyone’s guess as to why you think you should get a pass on the things you say. It’s as if you believe the contradictions that enable your reasoning are simply not supposed to matter. It’s as if they are supposed to off-limits; not to be subject to examination by the people you are here to criticize. It’s as if you want to say “I’ve answered that criticism by repeating the fallacy, so you cannot question me about it any more”. What a grotesque privilege you believe I owe you.

    I can tell you one thing for sure. As long as you give yourself permission to attack the messenger for pointing out the flaws in your reasoning, you should not expect to get a pass from me

  299. 299
    Fred Hickson says:

    He’s back and as full of charm as ever!

  300. 300
    Fred Hickson says:

    RNA catalyst and replicator drives coach and horses through UB’s “semiotic hypothesis”.

  301. 301
    Upright BiPed says:

    .
    There is no need for any concern Fred. JVL made his own bed.

    And as I have already responded to you, if you have something to say to me, then by all means, say it.

  302. 302
    ET says:

    JVL- comment 141. The design threshold is less than 500 bits- per Dembski.

  303. 303
    ET says:

    Fred Hickson:

    RNA catalyst and replicator drives coach and horses through UB’s “semiotic hypothesis”.

    What does that mean? Is imbecilic gibberish the best you have?

    BTW, semiotics is the observation-> mRNA codons REPRESENT amino acids. That is the epitome of a code.

    RNAs producing RNAs does nothing with respect to explaining the genetic code.

  304. 304
    ET says:

    JVL:

    You need to learn to deal with the actual data and not just your suppositions.

    Said the person who is afraid of the actual data…

    I hear from you guys that you fully support what Dr Dembski wrote in his monograph.

    Why are you so focused on that ONE article? You know he has written more than that. And those other books and articles are also very relevant.

    Comment 141.

  305. 305
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL and FH, UB is clearly right on the merits. KF

    PS, JVL you have been repeatedly told that complex specific, configuration based function is first observed then on the sign design is inferred. You have even been given further examples. The Fib sequence or related matters such as phi or spirals etc might show up as a case where this being evidently a compositional principle [shape of Parthenon] and not either a myth or a mechanical constraint then it would point to art. Rounding periods between quasar pulses to seconds or similar population boom bust numbers do not point to any detachable specification. Flipping 500 coins and seeing within fluctuation h-T ratios with no evident pattern looks like chance, but an ASCII message in good English would be design. And more.

  306. 306
    Fred Hickson says:

    Hi UB,

    My point is that your whole “semiosis” argument fails on the existence of RNA and its dual role as replicator and catalyst.

  307. 307
    Upright BiPed says:

    .
    Oh okay, Fred.

    How do you figure that that?

  308. 308
    Upright BiPed says:

    .
    Fred,

    Being able to play a “dual role” (as a catalyst and as an information carrier like mRNA) implies that there are certain conditions that enable the RNA to play those two roles. What are the necessary physical conditions for RNA to be an information carrier like mRNA?

  309. 309
    Fred Hickson says:

    Well, the facts about RNA are what they are. RNA world as a precursor to your chicken-and-egg conundrum of whether DNA as template and replicator could evolve before protein as catalysts or vice versa solves the problem.

    ETA excuse edit. Fat fingers and phone.

  310. 310
  311. 311
    Upright BiPed says:

    .
    Fred, I don’t propose “a chicken-and-egg conundrum of whether DNA as template and replicator could evolve before protein as catalysts”.

    Fred … what are the necessary physical conditions required for RNA to serve the role as a carrier of information like mRNA?

    Edit : Fred I don’t want you to think I am ignoring the article you suggested. We will certainly get to it, but your first comment seems so far off the mark that I think we should first try to get a little closer to the target before we go into it.

  312. 312
    Fred Hickson says:

    …what are the necessary physical conditions required for RNA to serve the role as a carrier of information like mRNA?

    If an RNA replicates (and it does) and that molecule has catalytic activity (they can) mRNA isn’t a separate role.

  313. 313
    Fred Hickson says:

    I’m not in an ideal place and time for commenting currently. I was just pleased to catch you. There is absolutely no rush.

  314. 314
    ET says:

    Fred Hickson:

    My point is that your whole “semiosis” argument fails on the existence of RNA and its dual role as replicator and catalyst.

    That doesn’t follow.

    There isn’t any evidence for any RNA world. DNA based life requires an existing suite of specialized proteins and a specific coded information processing system. And there isn’t any connection between RNA being a replicator and a catalyst and the genetic code.

    You clearly don’t understand the argument or the evidence.

  315. 315
    Upright BiPed says:

    .
    I understand completely.

    I have a monster day tomorrow and another on Friday. If it is okay with you, I will try to answer your #312 before then, and will otherwise try to make myself available to comment over the weekend.

  316. 316
    ET says:

    Fred Hickson:

    If an RNA replicates (and it does) and that molecule has catalytic activity (they can) mRNA isn’t a separate role.

    What? mRNA neither replicates nor is it a catalyst. mRNA REPRESENTS amino acids. mRNA is the SYMBOL.

    Where is the SYMBOL in your RNA world?

  317. 317
    Fred Hickson says:

    I have a monster day tomorrow and another on Friday. If it is okay with you, I will try to answer your #312 before then, and will otherwise try to make myself available to comment over the weekend.

    Great. I’ll keep some time spare.

  318. 318
    ET says:

    Great. I’ll get the popcorn ready. Fred is already claiming victory and he doesn’t even understand the argument.

  319. 319
    Querius says:

    What amazes me is just how many miracles Darwinism relies on.

    – Miracles of the formation of large molecules for no reason.
    – Miracles for the persistence of such molecules defying entropy.
    – Miracles of the ability for the large molecules to replicate for no reason.
    – Miracles for the molecules to reprogram themselves randomly and for error correcting.
    – Miracles of semi-permeable membranes to form spontaneously for no reason.
    – Miracles for the insane complexity of interlocking chemical cycles that form spontaneously.
    – Miracles for ratcheting up complexity despite it’s never ever being directly observed.
    – Miracles of convergent, parallel, recurrent evolution.
    – Miracles of rapid evolution such as the Cambrian explosion.

    And everything always happens under a magical black cape of deep time, professed ignorance, and solemn assurances. The magic incantation of “mighta-coulda-musta” is pronounced and the speculations miraculously turn into fact!

    Here are some challenges that Darwinists always evade:

    1. Since the LD 50 /30 of bacteria is very high, expose them to enough ionizing radiation to cause a high level of random mutations that simulate the background radiation of millions of years.

    For example, D. radiodurans is an extremophile with an LD 50 /30 of ~500,000 rads while current levels of background radiation are about 0.05 rads per year. So blasting a large population of these bacteria with 500,000 rads is roughly simulates of the mutation rate of 10 million years. Doing this 100 times, will simulate about a billion years of evolution. However, it’s believed that background radiation was about 10x when life first appeared on earth, so maybe zap them 500 times. Doing this carefully should yield chihuahuas and chickadees.

    2. Subject a large population of bacteria to mechanical disintegration–make them into a bacteria smoothie. Next, subject the bio-smoothie to a range of permutations of ionizing radiation, various gases, electrical discharges, heat, cold, and loud heavy metal. How long will it take for these components to evolve back into at least bacteria?

    3. Simulate evolution on a computer by randomly mutating an executable and subject it to some natural selection criteria that includes self-replication. On a fast computer, one should be able to force billions and billions of random mutations. Every few minutes run the executable, eliminating any that crash. After the equivalent of 4.5 billion years of evolution, you should then have an amazing new program!

    4. Disassemble a mechanical wristwatch and put it into a paint can. Mount the paint can into a paint shaker and let it run until it reassembles some of its components. Glue the correctly reassembled parts together and put them all back into the paint shaker. Repeat until the entire watch is reassembled.

    -Q

  320. 320
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    The RNA World scenario is bad as a scientific hypothesis: it is hardly falsifiable and is extremely difficult to verify due to a great number of holes in the most important parts. To wit, no one has achieved bona fide self-replication of RNA which is the cornerstone of the RNA World. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3495036/

    Imagining the origin of the largest rRNA (23S rRNA 2,904 nucleotide long in E. coli) that is the key component in peptidyl transferase it’s believing that pigs can fly . Darwinists need a miracle therefore they need God to prove their materialist hypothesis. 😆

    Also RNA world could not explain the emergence of the genetic code.

  321. 321
    ET says:

    Fred is clueless, people. This proves he doesn’t have a clue:

    If an RNA replicates (and it does) and that molecule has catalytic activity (they can) mRNA isn’t a separate role.

    mRNA doesn’t replicate nor is it a catalyst. mRNA is a coded information carrier. Fred will continue to ignore that reality and prattle on. Fred doesn’t have any integrity.

  322. 322
    Querius says:

    Lieutenant Commander Data and ET,

    Fred seems to have abandoned this conversation to start from scratch (!) with the same unsupported assertions in a more recent one. This is typical troll behavior.

    -Q

  323. 323
    ET says:

    Fred/ Alan has a strange fixation with upright biped. Fred will be back when upright biped responds, again.

  324. 324
    Fred Hickson says:

    Querius, I don’t see much mileage in addressing your comment at 319. Too much straw.

  325. 325
    ET says:

    False accusations are much easier than actually forming an argument. And the blatant hypocrisy of claiming a strawman in the face of what Fred said -> If an RNA replicates (and it does) and that molecule has catalytic activity (they can) mRNA isn’t a separate role., is hilarious. As I have explained, there is so much straw in that one sentence.

  326. 326
    Querius says:

    Querius, I don’t see much mileage in addressing your comment at 319. Too much straw.

    Neat! I can add this one to my collection of trollbot evasions.

    In this case, it was to my “Here are some challenges that Darwinists always evade.” Thank you for proving my point!

    -Q

  327. 327
    Upright BiPed says:

    .
    #312

    UB: What are the necessary physical conditions required for RNA to serve the role as a carrier of information like mRNA?

    Fred: If an RNA replicates (and it does) and that molecule has catalytic activity (they can) mRNA isn’t a separate role

    Fred, when an RNA replicates, the end result of that process is determined by the physical properties of the RNA. When an RNA provides catalytic activity, again the end result of that process is determined by the physical properties of the RNA (acting upon its reactant molecules). Both of those processes are measurable and reversible in principle. But when mRNA is used to specify a particular amino acid during gene expression, it is a discontinuous process and is non-reversible. While any and all of these processes must faithfully follow physical law, the fact of the matter is that the physical structure of the mRNA does not determine the end result — it does not determine which amino acid will be presented for binding inside the ribosome. The establishment of the codon-to-anticodon relationship is spatially and temporally independent of the anticodon-to-amino acid relationship. This is what gives the system the degrees of freedom it requires in order to function as it does, where it is able to specify a particular protein, as well as any variation of that protein. In short, the systematic capacity of mRNA to carry the specification of an amino acid does not stem from the structure of the RNA, but from the structure of a separate molecule — a non-holonomic constraint, aaRS.

    So if we recast your statement and include the missing context …

    If an RNA replicates (based on the dynamic structure of the RNA) and if that RNA has catalytic activity (based on the dynamic structure of the RNA) then the message-carrying capacity of messenger RNA (which is not based on the dynamic structure of the RNA) is not a separate role from replication or catalytic activity.

    … then hopefully the fundamental problem with the statement becomes evident.

  328. 328
    Fred Hickson says:

    UB, you may have missed my point. In a RNA world scenario there is no protein, the equivalent work is done by ribozymes.

  329. 329
    Fred Hickson says:

    Querius, I respond here as I have time. I don’t respond to everything. The most egregious nonsense doesn’t need a response. Take credit for the time I have spent on some of your comments, it’s not personal.

  330. 330
    Upright BiPed says:

    .
    Fred,

    Two things:

    #1
    The public is constantly told that RNA can carry the information in the genome as well as provide the catalytic activity of proteins. So the question was: ”What are the necessary physical conditions required for RNA to serve the role as a carrier of information like mRNA?” You indeed must have understood the question, since you yourself mentioned mRNA in your answer “mRNA isn’t a separate role”. So I am afraid it is not me that missed the point.

    #2
    Ribozymes do not replace aaRS. You have your parts mixed up.

  331. 331
    Fred Hickson says:

    It’s late for me so further detailed response will have to wait till morning but…

    Fred, when an RNA replicates, the end result of that process is determined by the physical properties of the RNA. When an RNA provides catalytic activity, again the end result of that process is determined by the physical properties of the RNA (acting upon its reactant molecules). Both of those processes are measurable and reversible in principle. But when mRNA is used to specify a particular amino acid during gene expression, it is a discontinuous process and is non-reversible. While any and all of these processes must faithfully follow physical law, the fact of the matter is that the physical structure of the mRNA does not determine the end result — it does not determine which amino acid will be presented for binding inside the ribosome. The establishment of the codon-to-anticodon relationship is spatially and temporally independent of the anticodon-to-amino acid relationship. This is what gives the system the degrees of freedom it requires in order to function as it does, where it is able to specify a particular protein, as well as any variation of that protein. In short, the systematic capacity of mRNA to carry the specification of an amino acid does not stem from the structure of the RNA, but from the structure of a separate molecule — a non-holonomic constraint, aaRS.

    I have no issue with this, even the “non-holonomic” which is strictly true as we are discussing (admittedly big) molecules, not robots.

    But what is found in cytoplasm today has not always existed. The origins of the systems we see are not all clearly evident from their current state The origin(s) remain speculative. Your point that the discontinuity between DNA acting purely as a template and protein acting in every other role (with those important and specific roles still played by RNA) is a very strong and effective one and would be even fatal but for the idea of simpler precursors. In an RNA world, with RNA playing both roles, there is no need for genetic codes or aminoacyl tRNA synthetases, as RNA only (only?) needs to replicate copies of itself. This reduces the challenge of chicken-and-egg from insoluble to a huge but not impossible one.

    Let me say, I’ve followed your progress in arguing for your “semiotic hypothesis” since, what – 2011?, and I think as you state it, it is a solid barrier I think also the core point is very simple, whether a precursor of an RNA world sidesteps your barrier. I think it does, though ten years or so ago, I didn’t.

  332. 332
    Fred Hickson says:

    Ribozymes do not replace aaRS. You have your parts mixed up.

    We both need to be more careful with clarification. The job of aaRSs did not exist in RNA world. The replicating RNA is the ribozyme. It doesn’t need any translating etc, it is a direct copy produced by one process, replication. Translation, DNA to protein, comes later. My challenge is to propose the steps that could have taken RNA world to DNA-protein world. Your challenge, should you wish to accept it, is to show no path is possible.

  333. 333
    Upright BiPed says:

    .
    I appreciate the candor.

    It is late. Too late to comment.

  334. 334
    ET says:

    Fred Hickson:

    you may have missed my point. In a RNA world scenario there is no protein, the equivalent work is done by ribozymes.

    There isn’t any evidence for any RNA world. Why do you ignore that reality? And without proteins you don’t have a living organism.

    My challenge is to propose the steps that could have taken RNA world to DNA-protein world.

    You can’t demonstrate the existence of any RNA world. So, you lost. There isn’t any link from RNA to DNA based life. So, you lost, again.

    In the 1990s a new problem was uncovered:

    “Each day our DNA is damaged by UV radiation, free radicals and other carcinogenic
    substances, but even without such external attacks, a DNA molecule is inherently unstable.
    Thousands of spontaneous changes to a cell’s genome occur on a daily basis. Furthermore,
    defects can also arise when DNA is copied during cell division, a process that occurs several
    million times every day in the human body.

    The reason our genetic material does not disintegrate into complete chemical chaos is that a
    host of molecular systems continuously monitor and repair DNA. The Nobel Prize in
    Chemistry 2015 awards three pioneering scientists who have mapped how several of these
    repair systems function at a detailed molecular level.

    In the early 1970s, scientists believed that DNA was an extremely stable molecule, but Tomas
    Lindahl demonstrated that DNA decays at a rate that ought to have made the development of
    life on Earth impossible. This insight led him to discover a molecular machinery, base
    excision repair, which constantly counteracts the collapse of our DNA.”
    (The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
    https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/2015/press.html)

    The consequences are huge. You can’t have DNA based life without an existing suite of specialized proteins that need to be coded in the DNA!!! Now I am sure that you will ignore that and prattle on because that is what you do.

  335. 335
    William J Murray says:

    Fred Hickson said:

    My challenge is to propose the steps that could have taken RNA world to DNA-protein world. Your challenge, should you wish to accept it, is to show no path is possible.

    “Show me how X is impossible” is an absurd challenge. C’mon, man. UB’s doesn’t have to show that such steps are impossible; they may be possible. Bare possibility is not an explanation for anything. The question is, even given an RNA world, how likely is the unguided (by intelligence) acquisition of those steps that end up with a functioning, physically-instantiated semiotic system?

  336. 336
    ET says:

    William- Fred can’t demonstrate the existence of any RNA world.

  337. 337
    William J Murray says:

    ET,
    I realize this, but even given one arguendo, so what?

    You can even give a non-IDer every single, individual part from a functioning organic entity, like a bacteria. Now what? Put the parts together and bring it to life. They can’t even begin to do that, and that’s giving them everything they need without requiring any explanation.

    It’s an exercise in a futile attempt to avoid the obvious, demonstrated by the challenge “show me X is impossible.”

    FH set this up by positioning himself as only having to show X is a bare possibility and UB’s burden is to show X impossible. Mind-boggling.

  338. 338
    ET says:

    Fred can’t show there is any possibility, though. He will make UB’s point.

  339. 339
    kairosfocus says:

    The point is, the ideology asserts the possibility, discards need to empirically show and announces success. KF

  340. 340
    Querius says:

    Upright Biped @327,
    Thank you for taking the time to write an excellent, detailed response.

    In short, the systematic capacity of mRNA to carry the specification of an amino acid does not stem from the structure of the RNA, but from the structure of a separate molecule — a non-holonomic constraint, aaRS.

    It seems that an RNA world is deeply flawed, useless without aaRS molecules. I suppose Fred Hickson will next ask us to believe in an aaRS world instead.

    William J Murray @337,

    FH set this up by positioning himself as only having to show X is a bare possibility and UB’s burden is to show X impossible. Mind-boggling.

    Great point! It’s rhetoric all the way down.

    Kairosfocus @339,
    Well said. In other words, science fantasy.

    -Q

  341. 341
    Fred Hickson says:

    <William Murray

    “Show me how X is impossible” is an absurd challenge.

    Unless I misunderstand what Upright Biped is claiming, he is equal to that challenge. Anyway, science is full of claims that processes will always or never happen, when circumstances are clearly defined. Water always runs downhill, water never runs uphill, what’s the difference?

  342. 342
    Fred Hickson says:

    It seems that an RNA world is deeply flawed, useless without aaRS molecules. I suppose Fred Hickson will next ask us to believe in an aaRS world instead.

    This makes no sense, especially in relation to anything I wrote.

    You know what aminoacyl tRNA synthetases do, I presume. Then ask yourself what role they could play in RNA world, where RNAs do the work of proteins.

  343. 343
    ET says:

    No one has to demonstrate a negative. It is up to the people making the positive claim to support it. Failure to do so is most often as negative as it gets. And there isn’t any evidence for any RNA world. You cannot provide any evidence for one. No one has.

    And then there is Spiegelman’s Monster.

    You know what aminoacyl tRNA synthetases do, I presume.

    Yes, they have very specific functions.

    Then ask yourself what role they could play in RNA world, where RNAs do the work of proteins.

    First, I need to see the evidence for any RNA world. Then I have to see evidence that such a world get around Spiegelman’s Monster. Especially since its existence confirms what we already know- nature tends towards the path of least resistance. Simple is best. Rocks are OK. Molecules doing nothing but existing is OK.

    Your imagination is not evidence. And the 2015 Nobel Prize in Chemistry was awarded to researchers who all but proved that DNA based life is impossible without the DNA coding for the very proteins it needs to remain as a viable (coded) information carrier.

  344. 344
    ET says:

    RNAs cannot do the work of proteins. So this:

    Then ask yourself what role they could play in RNA world, where RNAs do the work of proteins.

    is dishonest. RNAs do the work of, wait for it, RNAs.

  345. 345
    Querius says:

    . . . and ET scores! The crowd goes wild.

    -Q

  346. 346
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    Fred Hickson
    But what is found in cytoplasm today has not always existed.

    Fred “the hydrogen bond” Hickson. 😆

    Kairosfocus
    The point is, the ideology asserts the possibility, discards need to empirically show and announces success. KF

    Whatever story darwinists tell they can’t escape from the code problem . Without stored information (in DNA ) to be accessed “at will” by many different processes(also coded) there is no organisation , no synchronisation to start the process of division(how would happen the division process if there is no genetic information to be “divided” 🙂 ,no proofreading, no repair , in one word : no life. We talk about what colour have an unicorn seen by Darwin.

  347. 347
    Querius says:

    Lieutenant Commander Data @346,

    And the ability to store and process data (i.e. stimuli) is also designed using information. Speaking of which, I’m reminded to post this again for the benefit of newcomers here:

    Vlatko Vedral is a professor of Physics at the University of Oxford who specializes in quantum theory and whose research papers are widely cited expresses the concept this way:

    The most fundamental definition of reality is not matter or energy, but information–and it is the processing of information that lies at the root of all physical, biological, economic, and social phenomena.

    This is fascinating!

    -Q

  348. 348
    Fred Hickson says:

    RNAs cannot do the work of proteins.

    Ribozymes point out that you are incorrect. The point is that RNA (such as the essential element in ribosomes) can and do act as catalysts. I heartily concede proteins are better, but in RNA world proteins have not yet been born, RNA doesn’t have to do the job better than proteins, it only needs to be better than nothing. Incremental steps, ET, incremental steps.

  349. 349
    Fred Hickson says:

    And nothing would work without the complementary base pairing that depends on the emergent properties of…

    The hydrogen bond.

    😉

  350. 350
    ET says:

    Fred Hickson:

    Ribozymes point out that you are incorrect.

    No, they do not. Proteins are much more than enzymes.

    The point is that RNA (such as the essential element in ribosomes) can and do act as catalysts.

    I never said otherwise. The smallest such ribozyme is 5 nucleotides. # of which are the active sight. Very, very limited.

    I heartily concede proteins are better, but in RNA world proteins have not yet been born,…

    What RNA world? We are still waiting for any evidence for such a thing.

    … RNA doesn’t have to do the job better than proteins, it only needs to be better than nothing.

    Proteins have many different jobs. Jobs that RNAs cannot do. And there isn’t any evidence for any RNA world. So, your argument can’t even get started, really.

  351. 351
    Fred Hickson says:

    You’re not quite getting this, ET. RNA world is a precursor to both DNA and proteins. Before DNA and proteins, there was RNA doing both jobs because it’s emergent properties allow it to do both jobs, not as well as DNA and proteins do their jobs now but well enough for there to be metabolizing and reproducing entities who had a clear field, an empty niche, nothing but themselves to compete against.

  352. 352
    ET says:

    You’re not quite getting this, Fred. There isn’t any evidence for any RNA world. And the RNA world is a precursor to DNA and proteins only in your itty-bitty mind.

    Metabolizing? That’s just another word that you clearly don’t understand.

  353. 353
    Querius says:

    ET @352,

    This is a fool’s errand. Here’s why I think so.

    Even after providing Fred Hickson evidence from a cellular biologist that 20 cm long hydra do in fact exist, Fred Hickson was unwilling to acknowledge that he was wrong and abandon his skepticism to my original claim that I grew them in a high school Biology class.

    How much less likely is it that he will ever admit his misperceptions regarding RNA and ribozymes?

    I really don’t understand why anyone claiming to know anything about science is so closed-minded and unreceptive to learning. But it is what it is.

    -Q

  354. 354
    Upright BiPed says:

    .
    Fred,


    …“Show me how X is impossible” is an absurd challenge

    … No one has to demonstrate a negative. It is up to the people making the positive claim to support it

    … the ideology asserts the possibility, discards need to empirically show, and announces success

    … It’s rhetoric all the way down

    It doesn’t appear that the “house” much cares for your proposition, or the sincerity you have in proposing it.

    In any case … in your own words you’ve already demonstrated that the RNA World (conceived as a simple RNA replicator that can serve two roles; as a catalyst and as a “carrier of information”) cannot actually specify anything from an encoded medium of information like the genome.*

    Why this is a problem for proponents of the RNA World is a topic we will certainly get into, but first…

    You’ve asked me to participate in the infamous exercise where you are allowed to speculate anything you wish under any circumstances, while I am tasked with the job of having to prove that a thing did not happen (i.e. is not possible) in the deep unobservable past. Given that this is also an exercise where you yourself get to determine (along with your own self-interests) whether or not I have met the challenge, I believe you should first get your feet wet (as the saying goes). We can test the fairness of your judgement in a matter that is effectively straight up or straight down.

    I have argued for a good long time that there is a strong design inference in biology taken directly from the recorded history of science and experiment. If you’ve followed my comments as you suggest you have, then you should be familiar with the details of that inference. You surely also know that this design inference is comprised of generally unambiguous and uncontroversial lines of evidence. By this I mean, as an example, in 1948 did John Von Neumann give a series of lectures where he presented the logical requirements of an autonomous self-replicator with open-ended potential? There is only one reasonable answer to that question. The answer is “yes”. The answer is not “no”.

    Further, were the fundamental parts of Von Neumann’s prediction then found inside the cell, one by one, such as a sequence of memory tokens, a set of constraints to establish what those tokens specify, a set of descriptions of those constraints encoded within the sequence, thereby enabling other descriptions to cause and bring about the critical functions of copying, control, and construction? Can a list of dates, researchers, and experiments be taken from the literature to demonstrate this confirmation? Again, the only reasonable answer to this question is “yes”. The answer is not “no”. As just one example among countless others, a Nobel Laureate who was on the ground at the time and playing a significant role in the first discoveries of the genome has clearly made this exact connection.

    In 1955 did Francis Crick write a paper predicting a set of 20 proteins would be found working in the system, whose job it was to establish the relationships between the codons and the amino acids? The answer is “Yes”. The answer is not “No”. Was this prediction later confirmed by the work of Mahlon Hoagland and Paul Zamecnik in 1956-58? The answer is “Yes”. In 1961 did Marshall Nirenberg and Heinrich Matthaei have to demonstrate the code in order to document and know it (i.e. it is not calculable from physical law)? “Yes”. Is the use of encoded symbols considered a universal correlate of intelligence? “Yes”. If the scientists at SETI received a signal that contained encoded content, would it clearly infer the presence of a previously unknown intelligence? The answer is “Yes”. The answer is not “no”.

    The point I am making here should be clear. The facts are uncontroversial. And all of this is clearly juxtaposed against its falsification, (which is every bit as unambiguous). Has anyone ever shown the rise of a symbol system by an unguided dynamic process?

    The answer to that question is “No”. The answer is not “Yes”.

    So if you have followed my argument, then let me ask the question: Is there a valid design inference in biology at the origin of life? Yes or no?

    And note, I am not asking you to believe in any one thing or another, I am specifically asking about the state of known facts.

    – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

    *specify in this case means to specify among alternatives, which is the physical capacity created by the discontinuous system found inside the living cell. This is the property that enables the system to function as it does. A codon is a physical token of memory. Any given codon that specifies any particular amino acid could alternatively specify any other particular amino acid, because the system itself does not physically determine which amino acid is being specified based on the dynamic properties of the codon. Science most definitely recognizes this phenomenon. In the scientific literature there are authors who will write about the “arbitrary” or “frozen accident” nature of the genetic code; others have described the codon as “quiescent” — meaning that they specify a particular amino acids, but are quite dormant and inactive. The simple fact that researchers compete among each other for ever-newer ideas as to why particular codons specify particular amino acids is an unrequested testament to the observed reality of the issue. Furthermore, as we all know, the system was successfully predicted to be based on encoded symbolic memory. In short, the gene system is a genuine symbol system; and as such, a dynamic relationship between a token and its referent is not fundamental to the operation of the system. Freedom from that dynamic limitation, is however, fundamental to that success.

  355. 355
    Upright BiPed says:

    .
    Fred,

    As for your challenge, I believe the way forward is obvious. You’ve already made it abundantly clear that a dynamic RNA replicator does not have the capacity to specify anything from encoded memory. It doesn’t have the parts required to physically accomplish the task.

    This is a problem because it is from this state (of complete incapacity) that you must specify a system capable of specifying itself from an encoded memory — and that system must perpetuate itself over time.

    The system can be perpetuated by perpetuating the interpretive constraints in the system. This is implied because all the required descriptions are dependent on the constraints; until the constraints are established, the sequences of their descriptions cannot specify them. When the constraints are established and the sequences describe them, the system assumes a functional condition known as “semiotic closure”. In other words, the system must be self-referent in order to function. The way in which the constraints are perpetuated is by specifying them in an encoded inheritable memory. That memory must then be placed in the daughter to continue the replication. This is John Von Neumann’s “threshold of complication” – a point of organization, which above it leads to open-ended potential, but below it leads to degradation and failure.

    So the laundry list begins. You are going to have to establish a finite set of symbol tokens (a codon being three bases in length is a system parameter, not the product of a physical law). You are going to have to establish a set of interpretive constraints. You are going to have to establish minimal system commands, like start and stop (i.e. you have multiple discrete parts to describe/construct in order to successfully function). You are going to need a sequential memory that contains the individual sequences (individual descriptions) of all the interpretive constraints, as well as all the other individual descriptions entailed in the functions of copying, control, and construction. The individual portions of this sequential memory that cause these critical functions to occur, must be simultaneously coordinated with the portions of the sequence that describe the interpretive constraints (i.e. if you change any of the latter, it changes all of the former). And so on …

    This is what you must specify from an organization of RNA that cannot specify anything among alternatives.

    Upthread you mentioned something about perhaps misunderstanding the argument being made. I do believe you have misunderstood it. You apparently came here thinking I was making a chicken-and-egg argument about what came first, DNA, protein, etc. In actuality, my argument has little to do with the various classes of molecules. It is not that the classes of molecules don’t matter, they certainly do, but it is the systematic roles that they must perform that is critical to the physical success of the system.

    We can cut to the chase. OoL researchers (certainly RNA World proponents) invariably start their proposals with a presumed abiotic environment and then try to explain the steps going forward that would eventually result in a description-based replicator over some evolutionary period of time. This means they move from an unknown condition to another unknown condition, then to another unknown condition after that, so on and so forth, eventually ending in some final unknown condition. What we see most is that an RNA replicator appears, then some form of chemical (not Darwinian) evolution occurs, which sets off the glorious and inevitable climb to modern cell. You can sit through any number of lectures by Szostak or Joyce or Sutherland, and discover this pattern of argumentation for yourself. What we virtually never hear about are the actual steps where a description-based replicator (an actual known entity) is specified by a dynamic replicator. This conundrum can be put into perspective by a single question:

    Aminoacyl tRNA synthetase (aaRS) play one of the critical roles in establishing the description-based system. These are complex proteins that are specified from encoded memory. They did not always exist on earth, which implies that there was once (at some point in the past) the very first time that an aaRS that was successfully synthesized from memory and went on to serve its function. Regardless of what you believe may have come before that event occurred, at that point in time, how many of the other aaRS constraints has to be in place?

    As opposed to completely untethered speculation, this type of question takes us from a known condition and asks how we might get there from the proposed explanation. I think it might be a good place to begin your challenge. What is your answer?

  356. 356
    ET says:

    Oh my. That is way too many words, upright biped. 😉

  357. 357
    Fred Hickson says:

    Indeed, ET. Let me see if I can respond with fewer, perhaps more focused. Later.

  358. 358
    Querius says:

    Upright Biped @354 and 355,

    Thank you for your incisive and informative posts! While clearly wasted on some people, it’s definitely appreciated by others, myself included.

    And I get your anticipatory sarcasm, ET.

    -Q

  359. 359
    ET says:

    I am not sure that Fred read the article that seems to have given him his high hopes HERE:

    Ichihashi and his team developed an RNA molecule that encoded a replicase, which can make copies of RNA. But for the molecule to translate its own code, the scientists needed to add something more: ribosomes and other gene translation machinery that they borrowed from the common gut bacteria Escherichia coli. They embedded the machinery inside droplets and added them to a mixture of RNAs and raw materials.

    Then came years of tedious mixing and waiting.

    Their long-term experiment involved incubating their replication system at 37 degrees Celsius (the temperature of a human body or a hot summer’s day), adding new droplets with fresh translation systems, and stirring the mixture to induce replication. Every few days or so they analyzed RNA concentrations in the test tubes, and every week or so they froze samples from the latest mixture. Every half year or so, they sequenced large batches of the collected samples to see if the RNA had acquired new mutations and evolved into a new lineage.

    This clearly isn’t representative of any alleged RNA world. And it doesn’t seem to make sense. What translation is required for RNA to replicate? Do ribosomes also make chains of nucleotides from a nucleotide template?

  360. 360
    Fred Hickson says:

    Upright Biped, the dog ate my homework. I was in the middle of a preliminary reply when the open screen crashed and I lost half an hour and the will to start again from scratch. The issue possibly was using your long comment as blockquote and interspersing my replies. No matter as, just having spent some time site searching UD for stuff connected to upright biped and semiotic hypothesis, I seem to have hit a rich vein when comments and ideas were on a much broader spectrum here than they are today and I’d like now to avoid repeating points that have already been made

    I think you refined your various comments around 2011 into your hypothesis (I also recall something along the lines of Complexity Cafe but that seems to have disappeared) so for now, let me just ask are you still satisfied with the points you were making then, in which case I don’t need to reinvent the wheel, or have you subsequently refined your hypothesis, even maybe produced a monograph that summarizes your hypothesis as you would defend it now.

    Cutting to the chase, I’m interested in querying your claim that the origin of DNA template and protein metabolism could not evolve, if that is indeed what you claim. If I have any expertise, it is in the field of biochemistry and it is the possible origins of biochemical systems that I’m interested in.

    I should add perhaps that as far as I can see “The Deign Inference” is wishful thinking at best, so I see no future in picking that up.

    Real life calls.

  361. 361
    Fred Hickson says:

    ET, just a suggestion. Check double-stranded RNA. Also

    https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsomega.8b03689

    For those wanting to know about hydrogen bonding in RNA

  362. 362
    ET says:

    Fred, I know all about double-stranded RNA. That has nothing to do with why ribosomes and translation machinery are needed for RNA replication. And the paper that you think refutes upright biped does no such thing. Clearly you didn’t read the article.

  363. 363
    kairosfocus says:

    ET, actually, it is not the case that negation always wins by default. Every argument is connected to a wider worldview and draws persuasive power from the associated plausibility structure. Each worldview has core first plausibles that frame everything else and are open to comparative difficulties analysis. Take for example the assertion by some that atheism is default and theists fail to make a case. The core problem is, why then is there a world, not utter non being? A world from non being fails for want of causal capability. If a world is, something always was [and as a key part or whole is independent of prior cause], the issue is, of what character. Retro causation and similar circles fail the world from non being test. Implicitly transfinite quasi-physical world succession fails as we saw here at UD over several years; transfinite stepwise traverse is an infeasible supertask. We are left with a beginning rooted in necessary being, where God is the most serious candidate. Surprise — NOT — these atheists are trying to reverse their unmet burden of proof to show that God, a serious candidate necessary being, is impossible of being as a euclidean square circle is. Serious candidate, unlike flying spaghetti monsters and similar ill informed attempted parodies. In fact, theists have epistemic right to point out, once a serious candidate and not impossible, actual. Actual, as NBs are framework to any possible world. Coming back to RNA etc, no one has shown empirical observation of such a world and there is a lot of information and implied polymer chemistry knowledge from nothing involved. Empty speculation dressed up in a lab coat. Failing, the Newton-Lyell test of adequately capable forces seen to currently be in operation. KF

  364. 364
    ET says:

    Again, for Fred to ignore:

    The 2015 Nobel Prize in Chemistry went to 3 researchers who discovered that DNA is very unstable. That led them to discover the proof reading and error correction required to counter that instability.

    “Each day our DNA is damaged by UV radiation, free radicals and other carcinogenic
    substances, but even without such external attacks, a DNA molecule is inherently unstable.
    Thousands of spontaneous changes to a cell’s genome occur on a daily basis. Furthermore,
    defects can also arise when DNA is copied during cell division, a process that occurs several
    million times every day in the human body.
    The reason our genetic material does not disintegrate into complete chemical chaos is that a
    host of molecular systems continuously monitor and repair DNA. The Nobel Prize in
    Chemistry 2015 awards three pioneering scientists who have mapped how several of these
    repair systems function at a detailed molecular level.
    In the early 1970s, scientists believed that DNA was an extremely stable molecule, but Tomas
    Lindahl demonstrated that DNA decays at a rate that ought to have made the development of
    life on Earth impossible. This insight led him to discover a molecular machinery, base
    excision repair, which constantly counteracts the collapse of our DNA.”
    (The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
    https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/2015/press.html)

    DNA has to carry in its sequence the coding for the very proteins that keep it as a viable information carrier. Without that there cannot be any DNA based life. That means it also needs a coded information processing system. That is not available in any imagined RNA world.

    Fred will ignore that reality and prattle on.

  365. 365
    Upright BiPed says:

    .
    Fred, I have asked two questions.

    You can only give your preferred answer to the first, but cannot substantiate it.

    To the second, you have no effective answer, but need one.

    Are you familiar with ancient figures such as Sun Tzu? It appears that all of the possible positions in a competition have already been catalogued, very thoroughly.

    So far, we have a diversion and an insult.

    There is no doubt more where that came from.

  366. 366
    kairosfocus says:

    ET, I think there is good chemical reason to note that if DNA tends to instability, so will the rather similar RNA. Just a thought. KF

  367. 367
    ET says:

    Yes, however DNA was supposed to be more stable and that is why there is DNA based life. That premise is totally wrong.

  368. 368
    Fred Hickson says:

    UB, I’m puzzled by your last comment. What insult? Which questions? No time for more till later.

  369. 369
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    368 messages for something nobody proved. 😆 It’s like quarelling over the colour of a ghost’s eyes.
    It’s blue vs dark eyes fight except there is no ghost. Disneyland.

    PS:Even if darwinists are tempted to imagine RNA world in reality this hypothesis is equaly insane with DNA world hypothesis(now we have to imagine how a computer would work without any permanent memory hdd/stick usb/dvd ) . This system of cell/organism is irreducible complex and we still have to find more unknown processes and codes.

  370. 370
    ET says:

    Fred Hickson:

    I should add perhaps that as far as I can see “The Deign Inference” is wishful thinking at best, so I see no future in picking that up.

    Intelligent Design offers the only scientific explanation for our existence. That means the design inference is the only viable scientific inference. You and yours don’t have a scientific explanation for our existence. It is yours that is pure wishful thinking.

  371. 371
    Querius says:

    ET @370,

    Sorry, but it’s basically hopeless. Some people don’t understand because they don’t want to understand.

    So, let’s try some sarcasm instead . . . (woohoo)

    A little over a year ago, I announced that I successfully recreated the earliest life forms in a test tube! With some good connections, I deserve to get a Nobel prize for my work.

    Here are the steps:

    1. By filling the test tube with water and shaking it vigorously, bubbles were formed spontaneously! In the early earth, a hot meteorite or some lava musta hit the sea, vaporizing the water releasing millions of bubbles. Also, the churning action of the sea due to wind and tidal action can also spontaneously form new bubbles abiogenetically.

    2. These bubbles have a simple metabolism known as bullaphagy, when a larger bubble combines with a smaller one. Also, gases can pass into and out of the bubble due to thermo-capillary convection.

    3. Bubbles exhibit reproduction when due to mechanical excitement, they split in half, forming exact copies of themselves–the earliest form of biological fission.

    4. Bubble behavior, while simple in mechanistic terms compared with, let’s say, a university professor, it’s still a similar form of observable deterministic behavior including a strong desire to move upwards to the top and to go with the flow.

    5. Bubble evolution musta occurred when random, dissolved amino acids were absorbed by trillions of bubbles over billions of years. While highly improbable to begin with, the chances for each successive step are still finite and, applying probability to the infinite multiverse and considering the anthropic principle, life is obviously inevitable.

    The evolutionary steps between a collection of air bubbles and a university professor are left as an exercise to the reader. They will eventually all be found and form a smooth continuum of Life on Earth!

    -Q

  372. 372
    ET says:

    Yes, Q. As Gonzalez and Richards wrote in “the Privileged Planet”:

    In fact, no amount of evidence for apparent design could ever count as evidence of actual design. But if science is a search for the best explanation, based on the actual evidence from the physical world, rather than merely a search for the best materialistic or impersonal explanations of the physical world, how responsible is it to adopt a principle that makes one incapable of seeing an entire class of evidence?- page 270

    It is difficult to deal with willful ignorance and blatant denial. And that is what we are up against.

    Lawernce Welk was the father of the bubble-world. 🙂

  373. 373
    kairosfocus says:

    KH, is it wishful thinking to infer that text in comments here in thread, on the strength of its FSCO/I, was designed? Think again, please without the strawman caricatures. KF

  374. 374
    Querius says:

    ET @372,

    From my perspective, the presumption of design doesn’t have to be true for it to be pragmatically useful, which it has been. That’s why the people who started the ID movement took no position on the source of design. They didn’t need to.

    Lawrence Welk was an early theorist, but is was Don Ho who brought the tiny bubbles to life . . . which next evolved into lounge lizards. (smile)

    Also see
    https://www.livescience.com/29465-bubbles-science-foam-physics.html

    -Q

  375. 375
    Fred Hickson says:

    OK, I have a few minutes now, so let me try responding to Upright Biped’s comment 354. As the software here is a bit cranky, I’ll just paste sentences that appear to require a response and see how we go.

    …you’ve already demonstrated that the RNA World (conceived as a simple RNA replicator that can serve two roles; as a catalyst and as a “carrier of information”) cannot actually specify anything from an encoded medium of information like the genome.*

    We’re talking about one molecule here. In RNA world, the genome is RNA, and the genome replicates by templating twice. The complementary strand, first replication, produces a copy of the original strand, second replication. The genome is a collection of sections that act as catalysts, and they need only be replicated once. There needs to be no specification. The copies are directly formed by physical templating.

    You’ve asked me to participate in the infamous exercise where you are allowed to speculate anything you wish under any circumstances, while I am tasked with the job of having to prove that a thing did not happen (i.e. is not possible) in the deep unobservable past

    Not really. I agree that the two properties possessed by all current living systems is the ability to replicate and the ability to metabolise and that neither ability can have evolved prior to the other. One has either to assume another process than evolution resulted in the two abilities emerging or assume that neither evolved from scratch but emerged from a simpler process where replication and metabolism were one process.

    Given that this is also an exercise where you yourself get to determine (along with your own self-interests) whether or not I have met the challenge, I believe you should first get your feet wet (as the saying goes). We can test the fairness of your judgement in a matter that is effectively straight up or straight down.

    “along with your own self-interests”? I think this is a fundamental difference between the way I look at life, the universe and everything compared to others posting here. Sure I’d like to be the one who is right but I prefer to be right, or at least on the right track. I have no particular dog in the fight of which idea, speculation, hypothesis wins out but I’d like it to fit the facts.

    I’ll paste this and continue in a following comment.

  376. 376
    Fred Hickson says:

    Continuing with UB at 354

    I have argued for a good long time that there is a strong design inference in biology taken directly from the recorded history of science and experiment. If you’ve followed my comments as you suggest you have, then you should be familiar with the details of that inference. You surely also know that this design inference is comprised of generally unambiguous and uncontroversial lines of evidence.

    It all depends what you mean by “a strong design inference”. There is no question that species are designed. Golden moles have the ability to live in the Namib Desert by swimming in sand. Should the environment of the Namib change: wetter, colder, hotter (or drier to the extent there was not enough moisture for their normal prey to survive) they would be extinct. The environment designs and I have no problem to extending that idea of the Universe to act as the designer’s designer. But that is a religious or philosophical stance, not a scientific one where the default is “we don’t know”.

    By this I mean, as an example, in 1948 did John Von Neumann give a series of lectures where he presented the logical requirements of an autonomous self-replicator with open-ended potential? There is only one reasonable answer to that question. The answer is “yes”. The answer is not “no”.

    Well, my answer would have been “I don’t know” because I have no idea what John van Neumann said in 1948. I don’t see any reason to dispute your claim.

    Further, were the fundamental parts of Von Neumann’s prediction then found inside the cell, one by one, such as a sequence of memory tokens, a set of constraints to establish what those tokens specify, a set of descriptions of those constraints encoded within the sequence, thereby enabling other descriptions to cause and bring about the critical functions of copying, control, and construction? Can a list of dates, researchers, and experiments be taken from the literature to demonstrate this confirmation? Again, the only reasonable answer to this question is “yes”. The answer is not “no”. As just one example among countless others, a Nobel Laureate who was on the ground at the time and playing a significant role in the first discoveries of the genome has clearly made this exact connection.

    So von Neumann’ Wikpedia entry is an impressive read but the only part of his work that relates to biology I noticed was his Universal Constructor, which I see has its own Wikpedia entry.

    Von Neumann’s goal… …was to design a machine whose complexity could grow automatically akin to biological organisms under natural selection. He asked what is the threshold of complexity that must be crossed for machines to be able to evolve. His answer was to specify an abstract machine which, when run, would replicate itself.

    Prescient modelling!

    In 1955 did Francis Crick write a paper predicting a set of 20 proteins would be found working in the system, whose job it was to establish the relationships between the codons and the amino acids? The answer is “Yes”. The answer is not “No”. Was this prediction later confirmed by the work of Mahlon Hoagland and Paul Zamecnik in 1956-58? The answer is “Yes”.

    Adaptor hypothesis as described in Wikipedia says yes.

    In 1961 did Marshall Nirenberg and Heinrich Matthaei have to demonstrate the code in order to document and know it (i.e. it is not calculable from physical law)? “Yes”.

    The poly-uracil to poly-phenylalanine experiment was iconic and one of the reasons I chose a science-based education. Not sure what you mean by “not calculable by physical law”. The triple U to phenylalanine codon is indeed arbitrary.

    Is the use of encoded symbols considered a universal correlate of intelligence? “Yes”.

    By whom? Universal? Not sure.

    If the scientists at SETI received a signal that contained encoded content, would it clearly infer the presence of a previously unknown intelligence? The answer is “Yes”. The answer is not “no”.

    No. I don’t agree at all and neither would SETI scientists either. First, SETI is looking for unusual radio signals from extra-terrestrial sources. So far they have been unsuccessful. When there is an unusual radio signal, then it can be examined to try and glean any purposeful information carried by the signal. Until then, nothing can be said as there are no such signals to work with.

    The point I am making here should be clear.

    Should be but…

    The facts are uncontroversial. And all of this is clearly juxtaposed against its falsification, (which is every bit as unambiguous). Has anyone ever shown the rise of a symbol system by an unguided dynamic process?

    How biological systems came into being is a mystery unsolved by science and no less of a mystery if we use the words “Intelligently Designed”.

    The answer to that question is “No”. The answer is not “Yes”.

    Unclear as to whether you are making a specific claim. WRT biological systems, origins are still a mystery.

    So if you have followed my argument, then let me ask the question: Is there a valid design inference in biology at the origin of life? Yes or no?

    I already agree there is design in biology.

    And note, I am not asking you to believe in any one thing or another, I am specifically asking about the state of known facts.

    Good as I’m interested in scientific facts and hypotheses developed from them. Belief doesn’t help or hinder scientific research and ideas.

  377. 377
    Fred Hickson says:

    UB at 355

    As for your challenge, I believe the way forward is obvious. You’ve already made it abundantly clear that a dynamic RNA replicator does not have the capacity to specify anything from encoded memory. It doesn’t have the parts required to physically accomplish the task.

    It doesn’t have to. That’s the point.

    This is a problem because it is from this state (of complete incapacity) that you must specify a system capable of specifying itself from an encoded memory — and that system must perpetuate itself over time.

    No the template matching when RNA replicates is purely physical. There is no encoding. It’s complementary copying all the way down.

    The system can be perpetuated by perpetuating the interpretive constraints in the system. This is implied because all the required descriptions are dependent on the constraints; until the constraints are established, the sequences of their descriptions cannot specify them. When the constraints are established and the sequences describe them, the system assumes a functional condition known as “semiotic closure”. In other words, the system must be self-referent in order to function. The way in which the constraints are perpetuated is by specifying them in an encoded inheritable memory. That memory must then be placed in the daughter to continue the replication. This is John Von Neumann’s “threshold of complication” – a point of organization, which above it leads to open-ended potential, but below it leads to degradation and failure.

    You are confusing map, John von Neumann’s model, which is impressive, with territory.

    So the laundry list begins. You are going to have to establish a finite set of symbol tokens (a codon being three bases in length is a system parameter, not the product of a physical law). You are going to have to establish a set of interpretive constraints. You are going to have to establish minimal system commands, like start and stop (i.e. you have multiple discrete parts to describe/construct in order to successfully function). You are going to need a sequential memory that contains the individual sequences (individual descriptions) of all the interpretive constraints, as well as all the other individual descriptions entailed in the functions of copying, control, and construction. The individual portions of this sequential memory that cause these critical functions to occur, must be simultaneously coordinated with the portions of the sequence that describe the interpretive constraints (i.e. if you change any of the latter, it changes all of the former). And so on …

    This is what you must specify from an organization of RNA that cannot specify anything among alternatives.

    In RNA world, templates and active molecules are direct physical copies of each other. Specification is not required.

    Upthread you mentioned something about perhaps misunderstanding the argument being made. I do believe you have misunderstood it. You apparently came here thinking I was making a chicken-and-egg argument about what came first, DNA, protein, etc. In actuality, my argument has little to do with the various classes of molecules. It is not that the classes of molecules don’t matter, they certainly do, but it is the systematic roles that they must perform that is critical to the physical success of the system.

    I don’t misunderstand you there. I just disagree with this claim.

    We can cut to the chase.

    Please!

    OoL researchers (certainly RNA World proponents) invariably start their proposals with a presumed abiotic environment and then try to explain the steps going forward that would eventually result in a description-based replicator over some evolutionary period of time. This means they move from an unknown condition to another unknown condition, then to another unknown condition after that, so on and so forth, eventually ending in some final unknown condition.

    Conditions that prevailed when life was getting going on Earth may be speculative but they are at least plausible. We can rule out life on Earth working in the absence of liquid water and outside the temperature range where water is in liquid form and so on. We have a panoply, nay a plethora of living organisms (bacteria and Archaea) that are still living in ways suggested by fossil evidence from nearly four billion years ago.

    What we see most is that an RNA replicator appears, then some form of chemical (not Darwinian) evolution occurs, which sets off the glorious and inevitable climb to modern cell. You can sit through any number of lectures by Szostak or Joyce or Sutherland, and discover this pattern of argumentation for yourself. What we virtually never hear about are the actual steps where a description-based replicator (an actual known entity) is specified by a dynamic replicator.

    You lost me on “description-based replicator (an actual known entity) is specified by a dynamic replicator”. But you can explain if you wish, I hope.

    This conundrum can be put into perspective by a single question:

    Aminoacyl tRNA synthetase (aaRS) play one of the critical roles in establishing the description-based system. These are complex proteins that are specified from encoded memory. They did not always exist on earth, which implies that there was once (at some point in the past) the very first time that an aaRS that was successfully synthesized from memory and went on to serve its function. Regardless of what you believe may have come before that event occurred, at that point in time, how many of the other aaRS constraints has to be in place?

    So is the conundrum “How did aaRSs evolve?”

    As opposed to completely untethered speculation, this type of question takes us from a known condition and asks how we might get there from the proposed explanation. I think it might be a good place to begin your challenge. What is your answer?

    To how did aaRSs evolve? I don’t know.

  378. 378
    Fred Hickson says:

    Fred, I have asked two questions.

    Seemed to be more than that to me. If I missed the important two, just copy and paste them.

    You can only give your preferred answer to the first, but cannot substantiate it.

    To the second, you have no effective answer, but need one

    Which might also give me a clue as to what you are saying here.

    Are you familiar with ancient figures such as Sun Tzu? It appears that all of the possible positions in a competition have already been catalogued, very thoroughly.

    Perhaps you should paste the relevant quote from The Art of War.

    So far, we have a diversion and an insult.

    Referencing Sun Tzu seems like a diversion to me but I didn’t spot the insult.

    There is no doubt more where that came from.

    Your choice. As I asked previously, regarding your Semiotic Hypothesis. Have you a text where your hypothesis is set out? All I can find is stuff from 2012.

    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/ub-sets-it-out-step-by-step/

    Is this still correct?

  379. 379
    Fred Hickson says:

    I’ve found what may be the earliest clear statement of Upright Biped’s hypothesis in a comment directed at Nick Matzke:

    Nick, the last time I approached you on the topic of biological information, you side-stepped the issue like a cowgirl on a dance floor.

    I wonder if you might try to enagage in earnest this time. Will you bring your advanced intellect to bear on these three pertinent questions regarding the existence of information within a material universe:

    1) In this material universe, is it even conceivably possible to record transferable information without utilizing an arrangement of matter in order to represent that information? (by what other means could it be done?)

    2) If 1 is true, then is it even conceivably possible to transfer that information without a second arrangement of matter (a protocol) to establish the relationship between representation and what it represents? (how could such a relationship be established in any other way?)

    3) If 1 and 2 are true, then is it even conceivably possible to functionally transfer information without the irreducibly complex system of these two arrangements of matter (representations and protocols) in operation?

  380. 380
    ET says:

    Fred will never present any evidence for any RNA world. And Fred will never present any evidence that the environment designs.

    Good as I’m interested in scientific facts and hypotheses developed from them.

    All evidence to the contrary, of course. There aren’t any scientific facts that support any RNA world. There aren’t any scientific facts to support your personal claim that the environment designs. So, perhaps you should get to work.

  381. 381
    William J Murray says:

    Fred Hickson said @341:

    Water always runs downhill, water never runs uphill, what’s the difference?

    You’re wrong: https://www.livescience.com/58416-can-water-naturally-flow-uphill.html

  382. 382
    William J Murray says:

    The Fred Hickson model:

    Fred is involved in a card game. During the game, one player wins every hand – 20 in a row – with a royal flush. Everyone else at the table accuses the man of cheating. Fred says, “Unless you can demonstrate that it is impossible for him to draw 20 straight flushes in a row, the more likely explanation is that he is not cheating.”

  383. 383
    Upright BiPed says:

    .
    Fred,

    I believe we already got your answer to the first question. Originally, you saw no point in engaging the question, but now you’ve circled back to suggest that if SETI researchers received a short-wave carrier signal containing decipherable encoded content, they would not infer an intelligent source from that finding. I am certain that answer speaks for itself.

    As for the second question, I lifted this directly from your post…

    UB: Aminoacyl tRNA synthetase (aaRS) play one of the critical roles in establishing the description-based system. These are complex proteins that are specified from encoded memory. They did not always exist on earth, which implies that there was once (at some point in the past) the very first time that an aaRS that was successfully synthesized from memory and went on to serve its function. Regardless of what you believe may have come before that event occurred, at that point in time, how many of the other aaRS constraints has to be in place?

    Fred: So is the conundrum “How did aaRSs evolve?”

    Is this the extent of your answer?

  384. 384
    Fred Hickson says:

    Upright Biped

    I believe we already got your answer to the first question. Originally, you saw no point in engaging the question, but now you’ve circled back to suggest that if SETI researchers received a short-wave carrier signal containing decipherable encoded content, they would not infer an intelligent source from that finding. I am certain that answer speaks for itself.

    No idea how you got that out of what I actually wrote. It looks like you just sat there and made it up! 😉

    For the record, this was my reply:

    No. I don’t agree at all and neither would SETI scientists either. First, SETI is looking for unusual radio signals from extra-terrestrial sources. So far they have been unsuccessful. When there is an unusual radio signal, then it can be examined to try and glean any purposeful information carried by the signal. Until then, nothing can be said, because as yet, there are no such signals to work with.

    To repeat, until SETI find an unusual signal, an anomaly, any speculation on how it could be interpreted, what could be inferred from it, is premature and idle speculation.

  385. 385
    Fred Hickson says:

    As for the second question, I lifted this directly from your post…

    UB: Aminoacyl tRNA synthetase (aaRS) play one of the critical roles in establishing the description-based system. These are complex proteins that are specified from encoded memory. They did not always exist on earth, which implies that there was once (at some point in the past) the very first time that an aaRS that was successfully synthesized from memory and went on to serve its function. Regardless of what you believe may have come before that event occurred, at that point in time, how many of the other aaRS constraints has to be in place?

    Fred: So is the conundrum “How did aaRSs evolve?”

    Is this the extent of your answer?

    It’s not an answer; it’s a request for clarification.

  386. 386
    Fred Hickson says:

    William Murray:

    Fred Hickson said @341:

    Water always runs downhill, water never runs uphill, what’s the difference?<

    You’re wrong…

    I can only assume you are joking but in case you aren’t, explain to me the net result of using a siphon. When you have finished siphoning, is the water higher or lower than it was before. If you think higher, you will be the bane of Sir Arthur Eddington.

  387. 387
    Fred Hickson says:

    WM

    Fred says, “Unless you can demonstrate that it is impossible for him to draw 20 straight flushes in a row, the more likely explanation is that he is not cheating.”

    How does your parody connect with anything I’ve written in this thread or elsewhere?

  388. 388
    Upright BiPed says:

    .
    Fred,

    The actual question: “If the scientists at SETI received a signal that contained encoded content, would it clearly infer the presence of a previously unknown intelligence?”

    Your answer: “No. I don’t agree at all and neither would SETI scientists either.”

    Telling me that they haven’t received a signal yet is quite obviously irrelevant. But I’ll let you work that out.

    In the meantime …

    UB: Aminoacyl tRNA synthetase (aaRS) play one of the critical roles in establishing the description-based system. These are complex proteins that are specified from encoded memory. They did not always exist on earth, which implies that there was once (at some point in the past) the very first time that an aaRS that was successfully synthesized from memory and went on to serve its function. Regardless of what you believe may have come before that event occurred, at that point in time, how many of the other aaRS constraints has to be in place?

    Fred: So is the conundrum “How did aaRSs evolve?”

    Is this the extent of your answer?

    EDIT: Do you need clarification on the words.. “How Many”

  389. 389
    Fred Hickson says:

    UB

    “If the scientists at SETI received a signal that contained encoded content, would it clearly infer the presence of a previously unknown intelligence?”

    No. And even if you remove the word clearly, the answer is still no. It can’t be anything else until there is such a signal. Furthermore, let me idly speculate for a moment and wonder whether any extraterrestrial signal sent by an alien civilization intended to communicate information in a universal manner could positively be identified as such. No, I say, while speculating idly.

  390. 390
    Fred Hickson says:

    EDIT: Do you need clarification on the words.. “How Many”

    Yes please and clarification on what you consider to be constraints in the phrase “how many of the other aaRS constraints has to be in place”. TIA

  391. 391
    Fred Hickson says:

    UB, would it be ever so too much trouble to confirm or deny that the version of your semiotic hypothesis that I quoted is still current, or do you have a preferred version available?

  392. 392
    Upright BiPed says:

    .

    UB: If SETI receives a signal with encoded content would it infer a previously unknown intelligent source.

    Fred: No

    UB: Why is that?

    Fred: Because they haven’t yet received a signal.

    I am quite happy to allow any interested readers analyze your reasoning for themselves.

    So for the second question:

    UB: Aminoacyl tRNA synthetase (aaRS) play one of the critical roles in establishing the description-based system. These are complex proteins that are specified from encoded memory. They did not always exist on earth, which implies that there was once (at some point in the past) the very first time that an aaRS that was successfully synthesized from memory and went on to serve its function. Regardless of what you believe may have come before that event occurred, at that point in time, how many of the other aaRS constraints has to be in place?

    What is your answer?

  393. 393
    Fred Hickson says:

    @ UB,

    What do you mean by “how many of the other aaRS constraints has to be in place?”?

  394. 394
    asauber says:

    “I am quite happy to allow any interested treasure to analyze your reasoning for themselves.”

    Freddy ain’t serious.

    Andrew

  395. 395
    Fred Hickson says:

    Let me in the meantime idly speculate on what a constraint in the context of the evolution of aaRSs would be?

    Nope, can’t think. Anyone else have a suggestion (printable only)?

  396. 396
    Fred Hickson says:

    Andy, you are a deep thinker obvioulsy! Any thoughts on SETI?

    Any thoughts on constraints around aminoacyl tRNA synthetases?

  397. 397
    Querius says:

    Upright BiPed,

    There doesn’t seem to be any end to Fred Hickson’s evasions, despite your detailed explanation.

    Because he can’t refute your information, he

    – Pretends to not understand

    – Requests clarification

    – Assert that your points are irrelevant

    – Uses his ignorance as a shield

    – Mocks your points as a joke or “parody”

    – Resorts to speculation and science fantasy

    – Counters with unsupported assertions (“No. I don’t agree at all and neither would SETI scientists either.”)

    – Feigns fatigue, lack of time, lack of interest, etc.

    – Hides behind his contrarian responses

    – Requires your definition of what you mean by “how many”

    – and so on

    Then, after you wrestle him to the ground, he simply jumps to a new post and starts over from scratch. He still owes me an apology after I falsified his hyperskepticism with a link to a research biologist’s website confirming that hydra can indeed grow 20 cm in length (or more). I’m not holding my breath on that.

    And during all his evasions, he probably views himself as nimble and brilliant even after his positions are destroyed. It’s like living through a Monty Python skit . . . (The dead parrot skit comes to mind)

    But your responses are appreciated and I learned things about RNA that I didn’t know.

    Thank you.

    -Q

  398. 398
    asauber says:

    Freddy,

    “Any thoughts on SETI?”

    Ideally, when they detect something significant, they’ll let us know.

    “aminoacyl tRNA synthetases?”

    Not my field of study.

    However, I do find fake-named know-it-all woke activists somewhat interesting.

    Andrew

  399. 399
    Upright BiPed says:

    .

    UB: the systematic capacity of mRNA to carry the specification of an amino acid does not stem from the structure of the RNA, but from the structure of a separate molecule — a non-holonomic constraint, aaRS.

    Fred: I have no issue with this

    (…)

    UB: Aminoacyl tRNA synthetase (aaRS) play one of the critical roles in establishing the description-based system. These are complex proteins that are specified from encoded memory. They did not always exist on earth, which implies that there was once (at some point in the past) the very first time that an aaRS that was successfully synthesized from memory and went on to serve its function. Regardless of what you believe may have come before that event occurred, at that point in time, how many of the other aaRS constraints has to be in place?

    Fred: What do you mean by “how many of the other aaRS constraints has to be in place?

    Again, are you asking me what “how many” means? I am incredulous that you need such clarification.

  400. 400
    Silver Asiatic says:

    UB

    I am quite happy to allow any interested readers analyze your reasoning for themselves.

    Yes, that was quite a display of reasoning there.

  401. 401
    Silver Asiatic says:

    FH

    Let me in the meantime idly speculate on what a constraint in the context of the evolution of aaRSs would be?

    The constraint is that which directs the mRNA to specify a certain amino acid and not something else. It’s not something inherent in the structure of the mRNA. The constraint (the specifier) comes from a molecule outside of the mRNA. Information is communicated which constrains the aaRS to a specific formulation. So, the question is how many of these are required for the aaRS to function?

  402. 402
    ET says:

    Wow. Talk about blatant denial:

    “If the scientists at SETI received a signal that contained encoded content, would it clearly infer the presence of a previously unknown intelligence?”</b?

    No.

    Why not? It’s like finding a cave painting and saying we can’t tell if it’s an artifact.

  403. 403
    Fred Hickson says:

    The constraint is that which directs the mRNA to specify a certain amino acid and not something else. It’s not something inherent in the structure of the mRNA. The constraint (the specifier) comes from a molecule outside of the mRNA. Information is communicated which constrains the aaRS to a specific formulation. So, the question is how many of these are required for the aaRS to function?

    The question has been discussed before (in 2012). The transition from RNA world to DNA/RNA/protein world does not need to happen all at once. You already have self-sustaining self-replicators. Add one amino acid. Add one aaRS. Subtract the redundancy later. It’s an easy trap to fall into to think it all had to fall into place at once because we only see what we have today. It’s the Texas sharpshooter fallacy.

  404. 404
    Fred Hickson says:

    It’s like finding a cave painting and saying we can’t tell if it’s an artifact.

    Not really. There’s cave paintings and plenty of evidence to link them to the humans that lived and died in and around the caves at the time they were executed. Heck, they even signed them with handprints.

    As for SETI, there are no signals to examine and no candidates for who might be transmitting them. I think it is worthwhile that SETI continue searching for odd signals and it will be fun when and if we have a signal to analyse. Till then, there is nothing useful to say. Anthropomorphism is unavoidable but, there we are.

  405. 405
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    Fred Hickson
    The transition from RNA world to DNA/RNA/protein world does not need to happen all at once.

    😆 Avoid eating fruitcakes and definitely circumambulate those fruitcakes with nuts.

  406. 406
    Seversky says:

    The problem with SETI is that radio signals are an impractical means of communication over interstellar distances.

    If we assume that we have been transmitting radio signals that have been leaking into space for the last 100 years then they form a bubble that has expanded about a hundred light-years out from Earth, which is next to nothing in a Galaxy 100,000 light years across. One problem is that they get weaker as they spread out. By the time they are a hundred light-years out they may be so attenuated that they are lost in the background radio noise of the Universe.

    Conversely, assume there may be a civilization 150 light-years out that has been broadcasting for a hundred years. It’s going to be another 50 years before those signals get here but when they do, again, we wouldn’t know because the signals are probably so weak we can’t detect them.

    They might get a focused beam to reach out further but why would they point one towards us? We have just been able to detect a little over 5,000 extrasolar planets but we have no idea whether any of them support life, let alone advanced intelligent life. Aliens might have detected the planets around our Sun but have no idea if there’s any life here.

    The nearest star to us is Alpha Centauri which is about 4.3 light-years away. If we beamed a signal saying “Hello?” towards it., at best, it’s going to be 8.6 years before we can expect a reply, assuming there is anyone there to answer. Imagine trying to administer a Galactic Federation or Empire spread over thousands of light-years using a communications system that slow. If you sent a signal to a nearby star only 150 light-years away, you’d be dead before the message even got there.

    In practice, we need some form of as-yet-unknown physics, like the sub-space of Star Trek for practical interstellar comms. I’m sure the SETI researchers are well aware of this. They listen out for radio signals because, in the absence of something like sub-space, what else can they -or anyone else – do?

  407. 407
    Fred Hickson says:

    The problem with SETI is that radio signals are an impractical means of communication over interstellar distances.

    Only if you are puny ephemeral humans.

    https://www.pinterest.com/pin/525443481517863305/

  408. 408
    ET says:

    Fred Hickson:

    There’s cave paintings and plenty of evidence to link them to the humans that lived and died in and around the caves at the time they were executed.

    And there are radio signals and plenty of evidence to link them to their causes. Cause-and-effect relationships rule science.

    As for SETI, there are no signals to examine and no candidates for who might be transmitting them.

    Yet they know what they are looking for. And that is all that matters. They have a criteria. Yes, obviously they would analyze the signal. But if their criteria is met they would clearly sound the alert.

  409. 409
    ET says:

    And yes, most likely SETI is a futile endeavor. But that isn’t the point. They have criteria for determining artificial from natural.

  410. 410
    Seversky says:

    Fred Hickson/407

    Only if you are puny ephemeral humans.

    https://www.pinterest.com/pin/525443481517863305/

    Could this mean the Universe is finely-tuned for long-lived geological features?

  411. 411
    ET says:

    Fred Hickson:

    The transition from RNA world to DNA/RNA/protein world does not need to happen all at once.

    It didn’t happen at all. There isn’t any evidence for any RNA world. Just a desperate need. And DNA based life is impossible without the pre-encoded information for the proteins that counter DNA’s instability.

    You already have self-sustaining self-replicators.

    Once you get to DNA, you need much more than that or you lose the DNA.

    Your entire scenario exists in a fantasy world. Yours is the fairy tale fallacy.

  412. 412
    Upright BiPed says:

    .
    Is there any reason that I should expect a response to #399?

  413. 413
    Fred Hickson says:

    Upright Biped

    Is there any reason that I should expect a response to #399?

    How do you manage to be so obscure in just a few words? Try something like:

    @ [name of commenter]

    Please respond to [number of comment]

  414. 414
    Fred Hickson says:

    Anyway, UB, you raised the totally irrelevant though intriguing subject of SETI.

  415. 415
    Fred Hickson says:

    Seversky

    Could this mean the Universe is finely-tuned for long-lived geological features?

    Being ephemeral, we’ll never know.

    Half seriously, there may be an upper limit to the power of human comprehension. What’s the line from H G Wells?

    . Yet across the gulf of space, minds that are to our minds as ours are to those of the beasts that perish, intellects vast and cool and unsympathetic, regarded this earth with envious eyes, and slowly and surely drew their plans against us.

  416. 416
    Fred Hickson says:

    They [SETI] have criteria for determining artificial from natural.

    Really? They’re very coy about that on their website. Do you have privileged information? Can you share it?

  417. 417
    kairosfocus says:

    FH, how do people go about distinguishing signal from noise to get to the famed ratio? KF

  418. 418
    ET says:

    They [SETI] have criteria for determining artificial from natural.

    Fred:

    Really?

    Yes, Fred, they do. As do archaeologists, forensic scientists and other investigative venues. When attacking a strawman of ID, Seth Shostok said:

    If SETI were to announce that we’re not alone because it had detected a signal, it would be on the basis of artificiality. An endless, sinusoidal signal – a dead simple tone – is not complex; it’s artificial. Such a tone just doesn’t seem to be generated by natural astrophysical processes. In addition, and unlike other radio emissions produced by the cosmos, such a signal is devoid of the appendages and inefficiencies nature always seems to add

  419. 419
    ET says:

    Fred Hickson:

    Anyway, UB, you raised the totally irrelevant though intriguing subject of SETI.

    It isn’t irrelevant. You are irrelevant. Weird how Fred “argues” just like Alan Fox!

  420. 420
    ET says:

    Why SETI is relevant- SETI attempts to detect intelligent design without knowing the designers.

  421. 421
    jerry says:

    Completely off topic except it refutes Darwinian Evolution.

    I’m reading/listening to Alex Epstein’s “Fossil Future” and he inadvertently refutes Darwin. I’m not sure he understood what he was doing.

    In all of history, human beings suffered from one major weakness, according to Epstein. (There are probably others)

    That is physical weakness that limited what they could do to get food

    Humans barely had enough strength to live. But they did not evolve stronger humans when strength would be an obvious characteristic leading to more offspring.

    So a good question for the pro Darwin commenters. Why?

    Aside: highly recommend Epstein’s book. He demolishes the climate change advocates. With facts and morals.

  422. 422
    Upright BiPed says:

    .

    Silver Asiatic: The constraint is that which directs the mRNA to specify a certain amino acid and not something else. It’s not something inherent in the structure of the mRNA. The constraint (the specifier) comes from a molecule outside of the mRNA. Information is communicated which constrains the aaRS to a specific formulation. So, the question is how many of these are required for the aaRS to function?

    Hello SA,

    Here are a couple things I thought I might point out. There are roughly 20 different amino acids that make up the overwhelming bulk of all the various proteins found in the living kingdom. It is the sequential arrangement of those amino acids in each protein that gives each protein its own unique physical properties (enabling it to do whatever it does inside the cell, making Life physically possible). The cell reads the sequence of codons in DNA in order to construct each of the these proteins with the correct sequence of amino acids.

    Each of those individual amino acids has to be specified in the genetic memory in order to be assembled in the correct order. That is accomplished by using two physical objects — a token and a constraint. The token comes in the form of three bases in a “codon” of DNA or RNA. It is then the job of the constraint to establish a relationship between an individual codon and the particular amino acid it is intended to specify within the system. It is important the remember how this takes place.

    In 1953, physicist Francis Crick and biologist James Watson famously discovered the sequential memory (the sequence of bases) in the DNA molecule. This set off a race to understand how the sequence of bases in DNA actually specified the sequence of amino acids in a protein. Shortly thereafter, Crick had compared the size and structure of the base sequence and determined that it was not possible for the amino acids to be ordered directly on the base sequence, and so there was a grand mystery as to how this all took place.

    Two years later in 1955, Crick began to develop a particular solution to the mystery, which Sydney Brenner nicknamed the “adapter hypothesis” prior to it being presented to a group of scientists called the RNA Tie Club at Cambridge. Crick reasoned that there would be a set of 20 proteins and 20 “adapter” molecules at work in the system. Each of the adapters would carry with it a short complimentary sequence of bases (later called the “anti-codon”) that would match up directly to the codons along the genetic memory.

    It would then be the job of the 20 complex proteins to perform a specific kind of double recognition. In other words, each protein would recognize a specific amino acid, and then attach it only to the adapters that had the correct sequence of bases (the correct anti-codon) for that particular amino acid. The adapters would then carry the amino acids directly to the site of protein construction and their amino acid cargo would then be assembled in the order dictated by the sequence of codons in the genetic memory.

    These 20 complex proteins are the aaRS (aminoacyl tRNA synthetase) — the constraints in the gene system. By performing their double recognition, they are the molecules in biology that establish the genetic code — they establish (constrain) the relationships between the (codon) symbols and their (amino acid) referents. From the literature, I have come to know the aaRS being referred to as “non-holonomic” constraints. I believe this is generally a systematics term, basically referring to a physical system that can deliver multiple alternative outcomes. By selecting any particular alternative, the system does not become physically limited (as some systems do) from delivering any other alternative – a rather apt description of the gene system and the constraints that make it physically possible to function as it does.

    So these are the things that Fred must avoid at all costs. I ask him how many aaRS had to be in place in order to physically specify and construct an aaRS from genetic memory. He then he did (and will always do) anything and everything to avoid that question. He starts this charade by telling us gleefully that RNA doesn’t have or need all the parts to specify a protein, then tells us, nonetheless, that this same system started spitting them out anyway, one by one. Surprise surprise, surprise.

    I went back in the comments history and noticed that Fred has actually been trying to call me out for weeks here. (“Upright Biped Upright Biped Upright Biped”). He even says that I am the only reason he showed up here. I asked him a core question about the gene system and he pisses himself in front of everyone.

    – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

    Fred: The job of aaRSs did not exist in RNA world.

    Fred: My challenge is to propose the steps that could have taken RNA world to DNA-protein world.

    UB: How many aaRS does it take to specify and construct an aaRS?

    Fred: Whaddya mean by how many?!?

    – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

    He was only here to insult me personally. From him to me, he had (and has) that personal need.

    That’s all he wanted, that’s certainly all he got.

  423. 423
    jerry says:

    He was only here to insult me personally. From him to me, he had (and has) that personal need.

    That’s all he wanted, that’s certainly all he got.

    He said something similarly about me,

    I am not trying to say I am as knowledgeable as you are on this. That’s obviously not true. But he used the same technique.

  424. 424
    Fred Hickson says:

    One!

    The answer to your question, Upright Biped, (now you have clarified) is one.

  425. 425
    Fred Hickson says:

    Upright Biped

    He was only here to insult me personally.

    On the contrary, I have been very careful to avoid insulting you personally.

  426. 426
    Upright BiPed says:

    .
    Are you wanting to engage me in earnest Fred?

    Okay, here’s the question, let us have your answer:

    UB: tRNA synthetase (aaRS) play one of the critical roles in establishing the description-based system. These are complex proteins that are specified from encoded memory. They did not always exist on earth, which implies that there was once (at some point in the past) the very first time that an aaRS that was successfully synthesized from memory and went on to serve its function. Regardless of what you believe may have come before that event occurred, at that point in time, how many of the other aaRS constraints has to be in place?

  427. 427
    Fred Hickson says:

    One.

  428. 428
    Upright BiPed says:

    .
    So, when the first aaRS protein was created from genetic memory and went on the establish the codon to amino acid relationship, it was comprised on one amino acid.

    Of course. Why didn’t I think of that.

  429. 429
    Fred Hickson says:

    Well, what are your reasons for thinking otherwise? Remember, in RNA world, there are no proteins.

  430. 430
    Fred Hickson says:

    And remember, in RNA world, there is no triplet code, all is direct templating. And anything is better than nothing. The current code certainly suggests an earlier doublet code which allows indirect templating from one to sixteen. Then the scaffolding can fall away.

  431. 431
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    And remember, in RNA world, there is no triplet code, all is direct templating.

    🙂 Of course, of course. Don’t forget to take your pills.

  432. 432
    Silver Asiatic says:

    UB

    Thanks for sharing your expertise on this. It’s an area I want to learn more about and I appreciate your explanation – very clear and detailed.

    FH seemed to answer the question of “how many” by saying “one at a time”. So, a self-replicating organism would start with one of the required 20 amino acids, apparently, and then just add others in gradual-Darwinian style? That seems absurd on the face of it, if not impossible.

  433. 433
    Querius says:

    Silver Asiatic @432,

    FH seemed to answer the question of “how many” by saying “one at a time”.

    No, actually Fred Hickson simply said “one.”

    This was presumably an ambiguous non-answer to Upright Biped’s observation:

    tRNA synthetase (aaRS) play one of the critical roles in establishing the description-based system.

    And Upright Biped’s subsequent question:

    Regardless of what you believe may have come before that event occurred, at that point in time, how many of the other aaRS constraints has to be in place?

    So, we don’t really know if Fred Hickson wants to emphasize multiple critical roles in establishing the description based system, whether it’s his guess at how many other aaRS constraints has to be in place, or whether his full answer copied from Wikipedia didn’t successfully paste in before he hit Post Comment.

    So, when I consider that I proved Fred Hickson wrong on hydra by providing a link to the web page of a research cell biologist on the subject, he couldn’t bring himself to admit he was wrong. So, why would anyone want to have a conversation with such a person?

    As I mentioned before, I appreciate the detailed explanation from Upright Biped infinitely more than a “one” from Fred Hickson.

    Coincidentally, his comment of “Then the scaffolding can fall away” (another miracle!) reminds me of Alexander Graham Cairns-Smith’s 1966 origin-of-life theory, which seems to pop up every decade or so. The primary reason the clay origin of life was rejected was that it sounded too Biblical.

    So, I’d suggest stop feeding the troll. The troll contributes zero to the discussion. Oh, pardon me. He contributes “one.”

    -Q

  434. 434
    ET says:

    And remember, any RNA world exists only in the imaginations of the desperate.

  435. 435
    ET says:

    Fred Hickson:

    The current code certainly suggests an earlier doublet code which allows indirect templating from one to sixteen.

    Only to the desperate. There isn’t any evidence for a simpler genetic code. None.

  436. 436
    Fred Hickson says:

    FH seemed to answer the question of “how many” by saying “one at a time”. So, a self-replicating organism would start with one of the required 20 amino acids, apparently, and then just add others in gradual-Darwinian style? That seems absurd on the face of it, if not impossible.

    First of all, an RNA world means RNA does the job of both storage template for replication and catalytic activity. So the first self-replicators needed no code. Replication is by direct templating.

    Given this situation, RNA role substition to DNA also requires only direct templating, no arbitrary codes involved.

    Substitution of RNA’s role as catalysts could then be Darwinian. There is no requirement that all 20 aminoacids included in the “standard” genetic code needed to be involved all at once and thus no need for 20 aaRSs all at once.

    Hence “One”!

    PS

    Upright Biped’s argument over aaRSs is a pretty good one and if, as I did for several years, we reject RNA world as a precursor to DNA/RNA/protein life as we have it now, it is a fatal one. UB needs to reconsider in the light of RNA world scenario or make an argument that RNA world is impossible. Not reconsidering his claim and dismissing RNA world is also an option, of course.

  437. 437
    Fred Hickson says:

    And following ET’s example of metaphorical fingers inserted deeply into ears is also available.

  438. 438
    Fred Hickson says:

    So, when I consider that I proved Fred Hickson wrong on hydra by providing a link to the web page of a research cell biologist on the subject, he couldn’t bring himself to admit he was wrong.

    Dear me, binary thinking is an issue. I merely queried your claim and asked for clarification because, on the face of it, it seemed extreme. I’m still not clear which hydra species you were working with and whether the extremely long tentacles you observed were simply the limit of the normal etension/retraction and involved only topological change or that some mutation was involved. You deflected by telling me to try it (what? – no details provided) and then took offense when I pointed out the difficulties.

    People here seem very thin-skinned. Almost like a deflection strategy, attack the person rather than discuss issues. No worries but where does it get Intelligent Design? No nearer being taken seriously as an avenue for scientific endeavor.

  439. 439
    Fred Hickson says:

    Anyway, perhaps Upright Biped will respond. Tomorrow is another day.

  440. 440
    ET says:

    Fred Hickson:

    And following ET’s example of metaphorical fingers inserted deeply into ears is also available.

    I see that Alan is still a lying coward. How quaint.

  441. 441
    ET says:

    Fred Hickson:

    First of all, an RNA world means RNA does the job of both storage template for replication and catalytic activity. So the first self-replicators needed no code. Replication is by direct templating.

    It’s an imaginary fantasy world, Alan. You have FAILED to provide any evidence for any RNA world. You obviously don’t care about science.

    Given this situation, RNA role substition to DNA also requires only direct templating, no arbitrary codes involved.

    Given your weakness for science and honesty, we know that you will NEVER support that claim.

    Fred/ Alan is totally clueless. Even given a RNA world, there isn’t any link to DNA-based life. It is sheer desperation based on the need to reject ID at all costs. Pathetic, really.

  442. 442
    ET says:

    Fred:

    Anyway, perhaps Upright Biped will respond.

    What’s to respond to? You have FAILED to present any evidence. You have FAILED to present any science. You are a FAILURE.

    No one dismisses the alleged RNA world because there isn’t any evidence for one. Science demands the claims being made have evidentiary support but also have to be testable, tested and confirmed. You don’t have that. All you have is your head up your arse. And you think that takes precedence over science and evidence.

  443. 443
    Fred Hickson says:

    Even given a RNA world, there isn’t any link to DNA-based life.

    Absolutely, except for the fact that RNA-to-DNA and DNA-to-RNA copying by direct complementary base pairing works so well, it’s still happening in cells today and ribozymes are still central and essential in cellar metabolism. Apart from that…

  444. 444
    JVL says:

    ET: Science demands the claims being made have evidentiary support but also have to be testable, tested and confirmed.

    Speaking of which . . .

    What kind of test could you set up for ID? Some scenario which will always produce a predicted outcome . . . or not.

    Can you reliably and predictably promulgate an ID event?

  445. 445
    Querius says:

    JVL @444,

    What kind of test could you set up for ID? Some scenario which will always produce a predicted outcome . . . or not.

    It’s already done many times! The presumption of design is demonstrated by the functions later discovered in “junk” DNA. The functions of “vestigial” organs–useless vestiges of evolution–are now termed ductless glands, the thyroid being one of them.

    But, I’m sure you’ll always ask for new examples after you wave off new discoveries that validate the presumption of design.

    In contrast, Darwinism has successfully predicted nothing in advance. Its utility seems to be confined to rationalizing discoveries on what “musta” happened millions of years ago.

    -Q

  446. 446
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL, when something has been answered cogently on the record a great many times but you keep asking as if it has not been given that is then a rhetorical tactic not an honest question, meant to cast doubt. We both know that FSCO/Ihas been observed to occur by intelligently directed configuration trillions of times and has never been seen by blind chance. Show an observed case of FSCO/I beyond 500 – 1,000 bits occurring by blind chance and/or mechanical necessity and the design inference would collapse. You keep pushing because you refuse to acknowledge the facts which are uncongenial to your preferences. KF

  447. 447
    JVL says:

    Querius: The presumption of design is demonstrated by the functions later discovered in “junk” DNA. The functions of “vestigial” organs–useless vestiges of evolution–are now termed ductless glands, the thyroid being one of them.

    No, that’s not a test. That’s an interpretation of the data. I’m talking about setting up a test or experiment that will give a predicted result. It should be repeatable by others. Is there such a thing for ID?

    But, I’m sure you’ll always ask for new examples after you wave off new discoveries that validate the presumption of design.

    I’m avoiding arguing over interpretations of known (and possibly future) examples.

    In contrast, Darwinism has successfully predicted nothing in advance. Its utility seems to be confined to rationalizing discoveries on what “musta” happened millions of years ago.

    Unguided evolution would predict that bacteria will develop resistance to new anti-biotics and we have seen that happen many times. Unguided evolution would predict ring species and we have evidence that such things have happened. Unguided evolution would predict that a species arriving on a remote, isolated location removed from its parent species will become one or more distinct species and we have clear evidence such things have happened. Unguided evolution would predict that weird physical adaptions (like the giraffe’s laryngeal nerve or the human inverted retina) will occur. Unguided evolution would predict that, since many mutations are deleterious, quite a few foetuses are spontaneously aborted which we do observed. Unguided evolution would predict that there would be ‘junk’ in many genomes which is the case.

    So, what does ID predict? Can we set up an experiment or test to see one of those predictions come true? What would that be then? This is the nature of science: can your ‘theory’ predict an outcome that can then be verified? Tell me how to do that with ID.

  448. 448
    asauber says:

    “The presumption of design is demonstrated by the functions later discovered in “junk” DNA.”

    I’d say function, period.

    Andrew

  449. 449
    JVL says:

    Kairosfocus: We both know that FSCO/Ihas been observed to occur by intelligently directed configuration trillions of times and has never been seen by blind chance. Show an observed case of FSCO/I beyond 500 – 1,000 bits occurring by blind chance and/or mechanical necessity and the design inference would collapse. You keep pushing because you refuse to acknowledge the facts which are uncongenial to your preferences.

    As should be clear I’m talking about something else entirely. I’m asking for a test or experiment which is repeatable and observer independent which ID predicts the outcome. Oh and it should be something that is different from what is predicted by unguided evolutionary theory.

    This is entirely different from arguing whether or not already observed life forms exhibit design. This is asking if ID has predictive powers and how could that be tested.

    If you predict that more of the genome will be found to have function then a) that is a weak statement, b) many unguided evolutionists would agree with you and c) it’s not specific.

    If you predict that ALL of the genome will be found to have function then that is something that can be tested. (In fact it already has been checked.)

    If you predict that 50% of the genome will be found to have function then that is also something which can, eventually, be tested. You would also have to make sure you were specific: would your prediction include all of the repeated segments?

    So, can you propose a test or experiment which ID can predict the outcome? A test that is repeatable? A test that is clear and unambiguous.

  450. 450
    JVL says:

    Asuaber: I’d say function, period.

    So . . . are you saying all the genome will be shown to be functional? What do you mean by functional? Are you including all the repeated sequences or just the first occurrence? And the broken genes? Everything? If not then what?

  451. 451
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL, origin of FSCO/I is repeatable and observable, just regard comments in thread as cases in point. And you know this too. KF

  452. 452
    JVL says:

    Kairosfocus: origin of FSCO/I is repeatable and observable, just regard comments in thread as cases in point. And you know this too.

    No, you are missing the point.

    Can you propose a test or experiment that you can do and that I can do which fulfils a prediction of ID. The whole point of doing a test or experiment is that it’s not clear what is going to happen, if a certain thing happens then it’s seen as support for a certain hypothesis. I’m thinking of putting some life form into a certain situation and a predicted outcome occurs.

    Just saying: oh look, here’s another example of FSCO/I is NOT what I’m talking about. As should be blatantly obvious. We disagree on your interpretation so I’m asking for something different.

    Can you propose a test that does not just involve interpreting known data? Can you propose an experiment where something CHANGES according to an ID prediction?

    My question is very, very clear. Please don’t keep wasting time dancing around it.

  453. 453
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL, the prediction as you know is even more obvious, that observed cases of origin of FSCO/I beyond 500 to 1,000 bits will continue the trillions so far trend. Coming about by intelligently directed configuration. As you also know, random document generation exercises have got to about 24 ascii characters in meaningful strings, 1 in 10^100 on config space size of the threshold. And no you do not get to try to invent oddball tests, there is a perfectly valid one on the table. KF

  454. 454
    kairosfocus says:

    PS, future FSCO/I strings are not known data and there is no serious debate over interpretation.

  455. 455
    JVL says:

    Kairosfocus: the prediction as you know is even more obvious, that observed cases of origin of FSCO/I beyond 500 to 1,000 bits will continue the trillions so far trend.

    That is not a prediction. That is your assertion: that a certain level of what you call FSCO/I is an indication of intelligent design. That is not a prediction, that is your assertion. And your sentence is really poorly phrased.

    I am talking about a test or experiment. One that you can do, one that I can do, one that everyone can do given a certain level of equipment and expertise of course.

    Give me a scenario where an effect is observed after the test or experiment, an effect that is predicted by ID. That does not mean just counting how many genomic base pairs there are. THAT IS NOT A TEST.

    As you also know, random document generation exercises have got to about 24 ascii characters in meaningful strings, 1 in 106100 on config space size of the threshold.

    This is mostly gibberish and HAS NOTHING to do with what I’m asking for. You picked the threshold, you just running around finding more examples IS NOT a test or experiment.

    Why is this so hard for you to understand?

    Can ID be tested in a laboratory or real world situation? Can you give me a repeatable, observer independent situation that I can set up which will give an ID predicted result? Yes or no?

    future FSCO/I strings are not known data and there is no serious debate over interpretation.

    That is not a test or experiment! I know you know what I mean; why can’t you just deal with the actual question? Having made the assertion that a certain length of string is a win for you is NOT the same as testing an assertion! You are not testing anything! Especially since you never actually tested your assertion in the first place except to say: well, that’s what we’ve always observed. And, yes, your interpretation is widely disagreed with. What I’m proposing bypasses all of that.

    Can you propose a test or experiment, yes or no?

  456. 456
    kairosfocus says:

    PPS, recall, FSCO/I includes design specifications for objects, so, it is WLOG. At this point I think you are trying to make up scenarios to try to pretend that the design inference does not make testable predictions. A test base of trillions is among the most thoroughly tested matters, ever.

  457. 457
    JVL says:

    Kairosfocus: At this point I think you are trying to make up scenarios to try to pretend that the design inference does not make testable predictions.

    Here’s what I am asking you, AGAIN:

    Can you propose a testable situation that I can put an existing life form in that will instigate a change predicted by ID? A change NOT predicted by unguided evolutionary theory? A test that is clear and unambiguous, a test that anyone with a certain level of ability and equipment could reproduce.

    Nothing you are saying addressing a change dictated by ID. IF ID affects development and speciation then it has to introduce change. Can you propose a test or experiment to show that ID can and will, predictably, introduce a change? Yes or no?

    A test base of trillions is among the most thoroughly tested matters, ever.

    That is NOT showing that ID is capable of predicting a change unpredicted by unguided evolutionary theory.

    Can ID predict developmental changes, yes or no?

  458. 458
    ET says:

    Fred Hickson:

    Absolutely, except for the fact that RNA-to-DNA and DNA-to-RNA copying by direct complementary base pairing works so well, it’s still happening in cells today and ribozymes are still central and essential in cellar metabolism.

    Earth to Fred- what happens inside of modern cells is not indicative of any imaginary, fantasy RNA world.

  459. 459
    ET says:

    JVL:

    What kind of test could you set up for ID? Some scenario which will always produce a predicted outcome . . . or not.

    As Dr. Behe said and I have told you at least 1,000 times:

    “Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.”

    If we observe that and don’t have any idea how blind and mindless processes could have done it, we are safe to infer it was accomplished by means of Intelligent Design.

  460. 460
    ET says:

    There isn’t any unguided evolutionary theory. The reason that the paper
    “Waiting for TWO Mutations” was written is because there isn’t any actual evidence for unguided evolution beyond genetic diseases and deformities.

  461. 461
    asauber says:

    JVL,

    The presumption of design is demonstrated by function.

    Andrew

  462. 462
    ET says:

    ID is based on three premises and the inference that follows (DeWolf et al., Darwinism, Design and Public Education, pg. 92):

    1) High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design.

    2) Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity.

    3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.

    4) Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.

    And guess what? That is more than evolution by means of blind, mindless and purposeless processes can muster. Both JVL and Fred have choked on that.

  463. 463
    ET says:

    The National Academy of Sciences has objected that intelligent design is not falsifiable, and I think that’s just the opposite of the truth. Intelligent design is very open to falsification. I claim, for example, that the bacterial flagellum could not be produced by natural selection; it needed to be deliberately intelligently designed. Well, all a scientist has to do to prove me wrong is to take a bacterium without a flagellum, or knock out the genes for the flagellum in a bacterium, go into his lab and grow that bug for a long time and see if it produces anything resembling a flagellum. If that happened, intelligent design, as I understand it, would be knocked out of the water. I certainly don’t expect it to happen, but it’s easily falsified by a series of such experiments.

    Now let’s turn that around and ask, How do we falsify the contention that natural selection produced the bacterial flagellum? If that same scientist went into the lab and knocked out the bacterial flagellum genes, grew the bacterium for a long time, and nothing much happened, well, he’d say maybe we didn’t start with the right bacterium, maybe we didn’t wait long enough, maybe we need a bigger population, and it would be very much more difficult to falsify the Darwinian hypothesis.

    I think the very opposite is true. I think intelligent design is easily testable, easily falsifiable, although it has not been falsified, and Darwinism is very resistant to being falsified. They can always claim something was not right.- Dr Behe

  464. 464
    JVL says:

    ET: As Dr. Behe said and I have told you at least 1,000 times:

    That is not a test! Can you propose a scenario where we set up a situation with a given life form, put it under a given pressure or situation and an effect is observed predicted by ID and not by unguided evolution? Not: can I find this or that. Can you propose a test or experiment that ID can predict the outcome?

    If we observe that and don’t have any idea how blind and mindless processes could have done it, we are safe to infer it was accomplished by means of Intelligent Design.

    I’m not asking you to test unguided evolutionary theory, I’m asking you to test ID. Can you test ID?

    Again, can you propose a situation where an effect is induced, predicted by ID and not predicted by unguided evolution, that is repeatable and observer independent? Yes or no?

    Earth to Fred- what happens inside of modern cells is not indicative of any imaginary, fantasy RNA world.

    What, exactly, would be different chemically between now and then?

  465. 465
    ET says:

    JVL:

    Unguided evolution would predict that bacteria will develop resistance to new anti-biotics and we have seen that happen many times.

    Nonsense. That doesn’t have anything to do with unguided evolution.

    Unguided evolution would predict ring species and we have evidence that such things have happened. Unguided evolution would predict that a species arriving on a remote, isolated location removed from its parent species will become one or more distinct species and we have clear evidence such things have happened. Unguided evolution would predict that weird physical adaptions (like the giraffe’s laryngeal nerve or the human inverted retina) will occur. Unguided evolution would predict that, since many mutations are deleterious, quite a few foetuses are spontaneously aborted which we do observed. Unguided evolution would predict that there would be ‘junk’ in many genomes which is the case.

    You are a clueless and deluded loser. Not one of those has anything to do with unguided evolution. Not one. Try again.

  466. 466
    JVL says:

    Asauber: The presumption of design is demonstrated by function.

    Good lord. Why is my request so hard for you to understand?

    Can you verify ID experimentally? Give me a situation where I can see that ID predicts the outcome. Is that so hard to understand?

  467. 467
    ET says:

    JVL:

    That is not a test!

    Yes, it is! It says what we should expect. It is just like archaeology and forensic science.

    I’m not asking you to test unguided evolutionary theory, I’m asking you to test ID. Can you test ID?

    I forgot that you are scientifically illiterate. Newton’s four rules of scientific reasoning mandate that all design inferences eliminate blind and mindless processes first

    What, exactly, would be different chemically between now and then?

    For a start DNA-based life needs existing proteins and an existing coded information processing system.

  468. 468
    JVL says:

    ET: You are a clueless and deluded loser. Not one of those has anything to do with unguided evolution. Not one. Try again.

    Fine, one up me. Give me a situation where ID predicts the outcome of a repeatable test or experiment. So far you haven’t proposed anything.

  469. 469
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    Organisms have logical functions and predetermined goals that can’t be accounted by natural laws.
    End of story.
    Biologists think like ID proponents when study life in the lab and then outside the lab act like materialists when they try “to explain” how coded logical processes /systems/feedback loops are the result of chaos .It’s easy to understand why they lie : competing with chaos they would look important (while competing with a smarter Designer …)

  470. 470
    ET says:

    JVL:

    Give me a situation where ID predicts the outcome of a repeatable test or experiment.

    I have. You choked on it. Your willful ignorance and scientific illiteracy are not arguments.

  471. 471
    JVL says:

    ET: I forgot that you are scientifically illiterate. Newton’s four rules of scientific reasoning mandate that all design inferences eliminate blind and mindless processes first

    I’m not asking you to test unguided evolution, I’m asking you to test ID.

    IF ID has a unifying idea or hypothesis then it should be able to predict the outcome of a test or experiment which brings its influence to the fore. Can you propose such a test or experiment, test or no?

    I have. You choked on it. Your willful ignorance and scientific illiteracy are not arguments.

    Well repeat it again so all the other participants can make a judgement.

  472. 472
    ET says:

    “Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.”

    If we observe that and don’t have any idea how blind and mindless processes could have done it, we are safe to infer it was accomplished by means of Intelligent Design. That is a test for ID. But JVL is a scientifically illiterate troll. So, he cannot understand scientific tests.

  473. 473
    ET says:

    JVL:

    I’m not asking you to test unguided evolution, I’m asking you to test ID.

    Again, for the learning impaired: Newton’s four rules of scientific reasoning mandate that all design inferences eliminate blind and mindless processes first.

    What part of that are you too stupid to understand, JVL?

  474. 474
    JVL says:

    LCD: Organisms have logical functions and predetermined goals that can’t be accounted by natural laws. End of story.

    That is not a test of ID.

    Biologists think like ID proponents when study life in the lab and then outside the lab act like materialists when have “to explain” how coded logical processes /systems/feedback loops are the result of chaos .It’s easy to understand why they lie : competing with chaos they would look important (while competing with a smarter Designer …)

    Right, so are you saying that ID cannot provide predictable outcomes because . . . why exactly?

  475. 475
    JVL says:

    ET: If we observe that and don’t have any idea how blind and mindless processes could have done it, we are safe to infer it was accomplished by means of Intelligent Design. That is a test for ID. But JVL is a scientifically illiterate troll. So, he cannot understand scientific tests.

    So, you claim you have proven a negative and eliminated things other than intelligent design but you cannot provide a test or experiment the outcome of which is predicted by ID and is different from the prediction offered by unguided evolutionary theory? Is that it?

    so, ID has no idea what’s coming next, what path or forms life will explore in the future? Is that right?

    Again, for the learning impaired: Newton’s four rules of scientific reasoning mandate that all design inferences eliminate blind and mindless processes first.

    And you say you’ve proven that negative but you cannot offer an ID based prediction on what will happen next. Is that right?

    So, just to summarise, NO ONE has offered up a test or experiment that can be run which will give an ID predicted outcome different from that predicted by unguided evolutionary processes. Is that right?

    Can I infer then that ID is NOT experimentally verifiable? NOT do you think you’ve proven a negative (that something else couldn’t have been responsible) but is there a positive test that I can do which will show that only ID can explain an observed change? Yes or no?

  476. 476
    Fred Hickson says:

    @ JVL

    That’s an extremely generous response to Querius’s comment 445. Your forebearance is impressive.

  477. 477
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    Biologists are using ID logic in lab to discover new logical processes(chemistry don’t help to discover code ,feedback loops, detection and repair errors . There are no “errors” in chemistry ). Science is based entirely on ID thinking that universe/life has a logical coherence .Materialism is a science stopper because if everything is random then science must be unintelligible . Science can’t exist in truly random universe. Science exist because universe has coherence. Universe has coherence because is created.

  478. 478
    JVL says:

    Fred Hickson: That’s an extremely generous response to Querius’s comment 445. Your forebearance is impressive.

    I’m just trying to make sure things are clear: does ID offer an experimentally verifiable prediction or not.

    This has NOTHING to do with any of the reasons any of the ID proponents here have for believing ID is true. I’m not arguing against those things. I’m just asking: can you provide a test or experiment where the outcome is predicted by ID by not by unguided evolutionary processes? I would have thought that a) that point was clear and b) that all the ID proponents who assert that ID is science would be able to provide such a test.

    As ET said in comment 442:

    Science demands the claims being made have evidentiary support but also have to be testable, tested and confirmed.

    Nothing I’ve heard so far can be interpreted as an independent test or experiment, preferably repeatable and observer independent, which can support ID. What i have heard is a lot of assertions and claims and suggestions that a negative has been proven.

    This is NOT about unguided evolution. This is about ID being science.

    Is there a test or experiment or scenario which will fulfil a prediction of ID that is not predicted by unguided evolution? It should be easy to say yes or no.

  479. 479
    JVL says:

    LCD: Biologists are using ID logic in lab to discover new logical processes(chemistry don’t help to discover code ,feedback loops, detection and repair errors . There are no “errors” in chemistry ). Science is based entirely on ID thinking that universe/life has a logical coherence .Materialism is a science stopper because if everything is random then science must be unintelligible . Science can’t exist in truly random universe. Science exist because universe has coherence. Universe has coherence because is created.

    Sigh. Can you provide an objective, repeatable test or experiment or scenario which will support an ID prediction which is different from those predictions made by unguided evolutionary theory?

    Yes or no?

  480. 480
    Querius says:

    JVL @447,

    Unguided evolution would predict that there would be ‘junk’ in many genomes which is the case.

    Really? So how do you prove something is useless junk? So far, all I’ve seen is the mighty shield of ignorance, namely that if we don’t know what something does, then it must be junk.

    If you find an object in your “junk” drawer, do you immediately throw it away if you don’t know what it’s for or you investigate what it might be for?

    -Q

  481. 481
    bill cole says:

    JVL

    So, you claim you have proven a negative and eliminated things other than intelligent design but you cannot provide a test or experiment the outcome of which is predicted by ID and is different from the prediction offered by unguided evolutionary theory? Is that it?”

    Behe’s proposed these method is whether we can identify a purpose for an arranged set of parts. The more parts and the closer they are coordinated the stronger the design inference. One of his examples is the bacterial flagellum which has 30 plus well matched parts. The purpose of the flagellum is to provide mobility to bacteria.

    From this observation using Behe’s method we can infer design.

  482. 482
    Querius says:

    JVL @479,

    Sigh. Can you provide an objective, repeatable test or experiment or scenario which will support an ID prediction which is different from those predictions made by unguided evolutionary theory?

    Apparently none that can get by your a priori assumptions of “junk.” There’s an accumulation of functions now attributed to “junk” DNA that falsify your irrational position. For example

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/04/180411131659.htm

    There you go. Your presumption of junk just blew up in your face.

    -Q

  483. 483
    JHolo says:

    When COVID-19 emerged as a human pandemic, the evolutionary theory that ET claims doesn’t exist, predicts that mutations in the virus would result in waves of infection.

    How does ID explain this?

  484. 484
    Fred Hickson says:

    Oh Querius. God is watching, you know.

  485. 485
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL, you are confirming my suspicion. You have a test in hand passed trillions of times but that will never be enough, oh on some excuse we ignore it and demand a different, novel test. KF

  486. 486
    JHolo says:

    Evolutionary theory predicts that new antibiotics will be effective for a period of time before antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria arise.

    How does ID predict this?

  487. 487
    kairosfocus says:

    AS & Q though there is a dictionary meaning of presumption that fits, it tends to suggest blind a priori, I would avoid the word. KF

  488. 488
    ET says:

    JVL:

    So, you claim you have proven a negative and eliminated things other than intelligent design but you cannot provide a test or experiment the outcome of which is predicted by ID and is different from the prediction offered by unguided evolutionary theory?

    You are just stupid: “Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.”

  489. 489
    Fred Hickson says:

    Tiktaalik. Why did Shubin know where to look? Another evolutionary prediction confirmed.

  490. 490
    ET says:

    Unguided evolution only explains genetic diseases and deformities. The reason why the paper “Waiting for TWO Mutations” was written is because there isn’t any actual evidence for unguided evolution besides genetic diseases and deformities.

  491. 491
    JHolo says:

    Evolutionary theory predicts that changes in environmental conditions can result in local extinction and reproductive separation and isolation of sub-populations.

  492. 492
    ET says:

    Fred, buy a vowel. Tiktaalik doesn’t have anything to do with evolution by means of blind and mindless processes. Evolution by means of blind and mindless processes can’t account for metazoans.

  493. 493
    Fred Hickson says:

    Hi Bill

    Are you taking a bit of an R & R break from Peaceful Science?

  494. 494
    ET says:

    JHolo, Fred and JVL are proud to be equivocating cowards.

  495. 495
    ET says:

    Why is it that no one can link to this alleged scientific theory of evolution? It’s as if it doesn’t exist!

  496. 496
    JHolo says:

    FH: Hi Bill

    Are you taking a bit of an R & R break from Peaceful Science?

    Who is Bill?

  497. 497
    Fred Hickson says:

    Evolution by means of blind and mindless processes can’t account for metazoans.

    There are harder things to explain than the origin of multicellularity with plenty of existant transitional forms around currently that fit the evolutionary picture. I get that ID both explains nothing and everything, depending who is promoting it to which audience. But where do you see yourself in another twenty or so years. Still at ground zero still complaining the scientific mainstream is ignoring you? I suspect so.

  498. 498
    JVL says:

    Querius: Really? So how do you prove something is useless junk? So far, all I’ve seen is the mighty shield of ignorance, namely that if we don’t know what something does, then it must be junk.

    Aside from you not answering my base question . . .

    Some sequences are not even transcribed so they cannot have an effect on development or growth. Dr Moran has published a widely distributed list of things that someone would need to address regarding ‘junk’ DNA; I assume you’ve seen it?

    If you find an object in your “junk” drawer, do you immediately throw it away if you don’t know what it’s for or you investigate what it might be for?

    Again, since you’re avoiding my question I’ll refer back to Dr Moran’s list.

    Apparently none that can get by your a priori assumptions of “junk.” There’s an accumulation of functions now attributed to “junk” DNA that falsify your irrational position.

    How much of the human genome once thought to be ‘junk’ has now been shown to have an important function? I’m not saying that some of the transcribed sections will be found to be important but I think it’s pretty clear that a lot will not. So, no, you have not falsified my position because you noticed that some sections do have a function.

  499. 499
    Fred Hickson says:

    @ JHolo

    Bill Cole, see comment 481. He’s possibly Michael Behe’s greatest fan. He’s been getting a bit of a beating from the other regulars at Peaceful Science.

  500. 500
    ET says:

    Fred Hickson:

    There are harder things to explain than the origin of multicellularity with plenty of existant transitional forms around currently that fit the evolutionary picture.

    Your continued equivocation is duly noted. And all evolution by means of blind and mindless processes can explain are genetic diseases and deformities. Also, being a metazoan is much more than multicellularity.

    I get that ID both explains nothing and everything,…

    You are willfully ignorant of ID.

    But where do you see yourself in another twenty or so years.

    Still far ahead, scientifically, than evolution by means of blind and mindless processes.

    Your alleged scientific mainstream can’t even formulate a scientific theory of evolution. They don’t even know what determines biological form. They have nothing but delusions and promissory notes. And all they have for support are clueless tools like you.

  501. 501
    JVL says:

    Bill Cole: From this observation using Behe’s method we can infer design.

    But my question is: can you provide a repeatable, observer independent test or experiment which ID predicts an outcome that is different from that offered by unguided evolution? Yes or no?

  502. 502
    ET says:

    Fred Hickson:

    He’s been getting a bit of a beating from the other regulars at Peaceful Science.

    In what way? No one there has ever presented any evidence that evolution by means of blind and mindless processes can do anything other than produce genetic diseases and deformities. And if those feeble-minded pukes ever show up here, they will get the beating.

  503. 503
    JVL says:

    Kairosfocus: you are confirming my suspicion. You have a test in hand passed trillions of times but that will never be enough, oh on some excuse we ignore it and demand a different, novel test.

    I take it that you cannot provide an objective, repeatable, observer independent test or experiment that gives an outcome predicted by ID but not by unguided evolution. Why didn’t you just say so?

    A test is different that pointing to more cases of your assertion. But you don’t seem to understand that.

  504. 504
    ET says:

    JVL:

    But my question is: can you provide a repeatable, observer independent test or experiment which ID predicts an outcome that is different from that offered by unguided evolution?

    You have already admitted that any experiment for unguided evolution requires millions of years. And the reason why the paper “Waiting for TWO Mutations” was written is because there isn’t any actual evidence for unguided evolution. Not when it comes to producing something like a bacterial flagellum, anyway.

    That said, if the experiment was to show how many parts some biological system or structure required, Behe laid out the Design criteria.

  505. 505
    JVL says:

    ET: You are just stupid: “Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.”

    You are not answering my question, deliberately it seems. Either that or you’re just stupid. Which is it? I am not asking you why you infer design!

    Again: can you provide an objective, repeatable, observer independent test that give an result predicted by ID but not by unguided evolutionary theory?

    That’s what Newton did. That’s what Einstein did. They proposed an explanation and then said: if my theory is correct you will see this and that instead of other things under certain conditions. Can you do the same with ID? Yes or no?

    Unguided evolution only explains genetic diseases and deformities. The reason why the paper “Waiting for TWO Mutations” was written is because there isn’t any actual evidence for unguided evolution besides genetic diseases and deformities.

    What does ID predict? What test or experiment can we set up to show that a prediction of ID is repeatable and observer independent? Can you provide such a test or experiment? Yes or no?

    That said, if the experiment was to show how many parts some biological system or structure required, Behe laid out the Design criteria.

    Sigh. Can you provide an objective, repeatable, observer independent test or experiment which fulfils a prediction of ID which is different from the prediction offered by unguided evolution? Yes or no?

    This is not like your gainsaying of any reference to a scientific theory of evolution provided to you. It’s been tried and you just deny, deny, deny. This has to do with you not even being able to provide any kind of objective, observer independent, repeatable test of ID’s predictive power. You’ve said absolutely nothing. You keep trying to duck and dodge and push the argument off onto some other topic.

    We’ve all noticed. You haven’t answered the question. Are we to take it that you can’t? That seems like the most likely situation at this point.

  506. 506
    ET says:

    The test for Intelligent Design was to peer inside the black box that is a living cell.

    1) High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design.

    2) Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity.

    3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.

    4) Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.

  507. 507
    ET says:

    JVL:

    You are not answering my question, deliberately it seems.

    You are just too stupid to understand the answer. That is because you are just a scientifically illiterate troll.

    The test for Intelligent Design was to peer inside the black box that is a living cell. And if we see:

    1) High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design.

    2) Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity.

    3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.

    4) Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.

  508. 508
    bill cole says:

    JVL

    But my question is: can you provide a repeatable, observer independent test or experiment which ID predicts an outcome that is different from that offered by unguided evolution? Yes or no?

    You’re paradigm by this yes or no question is how the properties of matter are used to make predictive models. We can characterize electro magnetism or gravity and create a predictive model.

    ID proposes a mind as the mechanism that can account for the observation. The test or the mechanism is whether a mind can arrange parts. This is indeed very testable and predictable as we are communicating by arranged abstract symbols or parts.

  509. 509
    ET says:

    Unguided evolution only explains genetic diseases and deformities. The reason why the paper “Waiting for TWO Mutations” was written is because there isn’t any actual evidence for unguided evolution besides genetic diseases and deformities.

    JVL:

    What does ID predict?

    Exactly what I have been telling you. But thanks for proving that you are a willfully ignorant coward.

  510. 510
    JHolo says:

    ET: And if those feeble-minded pukes ever show up here, they will get the beating.

    Being insulted by angry people who haven’t gotten past the anal stage of development isn’t a “beating”. It is just sadly pathetic for the person doing the “beating”.

  511. 511
    JVL says:

    ET: And if those feeble-minded pukes ever show up here, they will get the beating.

    Ooo, I’m scared now. What a great example of scientific argumentation and intelligent reasoning.

    Exactly what I have been telling you. But thanks for proving that you are a willfully ignorant coward.

    Can you give us an example of a repeatable, objective, observer independent test or experiment that supports a prediction made by ID that is in opposition to ones offered by unguided evolutionary theory.

    You say you understand science. You say you follow Newton’s rules. Well, do what Newton did then:

    Come up with a hypothesis, provide an objective, observer independent situation or test that we can use to check a prediction of that hypothesis and let us try and repeat and scrutinise the result. If you can.

    If you’re so good at science it should be easy for you to do that.

    The test for Intelligent Design was to peer inside the black box that is a living cell. And if we see:

    Make a prediction and provide a test that we can execute, repeatably. A test that is not just confirming your disputed assertions. A test which provides a result that is different than what unguided evolutionary theory proposes.

    You just trotting out the same old justifications is NOT the same thing as proposing the outcome of a particular situation or set of conditions and the reaction of a life form. You know that. But you just keep dancing really fast and hope we give up.

    Provide a repeatable, objective, observer independent (your criteria fails here because not every one agrees on your biased view) test or experiment which gives a result predicted by ID and runs counter to the prediction offered by unguided evolutionary theory. You just pointing at DNA (and some undetected, undefined extra programming) and saying: hey, that looks designed to me therefore I win is NOT the same thing.

    Newton got that. He knew he had to come up with some new mathematics that successfully modelled the situation he was trying to explain. Einstein’s theories predicted phenomena that no one had even observed yet. And he did so correctly.

    What does ID predict that we can check and verify? Something objective, measurable, repeatable. Not just you saying it must be true. You have to do better than that.

  512. 512
    JVL says:

    Bill Cole: ID proposes a mind as the mechanism that can account for the observation. The test or the mechanism is whether a mind can arrange parts. This is indeed very testable and predictable as we are communicating by arranged abstract symbols or parts.

    Can you provide an objective, repeatable, observer independent test or experiment that shows that there is a mind behind the development of life on earth? A test that tests a prediction of your assertion that there is a mind behind the process.

    We’re not just talking about any old situation here; we’re talking about the development of life on Earth. Let’s stick with that shall we?

  513. 513
    ET says:

    JHolo:

    Being insulted by angry people who haven’t gotten past the anal stage of development isn’t a “beating”.

    You just described the minions of Peaceful Science

  514. 514
    ET says:

    JVL:

    What does ID predict that we can check and verify?

    The test for Intelligent Design was to peer inside the black box that is a living cell. And if we see:

    1) High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design.

    2) Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity.

    3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.

    4) Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.

    and

    “Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.”

    Not my fault that you are too stupid to understand that.

  515. 515
    ET says:

    JVL:

    That’s what Newton did. That’s what Einstein did. They proposed an explanation and then said: if my theory is correct you will see this and that instead of other things under certain conditions. Can you do the same with ID? Yes or no?

    Yes, and I have.

    The test for Intelligent Design was to peer inside the black box that is a living cell. And if we see:

    1) High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design.

    2) Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity.

    3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.

    4) Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.

    and

    “Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.”

  516. 516
    JVL says:

    Incredibly enough no one of the ID proponents here can provide a simple, replicable, observer independent test along the following lines: if you put this or that life form in this or that situation you WILL observe the following result as predicted by ID but NOT by unguided evolutionary theory.

    You all keep trying to tell my why you think your design inference is correct. But I’m not asking that.

    Some of you keep attacking unguided evolution but that’s not the topic at hand.

    If ID is science then it should have predictive power. That predictive power should be testable. You should be able to provide an objective, repeatable, observer independent test of a prediction made by ID that is contrary to that made my unguided evolutionary theory.

    When you keep telling me that those cells sure do look complicated and we can’t figure out how unguided processes could have done it IS NOT providing a test or experiment. That’s just you continuing to assert your beliefs and opinions. And you know those are highly contested.

    I’m proposing a way past the old arguments and stalemates.

    Give us a test, one we can do for ourselves, one we can repeat, one that doesn’t matter who runs the test, that supports a prediction of ID that is significantly different from what we’d expect if unguided evolutionary theory is true.

    If ID is science then it’s reasonable to expect its proponents to be able to abide by such a reasonable request. If ID is science then it should have predictive power. ID should be able to say: you unguided people would probably expect so-and-so but if you follow my test you’ll see that you get something different, something that follows a prediction made by ID.

    I await your replies.

  517. 517
    ET says:

    Incredibly,JVL is a proven willfully ignorant troll.

  518. 518
    bill cole says:

    Can you provide an objective, repeatable, observer independent test or experiment that shows that there is a mind behind the development of life on earth? A test that tests a prediction of your assertion that there is a mind behind the process.

    Take a bacterial cell and see if parts are purposely arranged. Take a yeast cell repeat. Take a plant cell repeat. Take a vertebrate cell repeat. Start with tissue and then move up to organs. All these parts are arranged for a purpose. The alternative is this is all a cosmic accident. I don’t think this is a conclusion reasonable people can arrive at.

    This is also important for science as it is very different using intelligent design vs a cosmic accident as a working assumption to develop theory.

    .

  519. 519
    ET says:

    Intelligent Designs predicts the same basic things as archaeology and forensic science. Namely that when intelligent agencies act, they tend to leave traces of those actions behind. Complex specified information, irreducible complexity and specified complexity are such signs. But JVL is too dim to grasp that. And he definitely can’t say what unguided evolution predicts. Then he ignores the fact that the paper “Waiting for TWO Mutations” was written because there isn’t any actual experimental evidence for unguided evolution.

  520. 520
    JVL says:

    ET: “Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.”

    I am not asking you why you think life was designed. I’m asking you to provide a test where you put a life form in a particular situation and the result is something predicted by ID but not by unguided evolution.

    I guess you just don’t get it. Or you’re just too much of a coward to admit you can’t answer the question.

    Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.

    Based on what exactly? A complicated probabilistic argument? Which says, in the end, that it’s highly unlikely that unguided processes ‘did it’? That’s what Dr Behe has admitted, that he can’t show that unguided causes are not sufficient, only that they are highly unlikely. But then your whole argument falls to pieces.

    So, can you provide a test of an actual life form or not? Can you lay out a situation where a life form will respond to a situation in a way predicted by ID by not by unguided processes? Yes or no?

    Yes or no?

  521. 521
    bill cole says:

    Incredibly,JVL is a proven willfully ignorant troll.

    Will see if he can start to argue logically or just ask gotcha questions.

  522. 522
    JVL says:

    Bill Cole: Take a bacterial cell and see if parts are purposely arranged. Take a yeast cell repeat. Take a plant cell repeat. Take a vertebrate cell repeat. Start with tissue and then move up to organs. All these parts are arranged for a purpose. The alternative is this is all a cosmic accident. I don’t think this is a conclusion reasonable people can arrive at.

    That is not an experiment or test which induces a change which is a prediction of ID but not of unguided evolution.

    I guess you just don’t understand my question.

    Will see if he can start to argue logically or just ask gotcha questions.

    My question is reasonable if ID is a science which has predictive power. Show me an experiment which verifies ID’s predictive power.

  523. 523
    bill cole says:

    Based on what exactly? A complicated probabilistic argument? Which says, in the end, that it’s highly unlikely that unguided processes ‘did it’? That’s what Dr Behe has admitted, that he can’t show that unguided causes are not sufficient, only that they are highly unlikely. But then your whole argument falls to pieces.

    Science is about showing your hypothesis is sound. If someone can show it is unlikely your hypothesis is falsified. Evolution by mutation natural selection as a complete explanation for the diversity of life has been falsified by Mike Behe.

  524. 524
    JVL says:

    ET: Intelligent Designs predicts the same basic things as archaeology and forensic science. Namely that when intelligent agencies act, they tend to leave traces of those actions behind.

    But you say more than that, you say it also has an effect on biological development across the biome. I’m asking you to provide me a test or experiment which establishes that based on a prediction made by ID.

    You can keep dancing it back and back and back. Eventually you’ll run out of things that ID does if you can’t provide an example which you can predict will be seen before it is seen.

    And he definitely can’t say what unguided evolution predicts.

    I’ve replied to this several times. ET either wants you to believe a lie or he can’t remember what I have said or, what he really means is, that he disagrees with me. Disagreement is fine, lying and deceiving is not.

    “Waiting for TWO Mutations” was written because there isn’t any actual experimental evidence for unguided evolution.

    Anyone who has read the actual paper knows that is not correct. Again, is ET wanting you to believe a lie or is he just badly mistaken? There is no shame in representing your opponents arguments fairly and honestly. Lying about them is shameful.

  525. 525
    bill cole says:

    My question is reasonable if ID is a science which has predictive power. Show me an experiment which verifies ID’s predictive power.

    I did.

    We can predict that all organisms discovered or undiscovered will have a purposeful arrangement of parts. The experiment extracting and observing the sequence data of the selected organisms. If you can show an organism that does not operate with purposely arranged DNA and proteins you can falsify this hypothesis.

  526. 526
    JVL says:

    Bill Cole: Science is about showing your hypothesis is sound. If someone can show it is unlikely your hypothesis is falsified. Evolution by mutation natural selection as a complete explanation for the diversity of life has been falsified by Mike Behe.

    Well, that’s what his true believers think anyway. Most of whom do not understand the mathematics he (mis)uses. Which has been pointed out to him but you know what it’s like when you publicly commit to something which is later shown to be erroneous. It’s hard to admit you made a mistake. Especially when the Discovery Institute is paying for your book.

    So, you cannot provide me with an objective, repeatable, observer independent test of a life form which will give a result supporting a prediction made by ID but contrary to one given by unguided evolution.

    Thanks for you time. I’d advise you in the future to try and actually read and respond to what people are asking you; you’ll look less foolish that way. Your call.

  527. 527
    relatd says:

    FH at 497,

    Evolution explains nothing and everything. ID looks at living things and can clearly locate the design aspects.

  528. 528
    bill cole says:

    . Well, that’s what his true believers think anyway. Most of whom do not understand the mathematics he (mis)uses. Which has been pointed out to him but you know what it’s like when you publicly commit to something which is later shown to be erroneous. It’s hard to admit you made a mistake. Especially when the Discovery Institute is paying for your book.

    Have you read the Behe paper that is critiqued by Michael Lynch. Do you claim to understand the mathematics? I would be happy to discuss this with you. Can you prove ET wrong and show you have some substance behind your rhetoric? 🙂

  529. 529
    vividbleau says:

    JVL
    “that is contrary to that made my unguided evolutionary theory”

    What is your unguided evolutionary theory and what would contradict your unguided evolutionary theory? I have observed over the years that the unguided evolutionary theory is like the blob which swallows virtually every piece of evidence. For that reason personally I think unguided evolutionary theory is unfalsifiable.

    Vivid

  530. 530
    Upright BiPed says:

    .
    JVL,

    JVL: you know what it’s like when you publicly commit to something which is later shown to be erroneous. It’s hard to admit you made a mistake.

    You use flawed reasoning to avoid the universal evidence in support of ID at the origin of life, even though you’ve also been forced to recognize that same evidence as perfectly valid and true (not to mention, a prediction made at a science symposium, later confirmed by experimental result).

    You have reasoned that because the proponents of an unguided origin of life do not believe in a guided origin of life, then the evidence in support of a guided origin is invalidated.

    JVL: “I pointed out that the semiotic community does not agree with design”

    In the face of absolutely zero evidence confirming an unguided OoL, this is actually the centerpiece of your reasoning — and it is as anti-science and anti-intellectual as it can possibly be.

    Even so, when confronted with this fallacy against science and reason, you simply repeat the fallacy — over and over and over again. Every time you defend your reasoning, you repeat this same fallacy.

    Seriously, why are you so afraid of addressing the flaws in your logic?

    – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

    JVL at 512

    Can you provide an objective, repeatable, observer independent test or experiment that shows that unguided forces are behind the origin of life on earth?

    I fixed your question for you.

    Now you can answer the same question you demand others answer.

    If you get around to admitting that you have no such test yourself, then the purely rhetorical nature of your demands will become evident for all to see.

    Unfortunately, there is seemingly no level of intellectual embarrassment that will alter your actions.

  531. 531
    EDTA says:

    JVL @ 516,

    You’ve been here how long now, and you are asking these things??

    >if you put this or that life form in this or that situation you WILL observe the following result as predicted by ID but NOT by unguided evolutionary theory.
    Even evolutionary biology is an observational science, not a predictive science. Evolutionists cannot tell us precisely what the next mutation to take hold in an arbitrary wild species will be.

    >You all keep trying to tell my why you think your design inference is correct. But I’m not asking that.
    So you now agree?

    >If ID is science then it should have predictive power.
    Only certain branches of science (should) claim predictive power. Theoretial physics for one. Many are purely or nearly purely observational.

    >You should be able to provide an objective, repeatable, observer independent test…
    Yes, always set the bar higher than you think the other side can get over. Common debate tactic.

    >When you keep telling me that those cells sure do look complicated and we can’t figure out how unguided processes could have done it IS NOT providing a test or experiment.
    We are ruling out one inference, which points strongly to a different inference. When we are dealing with questions that could only be answered by a look back into the inaccessible past, that’s about all one can do sometimes.

    >If ID is science then it should have predictive power.
    This totally misunderstands the nature of predictive science, and is totally incorrect. You’re equivocating on the word “science”.

  532. 532
    Querius says:

    Kairosfocus @487,

    AS & Q though there is a dictionary meaning of presumption that fits, it tends to suggest blind a priori, I would avoid the word. KF

    Noted. But while it’s empirically and inductively justified, a presumption of design is indeed blind in every new situation as is the case with any other presumption.

    Caller: My computer screen is black.
    Technician: Is your monitor plugged in and turned on?
    Caller: Yes, and the little light on it is green.
    Technician: can you connect your monitor to a different computer?
    Caller: Just a minute . . . yes, the monitor is still black.
    Technician: Wait . . . are either of your computers turned on?
    Caller: No. Why would that make any difference?

    My point is that the presumption one chooses has a significant impact on how fast one reaches the correct or a pragmatically superior conclusion. On what basis does one make the choice?

    Ok, let’s take a more practical example. Would you presume a newly discovered virus is natural or engineered? This can involve Bayesian inferences, right?

    -Q

  533. 533
    Querius says:

    JVL @498,

    Aside from you not answering my base question . . .

    Yes, I did. In 480, you stated

    Unguided evolution would predict that there would be ‘junk’ in many genomes which is the case.

    I provided a link that you didn’t read, falsifying your assertion and answering your question. ID predicts that “junk” DNA has a function. This was shown to be true as new functions are discovered and your presumed “junk” grows smaller and smaller.

    Here’s the link again:
    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/04/180411131659.htm

    Since you won’t read it, the title is “Scientists discover a role for ‘junk’ DNA.

    Your assertion just blew up in your face again. But as Monty Python’s black knight would say, “‘Twas but a scratch.”

    -Q

  534. 534
    Fred Hickson says:

    The GULOP gene is non-functional in humans and other primates. Junk DNA in other words, though some call it a pseudogene.

    @ Querius

    And the ID explanation is?

    </