Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Scientists’ reaction to ever more of the cell’s complexity in its own environment

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In mind-boggling detail:

For a few weeks in 2017, Wanda Kukulski found herself binge-watching an unusual kind of film: videos of the insides of cells. They were made using a technique called cryo-electron tomography (cryo-ET) that allows researchers to view the proteins in cells at high resolution. In these videos, she could see all kinds of striking things, such as the inner workings of cells and the compartments inside them, in unprecedented detail. “I was so overwhelmed by the beauty and the complexity that in the evenings I would just watch them like I would watch a documentary,” recalls Kukulski, a biochemist at the University of Bern, Switzerland.

In recent years, imaging techniques such as cryo-ET have started to enable scientists to see biological molecules in their native environments. Unlike older methods that take individual proteins out of their niches to study them, these techniques provide a holistic view of proteins and other molecules together with the cellular landscape. Although they still have limitations — some researchers say that the resolution of cryo-ET, for example, is too low for molecules to be identified with certainty — the techniques are increasing in popularity and sophistication. Researchers who turn to them are not only mesmerized by the beautiful images, but also blown away by some of the secrets that are being revealed — such as the tricks bacteria use to infect cells or how mutated proteins drive neurodegenerative diseases such as Parkinson’s.

Diana Kwon, “The secret lives of cells — as never seen before” at Nature (October 26, 2021)

No wonder panpsychism is catching on, among those who are forbidden to think in terms of design.

Comments
Upright biped, I have to admit I do enjoy a good debate every now and then, given that the other party is willing to honestly engage(a rare occurrence now a days I’m afraid).Seekers
November 4, 2021
November
11
Nov
4
04
2021
05:52 PM
5
05
52
PM
PDT
. ... also Seeker: JVL has already acknowledged that finding a genuine symbolic code would provide observers with a universal inference to the presence of a previously unknown intelligence. It would provide this inference without knowing who, what, when, where or how. He/she actually loves the logic, and fully agrees with it. It's just that when it interferes with JVL's personal worldview, he/she becomes irrational and immediately applies a gratuitous double-standard to the evidence. This is done in order to insulate his/her ideology from the documented science and history.
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.
Upright BiPed
November 4, 2021
November
11
Nov
4
04
2021
05:12 PM
5
05
12
PM
PDT
.
UB: JVL, is the gene system a genuine symbol system, just as it was predicted by John Von Neumann? If it is, then the design inference is valid. JVL: The design hypothesis is valid of course.
Nauseatingly true to form, there was little doubt that you would use your gratuitous change in terms to con-man your way out. Seeker #101, you might consider spitting out the hook, although I obviously understand the attraction to question abject dishonesty. As laid out for JVL on the site, the design inference is based (in part) on John Von Neumann's successful prediction that open-ended self-replication would depend on a quiescent symbol system, a language structure (a code), and semiotic closure. That prediction has been already validated tens of thousands of times over, as JVL pretends to await for it to take place. Sydney Brenner: John Von Neumann the history of DNA Sydney Brenner: Schrödinger wrong, von Neumann rightUpright BiPed
November 4, 2021
November
11
Nov
4
04
2021
04:54 PM
4
04
54
PM
PDT
Seekers: They infer design and investigate how such a design could have been implemented. Perhaps read some of they’re material and you could be better informed. I have read some of 'they're' material and I see precious little that addresses how or when design was implemented. But I'm happy to change my mind if you can show me some publications which do pursue those goals. Then why are you here. Two main reasons: First, I would very much like to understand what ID proponents are 'saying' in that, what are they actually, specifically proposing happened in the history of life on Earth. I keep bumping up against the void that seems to exist after 'we've detected design'. So, what is ID saying past that? Anything? Is it really a scientific endeavour with an actual research agenda and questions to pursue? I don't think it's fair to decry a viewpoint until you understand it fully and I'm still trying to figure out what model of the development of life on Earth ID is proposing. Or which models it is proposing. No one will say. Secondly, I don't think one should go through life without testing you own ideas against the best arguments against them. I do think the arguments for unguided evolution is correct but if I haven't considered the alternative explanations then . . . And, as I've mentioned before, my view on some aspects of the issues has changed as a result of conversing with people on this forum. But this does bring up my basic frustration again: what is ID actually saying about when and how life arose and developed on Earth? It was designed. Okay? All at once? A bit at a time? In the later case how often did intervention occur? Etc, etc, etc. All questions anyone interested in science would want to address and pursue. So that's what I'm trying to do.JVL
November 4, 2021
November
11
Nov
4
04
2021
01:58 PM
1
01
58
PM
PDT
JVL, “If your data and arguments and results are good then you should be able to overcome that.“ I’m not out to persuade anyone, if you hold antipathy towards the design inference that’s your problem. “ Informed Guesses and speculations based on data and observed phenomena followed up by experimentation and more data collection. But ID doesn’t even bother to speculate or guess. We infer design and . . . that’s it.” They infer design and investigate how such a design could have been implemented. Perhaps read some of they’re material and you could be better informed. “ Well, I see precious little about when design was implemented or how or by who in a general sense” Then why are you here.Seekers
November 4, 2021
November
11
Nov
4
04
2021
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PDT
Seekers: JBL, Um, I think you mean JVL I’m sensing a slight antipathy towards the design inference. If your data and arguments and results are good then you should be able to overcome that. So in order for you to accept the design inference you require documentation of how, when, and why the designing took place. You seem to be holding the design hypothesis to an awfully high standard. You asked my opinion. And what I'm asking for is very similar to what ID proponents ask of unguided evolutionary proponents: tell us when, tell us how (very precisely). Why is not an issue since the process is proposed to be unguided. I also listed some other criteria that I would find illuminating so don't just fixate on one. As far as I’m aware naturalistic hypothesis offer up guesses and speculation to the hows and when’s but you seem to have no problem accepting that. Informed Guesses and speculations based on data and observed phenomena followed up by experimentation and more data collection. But ID doesn't even bother to speculate or guess. We infer design and . . . that's it. Saying something is designed is a statement which requires further investigation. I completely agree! Thank you. So what investigations are ongoing? What is the research agenda? What major questions are being investigated? Just saying something happened by sheer randomness says nothing and hardly offers much opportunity to investigate the how’s and why's. But no one is saying that. Except for people trying to make a straw man argument against the modern evolutionary synthesis. So you believe science works by simply infighting about who is right. Maybe none of them are right and a vault really is awaiting discovery on the moon but they would never know that as they’re infighting would blind them to such a discovery. I'm saying that a healthy and active area of science has people disagreeing and arguing about what is correct and which way to go. ID doesn't exhibit any of those features. They’re are many within the ID camp whom hold to different views, what I would say they all agree too is that there is evidence of design in the history of life. Simply because they do not argue with one another doesn’t mean that they are not proposing anything at all. Well, I see precious little about when design was implemented or how or by who in a general sense; i.e. not a specific individual which I have to say otherwise ET will flag that statement for derision since he thinks any reference to 'who' means a particular individual. IF ID proponents have some disagreements and some discussions about the when's, why's and how's then I'd love to see that.JVL
November 4, 2021
November
11
Nov
4
04
2021
01:30 PM
1
01
30
PM
PDT
JVL, “I’m not holding my breath. Again, you can make lots and lots of hypothesis” I’m sensing a slight antipathy towards the design inference. Sure you can make lots of hypothesis, but speculating on what someone can think up is irrelevant to the topic at hand. At the end of the day the only two main hypothesis would be between design or unguided, however you want to define both camps. “Well, one of the best and clearest form of evidence would be documentation from the designers regarding how and when and why they implemented design. Expecting that documentation to conform to the physical data we have already discovered. You never know, we might find a secure vault on the moon spelling it all out“ So in order for you to accept the design inference you require documentation of how, when, and why the designing took place. You seem to be holding the design hypothesis to an awfully high standard. “Personally I would find it easier to evaluate and potentially accept ID hypotheses if they were more specific regarding when and how. Just saying: we think this is designed says almost nothing” As far as I’m aware naturalistic hypothesis offer up guesses and speculation to the hows and when’s but you seem to have no problem accepting that. Saying something is designed is a statement which requires further investigation. Just saying something happened by sheer randomness says nothing and hardly offers much opportunity to investigate the how’s and whys. “The unguided camp is always fighting amongst themselves about who is right. That’s the way science works. Except with ID. No one is proposing anything or arguing about anything. It’s weird” So you believe science works by simply infighting about who is right. Maybe none of them are right and a vault really is awaiting discovery on the moon but they would never know that as they’re infighting would blind them to such a discovery. They’re are many within the ID camp whom hold to different views, what I would say they all agree too is that there is evidence of design in the history of life. Simply because they do not argue with one another doesn’t mean that they are not proposing anything at all.Seekers
November 4, 2021
November
11
Nov
4
04
2021
01:12 PM
1
01
12
PM
PDT
Seekers: Ok, so by your admission the design ‘hypothesis’ is valid and awaiting validation. I'm not holding my breath. Again, you can make lots and lots of hypothesis. What, in your opinion, would you consider as validating evidence for the design hypothesis?. Well, one of the best and clearest form of evidence would be documentation from the designers regarding how and when and why they implemented design. Expecting that documentation to conform to the physical data we have already discovered. You never know, we might find a secure vault on the moon spelling it all out. Any kind of evidence that there were designers around with the abilities required would be helpful. You can't actually prove a negative: i.e. that some 'design' could not have been accomplished by unguided processes. But I think some work could be done on a mathematical process or procedure for design detection. The one that Dr Dembski proposed is unusable and unused so it might be worth some time re-examining that. Personally I would find it easier to evaluate and potentially accept ID hypotheses if they were more specific regarding when and how. Just saying: we think this is designed says almost nothing. Consider the vast difference between a fully front-loaded scenario and one involving frequent interventions. They are vastly different claims but ID proponents are reluctant to look at the physical evidence and give more weight to one or the other. I find that very surprising and sad to be honest. I think in their desperation to fight the materialists various ID camps have decided to stop proposing different ID models (and stop doing any science) to present a unified front. The unguided camp is always fighting amongst themselves about who is right. That's the way science works. Except with ID. No one is proposing anything or arguing about anything. It's weird. There SHOULD be multiple design hypotheses but there isn't. There's only one and it doesn't say much of anything and no one is trying to fill in the details.JVL
November 4, 2021
November
11
Nov
4
04
2021
12:32 PM
12
12
32
PM
PDT
JVL, Ok, so by your admission the design ‘hypothesis’ is valid and awaiting validation. What, in your opinion, would you consider as validating evidence for the design hypothesis?.Seekers
November 4, 2021
November
11
Nov
4
04
2021
11:54 AM
11
11
54
AM
PDT
Upright BiPed: It appears our ID critic has acknowledged that the design inference is valid. No, I said the design hypothesis is valid. But a hypothesis is just a guess, it needs to be validated. The phrase “of course” was even added as comical relief — as if someone could read any of his or her prior comments on this forum, and would know that the scientific validity of the design inference was an already accepted conclusion. Except, obviously, I didn't use the word 'inference'. You are giving the wrong impression. Is there nothing JVL that can be said to you in order to get you to understand that science is just not conducted by special pleading? You can say “Well people believe it”, “Well people believe it”, “Well people believe it” over and over and over again — it still means nothing JVL. Can you just not understand that, or what? Expect, I don't just say that. Again, you are saying I said things I didn't say. I think it should be noted that JVL’s acknowledgement (that the scientific inference to design in biology is valid) the first time — at least to my knowledge — that a materialist critic on this website has made that acknowledgement (others can correct me if I am wrong). Except, obviously, I didn't say that. Now… I realize that JVL’s acknowledgment will mean nothing, JVL will continue to stay here and pester ID people as if the inference is obviously false. Much of the time I am trying to figure out what ID supporters mean by 'it was designed' as in: how was it implemented; over a long period of time or all at once? Surely you can see there there would be much different kinds of evidence supporting a completely front-loaded scenario as opposed to some kind of continuous tinkering. I don't see what is wrong trying to make sure I am clear what ID proponents are proposing. Just so you realize, the design inference in biology does not demonstrate the existence of a Supreme Being. It is limited to the presence of a previously unknown intelligence (albeit, a mighty one). It would be helpful to the discussion if you kept that in mind. If you would specify some more details of when and how you think design was implemented we might get some more clarity on that issue as well.JVL
November 4, 2021
November
11
Nov
4
04
2021
08:16 AM
8
08
16
AM
PDT
ET: You will just have to read Spetner and Marshall. And yes, I am caught up on the alleged origin of eukaryotes. Endosymbiosis has been around for decades. They can’t duplicate it. It is not reproducible. I don't know why you can't just give a brief summary. Not sure I want to spend the money . . . Look, JVL, it is all about changes to DNA. That is it is all about a differential accumulations of (unguided) genetic change. Yet DNA doesn’t have the power you think it does. Well, how do you think significant new body plans came about? Not by being designed to evolve 'cause that would only affect the DNA. That has absolutely NO bearing on the nature of the mutations. Of course it does. Random means they don't happen predictably so you need to check if they're predictable. No, the evidence in the genome supports a common design. You are stuck with the phenotype of prokaryotes. In metazoans all DNA does is produce slight variations, like color. And it also contributes to deformities. DNA definitely does NOT determine biological form. It just determines if the biological form will develop properly or not. So . . . you're saying lifeforms are programmed to evolve but DNA isn't enough . . . so how do new body plans arise in your view? Laughable. I am proving that you don’t have a clue. Yes, we know that DNA does NOT determine biological form. We know that changes to DNA cannot possibly account for the diversity of life. It doesn’t matter how many mutations. It doesn’t matter how they are filtered. It doesn’t matter how they accumulate. A lion that survives and passes its genes on will always have lions as descendants. A better surviving prokaryote is still a prokaryote. It will only give rise to more prokaryotes. So, you think being programmed to evolve includes something else other than DNA? What would that be then?JVL
November 4, 2021
November
11
Nov
4
04
2021
08:08 AM
8
08
08
AM
PDT
It is limited to the presence of a previously unknown intelligence
There is the problem of infinite regression of that unknown intelligence that was created by other unknown intelligence that was created by ... A single one unknown intelligence postulate An Ultimate Intelligence outside the system. But I understand where you're coming from. :)Sandy
November 2, 2021
November
11
Nov
2
02
2021
10:15 AM
10
10
15
AM
PDT
. #95 Just so you realize, the design inference in biology does not demonstrate the existence of a Supreme Being. It is limited to the presence of a previously unknown intelligence (albeit, a mighty one). It would be helpful to the discussion if you kept that in mind.Upright BiPed
November 2, 2021
November
11
Nov
2
02
2021
09:29 AM
9
09
29
AM
PDT
. As an aside… I think it should be noted that JVL’s acknowledgement (that the scientific inference to design in biology is valid) the first time — at least to my knowledge — that a materialist critic on this website has made that acknowledgement (others can correct me if I am wrong). For that I am surprised. For the design inference to be invalid, it would require a demonstration that non-intelligence can create the system in question. That demonstration does not exist. It is not something about to exist. It is not as if OoL research has the plot, and is just filling in the characters. It doesn’t exist at all. Now… I realize that JVL’s acknowledgment will mean nothing, JVL will continue to stay here and pester ID people as if the inference is obviously false. He/she can always find the ubiquitous argument over “evolution” to get involved in (ignoring the fact that the design inference is what makes evolution possible in the first place). But still, the admission, however tainted, is there. So, there’s that.Upright BiPed
November 2, 2021
November
11
Nov
2
02
2021
09:22 AM
9
09
22
AM
PDT
If you are an OoL researcher, ..you can start from some unknown physical condition, like say, an unknown dynamic self-replicating RNA, and then move to some other unknown condition, such as an unknown form of metabolism or some other unknown process —OR— You can move from a known condition, like the rate-independent system you must achieve in order to actually explain the origin of life and open-ended potential, and then move to an unknown, such as a precursor condition that is physically capable of bringing that system into being
Very good. Something something "unknown" is not science is religion, ideology. In this way can be summarized all debate (neo)darwinism vs I.D. :The battle of the unknowns one side bring the unknown of random chance the other side bring the unknown technology of a Super-Intelligence. In the middle we have life, cell,brain,embriology. Is not very difficult to choose. Actually even a child with no scientific knowledge can choose the right answer where some PhD scientists fail. :) ID can't prove the technology about how life was created because it's a superior intelligence than theirs (think children of 3 years can't explain what Einstein has done) but WHY darwinists can't prove how stupid random chance created life???(think Einstein that can't prove /understand how a child made something)Sandy
November 2, 2021
November
11
Nov
2
02
2021
09:07 AM
9
09
07
AM
PDT
(returning) my oh my It appears our ID critic has acknowledged that the design inference is valid. The phrase “of course” was even added as comical relief — as if someone could read any of his or her prior comments on this forum, and would know that the scientific validity of the design inference was an already accepted conclusion. Yes JVL, the gene system is a genuine rate-independent symbol system. It is established by a set of non-integrable constraints. It uses the spatial orientation of objects within a finite set of tokens to distinguish one referent from another, enabling it to specify itself among alternatives in a heritable memory, and thus enabling it to perpetuate itself over time — just as it was predicted. You quickly couch your admission in the counter-question “is it upheld by the observed data?” This question seems a bit detached from reality. It is as if the conversation that led up to your acknowledgment of the design inference hadn’t actually been taking place for the past three years. The design inference is directly and wholly based on observation and experiment. It is based on the observations of Charles Sanders Peirce, Alan Turing, John Von Neumann, Francis Crick, Sydney Brenner, Mahlon Hoagland, Paul Zamecnik, Marshall Nirenberg, Howard Pattee, and others. The question you actually need to ask is this: “Is there a non-design explanation that is upheld by the observed data?” The answer to that question is emphatically “No”. But rest assured, this is not a biased, slippery, partisan “No”. This is a concrete, demonstrable, scientific, no-one-even-has-a-damn-clue “No”. If you believe otherwise — if you believe that there is experimental data showing the calculable rise of a perpetuating rate-independent symbol system from rate-dependent dynamics, then by all means, post it here. Really, please post it. (It doesn’t exist) If you are an OoL researcher, you can approach and speak about the subject in different ways. You can start from some unknown physical condition, like say, an unknown dynamic self-replicating RNA, and then move to some other unknown condition, such as an unknown form of metabolism or some other unknown process —OR— You can move from a known condition, like the rate-independent system you must achieve in order to actually explain the origin of life and open-ended potential, and then move to an unknown, such as a precursor condition that is physically capable of bringing that system into being. Sit though a lecture by someone like Jack Szostak, or Gerald Joyce, or John Sutherland. You will see that they all pursue the former approach, not the latter. No one has any idea how you get symbols from dynamics. No one can tell you — even conceptually — how that is possible. No one is even discussing it. This is why you cannot do a quick search of papers and find some pithy answer to the problems that semiosis places on the table. It is because (as I suggest in comment #66) the materialists conception of abiogenesis is fundamentally inadequate. Molecule A sticking to molecule B with a higher regularity than molecule C does not mean that molecule A is a description of molecule B. Get real. As for the remainder of your comment — whew. Is there nothing JVL that can be said to you in order to get you to understand that science is just not conducted by special pleading? You can say “Well people believe it”, “Well people believe it”, “Well people believe it” over and over and over again — it still means nothing JVL. Can you just not understand that, or what?Upright BiPed
November 2, 2021
November
11
Nov
2
02
2021
07:08 AM
7
07
08
AM
PDT
Now you may bring up your old objections: they won’t buck the ruling paradigm because they are worried about their jobs. They don’t want to be ridiculed for objecting to the accepted truth. Etc. But I just don’t buy those excuses.
I think it's more a matter of a worldview that precludes allowing for intelligent design. It doesn't have to be something explicit, like an acknowledged threat or concern. I don't doubt that those are factors in some cases, but in most cases I suspect it's just a matter of a worldview that says that intelligent design is not an option. There's no practical way to test the theories of how the code developed, so untested assumptions needed to fill in the blanks are treated as fact.davidl1
November 1, 2021
November
11
Nov
1
01
2021
04:39 PM
4
04
39
PM
PDT
ET @91, What??? The glaciers didn't build Stonehenge, sculpting them by differential erosion millions of years ago? Surely if the complexity of a cell could be the result of random processes, the evolution of Stonehenge would be trivial in comparison! (We find many examples of pre-Stonehenge morphologies expressed at successive depths of strata). LOL -QQuerius
November 1, 2021
November
11
Nov
1
01
2021
03:50 PM
3
03
50
PM
PDT
JVL:
The design hypothesis is valid of course. The question is: is it upheld by the observed data?
Absolutely.
I don’t think you’ll find many biologists or semiotic researchers who think it is. I haven’t found one yet who does.
I know we won't find one biologist or semiotic researcher than can demonstrate that nature can do it. So no one cares what they say. It's what they can demonstrate that matters to science. And they can't demonstrate that nature did it. And it goes against everything we know about such systems. It's like saying glaciers built Stonehenge.ET
October 31, 2021
October
10
Oct
31
31
2021
05:12 PM
5
05
12
PM
PDT
JVL- You will just have to read Spetner and Marshall. And yes, I am caught up on the alleged origin of eukaryotes. Endosymbiosis has been around for decades. They can't duplicate it. It is not reproducible.
It depends on which stage your are talking about clearly.
Look, JVL, it is all about changes to DNA. That is it is all about a differential accumulations of (unguided) genetic change. Yet DNA doesn't have the power you think it does.
Other opinions, via textbooks and research and lectures and seminars and publications are available.
I don't care about opinions. The fact that no one can link to the alleged scientific theory is more than enough to support my claim. And no one has ever presented a viable model for evolution by means of blind and mindless processes
No, you can look at the rate and location of mutations and consider what effect they have on the physiology of the life form.
That has absolutely NO bearing on the nature of the mutations.
I don’t understand, the evidence in the genome supports universal common descent and we know how DNA variation can affect phenotypes.
No, the evidence in the genome supports a common design. You are stuck with the phenotype of prokaryotes. In metazoans all DNA does is produce slight variations, like color. And it also contributes to deformities. DNA definitely does NOT determine biological form. It just determines if the biological form will develop properly or not. You clearly are just another gullible fool. DNA is not the magical molecule you have been led to believe it is.
You seem to be drifting a bit. We know how DNA works and how it can affect a particular life form implementation. We know that replication of DNA has a certain error rate which introduces variations which translate into physical differences, sometimes. And evolutionary theory says that those variations affect survival rates and affect which genes get more copies passed on. Simple.
Laughable. I am proving that you don't have a clue. Yes, we know that DNA does NOT determine biological form. We know that changes to DNA cannot possibly account for the diversity of life. It doesn't matter how many mutations. It doesn't matter how they are filtered. It doesn't matter how they accumulate. A lion that survives and passes its genes on will always have lions as descendants. A better surviving prokaryote is still a prokaryote. It will only give rise to more prokaryotes. Contingent serendipity is not a creative force. And the DNA model has been known to be a failure for a few decades. But evos refuse to give up. Desperation, really.ET
October 31, 2021
October
10
Oct
31
31
2021
05:07 PM
5
05
07
PM
PDT
ET: You still haven't given a summary of how one can distinguish between guided and unguided mutations. Just saying> Yes. I am caught up. And if you don’t have a mechanism capable of getting beyond the starting point then you lose. Have you considered all the proposed hypotheses? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eukaryote#Origin_of_eukaryotes ‘I know the story. What variations, specifically? It depends on which stage your are talking about clearly. Gibberish. There isn’t any scientific theory of evolution. There isn’t any viable scientific alterative to ID. ID still offers the only scientific explanation for our existence. Other opinions, via textbooks and research and lectures and seminars and publications are available. And as I said- that living organisms were intelligently designed comes with they were intelligently designed to evolve and adapt. Unguided processes come down to point mutations. Gene duplication, followed by integration and sequence change, isn’t unguided. Yes . . . . The ONLY way to say that mutations are unguided is to show that such processes can produce living organisms. Other than that all you have is an argument from ignorance. But again, it does not matter. The DNA model has been falsified. No, you can look at the rate and location of mutations and consider what effect they have on the physiology of the life form. I think you're losing the plot a bit. Wow! Wrong and wrong. The DNA model states that differential accumulations of (random/ unguided) genetic change produced the diversity of life, starting from some unknown populations of imperfect biologically relevant replicators. And how can there be evidence in genomes that supports universal common descent absent the DNA model? I don't understand, the evidence in the genome supports universal common descent and we know how DNA variation can affect phenotypes. You clearly don’t have any idea what you are talking about. The DNA is model is your alleged theory of evolution. That came true with the advent of the modern synthesis. And Mayr supported it until his death. You seem to be drifting a bit. We know how DNA works and how it can affect a particular life form implementation. We know that replication of DNA has a certain error rate which introduces variations which translate into physical differences, sometimes. And evolutionary theory says that those variations affect survival rates and affect which genes get more copies passed on. Simple.JVL
October 31, 2021
October
10
Oct
31
31
2021
01:55 PM
1
01
55
PM
PDT
Upright Biped: JVL, you made a single comment to me yesterday, pushing the ridiculous narrative that a scientist’ personal worldview is more important to scientific questions than his/her scientific measurement. You then ended that comment by telling me you had nothing more to say. I didn't say it was more important, I just noted what I've observed. I don't really have any more to say. I spent some time looking again for comments and statement by semiotic researchers and did find this request for papers about semiotics and the extended synthesis, i.e. as in evolutionary theory. http://biosemiosis.blogspot.com/2016/12/cfp-for-special-issue-on-extended.html
While the field of biosemiotics is concerned with the origin and development of natural semiotic systems, much of the discussion has been framed in terms of Darwinian frameworks, including the Modern Synthesis. Non-Darwinian views were held by Uexküll and, more recently, Darwinian views have been supplemented in important ways by Kull, Hoffmeyer, and Barbieri. Many biological phenomena, such as transgenerational epigenetic inheritance, have yet to be explained in terms of these evolutionary theories. In the 1980s, biologists aimed to develop an Extended Synthesis to build upon and replace parts of the Modern Synthesis to better accommodate and explain these observed phenomenon.
And then I found this from a paper published in 2018: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12304-018-9322-2
This paper argues that the Extended Synthesis, ecological information, and biosemiotics are complementary approaches whose engagement will help us explain the organism-environment interaction at the cognitive level. The Extended Synthesis, through niche construction theory, can explain the organism-environment interaction at an evolutionary level because niche construction is a process guided by information. We believe that the best account that defines information at this level is the one offered by biosemiotics and, within all kinds of biosemiotic information available, we believe that ecological information (information for affordances) is the best candidate for making sense of the organism-environment relation at the cognitive level. This entanglement of biosemiotics, ecological information and the Extended Synthesis is promising for understanding the multidimensional character of the organism-environment reciprocity as well as the relation between evolution, cognition, and meaning.
Which doesn't sound like the field of semiotics is looking to overthrow the notion of unguided evolutionary theory. In fact, it looks like they are trying to find common ground. (Oddly enough, the timestamp on that comment was 2:28p CDT, which if correct, would be 7:28p GMT). I published my comment at about 7:30 am London time on Sunday, October 31st. I have no idea how the server time-stamps work. JVL, is the gene system a genuine symbol system, just as it was predicted by John Von Neumann? Isn't the real question how it came about? And are you sure that the semiotic researchers think it couldn't have come about naturally? If it is, then the design inference is valid. You can disagree with it, but you cannot say that it is not valid. The design hypothesis is valid of course. The question is: is it upheld by the observed data? I don't think you'll find many biologists or semiotic researchers who think it is. I haven't found one yet who does. Now you may bring up your old objections: they won't buck the ruling paradigm because they are worried about their jobs. They don't want to be ridiculed for objecting to the accepted truth. Etc. But I just don't buy those excuses. Take Dr Pattee for example. He is retired, his pension is at no risk no matter what he says or supports. Plus, he doesn't impress me as the type of person who cares one bit what people think about him. Anyway, there is zero evidence any of the semiotic researchers have felt that kind of pressure or coercion. You suggest it as a possibility but you can't back it up with evidence. If the actual researchers in the field do not support your interpretation and extension of their work then why should I?JVL
October 31, 2021
October
10
Oct
31
31
2021
01:42 PM
1
01
42
PM
PDT
. If you’ve decided to jump back into the conversation, I am all for it. JVL, is the gene system a genuine symbol system, just as it was predicted by John Von Neumann? If it is, then the design inference is valid. You can disagree with it, but you cannot say that it is not valid.Upright BiPed
October 31, 2021
October
10
Oct
31
31
2021
05:47 AM
5
05
47
AM
PDT
. JVL, you made a single comment to me yesterday, pushing the ridiculous narrative that a scientist’ personal worldview is more important to scientific questions than his/her scientific measurement. You then ended that comment by telling me you had nothing more to say. (Oddly enough, the timestamp on that comment was 2:28p CDT, which if correct, would be 7:28p GMT).Upright BiPed
October 31, 2021
October
10
Oct
31
31
2021
05:39 AM
5
05
39
AM
PDT
Upright BiPed: It appears that both JVL and Seversky have abandoned ship. This was to be expected. You can be quite a jerk. I live in the UK and I stayed up pretty late participating in the discussion. Then I went to bed. I have things to do today and will consider replying later.JVL
October 31, 2021
October
10
Oct
31
31
2021
12:15 AM
12
12
15
AM
PDT
. Solemn Existence at #67 Thank you for posting Perry Marshall’s paper.Upright BiPed
October 30, 2021
October
10
Oct
30
30
2021
09:47 PM
9
09
47
PM
PDT
. It appears that both JVL and Seversky have abandoned ship. This was to be expected.Upright BiPed
October 30, 2021
October
10
Oct
30
30
2021
09:44 PM
9
09
44
PM
PDT
Seversky also falsely claimed that "there is no testable hypothesis of creationism or intelligent design against which to compare anything else." That is, once again, a patently false claim for Seversky to make. Unlike Darwinian evolution, Intelligent Design does have rigid falsification criteria that demarcates it as a hard and testable science, and not a pseudo-science like Darwinian evolution is:
The Capabilities of Chaos and Complexity: David L. Abel - Null Hypothesis For Information Generation - 2009 Excerpt of conclusion pg. 42: "To focus the scientific community’s attention on its own tendencies toward overzealous metaphysical imagination bordering on “wish-fulfillment,” we propose the following readily falsifiable null hypothesis, and invite rigorous experimental attempts to falsify it: “Physicodynamics cannot spontaneously traverse The Cybernetic Cut: physicodynamics alone cannot organize itself into formally functional systems requiring algorithmic optimization, computational halting, and circuit integration.” A single exception of non trivial, unaided spontaneous optimization of formal function by truly natural process would falsify this null hypothesis." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2662469/ Can We Falsify Any Of The Following Null Hypothesis 1) Mathematical Logic 2) Algorithmic Optimization 3) Cybernetic Programming 4) Computational Halting 5) Integrated Circuits 6) Organization (e.g. homeostatic optimization far from equilibrium) 7) Material Symbol Systems (e.g. genetics) 8) Any Goal Oriented bona fide system 9) Language 10) Formal function of any kind 11) Utilitarian work Three subsets of sequence complexity and their relevance to biopolymeric information - Abel, Trevors Excerpt: Three qualitative kinds of sequence complexity exist: random (RSC), ordered (OSC), and functional (FSC).,,, Shannon information theory measures the relative degrees of RSC and OSC. Shannon information theory cannot measure FSC. FSC is invariably associated with all forms of complex biofunction, including biochemical pathways, cycles, positive and negative feedback regulation, and homeostatic metabolism. The algorithmic programming of FSC, not merely its aperiodicity, accounts for biological organization. No empirical evidence exists of either RSC of OSC ever having produced a single instance of sophisticated biological organization. Organization invariably manifests FSC rather than successive random events (RSC) or low-informational self-ordering phenomena (OSC).,,, Testable hypotheses about FSC What testable empirical hypotheses can we make about FSC that might allow us to identify when FSC exists? In any of the following null hypotheses [137], demonstrating a single exception would allow falsification. We invite assistance in the falsification of any of the following null hypotheses:?? Null hypothesis #1 Stochastic ensembles of physical units cannot program algorithmic/cybernetic function. Null hypothesis #2 Dynamically-ordered sequences of individual physical units (physicality patterned by natural law causation) cannot program algorithmic/cybernetic function. Null hypothesis #3 Statistically weighted means (e.g., increased availability of certain units in the polymerization environment) giving rise to patterned (compressible) sequences of units cannot program algorithmic/cybernetic function. Null hypothesis #4 Computationally successful configurable switches cannot be set by chance, necessity, or any combination of the two, even over large periods of time. We repeat that a single incident of nontrivial algorithmic programming success achieved without selection for fitness at the decision-node programming level would falsify any of these null hypotheses. This renders each of these hypotheses scientifically testable. We offer the prediction that none of these four hypotheses will be falsified. http://www.tbiomed.com/content/2/1/29
In fact, there is a 10 million dollar prize being offered for the first person who can demonstrate that natural processes can generate a code, (and thus falsify the primary claim of ID that only intelligence can create coded information):
Evolution 2.0 Prize: Unprecedented $10 Million Offered To Replicate Cellular Evolution – 14 Jan, 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. The new international competition is intended to speed breakthroughs around the still unknown process of cell communication that organizers predict can turn off cancer, allow robots to think for themselves and even create new plant life to combat climate change. The Evolution 2.0 Prize is designed by Chicago engineer-turned-marketer-turned-business consultant Perry Marshall and his A-list team of partners. They include top genetic experts from Harvard and Oxford, plus a diverse group of investors from private banking, healthcare and biotechnology, software, real estate, publishing and more. “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. https://www.prnewswire.com/in/news-releases/evolution-2-0-prize-unprecedented-10-million-offered-to-replicate-cellular-evolution-875038146.html
Darwinian evolution, in spite of how badly Seversky may want his atheistic religion of Darwinism to qualify as a hard science, simply does not qualify as a hard and testable science like Intelligent Design does:
Top Ten Questions and Objections to 'Introduction to Evolutionary Informatics' - Robert J. Marks II - June 12, 2017 Excerpt: There exists no (computer) model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. Period. By “model,” we mean definitive simulations or foundational mathematics required of a hard science.,,, We show that no meaningful information can arise from an evolutionary process unless that process is guided. Even when guided, the degree of evolution’s accomplishment is limited by the expertise of the guiding information source — a limit we call Basener’s ceiling. An evolutionary program whose goal is to master chess will never evolve further and offer investment advice.,,, 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.,,, https://evolutionnews.org/2017/06/top-ten-questions-and-objections-to-introduction-to-evolutionary-informatics/
Verse:
1 Thessalonians 5:21 but test all things. Hold fast to the good.
bornagain77
October 30, 2021
October
10
Oct
30
30
2021
06:58 PM
6
06
58
PM
PDT
JVL:
You seem mostly hung up with the transition from prokaryotes to eukaryotes. Are you sure you’re caught up with the latest research on that?
Yes. I am caught up. And if you don't have a mechanism capable of getting beyond the starting point then you lose.
Well, most of them, especially after the introduction of eukaryotes are due to differential survival because of inheritable variations.
'I know the story. What variations, specifically?
I didn’t say DNA was the genetic code.
Right. You said that DNA is a contested structure. That is incorrect. The genetic code involves a coded information processing system.
I think it matters a great deal that you a) support your views and b) offer an alternative to modern evolutionary theory. You (seem to) think some mutations are guided and some are not. I’d just like to know what some of the criteria are for deciding which is which. If those criteria have already be developed it should be easy to provide a summary of them.
Gibberish. There isn't any scientific theory of evolution. There isn't any viable scientific alterative to ID. ID still offers the only scientific explanation for our existence. And as I said- that living organisms were intelligently designed comes with they were intelligently designed to evolve and adapt. Unguided processes come down to point mutations. Gene duplication, followed by integration and sequence change, isn't unguided. The ONLY way to say that mutations are unguided is to show that such processes can produce living organisms. Other than that all you have is an argument from ignorance. But again, it does not matter. The DNA model has been falsified.
There is no DNA model for universal common descent. There is evidence in genomes that supports universal common descent.
Wow! Wrong and wrong. The DNA model states that differential accumulations of (random/ unguided) genetic change produced the diversity of life, starting from some unknown populations of imperfect biologically relevant replicators. And how can there be evidence in genomes that supports universal common descent absent the DNA model? You clearly don't have any idea what you are talking about. The DNA is model is your alleged theory of evolution. That came true with the advent of the modern synthesis. And Mayr supported it until his death.ET
October 30, 2021
October
10
Oct
30
30
2021
06:50 PM
6
06
50
PM
PDT
. Hello Origenes, Sorry, but not at the moment. Later, yes. I hope you are well. :)Upright BiPed
October 30, 2021
October
10
Oct
30
30
2021
05:41 PM
5
05
41
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply