Darwinists are Delegitimizing Science in the Name of Science

_{Gil Dodgen

October 25, 2011

Intelligent Design}

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

What Darwinists don’t recognize is that, in the name of promoting science, they are actually promoting skepticism about what can be trusted in the name of science.

Bears evolved into whales? No, that’s been rejected. “Scientists” suggest that whales might have evolved from a cat-like animal, or a hyena-like animal, or (fill in the blank).

“It is thought by some that…”

This is “science”?

Evolution is a fact, if evolution is defined as the observation that some living systems are not now as they once were. According to this definition I count myself as an evolutionist.

But Darwinists are unwilling to acknowledge their ignorance concerning how this all came about, and persist in presenting unsupported speculation in the name of science.

This is ultimately destructive of the scientific enterprise. When people read such things as “science has discovered…” or “scientific consensus assures us that…” or some such, people are likely to assume that they are being conned, even if this is not the case, because they have been burned by so many claims in the past that turned out to be transparently false or eventually invalidated by evidence.

Based upon what I’ve learned over my 60 years of existence — mathematics, chemistry, physics, music and language study, computer programming, AI research, and involvement in multiple engineering disciplines — I find this Darwinism stuff to be a desperate attempt to deny the obvious: design and purpose in the universe and human existence.

The irony is that Darwinists are doing much harm to that which they presume to promote — confidence in claims made in the name of science.

Comments

Hi Acipencer, if I haven't said anything different than what you stated, then why the reaction to my point, "The molecules ATCG apparently have nothing to say about sequence specificity."? Do the molecules determine the sequence? If not, then the above statement is accurate. No, I do not disagree that the system dictates how the sequence is translated and transcribed. What I'm taking issue with is whether the system can be said to determine the sequence of nucleotides, or more specifically, that the bases themselves have anything to say about the sequence they specify. My language analogy is apt. Do you disagree with my original point, where I insisted that a system imposes the rules by which the symbols are interpreted:
...the mapping of any byte-sized transistor state to a symbol is a function of the microelectronics architecture and the software that programs it. It’s purely physical. The operation of the system requires no explanation apart from the laws of physics — it can all be explained by necessity. However invoking necessity as a cause for its origin is self-evidently problematic.
material.infantacy_{October 27, 2011
October
10
Oct
27
27
2011
11:24 AM
11
11
24
AM
PDT}

Acipenser, I'm not offering a computer analogy. I'm talking about actual computers and other electronic devices that rely on messages. Every interaction between memory, the processor, the storage, and the display can be reduced to known natural processes, most notably the behavior of electricity. By attempting to frame my question as an analogy and then implying that I don't know what I'm talking about, you're dodging the question. You seem to have this strange opinion that a thing cannot be a symbol if any natural laws are involved in its processing or interaction. I have a hunch that you'll apply the rule in one case when it suits you, but not when it doesn't. Or you'll further complicate your "rule" to distinguish between the two in which case I'll just find another example for you, or unless it's just question-begging in which case I'll point that out. I'm not asking you a difficult question. I'm asking you to clarify this line you've drawn between what is a symbol and what isn't to see if you're just making it up ad hoc.ScottAndrews2_{October 27, 2011
October
10
Oct
27
27
2011
11:15 AM
11
11
15
AM
PDT}

Acipenser: I don't understand your posts. What has the binding of ligands to do with the genetic code? Please, explain. What has the biochemical behaviour of hemoglobin to do with the symbolic information present in protein coding gene? I think you are really confused. But please, explain better your thought. And in detail, if possible.gpuccio_{October 27, 2011
October
10
Oct
27
27
2011
11:12 AM
11
11
12
AM
PDT}

MI: The letters, or strings of letters, do not reflect the sterochemical environments contained in any specific sequence. The letters are human constructs and are limited in their application and understanding of why things bind to other things. How is what I said any different than what you stated? The specific sequences of bases create unique sterochemical environments which determines that sequence's interaction with other molecules. It is the unique sterochemical environment that dictates what that sequence will bind to as well as what will bind to it, and with what affinity. Do you disagree?Acipenser_{October 27, 2011
October
10
Oct
27
27
2011
11:00 AM
11
11
00
AM
PDT}

Upr, certainly you are as you're opening comment on this thread demonstrates. I would be glad to address the issue you raised once you've addressed my questions, which were clearly on the table prior to your arrival on this portion of this thread. I stated as much previously. Any delay in my response is a direct reflection of your unwillingness to address the questions I posed. It isn't difficult to understand why you're unwilling to address the issues I posed.Acipenser_{October 27, 2011
October
10
Oct
27
27
2011
10:50 AM
10
10
50
AM
PDT}

Acipencer, how does the alphabet determine the paragraph you just wrote? It doesn't. That's the obvious point. The letters don't determine the sequence -- the sequence determines which letters are used. I thought it was obvious. It's not the bases which determine the product, it's the sequence. That you can map the bases to a given protein is not to say that the bases determine the protein. The sequence of the bases is the language that determines the product. That you can map letters of an alphabet to a meaningful sentence does not mean you've explained the sentence via the alphabet. Sequence is sovereign. Long live Sequence.material.infantacy_{October 27, 2011
October
10
Oct
27
27
2011
10:47 AM
10
10
47
AM
PDT}

But Aci, I am not retreating to a computer analogy. I am pointing to the observable physical evidence entailed by the transfer of information - that evidence which you will not address. cheersUpright BiPed_{October 27, 2011
October
10
Oct
27
27
2011
10:35 AM
10
10
35
AM
PDT}

Sure, Upright, as it is your right to continue not to answer my questions. As I stated ignoring the obvious flaws in the computer-biology analogy is common with ID proponents. I'd say you and the other ID proponents on this thread are avoiding dealing with some very basic questions and one can easily guess why......they are questions for which you have no answers and therefore you don't like them and retreat to the computer analogy regardless of how flawed that analogy is when compared to biological systems.Acipenser_{October 27, 2011
October
10
Oct
27
27
2011
10:23 AM
10
10
23
AM
PDT}

MI: The molecules ATCG apparently have nothing to say about sequence specificity. What? Any combination of those bases produces a unique physico/chemical environment. This is the specificity and the unique charge environments contained within any combination will dictate what that combination will bind to as well as what will bind to it. This is hardly news and is the basis for receptor theory in biology. How these combinations interact with proteins and create varying allosteric changes in the protein molecule active sites facilitating binding of specific ligands is well recognized, e.g., drug-receptor interactions. To ignore these sterochemical interactions is to ignore a very large segment of known biology.Acipenser_{October 27, 2011
October
10
Oct
27
27
2011
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PDT}

Well that's fine. It's your right not to answer. As I said, these are coherent observations of the physical dynamics involved in information transfer, but they are not observations that materialist want to deal with. And they like the question(s) that follows even less. Its much better to ask if commputers bind any ligands.Upright BiPed_{October 27, 2011
October
10
Oct
27
27
2011
10:10 AM
10
10
10
AM
PDT}

The mapping of 00100101 to 37 is electronic; it's also symbolic. Mapping 01100001 to "a" is electronic; it's also symbolic. As a matter of fact, the mapping of any byte-sized transistor state to a symbol is a function of the microelectronics architecture and the software that programs it. It's purely physical. The operation of the system requires no explanation apart from the laws of physics -- it can all be explained by necessity. However invoking necessity as a cause for its origin is self-evidently problematic. The molecules ATCG apparently have nothing to say about sequence specificity. The claim that the sequence of nucleotides in the DNA molecule necessitates proteins is also to say that the proteins it codes for necessitate DNA. It's the circularity that is glaringly troublesome. Nobody can explain how the system was bootstrapped. That an external cause may have been necessary is apparent. To claim, ahead of empirical verification, that it all happened by natural law -- with no such law described -- is begging the question. To describe the operation of a thing does not explain its origin; the two are in entirely different categories.material.infantacy_{October 27, 2011
October
10
Oct
27
27
2011
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PDT}

Upright, Once you've addressed my questions I'd be happy to address yours. I'd like to think that you aren't just iognoring them. Quid pro quo and all that polite stuff that conversations are made of. I'm not aware that computers bind any ligands in order to obtain a output response from the operating system or software. Could you give some examples of ligand binding in computers or is it as I stated that the computer analoigy is flawed?Acipenser_{October 27, 2011
October
10
Oct
27
27
2011
09:56 AM
9
09
56
AM
PDT}

Elizabeth Liddle: Could you give an example of an unsupported speculation that a Darwinist has presented in the name of science? Well, there is your own claim of frost being self-replicating:
For example, if you look at frost patterns on a window pain, you are looking at a very simple example of self-replication – a pattern begins, possible because of a speck of dust on the window, and that pattern spawns a copy, which spawns a copy, etc until you have a repeating pattern stretching across the glass. That means that if a very simple “probiont”, consisting perhaps of no more than lipid bubbles going through cycles of enlargement, driven by, for example nothing more complex than convection currents and osmotic forces, you’ve got something that is potentially, I would argue, a “self-designing system”.
Charles_{October 27, 2011
October
10
Oct
27
27
2011
09:49 AM
9
09
49
AM
PDT}

To say that the information transfer in a computer system is a flawed analogy to information transfer in DNA (or any other system of information transfer) - is simply an assertion, made without addressing the common dynamics involved. Aci, since you are well trained on this subject matter, may I ask you the question that all before you have steadfastly ignored? Will you take a minute to consider the evidence, and please answer this question: If on one hand we have a thing that “is a genuine” representation, and on the other hand we have something that “just acts like” a representation, can you look at the physical evidence and tell me the distinction? By addressing the actual physical dynamics involved in information transfer, you will be able to refute the observation. I look forward to reading your response later today. (Scott, my apologies for stepping in on your conversation)Upright BiPed_{October 27, 2011
October
10
Oct
27
27
2011
09:45 AM
9
09
45
AM
PDT}

Scott, instead of dragging a flawed computer analogy into the picture (we can agree that a computer binds no ligands I hope) why don't we stick with the real biological issue of ligand binding as it pertains to allosteric modifications of proteins/enzymes as well as why some ligands bind some receptors and not others. Flawed computer analogies won't shed any light on why molecules interact with biological receptors with differing specificities and affinities and that is the very basis of yoru question. If you don't understand the processes that's fine just admit it. I spent years of my life studying such reactions so I really don't expect a layperson to have a intuitive grasp of the subject which I think comes to light with many of the questions that are raised on this forum.Acipenser_{October 27, 2011
October
10
Oct
27
27
2011
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT}

Acipenser, I challenged you to apply your same logic to computers. There's nothing going on there besides predictable reactions, electricity and silicon. Are you prepared to apply your reasoning consistently and state that there are no symbolic codes at use in computers? Can you do it without begging the questions (i.e. computers are designed but DNA isn't?) I'm asserting that you apply your logic capriciously, not consistently, and using a simple example to illustrate it. Do you care to refute my assertion?ScottAndrews2_{October 27, 2011
October
10
Oct
27
27
2011
08:59 AM
8
08
59
AM
PDT}

Scott:Why is there a chemical reason why TCT maps to serine? With many hemoglobin molecules why does binding one oxygen molecule facilitate/enhance the binding of a second, then a third, and finally a fourth oxygen molecule? What cvould possibly be happening here? What could be going on that promotes acetyl cholinesterase to bind acetylcholine as well as diazinon, chlorpyrifos, or any other organophosphate, or carbamate, insecticide instead of paraquat or dioxin? What drives the relative specificity of these bindings? Chemistry perhaps?Acipenser_{October 27, 2011
October
10
Oct
27
27
2011
08:52 AM
8
08
52
AM
PDT}

DrBot: Lets focus on this for a moment – If there is no chemical reason why TCT maps to Serine then how do you make TCT map to Threonine? I must be tired, but I don't understand the question. I think I have been explicit enough. I quote myself: "There is no chemical reason why the sequence of the three nucleotides TCT maps to serine. There is no connection between the chemical nature of T C and T (or their sequence) and the chemical nature of serine. The only reason why TCT maps to serine is because an enzyme is programmed to mount the aminoacid serine on the tRNA with the anticodon for TCT. There is no connection between the chemical propertie of the anticodon and the chemical properties of the aminoacid. It’s the information stored in the enzyme that corresponds to the information stored in the DNA sequence. And to the correct information about the sequence of aminoacids in the desired protein. So, in all senses, TCT (the sequence of three nucleotides, not the letters we use as a symbol of that sequence) is a symbol of the aminoacid serine." What is not clear, or wrong, in that?gpuccio_{October 27, 2011
October
10
Oct
27
27
2011
08:44 AM
8
08
44
AM
PDT}

Obviously gpuccio is not claiming that the process is magic. He has clearly acknowledged that chemical processes are at work. But why? Why is there a chemical reason why TCT maps to serine? Removed from these very specific reactions, is there any other way to get serine from those same molecules? There's no chemical reason for the chemical reason. That is the point. His statement is obviously correct. The mapping is chemical. But there is no chemical reason for the mapping to exist in the first place. I hope no one is pretending not to understand these statements. That would be an even greater waste of everyone's time.ScottAndrews2_{October 27, 2011
October
10
Oct
27
27
2011
08:39 AM
8
08
39
AM
PDT}

Scott: Who said that there is no chemical reason why TCT maps to Serine? gpuccio (5.1.4.3.2: There is no chemical reason why the sequence of the three nucleotides TCT maps to serine. In all of these discussions I never see any mention of the very well known effect of allosteric modification of proteins (and other polymers) by ligand binding. It is a well known and described phenomena that binding various ligands away from the active site of a enzyme can, often dramatically, influence what can be bound to at the active site as well as the influence on the affinity of the ligand for the active site. Indeed, hemoglobin is one, among many, examples of the influence of chemistry on binding/unbinding of spcific ligands.Acipenser_{October 27, 2011
October
10
Oct
27
27
2011
08:09 AM
8
08
09
AM
PDT}

Who said that there is no chemical reason why TCT maps to Serine?
gpuccio:
There is no chemical reason why the sequence of the three nucleotides TCT maps to serine.
--
Has it not been repeated ad infinitum that the process is chemical?
Yes, that is what we have been saying!DrBot_{October 27, 2011
October
10
Oct
27
27
2011
08:06 AM
8
08
06
AM
PDT}

DrBot, Who said that there is no chemical reason why TCT maps to Serine? Has it not been repeated ad infinitum that the process is chemical? But why is there an enzyme that maps one to another? Without that enzyme, what would the relationship be? Are you prepared to assert that different enzymes could not execute alternate mappings? (In doing so you would refute the common argument that the existing configuration of life is one of many possible "targets.") The reason why 01000001 maps to "A" on a computer is purely electronic. Are you prepared to make the same argument, that because a purely electronic process converts 01000001 to "A" that the relationship is not symbolic? If you wish to make the argument in one case then you must follow it to its conclusion and apply the same reasoning elsewhere. But you cannot, and will not. Or you will come up with strained explanation to account for the difference. It then becomes evident that the difference is arbitrary and capricious. You don't mind one being a symbolic code, but you don't want the other to be one.ScottAndrews2_{October 27, 2011
October
10
Oct
27
27
2011
07:59 AM
7
07
59
AM
PDT}

There is no chemical reason why the sequence of the three nucleotides TCT maps to serine.
Lets focus on this for a moment - If there is no chemical reason why TCT maps to Serine then how do you make TCT map to Threonine?DrBot_{October 27, 2011
October
10
Oct
27
27
2011
07:41 AM
7
07
41
AM
PDT}

GinoB: Lucky you...gpuccio_{October 27, 2011
October
10
Oct
27
27
2011
07:34 AM
7
07
34
AM
PDT}

Elizabeth: I can't follow you anynmore. Luckily, KF has said what was to be said. I find starnge that you find so many thimgs, that are quite simple, "misleading". Why misleading? Because they could perhaps lead us to the right inference, that is design? You say: I also do not accept that the mapping of 64 triplet base-pair sequences to 20 amino acids is “SYMBOLIC” not “chemical”. And again you are wrong. The code is symbolic. The implementation of information (the process of writing of information in a gene) is chemical. There is no chemical reason why the sequence of the three nucleotides TCT maps to serine. There is no connection between the chemical nature of T C and T (or their sequence) and the chemical nature of serine. The only reason why TCT maps to serine is because an enzyme is programmed to mount the aminoacid serine on the tRNA with the anticodon for TCT. There is no connection between the chemical propertie of the anticodon and the chemical properties of the aminoacid. It's the information stored in the enzyme that corresponds to the information stored in the DNA sequence. And to the correct information about the sequence of aminoacids in the desired protein. So, in all senses, TCT (the sequence of three nucleotides, not the letters we use as a symbol of that sequence) is a symbol of the aminoacid serine. But really, this is the last time I say it to you.gpuccio_{October 27, 2011
October
10
Oct
27
27
2011
07:33 AM
7
07
33
AM
PDT}

gpuccio
GinoB: Really, that does not even deserve an answer.
You mean you don't have an answer for the points raised. But I understand.GinoB_{October 27, 2011
October
10
Oct
27
27
2011
07:28 AM
7
07
28
AM
PDT}

GinoB: Really, that does not even deserve an answer.gpuccio_{October 27, 2011
October
10
Oct
27
27
2011
07:24 AM
7
07
24
AM
PDT}

It’s just not an abstract code.
Gino, can you do me a favor. I have asked this question a number of times and no one can give me an answer. Will you please answer this question: If on one hand we have a thing that "is a genuine" representation, and on the other hand we have something that "just acts like" a representation, can you look at the physical evidence and tell me the distinction? Thanks. I'll be off for most of the day, but I'll try to check back in.Upright BiPed_{October 27, 2011
October
10
Oct
27
27
2011
07:00 AM
7
07
00
AM
PDT}

Der Liddle Please. This is beginning to sound like world play games. To see is a well known metaphor for to understand -- probably strongly related to our dominant sense, sight. To be blind then is to not understand. A search approach that is not guided by intelligence and relevant information -- by understanding -- is blind. Per the observed basic classes of causal factors, such a search relies on chance processes and mechanical necessity without intelligent direction, and it does a random walk in a config space until it picks up a tend which it can then exploit by using Mt Improbable hill climbing. (And see I have had to add the Mt Improbable part because of previous verbal games, when it should have been quite clear what hill climbing as a general term means.) That is plainly not circular, it is empirically based and reasonable. Have you ever played blind search games? Stumbling about blindly is one thing, being guided by verbal cues from one who knows and sees makes a big difference. Even treasure search where one does not have any clues is a blind search. "Warmer . . . colder" signals allow rapid convergence precisely because of added intelligent direction, i.e. design. There should be no need to elaborate on such simple, common sense points. Something is wrong, and I do not want to get specific or overly frank, lest I be accused of being rude ending in derailment of the thread. But surely, we can do a LOT better than this. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{October 27, 2011
October
10
Oct
27
27
2011
06:54 AM
6
06
54
AM
PDT}

gpuccio
And that no known not-designed object exhibits it (equally easy to demonstrate).
Please demonstrate it then. Don't forget to include your method for determining that an unknown object is not-designed first without using your 'dFSCI' metric. Otherwise you're guilty of completely circular logic. "This object has lots of dFSCI, so it must be designed! How do we know it's designed? Because it has lots of dFSCI!" ...round and round you chase your tail.GinoB_{October 27, 2011
October
10
Oct
27
27
2011
06:42 AM
6
06
42
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply