Brian Miller vs. Jeremy England, Round 2

_{Denyse O'Leary

May 20, 2020

Intelligent Design, Origin Of Life

1}_{Categories
Intelligent Design
Origin Of Life}

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

Round 1 was at Inference Review: A Sizzling Exchange On The Origin Of Life

England rightly states that the fluctuation theorems allow for the possibility that some mechanism could drive matter to both lower entropy and higher energy (higher free energy), thus potentially solving the problem of the origin of life, at least in theory. In contrast, I addressed the likelihood that, given the practical constraints, realistic natural processes on the early earth could generate a minimally complex cell. In that context, England indirectly affirmed the main points of my argument and thus reinforced the conclusion that an undirected origin of life might be possible in principle, but it is completely implausible in practice.
Brian Miller, “On the Origin of Life, Here Is My Response to Jeremy England” at Evolution News and Science Today

Origin of life is more fun when it is a genuine discussion rather than a speculation based on a chance finding.

See also: The Science Fictions series at your fingertips – origin of life What we do and don’t know about the origin of life.

Comments

In addition to the code that gets transcribed to pre-mRNA, which gets edited into mRNA, that gets translated to proteins, the DNA also contains code that gets transcribed to different types of (mostly regulatory) ncRNA, and code (motifs) in the TF binding sites by the promoter regions that affect the tissue patterning through logic gates. That’s all in the DNA nucleotide sequences. Apart we also have the epigenetic markers and the histone code. Can the ID objectors give us a hint how would they put all that to work assuming we provide the purified materials and the best lab technology available. Any clue? Gimme a break! It’s pathetically sickening to read all that nonsense so frequently. Can’t they wake up and smell the flowers? Get a life!jawa_{June 9, 2020
June
06
Jun
9
09
2020
11:00 AM
11
11
00
AM
PDT}

ET @237: I don’t get JS’ point. Did he mean that Sherlock Holmes wouldn't classify a crime as murder before he could characterize the murderer? :)jawa_{June 9, 2020
June
06
Jun
9
09
2020
10:41 AM
10
10
41
AM
PDT}

ET
‘These people are a joke!
I agree. I find It hard to believe that these things could be said in earnest.EugeneS_{June 9, 2020
June
06
Jun
9
09
2020
06:51 AM
6
06
51
AM
PDT}

ES, telling. Especially when we see the sort of counter examples being put up. Blood cells of various sorts have proteins and DNA, so reflect coded information at that level. That apart, when a blood sample is taken, it is a sample. From this, through instruments, interventions and theories, we infer explanations of various phenomena, drawing conclusions about diseases etc. the actual intelligible information comes from the work of minds. That a blood sample has in it antibodies reacting to CV19's SARS2 viruses is something we have worked out through much investigation. The blood itself does not sit up and emit a coded message. It exhibits phenomena that we have reliable causal explanations for -- based on generations of investigation -- and we issue said explanations as diagnosis. KFkairosfocus_{June 9, 2020
June
06
Jun
9
09
2020
06:16 AM
6
06
16
AM
PDT}

ET, see why I speak of alphanumeric, algorithmic code and of its goal directed, linguistic character? KFkairosfocus_{June 9, 2020
June
06
Jun
9
09
2020
06:08 AM
6
06
08
AM
PDT}

KF Sure. They don't want to allow ID as a paradigm. Any rhetorical device is okay for this purpose. The most popular ones are: 'this is not science' and 'there is no evidence for design in nature'. This one is a very good thread, which I marked in my browser. We can see one of those alleged arguments in action right here.EugeneS_{June 9, 2020
June
06
Jun
9
09
2020
06:03 AM
6
06
03
AM
PDT}

Npw we have the following gem- moar nonsense:
If you are claiming that DNA contains information, which is reasonable, then the above statement is trivially wrong. Information in DNA is not caused by intelligence. Actually, there are countless forms of information that do require intelligence. Why did my vet ask for a stool sample when I took my dog in for a check up? Because it contained information. No intelligent force put it there. Or do you disagree?
'These people are a joke!ET_{June 9, 2020
June
06
Jun
9
09
2020
05:47 AM
5
05
47
AM
PDT}

It appears that Joshua doesn't understand science:
The innovation of ID, however, is to consider design without considering a designer, but that doesn’t work in science. That’s the problem in the end.
1- We don't even consider the designer until AFTER intelligent design has been determined to exist. 2- Reality dictates that in the absence of direct observation or designer input, the ONLY possible way to make any scientific determination about the designer or the processes used, is by studying the design and all relevant evidence. I would say that Dr. Swamidass has never conducted a root-cause investigation. Then he lies about ID by saying that what we say is designed has fallen apart upon scrutiny. Except that is a lie as no one has ever demonstrated that what ID says is designed can be produced by blind and mindless processes. read the nonsense for yourselves. Joshua is safe @ his heavily moderated forum. He would get pummeled if he ever came here.ET_{June 9, 2020
June
06
Jun
9
09
2020
05:45 AM
5
05
45
AM
PDT}

ET, as codes are pivotal, responsible scholarship would first seriously address that subject. KFkairosfocus_{June 9, 2020
June
06
Jun
9
09
2020
05:33 AM
5
05
33
AM
PDT}

It is all own to ignorance, kairosfocus. Both TH and Joshua are ignorant of codes.ET_{June 9, 2020
June
06
Jun
9
09
2020
05:23 AM
5
05
23
AM
PDT}

ES, we have to recognise the polarisation and the determination to fend off a design inference by any means thought effective. We have to be careful in phrasing and we must realise that this is, by and large, not a fair-minded conversation. KFkairosfocus_{June 9, 2020
June
06
Jun
9
09
2020
03:53 AM
3
03
53
AM
PDT}

KF
Rhetorical pathologies
Bravo. Taking it onboard.EugeneS_{June 9, 2020
June
06
Jun
9
09
2020
03:44 AM
3
03
44
AM
PDT}

ET, he refuses to acknowledge what a code is and wishes to blur it over, blunting the force of codes in DNA etc. That is suspicious behaviour. KFkairosfocus_{June 8, 2020
June
06
Jun
8
08
2020
11:03 PM
11
11
03
PM
PDT}

Yes, but we know that isn't what TH is referring to. He thinks that because we can glean information from blood, fecal matter, urine and tree rings, they contain that encoded information. I then inquired as to the method of encoding and was promptly told "life's processes". And when I told him that the life is an intelligent agency, well, you can imagine the hissy fit.ET_{June 8, 2020
June
06
Jun
8
08
2020
01:21 PM
1
01
21
PM
PDT}

ET, oddly, they do have in them coded information, insofar as they contain DNA, RNA or proteins. That's the point, in the heart of the cell, we find alphanumeric code, i.e. language. KFkairosfocus_{June 8, 2020
June
06
Jun
8
08
2020
12:48 PM
12
12
48
PM
PDT}

By Timothy Horton's logic, blood, fecal matter and urine are all codes. All have encoded information which can be gleaned by the right people using the proper technologies. On another note, too bad Joshua won't come here to try to support his trope.ET_{June 8, 2020
June
06
Jun
8
08
2020
12:27 PM
12
12
27
PM
PDT}

Folks, it gets worse, fast:
TH: There are many natural processes known to encode information without the use of external intelligence. Tree rings encode information about local environmental conditions in ring widths. Spectral lines in starlight encode information about the elements in the star. In the same way arrangements of base pairs in genomes encode information about the local environment the creature lives.
Notice the rhetorically deceptive use of "encode" leading to a patently false comparison? There is no communication system in the creation of either tree rings or spectral lines. These are phenomena which do reflect forces and circumstances of formation. It is when an intelligent observer armed with an empirically grounded theory comes along that information if created, then interpreted as carrying significance due to the force of the relevant theory. By contrast, there are information and cybernetic systems using molecular nanotech machines all across the protein synthesis system in the cell. THIS is how we get to no evidence or weak arguments etc. Sad. KFkairosfocus_{June 8, 2020
June
06
Jun
8
08
2020
10:06 AM
10
10
06
AM
PDT}

H'mm:
Interlocutor: fact that the only known cause of coded information in our experience is intelligence JS: That isn’t a fact. It is a false. Very commonly apparently non-intelligent causes produce coded information. One such example is the evolution of cancer:
Really? Of course, the person left off complex beyond 500 - 1,000 bits, and should include origin of the linguistic system and execution machinery. But, never let a strawman opportunity go to waste, it seems. Every actually observed origin of FSCO/I is by design; trillions of cases. Search challenge in config spaces beyond 500 - 1,000 bits brings out why very plausibly. Where of course, when we deal in an environment prone to pouncing like that we see why statements have to be carefully constructed to anticipate rhetorical pathologies. Cancer is a corruption of information, not de novo unintelligent creation of FSCO/I beyond 500 - 1,000 bits and we find nowhere a blind watchmaker explanation for origin of the underlying system. When I did rad phys, a point of note is that if too much damage is done, the cell and perhaps the creature dies. Cancer pops up when there is moderate damage, sufficient to derange but not outright destroy. And JS should know that. KF PS: SFM is just as significant: "I haven’t seen any “argument for ID” with any strength yet." Translation, I am not looking or have recategorised as not science and am exerting selective hyperskepticism. The first argument for design is cosmological fine tuning, which is strong save to the committed. The second is the coded, alphanumeric, algorithmic -- thus goal directed and linguistic -- complex and often interwoven information in the heart of the cell, along with molecular nanotech execution machinery. But, many close their eyes to the force of such manifest signs.kairosfocus_{June 8, 2020
June
06
Jun
8
08
2020
09:41 AM
9
09
41
AM
PDT}

You can try. As long as you agree with whatever they say you should be OK.ET_{June 8, 2020
June
06
Jun
8
08
2020
09:36 AM
9
09
36
AM
PDT}

@Jawa: google trends is illuminating.Retired Physicist_{June 8, 2020
June
06
Jun
8
08
2020
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PDT}

Swamiass
Heh. I haven't read much of his stuff, but he seems like a bit of a weasel. Do they let us UD riff-raff post over there?daveS_{June 8, 2020
June
06
Jun
8
08
2020
07:53 AM
7
07
53
AM
PDT}

Joshua Swamiass is over on Peaceful Science lying about codes. They even have an evo claiming that tree rings are a code! Too bad there isn't any expert in codes who would agree with him. Read Joshua's nonsense for yourselves. Peaceful science is ignorant when it comes to science.ET_{June 8, 2020
June
06
Jun
8
08
2020
07:08 AM
7
07
08
AM
PDT}

EugeneS @193: Good point.jawa_{June 7, 2020
June
06
Jun
7
07
2020
04:36 PM
4
04
36
PM
PDT}

Alexa rank update: EN:.............254,573.......0.3% UD:............729,637.......0.8% TO:............756,395.......0.8% SW:............931,717..........1.0% PT:...........1,463,797.......1.5% PS:..........2,629,359.......2.7% TSZ:.......6,823,407.......6.9%jawa_{June 7, 2020
June
06
Jun
7
07
2020
04:14 PM
4
04
14
PM
PDT}

Tree rings are a natural example of Read Only Memory.Retired Physicist_{June 7, 2020
June
06
Jun
7
07
2020
04:10 PM
4
04
10
PM
PDT}

Any news on Dr Cronin's progress to get closer to the Evo 2.0 OOL $10M award? What about Dr Szostak? Is there a possibility that they might have to split the prize? Is there a third candidate on the horizon that could make it to the finish line ahead of Dr Cronin and Dr Szostak? :)jawa_{June 7, 2020
June
06
Jun
7
07
2020
04:02 PM
4
04
02
PM
PDT}

. How unexpected of you JVL. As famous last words go, I am not certain you could have come up with anything more revealing that’s what you have. Congratulations.Upright BiPed_{June 7, 2020
June
06
Jun
7
07
2020
03:43 PM
3
03
43
PM
PDT}

Upright BiPed: Still deliberately conflating measurement and metaphysics In order to rationalize yourself, eh JVL? If I'm doing so it's not deliberately. It’s Mahlon Hoagland, hotrod … Mahlon. That does make a lot more sense. How are things going? It can be hard making all the arrangements and dealing with all the legal issues. And then sometimes the emotions rush up on you just when you think you've got them sorted out.JVL_{June 7, 2020
June
06
Jun
7
07
2020
03:09 PM
3
03
09
PM
PDT}

. Yawn Still deliberately conflating measurement and metaphysics In order to rationalize yourself, eh JVL? Are you unable to stop yourself? It’s Mahlon Hoagland, hotrod ... Mahlon. But you already knew that.Upright BiPed_{June 7, 2020
June
06
Jun
7
07
2020
02:26 PM
2
02
26
PM
PDT}

Upright BiPed: This is an another clear example of the dislocated intellect required to say “no evidence of design in biology” in light of the science and history of Pierce, Turing, Von Neumann, Crick, Brenner, Hoagland, Zamecnik, Nirenberg, and Pattee. I have found no evidence that von Neumann or Turing or Pattee believed there was intelligent design in nature. Crick probably has, he's quite a maverick. I don't know the others off hand (I'm sure yu mentioned some of them before) except maybe Hoagland . . if you mean Richard C Hoagland. The man who authored the book The Monuments of Mars: A City on the Edge of Forever. By just about any standard Hoagland is a first class crank whose work is classic pseudoscience. Please, please tell me you mean another Hoagland.JVL_{June 7, 2020
June
06
Jun
7
07
2020
02:02 PM
2
02
02
PM
PDT}

1 2 3 … 9 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply