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.
Nobody is forbidden to think in terms of design. There are still plenty of proponents of design and they still publish books and articles and videos. It just doesn’t add anything to science or offer a fruitful alternative to methodological naturalism.
Sev, so the multiverse does?
when i watched the DNA replication animation for the first time, i, as an engineer, instantly knew, that Darwinian biologists trying to mislead lay public (politely said), claiming that biology and processes inside the cell are a product of blind unguided natural process. An educated, rational, 21st century person just can’t buy this non-sense… what is wrong with Darwinists, why they claim such absurd things ? Especially in 21st century ?
For example, during DNA replication, the copy of the lagging strand is being processed way different than the copy of the leading strand. The copy of the lagging strand is being assembled by so called Okazaki fragments – short chucks of DNA. On the other hand, the leading strand is being copied continuously, as it is, a continuous copy – this is exactly what i would expect (more or less) by blind unguided natural process …
Why would a blind natural unguided process complicate already pretty complicated process by making short chucks of DNA and then join it together piece by piece, when it also can be done by a continuous copy as we can see by leading strand ???
here is the animation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNKWgcFPHqw
So truth is not part of methodological naturalism. Interesting admission.
Ditto re Seversky’s comment. ID spends way more time honing its feigned victimhood and attempts to elbow its way to the table than it does on real science. After 30 some years, the best it can come up with is “God did it” and “Darwin was a racist.” That, my friends, is far cry from a Copernican revolution…
ChuckDarwin- Your ignorance is not an argument. Your side doesn’t have any science to supports its asinine claims. It is a given that you and yours don’t understand what science entails.
Your position is supposed to be all about the how and yet you have NOTHING but lies and bluffs.
It is very telling that the way to refute ID is for you and yours to actually support your claims and yet you have to resort to lying about ID. You are pathetic
seversky:
Seriously? Methodological naturalism is anti-science as it forces you to start with a conclusion. Not only that MN has NOT helped you and yours support your asinine position.
ID offers the only scientific explanation for our existence.
CD, what are you greatest evidences for macroevolution? Have you ever doubted it or tried to disprove it? What are the biggest weaknesses of the theory?
Zweston/8
Something easy for you to start with:
Methodological naturalism does not exclude any explanations a priori. The door is open to any who can step over the threshold. That threshold is that if you want your pet explanation to be considered, be it God or gravity, you need to provide good reasons for doing so. As CD pointed out, just complaining you’re not being treated fairly doesn’t cut it. Where’s your evidence that compels ID as a conclusion?
Seversky: Methodological naturalism does not exclude any explanations a priori. The door is open to any who can step over the threshold.
Partially that means you have to be able to set up experiments and situations where you can predict that some event will occur. If you can’t do that, if something happens unpredictably and with no discernible cause or effect then . . . . What can you do with that? You can’t come up with a law or rule. You can’t build or construct something.
Now, some things that most people are pretty sure are natural are still hard or impossible to predict. When and where will lighting strike? What will be the high temperature tomorrow? But scientists are learning more and more about the unguided and purely natural processes that (probably) determine those behaviours. There may be too much noise or unknowns for us ever to be able to predict, precisely, what the high temperature will be tomorrow BUT they are getting better and better. That indicates it’s not being done at will or randomly. Likely to be unguided, natural processes that can be studied and modelled.
How can you model an undefined, unobserved, unlimited being who can act without leaving a trace violating physical laws which work 99.999 . . . . % of the time?
All irrelevant.
Not one is an example of macro evolution by naturalistic means. My guess is Seversky never read what he linked to. They don’t know how anything happened.
Which means that common descent which happened has an unknown mechanism.
It’s essentially an article endorsing ID.
Case closed.
Jerry: Not one is an example of macro evolution by naturalistic means.
What would an example of macro evolution by naturalistic means look like?
Sev @ 9… what is most compelling to you…not an article. I can post a link too, what do you find most compelling? Maybe 3?
And have you ever doubted the theory?
Have you ever tried to critique it to falsify it?
Over related interest:
Zweston,
You might be lucky to get a response to your queries, it has been pointed out fairly regularly that Seversky it particular in his reply’s. With most comments alluding to him either being a troll or simply a bot.
If it’s a discussion your after perhaps JVL may answer your questions.
ChuckyD,
As per your latest comment’s I’m unsure whether your being genuine or simply feigning ignorance. As a convinced deist whom has no use of ID science, I have to ask why waste your time here at UD? It’s obvious you have no real intention to engage in any sort of discussion. As such most of your comment’s are simply your opinion or hyperbole. If you want to entice people to understand your position why not simply engage in some form of conversation. It would seem a more fruitful use of one time than to simply stop by for a troll post so to speak.
At 9 Seversky pulls Douglas Theobald’s old “29+ Evidences for Macroevolution” out of cold storage and pretends like it has not already been addressed.
Looking over Theobald’s list of “falsifiable’ predictions, I note that many, if not all, of those predictions have now been falsified. For instance, the fossil record, from the Cambrian Explosion onward, is definitely not to be considered a successful ‘prediction’ for Darwinism in any way, shape, or form.
But anyways, perhaps the most ‘infamous’ example of one of Theobald’s predictions being falsified was when Winston Ewert falsified Douglas Theobald’s claim, via genetic evidence, that he had found ‘statistically significant’ support for common ancestry.
Theobald had claimed,,,
Yet, there was a small problem with Theobald’s claim. As Casey Luskin noted, “The problem is that Theobald didn’t test universal common ancestry against “creationism.” He tested universal common ancestry against the impossibly unlikely hypothesis that these genes independently arrived at highly similar sequences via blind, unguided convergent evolution. Given his outlandish null hypothesis, no wonder common descent came out looking so good.”
And when Winston Ewert ran the test properly, using a proper null hypothesis, and testing common descent against the intelligent design model, (and using a much larger genetic data set than Theobald used), the results were drastically different from the ‘skewed’ results that Theobald had found.
In the following article Dr. Cornelius Hunter explains just how badly the common decent model was falsified when the test was run properly by Dr. Ewert.,,, Dr. Hunter stated, “Unbelievably, the 10,064 value is the logarithm (base value of 2) of the quotient! In other words, the probability of the data on the dependency graph model is so much greater than that given the common descent model, we need logarithms even to type it out. If you tried to type out the plain number, you would have to type a 1 followed by more than 3,000 zeros. That’s the ratio of how probable the data are on these two models!”
Needless to say, that is by no means to be considered a ‘soft falsification’ of Theobald’s prediction, but is about as ‘hard’ of a falsification of his prediction as can possibly be had.
Of related interest to the Darwinist’s complete lack of evidence for ‘observed’ speciation events, Richard Lenski, in his Long Tern Evolution Experiment, had tried to claim that the citrate adaptation was proof of a unique speciation event,
Yet, Dr. Scott Minnich came along and falsified Lenski’s claim that the citrate adaptation was a unique speciation event.
As Michael Behe explained, “they were able to repeatedly isolate the same mutants Lenski’s lab did as easily as falling off a log — within weeks, not decades.,,,”
And please note that Lenski did not respond to Minnich’s work as a scientist who is falsified by experimental evidence should have done, i.e. by humbly admitting that he was wrong. No, Lenski responded with hostility and ad hominem towards Minnich. Which is the exact opposite reaction that any responsible scientists, who is more concerned with the truth than with his reputation, should have had when shown to be wrong by experimental evidence itself.
Martin_r,
The video is indeed amazing! Also, you might want to check into the incredible speed at which DNA is rewound.
I’d also note that the detractors here continue to make their assertions regardless that they have been repeatedly and thoroughly refuted! Seekers makes a good point regarding trolls and bots. I’d also note that Chuckdarwin hasn’t responded to his being corrected on his misunderstanding something as basic to botany as transpiration.
Certainly they will simply dismiss (or more likely, not read) the stunning content in the article in Nature.
-Q
You really are a piece of work, Sev. Read this entire website from beginning to now. There are terabytes of evidence that you ignore on a daily basis.
Good grief.
Querius: Certainly they will simply dismiss (or more likely, not read) the stunning content in the article in Nature.
Umm . . . there’s nothing to dismiss. I don’t understand. This is great technology, cutting-edge stuff.
It would be part of the Nobel prize nominating letter for the individual who discovered it.
It would be in every text book on biology and evolution there is.
But there are no examples in these text books nor nominating letters.
Jerry: It would be in every text book on biology and evolution there is. But there are none in these text books.
Sigh.
I think there are such examples in textbooks but you don’t. What I am really asking is:
What evidence of macro evolution would you find convincing?
I don’t want to waste your time with examples you don’t find convincing so if you could give me some idea of what you would find convincing that would be helpful.
TMS
https://uncommondescent.com/darwinism/pope-on-evolution/#comment-523744
Jerry: TMS
If you can’t be specific about what you’d like to see then I don’t understand how you expect anyone to provide it to you.
Let’s say I show you a sequence of fossils which I say shows the evolution of . . . the otter. Just to pick something. Let’s say I have a sequence of 10 fossils spanning 10 million years or so.
Is your objection that: you don’t know what the specific mutations were to create that sequence?
Is your objection that: there are gaps and no proof that those gaps were filled by intermediate species?
Is your objection that: we don’t know that the mutations which brought about those forms were unguided?
If I had a better idea of what you were looking for then I might be able to address your concerns a bit better.
No evolutionary biologist on the planet has addressed my concerns. They are the same for anyone who understands the issues. Otherwise they would have won the Nobel Prize.
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/do-nylon-eating-bacteria-show-that-new-functional-information-is-easy-to-evolve/
JVL,
Just out of curiosity, what evidences convinced you of macro-evolution(or not, if that’s the case)
Jerry: No evolutionary biologist on the planet has addressed my concerns. Otherwise they would have won the Nobel Prize.
I believe you. If you could just say, specifically, what those concerns are then I might either be able to address them or go away and leave you alone.
Clearly you have a line that no one has been able to cross. If you could just draw that line in the sand so we could all see it we might get somewhere.
Seekers: Just out of curiosity, what evidences convinced you of macro-evolution(or not, if that’s the case)
Good question! It was not a single piece of evidence but multiple bits of evidence in multiple areas. So, it wasn’t just fossils or genetics, it was the sum total of fossils and genetics and morphology and bio-geography. And not individual cases in those areas but, again, a large collection of individual cases in each area.
At one point I came to the realisation that there was so much evidence that the case was still strong even if you took away a whole class of examples. Some people think that the fossil evidence is inconclusive; I can forgo all fossils and still come to the conclusion that evolutionary theory is correct.
I suppose I find the genetic evidence the strongest and possibly able to make the case on its own. Fortunately that’s not the case; all the threads come together and point to the same conclusion.
That’s just my personal view, obviously. But that’s what you asked for.
JVL, claims to “find the genetic evidence the strongest”.
Yet his claimed ‘strongest’ evidence for Darwinism evaporates into thin air and has, in fact, been falsified as an evidence for common descent, turned on its its head, and been shown to support the intelligent design model. (in overwhelming fashion I might add)
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/some-at-your-fingertips-stats-on-human-chimp-similarity/#comment-739134
JVL:
What do you mean by “the genetic evidence”?
JVL has not read the two references I left for him. In these links it essentially says there is no genetic information supporting macro evolution.
Doug Theobald’s 29+ evidences for macroevolution is pure fiction. The first clue is he starts out saying the evidence is there regardless of the mechanism. Yet mechanisms determine patterns and most of his evidence pertains to patterns. He also chokes on nested hierarchies. Transitional forms are the exact types of organisms one would expect with universal common descent. And they are also the exact type of organisms which prevent descent with modification from producing a nested hierarchy!
1- There aren’t any known naturalistic mechanisms capable of producing eukaryotes given starting populations of prokaryotes.
2- There aren’t any known naturalistic mechanisms capable of producing metazoans given starting populations of prokaryotes and single-cell eukaryotes.
3-The DNA model is a complete FAILURE with respect to being able to produce the diversity of life.
4- DNA’s scope is very, very limited
5- Evolutionary biologists don’t know what determines biological form.
Earth to JVL:
Some unknown naturalistic processes did something isn’t a real convincing narrative for a mechanistic position. But then again, you are hooked on the failed DNA model.
You talk about fossil evidence without understanding that you don’t have anything capable of producing the organisms that were fossilized. If you did then we wouldn’t be having this chat.
Yes, the genetic evidence is the strongest evidence for a Common Design. And it refutes unguided evolution/ evolution by means of blind and mindless processes.
Please tell us how to model the idea that blind and mindless processes produced the genes required for developmental biology. How can that claim be tested?
Bornagain77/18
And, as usual, you completely fail to mention that Theobald wrote a response to Camp’s critique:
The not-so-small problem is that there is no testable hypothesis of creationism or intelligent design against which to compare anything else.
Why don’t you explain to us all – in layman’s terms – what a dependency graph model is and how it can be applied to evolution.
Bornagain77/19
Once again, you fail to provide a link to Lenski and Blount’s response to Minnich’s critique but, for anyone interested in seeing if BA77’s characterization is fair and balanced, it is here:
For further reading, here is Larry Moran’s blog post on their reply
JVL/11
Precisely. Such a being would render the whole scientific enterprise futile which, given ID/creationism’s sustained campaign to undermine confidence in science, is exactly what they want.
Seversky,@39
You state, “ ID/creationism’s sustained campaign to undermine confidence in science, is exactly what they want.”
Given such a statement I find it prudent to ask, why are you here? What use to you is your participation (reluctant to name it that) here? You have made it obvious you have no use for ID/creationist science, so why stick around? To troll? Surely you have more pressing things that would require your attention. Or are you simply a bot?
If not then i find it rather peculiar “participating” in something you have no willingness to learn about or debate.
Bornagain77 @18 and ET @34,
Nicely summarized. Devastating to the tired drivel being put forward all the time.
Seekers @ 40,
Exactly! I can’t believe he keeps repeating the lie that ID is the same as Creationism and that somehow they “undermine confidence in science” despite having the difference explained to him numerous times by different people, and that the track record of ID has been demonstrably better than Darwinism! He’s only fooling himself or being a troll or a bot. What a complete waste of time for everyone!
Bingo!
-Q
That Seversky does not know for a fact that the universe is chosen, a creation, means he doesn’t really understand anything. Same as if you don’t know the fact that people make choices, then you don’t really have any understanding of human beings.
The creationist conceptual scheme stops social darwinist pseudoscience. That is the main contribution of creationism to science.
Apart from that, intelligent design science will come to fruition, at the same time that we have the technology to look directly inside of people’s imagination. That is when we would have a better understanding of the decisionmaking processes by which things are created.
Bornagain77: Yet his claimed ‘strongest’ evidence for Darwinism evaporates into thin air and has, in fact, been falsified as an evidence for common descent, turned on its its head, and been shown to support the intelligent design model. (in overwhelming fashion I might add)
Other views are available.
Just out of curiosity: what kind of evidence would you accept as strongly supportive of evolution via unguided processes? Not genetic . . . fossils? Morphological? Geographic distributions? Anything?
Origenes: What do you mean by “the genetic evidence”?
The evidence in the genomes of extant and extinct (when it can be accessed) lifeforms.
Endogenous retroviruses are just one particular example.
Jerry: JVL has not read the two references I left for him. In these links it essentially says there is no genetic information supporting macro evolution.
I disagree but if we lay that aside . . . is there any other kind of evidence that would convince you that evolution proceeded via unguided processes?
ET: Some unknown naturalistic processes did something isn’t a real convincing narrative for a mechanistic position. But then again, you are hooked on the failed DNA model.
Good thing no one is saying that then.
You talk about fossil evidence without understanding that you don’t have anything capable of producing the organisms that were fossilized. If you did then we wouldn’t be having this chat.
Guess we’ll just have to disagree on that then.
Yes, the genetic evidence is the strongest evidence for a Common Design. And it refutes unguided evolution/ evolution by means of blind and mindless processes.
Guess we’ll just have to disagree on that then.
Please tell us how to model the idea that blind and mindless processes produced the genes required for developmental biology. How can that claim be tested?
Well, obviously, no one can exhibit a complete, plausible, step-by -step narrative. Yet! But there is no strong evidence that it didn’t occur. In fact, the evidence is slowly accumulating which makes it more and more sure.
JVL @45
Good question. For me, to be open to the concept of unguided evolution, first and foremost a tendency by blind matter to spontaneously form simple systems [such as mobile phones & airplanes] has to be demonstrated. After that I may be somewhat open to the idea that blind matter also has the tendency to form inordinately complex systems, such as organisms.
Some unknown naturalistic processes did something isn’t a real convincing narrative for a mechanistic position. But then again, you are hooked on the failed DNA model.
Are you daft? That is all you have.
What I said is a fact. Only fools disagree with facts.
No one cares. You can’t refute what I posted. That is all that matters.
Science is about EVIDENCE, not narratives.
There isn’t any evidence that it did or could occur. You lose.
Yes, there is extremely strong evidence it didn’t occur.
That’s why ID is the more intellectually superior and intellectually honest position.
The statement above is an example of the begging the question fallacy.
Too funny. Neither seversky nor JVL understand science or what it entails. Some unknown naturalistic processes did something isn’t a real convincing narrative for a mechanistic position. And that is all they have.
Origenes: For me, to be open to the concept of unguided evolution, first and foremost a tendency by blind matter to spontaneously form simple systems [such as mobile phones & airplanes] has to be demonstrated. After that I may be somewhat open to the idea that blind matter also has the tendency to form inordinately complex systems, such as organisms.
I certainly would not consider mobile phones and airplanes as simple systems!! In fact, I bet there are very few, if any, single human beings that could design either of those two on their own.
Regardless, are you essentially saying that a demonstration along the lines of: putting all the raw materials into a box, letting nature take its course and seeing if a phone or plane comes out? I just want to be sure that’s what you are saying.
ET: Are you daft? That is all you have.
No. Just talking about evolution (past a certain level of basic replicator): inheritable variations creating different morphologies are ‘selected’ by natural forces (at first) creating differential survival rates. The morphologies better able to produce offspring pass their inheritable variations to more offspring than their ‘siblings’ without those variations. Simple.
Science is about EVIDENCE, not narratives.
Looking at the genomic, fossil, geo-biologic and morphological evidence it’s all consistent with universal descent via inheritable variation. The ‘concept’ is falsifiable and many steps have been observed and are being tested.
There isn’t any evidence that it did or could occur. You lose.
Except for the contested structure (DNA) there is zero evidence that any kind of designer with the necessary abilities was around Earth at the pertinent time.
A tree fell in the forest, there was no one around to cut it down, therefore it fell due to natural causes.
PS you still haven’t specified how mutations can be determined to be guided vs unguided. Just a reminder.
JVL:
Yes, that is what I am saying. If blind matter cannot spontaneously produce relatively simple devices such as mobile phone or planes, then I see no point in contemplating the possibility that it can produce infinitely more complex systems such as organisms.
Jerry: Yes, there is extremely strong evidence it didn’t occur.
I guess we’ll just have to disagree about that.
That’s why ID is the more intellectually superior and intellectually honest position.
It certainly is more compelling and convincing for some people!
The statement above is an example of the begging the question fallacy.
Are you sure?
Let’s consider the popular notion in the 70s that our human ancestors could not possibly have built complex and large structures like the pyramids therefore they must have had help from aliens.
What evidence did the proponents of such ideas present in support? A few bits of misinterpreted art and such but mostly they just said: these structures are too big, too complicated and too difficult to have been made by humans. We ourselves have only recently figured out how to accomplish such feats.
When evidence showing how ancient human beings learned how to build such things, what kind of tools they used, villages where the workmen lived and even some written records one could still, I suppose, argue that: well, it doesn’t mean there weren’t aliens about supervising the process. BUT there is no real evidence there were aliens about at all!! No landing areas, no living quarters, no workshops, no lavatories, no rubbish pits with alien detritus in them. Nothing. Considering what we now know about the physical difficulties of interstellar travel it all begins to sound extremely physically unlikely as well.
So, I would say, there is no strong evidence that human beings didn’t build the pyramids. That’s not begging the question; that’s summarising a lot of data.
Origenes: Yes, that is what I am saying. If blind matter cannot spontaneously produce relatively simple devices such as mobile phone or planes, then I see no point in contemplating the possibility that it can produce infinitely more complex systems such as organisms.
Okay, thanks for being clear.
Of course no one is saying complex organisms like humans or wombats or orchids arose without millions of years of precursors but I do appreciate you being clear about your criteria.
Because I agree with you that a box of raw materials cannot spontaneous (i.e. without guidance) assemble into a mobile phone I won’t don’t really have anything else to say to you about that matter.
But, again, I do appreciate you being clear and honest. We can all do that at the very least.
JVL:
Unfortunately for your position, those precursors you hypothesize would have to be far more complex than anything we humans have ever produced, so these “millions of years” that you mention won’t be of any help at all.
— Thank you for the expressed appreciation for my honesty.
Origenes: Unfortunately for your position, those precursors you hypothesize would have to be far more complex than anything we humans have ever produced, so these “millions of years” that you mention won’t be of any help at all.
Getting into all that would be another huge discussion. I think we’ll just leave it.
Thank you for the expressed appreciation for my honesty.
Like I said: the very least we can do is to be honest. But it should still be noted and appreciated.
JVL:
Just let me know. Highly relevant would be A Course on Abiogenesis – by James Tour.
Origenes: Just let me know
The issue is the history of life on Earth. Nothing to be entered into lightly.
Two things
1. Evolution happened, some of it, a small amount happened through naturalistic means. That’s why it is important to explain what one means by the term “evolution.”
2. Most evolution could not happen by naturalistic means. The origin of protein coding sequence is one of the main obstacles for evolution to happen this way. If any protein coding sequences happened through natural process, they are rare and the science shows that they cannot happen but in some extremely rare occasions.
This is why every evolutionary site/book avoids the question of how macro evolution happened. As one famous evolutionist, Will Provine, said, ” for me, the size of the leap of faith that is required to believe in naturalism is small.” A completely disingenuous remark. Imagine a scientist accepting a religious person’s rationale for their beliefs using a similar phrase.
Transcript from famous 1994 debate between Phil Johnson and Provine.
http://www.arn.org/docs/orpages/or161/161main.htm
JVL:
Right. Some unknown process did something. You don’t even have a mechanism capable of producing eukaryotes given starting populations of prokaryotes. And endosymbiosis doesn’t help.
There aren’t any known naturalistic mechanisms capable of producing the diversity of life starting with populations of prokaryotes. That means there aren’t any known naturalistic mechanisms capable of producing the organisms that fossilized.
Clueless. DNA is NOT the genetic code. And you and yours don’t have anything but to deny reality.
Others have. And it is moot anyway. But you are ignorant of genetics, biology and science, so it doesn’t matter.
It is impossible for differential accumulations of genetic change to account for the diversity of life, starting from some populations of prokaryotes. DNA doesn’t have the type of power or influence.
The thought that when the human genome project was completed they would uncover the instructions for the human body plan, ie the upright biped. They didn’t. Nothing even close. And last year’s paper, On the Problem of Biological Form, finally let the cat out of the bag.
The DNA model for universal common descent is a failure. Science has refuted it. It is beyond time to admit the failure and move on.
<ET: Right. Some unknown process did something. You don’t even have a mechanism capable of producing eukaryotes given starting populations of prokaryotes. And endosymbiosis doesn’t help.
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?
There aren’t any known naturalistic mechanisms capable of producing the diversity of life starting with populations of prokaryotes. That means there aren’t any known naturalistic mechanisms capable of producing the organisms that fossilized.
Well, most of them, especially after the introduction of eukaryotes are due to differential survival because of inheritable variations.
Clueless. DNA is NOT the genetic code. And you and yours don’t have anything but to deny reality.
I didn’t say DNA was the genetic code.
Others have. And it is moot anyway. But you are ignorant of genetics, biology and science, so it doesn’t matter.
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.
The DNA model for universal common descent is a failure. Science has refuted it. It is beyond time to admit the failure and move on.
There is no DNA model for universal common descent. There is evidence in genomes that supports universal common descent.
.
Chuck says “ID spends way more time honing its feigned victimhood and attempts to elbow its way to the table than it does on real science.”
Chuck, just for a change of pace, why don’t you try engaging in the science instead of the politics? Are you not a “trained biologists”? Here is a question I asked you several days ago. Like all the others I’ve asked, you simply walk away. Put your money were your mouth is.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Oct 17th
Speaking of predictions, it was predicted that autonomous self-replication would be code-based, and that encoded descriptions of the constraints (required to interpret code) would be among the descriptions encoded.
Chuck, is the Genetic Code established by description?
.
Seversky says: ”There are still plenty of proponents of design and they still publish books and articles and videos. It just doesn’t add anything to science”
Sev, you wrap yourself in the flag of science, and then run as fast as you can from empirical evidence. You deny the design inference simply because you don’t like it.
Why do you so obviously avoid this question:
***crickets***
.
JVL continues to pepper people with irrelevant questions, constantly trying to get a fingernail under some grist for the mill. JVL’s questions should be kept in context.
JVL was recently asked by a commenter here about the design inference stemming from presence of a genetic code, and his perpetual denial of that inference.
Ignoring science and history, JVL responds:
This answer is pure deception. On steroids.
What does JVL know about “what the evidence says”.
JVL knows that a symbol entails a three-way relationship between a material token (i.e. an arrangement of matter of some kind), a referent, and (in the words of CS Peirce) an “interpretant” to physically establish a relationship between the token and its referent.
This is what is physically required of the system. Or, to be more precise, even if abiogenesis is true, this is still what is physically required of the system. All claims must therefore meet the same requirement of being an adequate claim. To be an adequate claim, they must all result in this particular physical system being perpetuated over time.
This system can be perpetuated over time by perpetuating the constraints in the system (i.e. the interpretants). This is implied because the descriptions are dependent on the constraints; until the constraints are stable, the sequences of their descriptions cannot specify them. When the constraints are established and the sequences successfully 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 by the system is by specifying them in an inheritable memory. That memory must then be placed in the daughter. JVL knows all this.
These interdependent requirements are the uniquely identifying physical characteristics of the type of system that enables open-ended replication among living things. It is what Sydney Brenner would tighten his jaw and specifically emphasize as the ”fundamental act” of self-replication — not to mention the fact that these things were specifically (and successfully) predicted by John Von Neumann in 1948, using Alan Turing’s 1936 Machine as a model. JVL knows all this as well.
JVL also knows that these characteristics (and more) have been documented in the literature (i.e. the rate-independent control of a rate-dependent process, the spatial-orientation of objects within the tokens to distinguish one referent from another, the requirement of complimentary physical descriptions of the system, and so on), including the fact that the only other material system known to science that meets this physical description is in the use of language and mathematics.
JVL knows all of these things, but will not speak of them. Despite complete coherence and a well-documented history, JVL does not consider them. Very frankly, there is no “ Let’s see what the evidence says and go with that.” That sentiment is rhetorically calculated to portray a rationale openness to evidence. It is delivered in order to deflect away from the fact that the exact opposite is taking place.
Instead of incorporating the evidence as it actually exists, JVL wants to replace the acknowledgement of that evidence with a different conversation altogether. JVL wants to ignore what is known to be true in favor of what is not known and never seen — which also just so happens to reflect JVL’s personal preferences on the matter. This is an entirely different situation than merely not knowing something; this is nothing less than choosing to disregard what is known because you don’t like it.
This is the context that JVL’s participation here must be seen in. It has nothing whatsoever to do with either science or reason. When JVL throws out RNA and stereochemistry, he is not reasoning with evidence, he is digging a trench to jump in and hide from the science.
A propos…
Biology transcends the limits of computation
Perry Marshall.
Prog Biophys Mol Biol. 2021 Oct.
Abstract
Cognition-sensing and responding to the environment-is the unifying principle behind the genetic code, origin of life, evolution, consciousness, artificial intelligence, and cancer. However, the conventional model of biology seems to mistake cause and effect. According to the reductionist view, the causal chain in biology is chemicals > code > cognition. Despite this prevailing view, there are no examples in the literature to show that the laws of physics and chemistry can produce codes, or that codes produce cognition. Chemicals are just the physical layer of any information system. In contrast, although examples of cognition generating codes and codes controlling chemicals are ubiquitous in biology and technology, cognition remains a mystery. Thus, the central question in biology is: What is the nature and origin of cognition? In order to elucidate this pivotal question, we must cultivate a deeper understanding of information flows. Through this lens, we see that biological cognition is volitional (i.e., deliberate, intentional, or knowing), and while technology is constrained by deductive logic, living things make choices and generate novel information using inductive logic. Information has been called “the hard problem of life” and cannot be fully explained by known physical principles (Walker et al., 2017). The present paper uses information theory (the mathematical foundation of our digital age) and Turing machines (computers) to highlight inaccuracies in prevailing reductionist models of biology, and proposes that the correct causation sequence is cognition > code > chemicals.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33961842/
Upright Biped: JVL continues to pepper people with irrelevant questions, constantly trying to get a fingernail under some grist for the mill.
When someone says they think some mutations are guided and some aren’t I think it’s fair to ask for their criteria.
Likewise, so as not to waste people’s time, I think it’s fair to ask what they would accept as evidence regarding a particular scientific issue.
JVL knows all of these things, but will not speak of them.
That is not quite correct. I asked you for information regarding such issues and I read some of the material you linked to. And then I asked the question: do the researchers that Upright Biped linked to agree with their conclusion regarding intelligent design.
I didn’t find any such researcher discussing these issues who explicitly stated they supported ID. Granted that doesn’t mean they don’t but they didn’t say they did. One, in fact, (Dr Pattee), criticised ID proponents explicitly.
Upright BiPed wants to interpret my actions as denying what he says are obvious conclusions from biosemetic work. Not being an expert in that subject myself I looked to see what the experts had to say about ID. I didn’t find any of them supporting ID and I definitely found one who criticised ID.
Upright BiPed and the researchers he cites seem to disagree on the implications of their work. I’m just observing that, I’m not, myself, saying that.
I’ve got not other comment to make in this regard. If Upright BiPed has a problem with the opinion of the experts whose work he cites then he should take it up with them. Not me.
Upright Biped @64,
Indeed–same as my experience.
Quite frankly, how could Chuckdarwin be a “trained biologist” and not understand how transpiration works? See Chuckdarwin @8 here:
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/at-evolution-news-and-science-today-why-c-s-lewis-doubted-the-creative-power-of-natural-selection/
Where he asserts . . .
While there are a few websites that seem to generalize the definition of transpiration to include the process of water transport in the xylem by capillary action involving molecular cohesion and adhesion, the majority of sources define transpiration as the loss of water though leaf surfaces and not involving nutrients typically transported by the phloem.
-Q
I must have pushed one of Seversky’s buttons at posts 18 and 19. At 37 and 38 Seversky seems a bit more animated than he usually is. 🙂
First, as to Lenski’s claim that he has evidence for Darwinian evolution in his long term evolution experiment with e-coli, (and as to the overall topic of this thread), I think the following reference from a Biomedical engineer is quite relevant, i.e. “Darwinism Flunks Science Criteria (for high confidence evidence), Says Biomedical Engineer”. Particularly, he disagrees with Lenski’s claim and holds that the evidence is evidence for Intelligent Design, not for Darwinian evolution.
.
Three things:
1) You were told that the author/paper in question did not directly offer any such ultimate conclusions. You were then reminded that the author is a careful researcher who, in his own words, seeks to avoid what he considers “undecidable” questions which are not required in his physical analysis. You were then asked why you thought such a researcher (in such a frame of mind) should be expected to load his papers with undecidable statements. You had no response.
2) In a comment prior to all this, you stated that you were prepared to accept research from any researcher, regardless of their larger worldview — IF — the research is competent and properly conducted. This indicates that you clearly understand and fully appreciate that a researcher’s personal worldview is properly separate from his/her practice of science. However, then as now, when you are faced with evidence and reasoning that you cannot refute, you immediately throw out your prior words and specifically seek to find solace in the personal worldview of the researcher. This is yet another demonstration of the deception that pervades virtually everything you say on this subject. What you count on is no one noticing, but they do.
3) It must be pointed out that you, once again, refuse to engage in a conversation about physical evidence (which you obviously cannot spin away) preferring again to change the subject to issues that do not alter, and do not impact, that evidence. You will continue to avoid the physical evidence at all costs.
(The remainder of your comment follows from the deception)
.
For any onlooker,
The researcher that JVL refers to in #68 is esteemed physicist Howard Hunt Pattee.
Dr Pattee’s specific conclusion is that the gene system is a genuine rate-independent symbol system (just as it was predicted to be in 1948 by John Von Neumann) and that the only other physical system that operates like it is in the use of language (i.e. a universal correlate of intelligence).
This is the actual conclusion that JVL wishes to ignore because it helps to confirm the design inference. This is why JVL wishes to change the subject to the irrelevant topic of Dr Pattee’s own personal worldview. Dr Pattee obviously does not say “Because I am a non-theist, everything I wrote for the past 5 decades is untrue and may be ignored”.
That is merely what JVL says in his place.
As to Seversky’s attempted defense of Theobald,
in Theobald’s response to Ashby Camp, Theobald honestly admitted that he had to incorporate “new material into the original essay that specifically addresses many of Camp’s points, and thus much of his response is now superfluous.”
What additional material Theobald may have added, I have not the time nor inclination to look into right now. (My bottom dollar bet is that it is, as usual, all bluff and bluster). If Seversky thinks there is a piece of ‘slam dunk’ ‘additional’ empirical evidence for Darwinian evolution in Theobald’s response to Camp, he is more than invited to present it to me and we will weigh its strengths and weaknesses then. But as it sits now, I am certainly not going to try to read Seversky’s mind as to what part of Theobald’s ‘new’ essay he might find particularly compelling.
But regardless, the main thrust of Theobald’s response to Ashby, (at least the main thrust of the portion that Seversky referenced to me), seems to be that Theobald claimed that Ashby made a number of logical fallacies in his response to Theobald. i.e. Straw man arguments, Red herrings, Self-contradictions, Equivocation , Arguments from authority, etc.. etc..
My first response to that is that, “You’ve got to be kidding me? A Darwinist appealing to logical fallacies?” 🙂
You just can’t make this stuff up. The existence of ‘immaterial’ logic, in and of itself, refutes Theobald’s entire naturalistic/atheistic worldview of Darwinian evolution.
To paraphrase Dr. Egnor, “the very logic that Clark (i.e. Theobald) employs to argue for naturalism is outside of any naturalistic frame.”
And as C.S. Lewis put it, “In other words, unless Reason is absolute—all is in ruins. Yet those who ask me to believe this world picture also ask me to believe that Reason is simply the unforeseen and unintended by-product of mindless matter at one stage of its endless and aimless becoming. Here is flat contradiction. They ask me at the same moment to accept a conclusion and to discredit the only testimony on which that conclusion can be based.”
Thus, for Theobald to even appeal to logic, (i.e. logical fallacies), in the first place is for him, apparently unbeknownst to himself, to undermine his entire naturalistic/atheistic worldview of Darwinian evolution in the process.
And furthermore, to state the glaringly obvious, if your atheistic/naturalistic worldview can’t possibly ground ‘immaterial’ logic and reasoning in the first place, then your atheistic/naturalistic worldview can’t possibly provide a coherent basis for the inductive logic and reasoning that forms the basis of the scientific method itself. i.e. Methodological Naturalism is a simply non-starter’ as to firmly grounding the scientific method itself.
And indeed, science can get along quite well without any particular reference to Darwinian ‘narratives’:
Moreover and personally, my main gripe with Theobald’s list of 29 supposedly ‘falsifiable’ predictions is the fact that Theobald is making a patently false claim.
Darwinian evolution, (at least how Darwinists treat their theory), is notorious for not being falsifiable by empirical testing.
No less than Denis Noble, President of International Union of Physiological Sciences, himself has noted that Darwin’s theory is ‘so flexible as an idea that it can accept even those findings that the originators intended to be excluded by the theory’ that it has become, basically, unfalsifiable by empirical observation.
And as Dr. Cornelius Hunter points out, Darwinists are notorious for making up ad hoc ‘just-so’ stories to cover up embarrassing empirical falsifications of their theory,
On the following site, Dr. Hunter lists many predictions of Darwin’s theory, predictions that are core to the theory, that have now been falsified by empirical evidence,
Likewise, over the years of debating Darwinists, I have collected my own list of falsifications to Darwin’s theory, falsifications that also go to the core of the theory,,,, and falsifications that Darwinists simply refuse to ever accept as falsifications of their theory,
Thus in conclusion, Seversky may take umbrage to my claim that Theobald’s list of 29 ‘falsifiable’ predictions for Darwinian evolution is a patently false claim for Theobald to make. If so, Seversky is more than invited to list any piece of empirical evidence from Theobald’s ‘new’ list that he thinks can stand up to rigid scrutiny.
Again, it is my bottom dollar bet that Theobald’s entire paper, (as is usual for Darwinists), is nothing but bluff and bluster with no real empirical evidence in it that can stand up to real scrutiny.
.
Oh wow. I did not see this statement earlier, and I think it should be addressed.
JVL, if a person says that the gene system is a genuine rate-independent symbol system, do you think HH Pattee would disagree with that statement?
If a person says that the only other physical system to operate like the gene system is in the use of language and mathematics, do you think HH Pattee would disagree?
Lets cut to the chase, JVL. If a person correctly repeats any of the central observations about the physical requirements of the gene system, which HH Pattee documented over the course of 50 years, do you think he would disagree with any of those observations?
Of course not.
Are you beginning to understand why your comments above are so obvious in their intent, yet so impotent in their impact on the issues?
.
Good grief Seversky, did you actually read what you posted?
This was written several years ago when the different schools of biosemiotics were trying to organize themselves. Tell me where anything in Barbieri’s paper that indicates that 1) the gene system is not a genuine symbol system, or 2) that the only other example of such a physical system is in the use of language.
Can you do that?
.
Seversky, do you want to talk about Barbieri’s two postulates?
They are both given on the first page of the paper. Then, the remainder of the paper is provided to support of the postulates. Why don’t you dig into the paper and present here what Barbieri uses to support his second postulate.
I’ll wait.
– – – – – – – –
Ps — you might want to review comment #75.
.
…and while you are here Sev, would you also mind addressing this statement you made?
Upright Biped, I am having trouble accessing biosemiosis.org with web.archive.org. Is there another way to look at your work?
.
Hello Origenes,
Sorry, but not at the moment. Later, yes.
I hope you are well.
🙂
JVL:
Yes. I am caught up. And if you don’t have a mechanism capable of getting beyond the starting point then you lose.
‘I know the story. What variations, specifically?
Right. You said that DNA is a contested structure. That is incorrect. The genetic code involves a coded information processing system.
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.
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.
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:
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):
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:
Verse:
.
It appears that both JVL and Seversky have abandoned ship. This was to be expected.
.
Solemn Existence at #67
Thank you for posting Perry Marshall’s paper.
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, 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).
.
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: 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.co.....ended.html
And then I found this from a paper published in 2018:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12304-018-9322-2
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?
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- 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.
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.
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
That has absolutely NO bearing on the nature of the mutations.
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.
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.
JVL:
Absolutely.
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 @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
-Q
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.
(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?
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)
.
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.
.
#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.
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. 🙂
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?
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,
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: 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,
“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: 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,
“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: 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.
.
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 right
.
… 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.
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).