Casey Luskin asks: Can claims about punctuated equilibrium accommodate the scientific data?

_{News
May 9, 2022

Culture, Darwinism, Intelligent Design

2}_{Categories
Culture
Darwinism
Intelligent Design}

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

Some of us would have thought that quantum mechanics killed all that off but in any event:

As Stephen Jay Gould put it: “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology.”1 Because of this difficulty, in the 1970s, Gould and his colleague Niles Eldredge developed punctuated equilibrium as a model where evolution takes place in small populations over relatively short geological time periods that are too rapid for transitional forms to become fossilized.2 But this model has many problems.3
Punctuated equilibrium compresses the vast majority of evolutionary change into small populations that lived during shorter segments of time, allowing too few opportunities for novel, beneficial traits to arise. Punctuated equilibrium is also unconvincing in that it predicts that with respect to the fossil record, evidence confirming Darwinian theory will not be found. Would you believe someone who claimed that fairies and leprechauns exist and were caught on video, but when asked to produce the film, declares, “Well, they are on camera, but they are too small or too fast to be seen”? That doesn’t make for a compelling theory.
Analogous problems plague attempts to account for the life-friendly fine-tuning of physical laws by appealing to a multiverse.
Casey Luskin, “Can Materialistic Models Accommodate the Scientific Data?” at Evolution News and Science Today (May 7, 2022)

As Luskin implies, appealing to a multiverse is like appealing to fairies.

Here’s Casey Luskin’s whole series on the topic.

You may also wish to read: Rescuing the multiverse as a science concept… ? Luke Barnes on the multiverse: In the cycle of the scientific method, the multiverse is in an exploratory phase. We’ve got an idea that might explain a few things, if it was true. That makes it worthy of our attention, but it’s not quite science yet. We need to find evidence that is more direct, more decisive.

Comments

There isn't any evidence that natural selection produce eukaryotes given starting populations of prokaryotes. And your ignorance of natural selection betrays you. Natural selection is a process of elimination. How many times do you have to be corrected on this? Natural selection could NEVER produce the dog breeds. NEVER. It could remove dog breeds from the population, though And you are lying about the genetic code. The claim the genetic code is a real code is supported by the evidence and science. The claim that nature produced the genetic code is not. The claim that natural selection produced the diversity of life is also not supported by the evidence nor science. So, yes, forgive for accepting the things that can be demonstrated and rejecting the BS that cannot be.ET_{May 12, 2022
May
05
May
12
12
2022
10:28 AM
10
10
28
AM
PDT}

JVL Unless they are based on some chemical affinities which is a possibility being looked into.
:lol: How chemical affinities of ink and paper explain a book(a cell)? Magical materialism presented as a science.Lieutenant Commander Data_{May 12, 2022
May
05
May
12
12
2022
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PDT}

ET: Natural selection is impotent with respect to the diversity of life. And throwing time at the problem proves that you don’t understand science. Not really. The way life reproduces creates enough variation so that there is competition between different varieties and the 'winners' leave more offspring. Continue that process for many, many, many generations and you get different life forms 'tuned' to different environmental niches. We can see that lots of variation is created because breeders have created sustainable widely different forms from the same root organisms in just a few hundred years. For example: most dog breeds are less than 300 years old. And then there are the brassicas. The only difference between 'natural selection' and selective breeding is the source of the 'selection'. And, here's a question: if your assertion is correct that life was 'designed' to evolve how does it accommodate human breeding programmes? If there is a goal to evolution then how is it that breeding works? There isn’t any evidence the genetic code is reducible to physics and chemistry Except there is. I directed you, again, to a place where you could easily start following research but you refuse to even having a look. And if I do all that work and show you that, yes, there is research suggesting that the genetic code might be reducible to physics and chemistry you'll just continue to say it's all rubbish. Here's the really funny bit: you think that mostly biologists have got it all wrong, they've got it wrong about evolution and the origin of species. BUT you think they got it right when the used the word code for how genetic sequences are translated into proteins. The use of the word code, meaning an arbitrary assignment of symbols, was correct. So, you pick and choose which parts of the research you think is correct and which parts you reject even though it all comes along in the same fashion. And, sometimes, you use a dictionary to verify your interpretation instead of considering what the research actually says. So, it seems, your version of science is selective about which results and data it accepts and which results are bogus. The question is: what is your criteria? If your criteria is based on the answer provided then you're not doing science. You're just exhibiting confirmation bias.JVL_{May 12, 2022
May
05
May
12
12
2022
10:17 AM
10
10
17
AM
PDT}

PPS, We may go further with Wikipedia -- lowest common denominator useful for what they must concede given known biases, showing intelligent design within the reach of our molecular nanotech already. Clipping from further down:
Artificial bases Several artificial nucleobases have been synthesized, and successfully incorporated in the eight-base DNA analogue named Hachimoji DNA. Dubbed S, B, P, and Z, these artificial bases are capable of bonding with each other in a predictable way (S–B and P–Z), maintain the double helix structure of DNA, and be transcribed to RNA. Their existence could be seen as an indication that there is nothing special about the four natural nucleobases that evolved on Earth.[64][65] On the other hand, DNA is tightly related to RNA which does not only act as a transcript of DNA but also performs as moleular machines many tasks in cells. For this purpose it has to fold into a structure. It has been shown that to allow to create all possible structures at least four bases are required for the corresponding RNA,[66] while a higher number is also possible but this would be against the natural Principle of least effort.
In the onward "main article" we see further:
Nucleic acid analogues are compounds which are analogous (structurally similar) to naturally occurring RNA and DNA, used in medicine and in molecular biology research. Nucleic acids are chains of nucleotides, which are composed of three parts: a phosphate backbone, a pentose sugar, either ribose or deoxyribose, and one of four nucleobases. An analogue may have any of these altered.[1] Typically the analogue nucleobases confer, among other things, different base pairing and base stacking properties. Examples include universal bases, which can pair with all four canonical bases, and phosphate-sugar backbone analogues such as PNA, which affect the properties of the chain (PNA can even form a triple helix).[2] Nucleic acid analogues are also called Xeno Nucleic Acid and represent one of the main pillars of xenobiology, the design of new-to-nature forms of life based on alternative biochemistries. Artificial nucleic acids include peptide nucleic acid (PNA), Morpholino and locked nucleic acid (LNA), as well as glycol nucleic acid (GNA), threose nucleic acid (TNA) and hexitol nucleic acids (HNA). Each of these is distinguished from naturally occurring DNA or RNA by changes to the backbone of the molecule. In May 2014, researchers announced that they had successfully introduced two new artificial nucleotides into bacterial DNA, and by including individual artificial nucleotides in the culture media, were able to passage the bacteria 24 times; they did not create mRNA or proteins able to use the artificial nucleotides.
Coming back to the original, we may see:
DNA as a storage device for information has enormous potential since it has much higher storage density compared to electronic devices. However, high costs, slow read and write times (memory latency), and insufficient reliability has prevented its practical use.
This of course recognises the basic point of an alphanumeric information store. The onward main article notes, in part:
The idea of DNA digital data storage dates back to 1959, when the physicist Richard P. Feynman, in "There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom: An Invitation to Enter a New Field of Physics" outlined the general prospects for the creation of artificial objects similar to objects of the microcosm (including biological) and having similar or even more extensive capabilities.[7] In 1964–65, Mikhail Samoilovich Neiman, the Soviet physicist, published 3 articles about microminiaturization in electronics at the molecular-atomic level, which independently presented general considerations and some calculations regarding the possibility of recording, storage, and retrieval of information on synthesized DNA and RNA molecules.[8][9][10] After the publication of the first M.S. Neiman's paper and after receiving by Editor the manuscript of his second paper (January, the 8th, 1964, as indicated in that paper) the interview with cybernetician Norbert Wiener as published.[11] N. Wiener expressed ideas about miniaturization of computer memory, close to the ideas, proposed by M. S. Neiman independently. These Wiener's ideas M. S. Neiman mentioned in the third of his papers. This story is described in details.[12] One of the earliest uses of DNA storage occurred in a 1988 collaboration between artist Joe Davis and researchers from Harvard. The image, stored in a DNA sequence in E.coli, was organized in a 5 x 7 matrix that, once decoded, formed a picture of an ancient Germanic rune representing life and the female Earth. In the matrix, ones corresponded to dark pixels while zeros corresponded to light pixels.[13] In 2007 a device was created at the University of Arizona using addressing molecules to encode mismatch sites within a DNA strand. These mismatches were then able to be read out by performing a restriction digest, thereby recovering the data.[14] In 2011, George Church, Sri Kosuri, and Yuan Gao carried out an experiment that would encode a 659-kb book that was co-authored by Church. To do this, the research team did a two-to-one correspondence where a binary zero was represented by either an adenine or cytosine and a binary one was represented by a guanine or thymine. After examination, 22 errors were found in the DNA.[13] In 2012, George Church and colleagues at Harvard University published an article in which DNA was encoded with digital information that included an HTML draft of a 53,400 word book written by the lead researcher, eleven JPG images and one JavaScript program. Multiple copies for redundancy were added and 5.5 petabits can be stored in each cubic millimeter of DNA.[15] The researchers used a simple code where bits were mapped one-to-one with bases, which had the shortcoming that it led to long runs of the same base, the sequencing of which is error-prone. This result showed that besides its other functions, DNA can also be another type of storage medium such as hard drives and magnetic tapes.[16] In 2013, an article led by researchers from the European Bioinformatics Institute (EBI) and submitted at around the same time as the paper of Church and colleagues detailed the storage, retrieval, and reproduction of over five million bits of data. All the DNA files reproduced the information between 99.99% and 100% accuracy.[17] The main innovations in this research were the use of an error-correcting encoding scheme to ensure the extremely low data-loss rate, as well as the idea of encoding the data in a series of overlapping short oligonucleotides identifiable through a sequence-based indexing scheme.[16] Also, the sequences of the individual strands of DNA overlapped in such a way that each region of data was repeated four times to avoid errors. Two of these four strands were constructed backwards, also with the goal of eliminating errors.[17] The costs per megabyte were estimated at $12,400 to encode data and $220 for retrieval. However, it was noted that the exponential decrease in DNA synthesis and sequencing costs, if it continues into the future, should make the technology cost-effective for long-term data storage by 2023.[16]
All of this, Wikipedia has to concede.kairosfocus_{May 12, 2022
May
05
May
12
12
2022
09:59 AM
9
09
59
AM
PDT}

Earth to JVL- Natural selection is impotent with respect to the diversity of life. And throwing time at the problem proves that you don't understand science. There isn't any evidence the genetic code is reducible to physics and chemistry. There isn't even any way to test the claim that nature produced the genetic code. You lose.ET_{May 12, 2022
May
05
May
12
12
2022
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT}

ET: And we are still awaiting a testable mechanism capable of producing the diversity of life starting from some unknown populations of prokaryotes. It's easy to test natural selection: take a population of prokaryotes, put them into an environment with suitable living conditions, lots of different climatic zones and a wide variety of 'food' sources and no other forms of life and wait for a few million years. Maybe a bit more. If nothing changes then we can discuss the situation again. The genetic code involves a coded information processing system in which mRNA codons REPRESENT amino acids. Unless they are based on some chemical affinities which is a possibility being looked into.JVL_{May 12, 2022
May
05
May
12
12
2022
09:46 AM
9
09
46
AM
PDT}

FH & CD, there is a prong height code at right angles to the chaining Chemistry, expressed in the complementarity, C-G and A-T, which of course matches anticodons of tRNAs loaded with AAs at the opposite, CCA tip, a universal joint. This has been well known since the 1950's and 60's, where multiple Nobel Prizes were won. Yes, there are two complementary strands but the key thing to a s-t-r-i-n-g data structure as just illustrated is sequence. And as you both full well know, any of AGCT/U can succeed any of the previous in the chain. The code and dialects are tabulated as codons. You know all of this so we can freely infer that you are tossing up distractors on H bonding [how key-lock fit complementarity of the two strands in the double helix occurs] means you have no answer to the well known informational nature of DNA and by extension RNA and proteins. See recent thread: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/lfp-55-defining-clarifying-intelligent-design-as-inference-as-theory-as-a-movement/#comment-754277 May 8 update. KF PS, just to show the notoriously well known force of the point, notice what Wikipedia concedes as well established:
Deoxyribonucleic acid (/di???ks??ra?bo?nju??kli??k, -?kle?-/ (listen);[1] DNA) is a polymer composed of two polynucleotide chains that coil around each other to form a double helix carrying genetic instructions [--> i.e. instructions in a code] for the development, functioning, growth and reproduction of all known organisms and many viruses. DNA and ribonucleic acid (RNA) are nucleic acids. Alongside proteins, lipids and complex carbohydrates (polysaccharides), nucleic acids are one of the four major types of macromolecules that are essential for all known forms of life. The two DNA strands are known as polynucleotides as they are composed of simpler monomeric units called nucleotides.[2][3] [--> polymer chemistry] Each nucleotide is composed of one of four nitrogen-containing nucleobases (cytosine [C], guanine [G], adenine [A] or thymine [T]), a sugar called deoxyribose, and a phosphate group. The nucleotides are joined to one another in a chain [--> thus, string pattern] by covalent bonds (known as the phospho-diester linkage) between the sugar of one nucleotide and the phosphate of the next, resulting in an alternating sugar-phosphate backbone. [--> the chain sequences bases in principle in any order] The nitrogenous bases of the two separate polynucleotide strands are bound together, according to base pairing rules (A with T and C with G), with hydrogen bonds to make double-stranded DNA [--> key-lock complementarity of the strands, where the prongs are at right angles to the chain] . . . . Both strands of double-stranded DNA store the same biological information [--> redundancy, a key information security technique] . . . . It is the sequence [--> thus, string data structure] of these four nucleobases along the backbone that encodes [--> code, and with start, elongate, stop we have algorithms, i.e. language used to lay out a goal directed finite stepwise procedure, and GCAT can properly be seen as glyphs in an alphanumeric, machine language code] genetic information [--> information, and of course discrete state with carrying capacity up to two bits per base]. RNA strands are created using DNA strands as a template in a process called transcription, where DNA bases are exchanged for their corresponding bases except in the case of thymine (T), for which RNA substitutes uracil (U).[4] Under the genetic code, these RNA strands specify the sequence of amino acids within proteins in a process called translation.
Notice, what Wikipedia, despite known biases and agendas is forced to concede. It then is manifest that FH and CD, who manifestly know this,for some reason imagine that they can play hyperskeptical rhetorical games. Yes, they can, but at a price, we know from the stunts above, that they are not responsible commenters on a serious matter.kairosfocus_{May 12, 2022
May
05
May
12
12
2022
09:38 AM
9
09
38
AM
PDT}

And we are still awaiting a testable mechanism capable of producing the diversity of life starting from some unknown populations of prokaryotes. Evos are always so confident until it comes time for the science.ET_{May 12, 2022
May
05
May
12
12
2022
09:29 AM
9
09
29
AM
PDT}

Fred Your hydrogen bond’s explanation is like trying to say the information stored on a usb drive can be explained by the plastic and metal used in the usb’s construction.BobSinclair_{May 12, 2022
May
05
May
12
12
2022
09:29 AM
9
09
29
AM
PDT}

VL
Do you agree that this is not really a problem? The saltational creation events could be at the molecular level, or even smaller (like at the quantum level).
For me it's a problem with terminology. I don't think the scenario there would normally be called "common descent". It's more rightly termed "common design". Some people with an animosity towards the idea would call it "creationism". I also think there would be a problem with the arbitrary nature of when/where the saltations arise - as needed. It would seem like an ad hoc explanation. As I often wonder, why not just have the intelligently designed origin as the complete organism being created de novo? For a lot of people these are questions about "how God might have done it" - and it's tied to philosophy and theology. It's good to discuss it with people who have a respect for God, or at least who accept the ID inference. It's impossible to discuss with people who have hatred of God or at least are opposed to ID in principle - as almost all atheists are.Silver Asiatic_{May 12, 2022
May
05
May
12
12
2022
09:28 AM
9
09
28
AM
PDT}

The genetic code involves a coded information processing system in which mRNA codons REPRESENT amino acids. That is the epitome of a code. And the ribosome is a genetic compiler complete with error detection.ET_{May 12, 2022
May
05
May
12
12
2022
09:27 AM
9
09
27
AM
PDT}

Viola Lee:
At this point ID theory states that certain events cannot have been produced by natural causes so therefore design must have happened.
Wrong! A quick look at the explanatory filter refutes that nonsense.ET_{May 12, 2022
May
05
May
12
12
2022
09:25 AM
9
09
25
AM
PDT}

CD
Nor any other alphabet. You guys don’t get it.
I think we know there's no human alphabet there. But more importantly, I invite you to read the brief summary offered in the link WJM provided @140. It explains what we're referring to:
You have to have a medium of information, representations, constraints, discontinuous association, a reading-frame code, and semantic closure in order to create a material system capable of Darwinian evolution.
That's what your mechanism is supposed to explain via a stepwise process. It's a system not merely an alphabet.Silver Asiatic_{May 12, 2022
May
05
May
12
12
2022
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PDT}

But the level of testability and specificity of the predictions are vastly different, I think, so I don’t think this is a very strong equivalence.
I agree. This is what happens when one tries to portray ID as a theory. Originally Dembski was trying to establish a mathematical proof of ID. This was originally Dembski's site until it became too much work. He handed it off to DaveScot who handed it off to Barry when it became too much work and then who essentially handed it off to Denyse while keeping overall control. How much they read is unknown. A few others are allowed to author. As can be seen there are some differences between those who support ID. And I have said the real food fight will be when ID becomes accepted which I don't see happening anytime soon.
I don’t think ID has anything like that.
ID is not primarily interested in basic science as Newton was. If it had the money, maybe it would do some things but right now it has a minuscule of the the money spent on biology or cosmology. As I said ID has no problem with any legitimate science so consider all that ID. ID is Science+ jerry_{May 12, 2022
May
05
May
12
12
2022
09:19 AM
9
09
19
AM
PDT}

re 138, to WJM. You write, "The theory of gravity doesn’t explain the origin of gravity." True. And it is clearly and often repeated that the theory of ID does not attempt to explain the origin of design, and explicitly says the question of the designer is a separate question. You continue, "It discerns between what can be said to be a gravitational effect, and what cannot be said to be a gravitational effect. It models that effect in different ways. So does ID (such as, the presence of organized, complex information.) Gravitational theory makes predictions; so does ID theory" But the level of testability and specificity of the predictions are vastly different, I think, so I don't think this is a very strong equivalence. P.S. Just a side note: I am reading "Magnificent Principia" by Colin Task, which is taking me systematically through "Principia Mathematica." Newton is very thorough in assembling consequences of his principles and illustrating with specific experiments he did to confirm them. I don't think ID has anything like that.Viola Lee_{May 12, 2022
May
05
May
12
12
2022
09:06 AM
9
09
06
AM
PDT}

Something else said along the same lines as above when one tries to corner ID into a preferred corner. First the quote then the response.
“Therefore we have evidence that life was created by a similar process.”
No, not a good choice of words to express what we believe. The correct choice would be something like this: “We then know that intelligence can create this sort of pattern. In fact there is evidence that humans will be assembling a life form in a short time. We have no evidence that nature can create such a pattern which is positive evidence for intelligent design. Therefore, we believe that the cause of this process is more likely to be intelligence than a natural cause. We continue to support the search for natural causes but until the time it can be shown that natural causes is the most likely cause then we believe that intelligence is still the logical conclusion for such phenomena.” Given such a statement, how does one justify what the anti ID position is, which says absolutely that intelligence is not the cause. Our position has been laid out before but it continually get wordsmithed to suit one’s position. We never use the absolute position. That is what the anti ID people do.

This response and the one above are from several years ago to different comments made at that time but in general are relevant to current commenters who make similar distortions/inane attributions.jerry_{May 12, 2022
May
05
May
12
12
2022
08:21 AM
8
08
21
AM
PDT}

Jerry, I'm not interested in responding to your condescension. Go insult someone else. I know you wrote this to someone else at another time, but as posted, it is directed at me.Viola Lee_{May 12, 2022
May
05
May
12
12
2022
08:19 AM
8
08
19
AM
PDT}

As to the "it's just molecular binding without any semiotic meaning (letters and numbers)" challenge, let's allow UB the floor: https://uncommondescent.com/origin-of-life/upright-bipeds-summary-on-information-systems-in-cell-based-life/William J Murray_{May 12, 2022
May
05
May
12
12
2022
08:17 AM
8
08
17
AM
PDT}

there isn’t a theory in the sense of offering explanations
A distortion of what ID is since ID definitely seeks explanations. Something I wrote about ID several years ago
Maybe we should speak in shorter sentences so you may be able to understand. ID does not eliminate anything that current science does. ID can do any experiment that current science does. ID can do additional experiments that current science might not do. ID can come to the same conclusions as current science does. ID can also come to some different conclusions than current science. ID will come to a naturalistic explanation in nearly all experiments. But in fact naturalistic explanations can be used to support intelligence based conclusions. ID will do some things differently than current science about its conclusions. For example, it will not make up any unsupported conclusions. It will not use the words “it evolved”, “it was selected”, “it was exapted”, “it emerged” to explain an unknown event or transition. ID will not use its imagination as evidence in science. Now that you understand some of the things that ID will add to science you may try some other non sequiturs to your array of arguments. But I suggest you try to understand instead. ID adds, it does not subtract. Your point of view subtracts and restricts and oppresses and misinforms. So please try an honest and logical argument. It is getting tiresome. No one is asking you to agree with an ID conclusion even if it is completely logical and well supported, but try to represent it reliably instead of distorting it. You might learn something.
As I say ID is Science+ Anyone disagree?
I’m not interested in responding to your condescension. Go insult someone else.
Obviously someone who disagrees but cannot articulate a coherent response when what ID is about is laid out in simple terms.jerry_{May 12, 2022
May
05
May
12
12
2022
08:10 AM
8
08
10
AM
PDT}

VL said:
but there isn’t a theory in the sense of offering explanations,
The theory of gravity doesn't explain the origin of gravity. It discerns between what can be said to be a gravitational effect, and what cannot be said to be a gravitational effect. It models that effect in different ways. So does ID (such as, the presence of organized, complex information.) Gravitational theory makes predictions; so does ID theory. Thus, I think your idea of what constitutes a "theory" is unfairly discriminatory.William J Murray_{May 12, 2022
May
05
May
12
12
2022
08:09 AM
8
08
09
AM
PDT}

SA//133 Nor any other alphabet. You guys don't get it. Or perhaps your question actually shows a glimmer of understanding. We are living (as Madona said) in a material world.....chuckdarwin_{May 12, 2022
May
05
May
12
12
2022
08:04 AM
8
08
04
AM
PDT}

SA @133, Maybe we can invoke Upright Biped, but I imagine he's tired of explaining it over and over. FH said:
Alphanumeric codes! This is complete nonsense. Nucleotides form physical associations due to hydrogen bonding. Numbers and letters is a human fictional model.
This is like saying that the properties of the lead of a pencil and the properties of paper explain the sonnet or mathematical formula written on the paper.William J Murray_{May 12, 2022
May
05
May
12
12
2022
07:59 AM
7
07
59
AM
PDT}

Fred Hickson Alphanumeric codes! This is complete nonsense. Nucleotides form physical associations due to hydrogen bonding. Numbers and letters is a human fictional model.
You are deluded this is not you writting messages on UD it's about some faulty "hydrogen bonding" happening in your brain. :)))Lieutenant Commander Data_{May 12, 2022
May
05
May
12
12
2022
07:58 AM
7
07
58
AM
PDT}

Good, SA. We agree on a lot. But to back up: Earlier you wrote, "You write, “The problem that you’ll run into here is with irreducibly complex features (flagella, blood clotting, etc). [Design] would have to bring together several parts at the same time. So, when you say “small steps”, that can’t be something that mimics what neo-Darwinism claims, with steps as small as mutations. There would have to be some saltational events. Call them “acts of special creation”." Do you agree that this is not really a problem? The saltational creation events could be at the molecular level, or even smaller (like at the quantum level). Also, As Jerry says, there really isn't an ID theory. There is an ID inference, and some tentative ID conclusions, but there isn't a theory in the sense of offering explanations, or even descriptions, for the when, where, how, etc. of these creation acts. Therefore, they could happen at any number of levels, hypothetically. P.S. to Jerry: The ID Defined sections of the Resources tab says "The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection." I agree with you that this is wrong.Viola Lee_{May 12, 2022
May
05
May
12
12
2022
07:58 AM
7
07
58
AM
PDT}

Now we're going to have to find and post all the authoritative texts explaining that DNA and RNA is actually a real coded, symbolic functional communication system. Supposedly, since there are no "letters" from the English alphabet in the genome, that refutes this fact??? Wow.Silver Asiatic_{May 12, 2022
May
05
May
12
12
2022
07:45 AM
7
07
45
AM
PDT}

VL WJM summarized it well in #128. ID cannot eliminate the possibility that an effect was designed. As you say, even if there is a known natural cause, it doesn't mean that intelligent design was not involved. However, to maintain a falsifiable, scientific theory - ID will affirm events that give evidence that "only intelligence" could have been the cause. By that, it's just eliminating "known natural causes" from the possible explanations. In that case, ID only affirms design for "some aspects" of nature. But as you say, it could be that all of nature is intelligently designed. We just cannot show that, so it becomes an unscientific proposal.
Whether that distinction is discernable to us depends on our level of knowledge about what natural causes can produce, which is always incomplete.
That's true, but we have approximations. We can observe functional complex specified information. It's not an exaggeration to say that it's "impossible" for natural causes to create it by chance, since information is purposeful and chance is not-purposeful. However, someone might say "it could happen" that a complex, functional code was assembled by a blind, unintelligent cause. But when the probability for that happening is less than what could happen in the age of the universe - then we're on good grounds in saying it's impossible.
However, there may be events which look to us like natural causes were responsible for them but were in fact also designed.
True. This is the theistic evolution approach. They'll say that it looks like a blind, random effect, but it was actually designed that way.
Perhaps one’s ID theory is such that there are only two distinct kinds of events that happen: those that are caused by natural processes and those that happen through the special creation acts of design.
Some people could think that. I don't think ID in general requires it though. All it is saying is "these aspects of nature give evidence of design". It does not have to say that "everything else is not designed". It could say that "everything is designed and these aspects give actual evidence of it, while others we don't have evidence, but they are designed anyway."Silver Asiatic_{May 12, 2022
May
05
May
12
12
2022
07:42 AM
7
07
42
AM
PDT}

Finally, someone on this blog that understands genetics and biochemistry
But not you as you demonstrate over and over. Question: why make such an absurd remark?jerry_{May 12, 2022
May
05
May
12
12
2022
07:22 AM
7
07
22
AM
PDT}

FH/115
Alphanumeric codes! This is complete nonsense. Nucleotides form physical associations due to hydrogen bonding. Numbers and letters is a human fictional model.
Finally, someone on this blog that understands genetics and biochemistry.....chuckdarwin_{May 12, 2022
May
05
May
12
12
2022
07:15 AM
7
07
15
AM
PDT}

Viola Lee Well, one thing we know for sure is that organisms reproduce,
Not really. We know for sure that-beside reproduction- an organism have metabolism, nutrition, transport, cellular respiration, synthesis, excretion, growth & development and all those are regulated and controlled by a ghostly , weightless, non-material entity. That ghostly entity scare the chemistry to dance a very strange kind of dances with very strange moves that in an unexplainable way have obvious functional results that can be perceived (only)by a mind as a purpose . You can't perceive the purpose if you stay at the level of atoms and molecules because all you 'll see are chemical interactions, that's all .End of story. You can perceive a purpose only if you climb to the upper level of cell (prok) or organism(euk) as a unit and from that level you go downward starting to decompose all the subcomponents(reverse engineering) having always in mind the goal of the unit that disappear when you start to analyze individually the subcomponents. This is a scientific evidence : organisation of a system is not developed from atoms upward to a functional cell(as materialists claim) but on the contrary organisation always start with the most complex level downward(as ID claim). Which is the most complex level do you know? Well, that level is an inferior level in a bigger framework. Which is the bigger framework? Ask Godel . We are left with either impossibility of finding the ultimate truth from inside the system we are captive or to trust somebody that claims that was outside this system (universe) and knows the truth. :)Lieutenant Commander Data_{May 12, 2022
May
05
May
12
12
2022
07:10 AM
7
07
10
AM
PDT}

VL at 126, To summarize: ID theory can tell you where ID occurred, but it cannot say where it did not occur. It excludes events or things from being identified as ID positive if there is an available natural explanation.William J Murray_{May 12, 2022
May
05
May
12
12
2022
07:00 AM
7
07
00
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 10 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply