DLL Hell, Software Interdependencies, and Darwinian Evolution

_{Gil Dodgen

June 6, 2009

Intelligent Design}

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

In our home we have six computers (distributed among me, my wife, and two daughters): two Macs, two Windows machines, and two Linux (Unix) machines. I’m the IT (Information Technology) or IS (Information Systems) guy in the household — whatever is is.

A chronic problem rears its ugly head on a regular basis when I attempt to update any of our computer systems: Software programs are often interdependent. DLLs are dynamic link libraries of executable code which are accessed by multiple programs, in order to save memory and disk space. But this interdependence can cause big problems. If the DLL is updated but the accessing program is not, all hell will break loose and the program will either severely malfunction or suffer an ignominious, catastrophic, instantaneous death. On the other hand, if the program is updated and the DLL is not, the same thing can happen.

I’m still trying to figure out how the circulatory avian lung evolved in a step-by-tiny-step fashion from the reptilian bellows lung, without encountering DLL hell, and how the hypothesized intermediates did not die of asphyxia at the moment of birth (or hatching), without the chance to reproduce.

Of course, we all know that this kind of challenge — no matter how obvious or compelling — presents no problem for the D-Fundies (Darwinian Fundamentalists), who are true believers in the clearly impossible, based on materialistic assumptions in which design could not possibly have played a role.

Comments

"If you don’t have the expertise to assess an argument, how do you know how to apply your BS meter to it?" Human nature. People act in different ways depending upon the type of evidence they present or the arguments they use. I watch what you and anyone else presents and it is an indictment of the lack of evidence for your position. If you had firm evidence, you and the others would behave differently. I have never seen a coherent argument for macro evolution (origin of complex novel capabilities) and I have read a lot of pro naturalistic evolution books. Hence, I suspect such an argument does not exist or else it would be presented. If it did exist it would be standard fare in every discussion. And then there is Provine admitting it was faith that led him to believe in naturalistic evolution. A faith in something he has never seen. I keep pointing you to the Brosious article and its lack of examples or hard evidence. It was meant as an up to date review of macro evolution and it is mostly speculation. If there was chapter and verse supporting his beliefs do you not think he would have presented them. So there is a way of applying the BS meter without having the detailed background on something. There is are various levels of expertise and after a certain point no more is necessary to assess certain aspects of an issue. The lack of expertise I was pointing to was the knowledge on the functionality of proteins. One does not have to be an expert on protein biology/chemistry to understand many or most of the issues. What I was referring to is that I do not have the information to make a good judgment on what is possible and what is not at the moment to make a functional protein that will work with another functional protein to create a situation that is more functional than either working independently. Art Hunt makes an assertion and he may be right or it may be couched in some restrictions that I have no idea about at the moment. Over time a discussion on this would get at the issues. There have been others on this site who have indicated that the odds of finding a suitable protein island of proteins is much rarer than what was given by Art. Hence, I do not have the knowledge or expertise to assess this at the moment. But I suspect that there are others out there who do have this information. The main thesis of the Edge of Evolution was that these proteins are rare and there is no evidence that they exist in any great number. And funny how none of the reviews called Behe on this. Instead they debated irrelevant issues. Why? The BS meter is detecting something. One thing that sets off the BS meter like a Geiger counter in an uranium mind is an attempt to hide behind obscure scientific data. If it was relevant it would have been brought front and center long ago.jerry_{June 13, 2009
June
06
Jun
13
13
2009
01:31 PM
1
01
31
PM
PDT}

Hi Paul, To continue our discussion,
The paper goes on to say, “it [presumably life] employed amino acids that lie at the end of what must have been highly evolved anabolic pathways. These pathways must have evolved before the code”. What’s all this “must have” stuff? We know this how? Is there any actual evidence for “highly evolved anabolic pathways” existing without DNA control? Or are you asking me to criticize a theory with no experimental evidence for it, and then wondering if I can give experimental evidence against it?
As you are well aware, scientific papers discussing hypotheses commonly assume the hypothesis is true for argument’s sake, and then outline what conditions must also be true in order for the hypothesis to work, as well as for making predictions. That is what the authors are doing here. Surely this isn't controversial, especially since the genetic code is not being suggested to have appeared at the point in which life itself originated. I noticed you seem to be assuming anabolic pathways require DNA control. Why? What conceptually prevents RNA from performing a similar role? And if we consider RNA as a precursor to DNA as genetic material, what questions/obstacles about the origin of translation are made simpler and easier to achieve under a strictly biological paradigm (assuming we can set aside any pre-existing paradigm preferences for the moment)? Doing this may indeed solve some problems, but it also may bring up others which in the end might be insurmountable. Should the former happen, then the hypothesis itself may need to be abandoned. In a later comment, I will point out some thinking on the precursor conditions for the stereochemical hypothesis, which will at least address your question about life not needing the genetic code as we see it today.
Well, I think I can. It’s not probative evidence; it doesn’t slam the door on the logical possibility that Yarus et al. might be right. But as you know, we rarely if ever get that in science. Basically, it goes like this. We have not yet observed the spontaneous origin of life anywhere; not on Earth, not on Mars, not on Titan, not in laboratories, and not in commercially canned food. That doesn’t mean it can’t happen. But it does mean that it isn’t easy, and we can reasonably suspect that it can’t happen. We have never observed “highly evolved anabolic pathways” without either design, or life. Again, it doesn’t prove it can’t happen, but it is evidence consistent with the hypothesis that it doesn’t happen.
Of course, we haven’t seen life designed in the laboratory either, and even if we did, all that would show is that humans can design life—usually after careful study of how nature does it. So frankly, I don’t find this particular argument especially compelling. But I am not insisting the genetic code had to have arisen the way Yarus et al’s hypothesis suggests, so design may very well be the answer. It sure would be nice, though, if you could point out some experimental evidence specifically contradicting the experimental evidence claimed to support the stereochemical hypothesis. That would be the most effective way to knock it out of the running, IMHO.Dave Wisker_{June 13, 2009
June
06
Jun
13
13
2009
10:20 AM
10
10
20
AM
PDT}

jerry, can you provide a specific example from the peer-reviewed evolutionary biology literature where imagination is treated as evidence or speculation is treated as fact?Khan_{June 13, 2009
June
06
Jun
13
13
2009
09:05 AM
9
09
05
AM
PDT}

jerry, If you don't have the expertise to assess an argument, how do you know how to apply your bs meter to it?Dave Wisker_{June 13, 2009
June
06
Jun
13
13
2009
08:07 AM
8
08
07
AM
PDT}

I have a general comment and that is that speculation is treated as fact in the evolution debate at the level of the common person. Many of us often remark that evolutionary biology is the only science where imagination is treated as evidence. But the average person on the street does not have this impression. They are under the impression that the evidence is overwhelming and so it is for the small stuff. But when we get to the real issues at hand we are treated to speculation at best. I have no problem with investigating the most outlandish concepts but only if it is admitted that they are probably not true. And admitted in the textbooks and in the curriculum. But such is not the case in evolutionary biology and is beginning to be the case in cosmology where the multiverse must be invoked to get away from the fine tuning problem. What upsets me in not the science or the speculation but the hypocrisy and double standards that are current in these areas. And the typical person on the street hasn't a clue about it and thinks ID is nonsense and the scientists are honest brokers of reality. By the way the very small discussion that Art Hunt had with me was on the probability of a random protein being useful. He believes that a useful protein pops up at the rate of 1 in 10^10 or 1 in a billion. That might make a useful debate but I do not have the expertise to assess it. What I have after working in academia, business, government and the military and seeing how each works and having a science education is to know the bs meter of an argument. The needle for the meter is off the scale in the evolutionary biology field.jerry_{June 13, 2009
June
06
Jun
13
13
2009
07:54 AM
7
07
54
AM
PDT}

Hi Paul,
This seems a little bizarre to me. According to the theory, “the origin of the genetic code is a different and later event than the origin of life”. That would seem to imply that there was life without a genetic code. Of what did this life consist? Let me turn the question around; do you have any experimental evidence of any life without a DNA code? If not, why are you asking for experimental evidence that the theory is wrong?
First of all, the stereochemical hypothesis for the origin of the genetic code arose from other work which suggested that the genetic code as we see it today is not what life used in its very earliest forms. Secondly, when I say this or that hypothesis has experimental backing, I’m not saying (as the wording of your question implies), that this primordial life has somehow been recreated in a test tube. That, frankly, is a naïve expectation (at least at this point), and if that is the only kind of experimental evidence you will accept in order to discuss the hypothesis seriously, please speak up now and save us both the effort. Instead, I’m saying the hypothesis has experimental results which support many of its central tenets. For example, the stereochemical hypothesis predicts the genetic code relies on interactions which should be observable and reproducible today. Yarus et al’s review paper summarizes much of that experimental backing. That doesn’t mean the hypothesis is free of highly speculative aspects, however. Far from it. But of the many hypotheses floating around out there, I like this one because it does have many elements which are conducive to experimental examination and for which there is a rich literature (RNA aptamer work, upon which the hypothesis is built, is being done by many labs, as Art Hunt pointed out). So, I was asking for positive experimental evidence which contradicts any of the reported empirical bases for the hypothesis. I suppose I should step in here and say something about what I don’t believe. I don’t believe the stereochemical hypothesis is true. It’s one of many hypotheses coming out of the overarching RNA World idea. But I like it better than others because, as I pointed out above, it has elements conducive to experimental examination. I hope that makes my position a bit clearer. Since I hate reading long individual posts myself, I will spare you a long one and address the rest of your reply later, if that’s ok (I much prefer discussion board format than blog comments for this kind of thing).Dave Wisker_{June 13, 2009
June
06
Jun
13
13
2009
05:31 AM
5
05
31
AM
PDT}

PS: I see I forgot: pardon my dyslexic eyes.kairosfocus_{June 12, 2009
June
06
Jun
12
12
2009
06:38 AM
6
06
38
AM
PDT}

Mr Wisker: I think Mr Giem 9143) responds aptly to several of your points. In particular -- and relevant to my own point -- he aptly observes that:
According to the theory, “the origin of the genetic code is a different and later event than the origin of life”. That would seem to imply that there was life without a genetic code. Of what did this life consist? Let me turn the question around; do you have any experimental evidence of any life without a DNA code? If not, why are you asking for experimental evidence that the theory is wrong? The paper goes on to say, “it [presumably life] employed amino acids that lie at the end of what must have been highly evolved anabolic pathways. These pathways must have evolved before the code”. What’s all this “must have” stuff? We know this how? Is there any actual evidence for “highly evolved anabolic pathways” existing without DNA control? Or are you asking me to criticize a theory with no experimental evidence for it, and then wondering if I can give experimental evidence against it?
I add, that he inference to "must have" reflects the assumption that scientific investigation of the possible origins of life could only work on the implicit premise that life has to have originated by blind mechanical necessity and chance. In short,t eh underlying issue is a priori imposition of Lewontinian metaphysical evolutionary materialism, by which the empirically demonstrated source of functionally specific complex information is excluded a priori, as that just might allow a Divine Foot in the door. Now, on the particular issue that I responded to earlier, here is the key cite, from AH at 105:
. . . there is interesting and excellent positive experimental evidence that supports the hypothesis that the code that underlies translation is in fact not inert. Rather, there is a decided and demonstrable chemical basis for this code (that we all call the genetic code).
By citing the well-known fact that all 64 logically possible three-letter codons exist and have meaning, I have pointed out that the code as we see it is not chemically determined (that is, as to sequences of letters in the codons). Furthermore, only if there is room for contingency can there be a code: chains of symbols by definition per their function, communicate information by being intrinsically improbable, apart from being an act of intent. Moreover, a major function of these codes in OBSERVED life [as opposed to speculative reconstructions] is to program the step by step construction of proteins that then fold and agglomerate to form components in highly complex protein macromolecule based systems in the cell. Given that proteins are very thermodynamically uphill, such a step by step process with energy fed in suggests purposeful art, not spontaneous chance. (Kindly provide evidence that a prebiotic soup -- of whatever kind --would naturally occur and that it would long preserve itself, creating circumstances where it would be credibly probable that clusters of molecules in that pond or comet head or hydrothermal vent would come together in micelles or on clay or whatever at about 20 microns separation to spontaneously start up the various activities of cell based life. [Here, my point is that the metabolism first and the RNA first scenarios for OOL are running into the adverse classical and statistical thermodynamics issues Sir Fred Hoyle raised by speaking of tornadoes forming 747's in junkyards, reflection on which is in fact the technical root of the modern design movement, as can be seen in Thaxton et al, Chs 7 - 9 TMLO.]) If you are suggesting that the genetic code's assignments and existence are the secondary, chemical forces-driven result of that process, you first need to show good reason on empirical data to accept that the original metabolic and no-DNA process is factually well founded. Thereafter, you will need to show that a functioning process then spontaneously created -- stepwise, with functional advantages selectable by natural selections -- an algorithmic process to replicate itself, inventing a language along the way as well as the algorithms and the machines that carry it out. I will speak as one who has had some experience in creating language based algorithmic functional entities. For, the difficulties of getting algorithms and code right the first time -- or the umpteenth time for that matter -- even when they are very close to right -- atre such that no claimed spontaneous process would be credible. Finally, if the laws of chemistry and thermodynamics somehow have "life" written into them, what would that tell us about the nature of a universe in which such is the case? GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{June 12, 2009
June
06
Jun
12
12
2009
04:10 AM
4
04
10
AM
PDT}

Dave Wisker (#142), I am quite pleased to hear that my suspicion was wrong. Suspicions should be rebuttable with evidence just like any other belief. Thank you for giving some evidence.
You’re right, of course. Each step need not have function. But in that case natural selection cannot select for function, Sorry, Paul, but this is a massive non sequitur. My point is simply that some steps may not have adaptive value with which natural selection can manifest itself.
I'm not sure what the significant difference is between what I said and your correction. If a step does not change function, it cannot be naturally selected. In that case, natural selection cannot act as a multiplier to increase the odds of the organism, or proto-organism, surviving in large enough numbers to make reasonably probable the next step. Now it could be claimed that in a 6-step pathway, only steps 2 and 6 conferred natural advantages, in which case they could be naturally selected. But that means that at steps 1, 3, 4, and 5 natural selection cannot manifest itself. Natural selection does not apply to neutral changes. That seems pretty obvious.
Gould and Lewontin in their famous paper on spandrels discuss features that may not be adaptive at all but arise as byproducts of other adaptive traits.
But spandrels are in fact selected for, precisely because of their linkage to adaptive traits. They are not examples of neutral mutations or even neutral variations, which was what the rest of your paragraph discussed. (And of course, the original spandrels were clearly designed, which means that the existence of spandrels does not provide good evidence against design.)
Of course, the stereochemical hypothesis isn’t about abiogenesis, if you are defining abiogenesis as the theory of the origin of life itself. As the paper by Yarus et al which I have mentioned before states:
This underscores the notion that the origin of the genetic code is a different and later event than the origin of life; it employed amino acids that lie at the end of what must have been highly evolved anabolic pathways. These pathways must have evolved before the code, and ribozymes are obvious candidates for their catalysis.
So, do you have any evidence that calculates the staggering improbabilities of the stereochemical hypothesis for origin of the genetic code specifically? Preferably arguments with some experimental results we can evaluate?
Now wait just a minute. You want me to give evidence that calculates the staggering improbabilities of the stereochemical hypothesis for the origin of the genetic code? Preferably arguments with some experimental results? Your request doesn't make much sense. Evidence doesn't calculate. And arguments aren't evidence. But I'll try to understand. Perhaps you meant that I should be able to show, using arguments with experimental evidence, that calculations regarding the improbabilities of the stereochemical hypothesis for the origin of the genetic code are accurate. This seems a little bizarre to me. According to the theory, "the origin of the genetic code is a different and later event than the origin of life". That would seem to imply that there was life without a genetic code. Of what did this life consist? Let me turn the question around; do you have any experimental evidence of any life without a DNA code? If not, why are you asking for experimental evidence that the theory is wrong? The paper goes on to say, "it [presumably life] employed amino acids that lie at the end of what must have been highly evolved anabolic pathways. These pathways must have evolved before the code". What's all this "must have" stuff? We know this how? Is there any actual evidence for "highly evolved anabolic pathways" existing without DNA control? Or are you asking me to criticize a theory with no experimental evidence for it, and then wondering if I can give experimental evidence against it? Well, I think I can. It's not probative evidence; it doesn't slam the door on the logical possibility that Yarus et al. might be right. But as you know, we rarely if ever get that in science. Basically, it goes like this. We have not yet observed the spontaneous origin of life anywhere; not on Earth, not on Mars, not on Titan, not in laboratories, and not in commercially canned food. That doesn't mean it can't happen. But it does mean that it isn't easy, and we can reasonably suspect that it can't happen. We have never observed "highly evolved anabolic pathways" without either design, or life. Again, it doesn't prove it can't happen, but it is evidence consistent with the hypothesis that it doesn't happen. Now you may complain that that isn't much evidence. But I would submit that it is at least evidence. To go beyond that evidence is to go on faith; either faith with the evidence, or faith against the evidence. Take your pick. You quote Yarus et al. describing the hammerhead ribozyme and the isoleucine aptamer and noting that "an RNA world is more accessible than might have been thought." That is good news. We should soon get some actual experimental evidence that should help us to know whether an RNA world is experimentally viable. There is still the small matter of making the roughly 100 mer RNA's themselves, but hey, one thing at a time. You object to what you call my "smug phrase". I think you have misunderstood. If you claim that before DNA, or at least before RNA that had the coded information in it for whatever ribozymes and/or proteins that were necessary for known life, there was some kind of stereochemical pathway where the intermediate steps survived and reproduced because of their relative stereochemical advantages, then you are not actually pursuing my defense #1. You are actually pursuing defense #2 (without experimental evidence) or defense #3 (with experimental evidence). It sounds like you are claiming that there is some stereochemical advantage to certain intermediates. Therefore my "Good luck with that" doesn't apply. In that case, please don't take it personally. But I would be interested in whether you have enough data to suggest a specific pathway from ammonia, water, phosphate, methane (hey, I'll give you the methane and keep the molecular oxygen away to boot) to any specific viable organism. Do you even have a specific pathway, with reasonable yields for each step, from a mixture of roughly 100 mer RNA's to life itself? Or are you still forced to use defense #2 (I take it you reject defense #4). P.S. I did miss the discussion between Art Hunt and jerry. I found a brief exchange between Arthur and Upright BiPed, without a lot of specifics. Perhaps you have the link to the conversation to which you referred.Paul Giem_{June 12, 2009
June
06
Jun
12
12
2009
02:04 AM
2
02
04
AM
PDT}

Hi Paul; Dave Wisker, (#140) You’re right, of course. Each step need not have function. But in that case natural selection cannot select for function, Sorry, Paul, but this is a massive non sequitur. My point is simply that some steps may not have adaptive value with which natural selection can manifest itself. This is hardly news; even Darwin understood the concept of selectively neutral variation, and how it behaves. Gould and Lewontin in their famous paper on spandrels discuss features that may not be adaptive at all but arise as byproducts of other adaptive traits. Even much of the genomic architecture of eukaryotes may be due primarily to neutral evolution: that at least is one hypothesis by geneticist Michael Lynch (which I have mentioned here before). In other words, neutral steps in a pathway does not mean you can logically draw the conclusion you just did. and the staggering improbabilities that people use to argue against abiogenesis, or against a massive increase in complexity in life itself, are perfectly justified. Of course, the stereochemical hypothesis isn’t about abiogenesis, if you are defining abiogenesis as the theory of the origin of life itself. As the paper by Yarus et al which I have mentioned before states:
This underscores the notion that the origin of the genetic code is a different and later event than the origin of life; it employed amino acids that lie at the end of what must have been highly evolved anabolic pathways. These pathways must have evolved before the code, and ribozymes are obvious candidates for their catalysis.
So, do you have any evidence that calculates the staggering improbabilities of the stereochemical hypothesis for origin of the genetic code specifically? Preferably arguments with some experimental results we can evaluate? There are four defenses I can see against this argument. First is to argue that the probabilities are not that low. Good luck with that. Actually, Art Hunt discussed some of that beforehand with jerry (I presume you missed it) . I will continue with Yarus et al’s.discussion of the size of the basic minimum pool of random sequence RNA’s needed for the RNA world and the stereochemical hypothesis for the genetic code. They write (emphasis mine):
Heuristic methods for estimating pairing probability can be used to show that real motifs like the isoleucine aptamer (29, 32) and the hammerhead ribozyme (41b), corrected for folding, should appear among several times 10^9 to 10^10 randomized RNAs. This corresponds to nanograms of 100-mer RNAs, which we now estimate as the minimal pool size required to initiate an RNA world (30). These quantities are 10,000- to 100,000-fold smaller than those used in modern selection experiments. Therefore, an RNA world is more accessible than might have been thought.
They also discuss further experimental work suggesting additional ways that active RNA synthesis can occur:
In addition to the quantitative problems of RNA synthesis, new experiments also make clear that the qualitative aspects of active RNA synthesis are subject to fewer constraints than once thought. For example, both strands of a completely complementary hybrid helix can be nucleic acid enzymes, as in the combination of a DNA ribonuclease strand and a hairpin RNAse strand (42). Furthermore, a moderately active ligase ribozyme can be built using just two nucleotides, 2,6- diaminopurine and uracil (43).
Now, perhaps you can put up those experimental results that actually contradict any of this. To borrow your smug phrase, good luck with that.
In a way, this, I suspect, is where you really come down. Life as we know it is here, there can’t have been any designer, and thus what we see is a demonstration of what unassisted nature can do.
You suspect wrong, which doesn’t surprise me. I’m used to Iders and creationists trying to tell me what I really think. I’ll give you a chance to save face, though: please show where I have ever said there cannot be a designer. Otherwise, I’d save the amateur psychologizing for those more easily impressed by it.Dave Wisker_{June 11, 2009
June
06
Jun
11
11
2009
08:55 PM
8
08
55
PM
PDT}

Dave Wisker, (#140) You're right, of course. Each step need not have function. But in that case natural selection cannot select for function, and the staggering improbabilities that people use to argue against abiogenesis, or against a massive increase in complexity in life itself, are perfectly justified. There are four defenses I can see against this argument. First is to argue that the probabilities are not that low. Good luck with that. Second is to argue that there really is a way with functional intermediates, but we just haven't found it yet. Because the evidence for it is lacking, that is, of course, faith-based argumentation. If that's your faith, fine, just so we're clear about it. Third is to argue that there really is a way with functional intermediates, and at least in these three cases we know what it is, or at least could be. This is the evidence that jerry has been waiting for, and never seen, nor, with the possible exception of color vision, have I. We'd be quite interested if you have any. Fourth is to demonstrate that the process cannot be that impossible, because it happens periodically, probabilities to the contrary notwithstanding. For example, add ammonia, phosphoric acid, methane, montmorillonite clay, and some other specified sterile ingredients, zap with electricity, and you get bacteria in 3 years. To my knowledge, the experiment has not been done successfully. Or perhaps go to a distant planet and find life on it, which would suggest that life is not that hard to evolve given enough time. In a way, this, I suspect, is where you really come down. Life as we know it is here, there can't have been any designer, and thus what we see is a demonstration of what unassisted nature can do. Of course, arguing that way begs the question of whether there was a designer or not. It requires an anti-designer presupposition, which must include and anti-interventionist-God presupposition. It is basically religious. The scientific evidence we see suggests design to the unprejudiced observer (and even to some prejudiced ones). Thus we have here a classic case of science versus religion, except the reverse of what is claimed by naturalistic scientists. I would not deprive you of your religious presuppositions. I just think that they should be recognized for what they are.Paul Giem_{June 11, 2009
June
06
Jun
11
11
2009
01:04 PM
1
01
04
PM
PDT}

Hi Scott,
Dave Wisker: Instead, they present hypotheses which deal with the the building of the code over time. Does it make a difference? Name something complex that would require intelligence to create, but which requires no intelligence to build step-by-step over time? If each individual step were to be functional on its own, that process would require more planning and forethought, not less
That is not what I was responding to. Kairos was trying to say the current system is not determined chemically, and I was simply pointing out that the sterochemical hypothesis doesn't assume the prebiotic association of entities resembles the current one. That leads me to ask you, why would each step have to be "functional" on its own? The stereochemical affinities of the original components could have produced the initial association without any "function" being necessary. Expecting each step to have "function" is an extraneous, unnecessary assumption.Dave Wisker_{June 11, 2009
June
06
Jun
11
11
2009
10:27 AM
10
10
27
AM
PDT}

Dave Wisker:
Instead, they present hypotheses which deal with the the building of the code over time.
Does it make a difference? Name something complex that would require intelligence to create, but which requires no intelligence to build step-by-step over time? If each individual step were to be functional on its own, that process would require more planning and forethought, not less.ScottAndrews_{June 11, 2009
June
06
Jun
11
11
2009
10:09 AM
10
10
09
AM
PDT}

Kairosfocus: Footnote: Re DW, 129: I for one would love to see this mountain of contrary evidence. Just citations would be fine for now. 1 –> Mr Whisker needs to start with the basic fact that the protein-coding part of the genome uses all 64 three-letter combinations of A, G, C, T/U that are mathematically possible. 2 –> Thus, we see that the chemistry of chaining does not determine the sequence, and that the sequences are meaningful in the sense of specifying a particular action to be taken by the Ribosome-centred machinery: read-codon, start, read next codon [using tRNA anticodon-bearing molecule], add AA to chain, . . . , stop and detach. First of all, Mr Kairosfocus needs to keep in mind that it is illogical to take the code as it exists today and draw the conclusions about the stereochemical hypotheses that he does. If he had read the articles which I have cited (especially Yarus et al), he would have clearly seen that the authors did not fall into that trap. Instead, they present hypotheses which deal with the the building of the code over time. Not all of the process is governed by biochemical affinities now, as Yarus et al acknoweldge:
Nevertheless, it seems that many chemical attractions, manifested as binding affinities, still are reflected in the modern coding table
One should not assume that all of the features present (or the forces which influence now) in the extant process of protein synthesis were there or had an influence on it at the beginning. Now, how about that mountain of contrary evidence? PS--Please note that my last name does not contain an 'H'Dave Wisker_{June 11, 2009
June
06
Jun
11
11
2009
04:01 AM
4
04
01
AM
PDT}

Footnote: Re DW, 129: I for one would love to see this mountain of contrary evidence. Just citations would be fine for now. 1 --> Mr Whisker needs to start with the basic fact that the protein-coding part of the genome uses all 64 three-letter combinations of A, G, C, T/U that are mathematically possible. 2 --> Thus, we see that the chemistry of chaining does not determine the sequence, and that the sequences are meaningful in the sense of specifying a particular action to be taken by the Ribosome-centred machinery: read-codon, start, read next codon [using tRNA anticodon-bearing molecule], add AA to chain, . . . , stop and detach. 3 --> Thereafter, headers guide dispatching (and are snipped off as appropriate), and the protein folds, may agglomerate and/or incorporate activating atoms or functional groups etc. [NB on the significance of prions -- not event he folding is deterministic, and misfolding is not only possible but results in destructive snowballing effects.] 4 --> This onward functionality is NOT a product of the chemistry of the chaining, or the chemical properties of the side-groups in the A, G, C, T/U monomers in D/RNA. 5 --> It is a (highly complex) product of the energy patterns in the AA chain, and its 3-D key-lock fitting that enables active sites etc. All, in a complex, integrated whole that uses hundreds of proteins. 6 --> thus, we see an algorithmic, digital information processing step by step sequence, which uses stored information in DNA chains that is well beyond the reasonable search resources of the observed cosmos to find islands of first function through chance to create initial or elaborated functional patterns. 7 --> Nor is it the result of the physical and chemical forces at work as such -- indeed, many of the monomers would be hard indeed to form under spontaneous warm pond conditions, much less survive and combine in a small enough compass to spontaneously assemble the machinery and the code then execute them. (Even the idea that all this would spontaneously find itself in a bilipid layer micelle of about 10 microns size that finds itself with ports and sensors that stick out into the surrounding medium is dubious.] 8 --> Notice, the chemistry of the DNA system is plainly tightly controlled and algorithmically managed chemistry, and typically the reactions are heavily endothermic. That is, absent the algorithmic control we observe, very different reactions would spontaneously occur. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{June 11, 2009
June
06
Jun
11
11
2009
02:05 AM
2
02
05
AM
PDT}

ScottAndrews (#133), You're right. It would prove that the intelligent agent understood English. :)Paul Giem_{June 10, 2009
June
06
Jun
10
10
2009
01:48 PM
1
01
48
PM
PDT}

Khan (#135), I agree with you that Stonehenge hasn't been conclusively demonstrated to be outside of the technology of ancient humans. It certainly was outside the knowledge and technology that many people attributed to ancient humans, but that is another matter. It seems to me like the analogy is from the weaker to the stronger. Humans have been observed moving massive stones into monuments. Humans have not (yet) created life, nor has unassisted nature been observed to do so. It is arguable that life is more difficult to create than stonehenge. As far as cattle mutilations go, there is a test which might provide evidence one way or another. It is not easy, and cannot be guaranteed to work. But planned or fortuitous video could give some evidence whether the intelligent agent were an alien or a demon, and hopefully could distinguish between both of them and psychotic surgeons. But some questions may simply not be answerable with assurance in this life.Paul Giem_{June 10, 2009
June
06
Jun
10
10
2009
01:23 PM
1
01
23
PM
PDT}

Paul, I called Stonehenge speculative bc no one has shown that creating it was beyond the technology of humans living at that time. it is also a distant analogy bc it is not a living organism. as far as cattle mutilations go, can you describe a test that would properly distinguish between demons and aliens? personally, i don't discount the idea of an intelligent agent at work but I would limit it to the one agent we have direct, objective experience with, namely ourselves.Khan_{June 10, 2009
June
06
Jun
10
10
2009
11:44 AM
11
11
44
AM
PDT}

I read the Wikipedia entry for Cattle Mutilation. It suggested several possible natural explanations for the apparent incisions, missing organs, etc. I doubt there's anything there that ID would quantify as clear-cut evidence of intelligence. Now if the dead cows were arranged to spell "ET WAS HERE" from space, that would be different.ScottAndrews_{June 10, 2009
June
06
Jun
10
10
2009
11:33 AM
11
11
33
AM
PDT}

Khan (#129,130),
In answer to 104, why don’t we skip the speculative stuff about Stonehenge and talk instead about a real-world example.
I'm sorry. I was under the mistaken impression that Stonehenge was a real-world example. I'll try to avoid such speculative examples in the future :P .
There have been several documented cases of cattle mutilation that remain unsolved. Variously,the cow is completely drained of blood, the internal organs removed with no apparent point of entry and surgical incisions appear to have been made with lasers. in some cases the cow is found dumped far from its field with no tracks leading to or from it. An FBI investigation said that several of these cases remain inexplicable by conventional means. now of course it’s possible that some rogue surgeons with access to laser tools and a helicopter did this. but some people may also say it was aliens. is this a point on which reasonable people can differ? meant to add, of course there’s also the third possibility that all the “mutilation” was the result of predation and decomposition.
Assuming the facts are as you state, particularly that "the internal organs [were] removed with no apparent point of entry and surgical incisions appear to have been made with lasers", then I would tend to discount predation. I don't know of too many carnivores with lasers in their teeth, and most of the time when a carnivore removes an organ it leaves a pretty large rip in the carcass. Having said that, it would take further study to determine whether psychotic surgeons, aliens, or demons (I would discount angels) are the most likely explanation. And I would want reasonable proof that the facts are as you say. But yes. At some point it would be reasonable to say that some kind of intelligence did this. Or would you disagree?Paul Giem_{June 10, 2009
June
06
Jun
10
10
2009
11:30 AM
11
11
30
AM
PDT}

meant to add, of course there's also the third possibility that all the "mutilation" was the result of predation and decomposition.Khan_{June 10, 2009
June
06
Jun
10
10
2009
08:33 AM
8
08
33
AM
PDT}

Paul, In answer to 104, why don't we skip the speculative stuff about Stonehenge and talk instead about a real-world example. There have been several documented cases of cattle mutilation that remain unsolved. Variously,the cow is completely drained of blood, the internal organs removed with no apparent point of entry and surgical incisions appear to have been made with lasers. in some cases the cow is found dumped far from its field with no tracks leading to or from it. An FBI investigation said that several of these cases remain inexplicable by conventional means. now of course it's possible that some rogue surgeons with access to laser tools and a helicopter did this. but some people may also say it was aliens. is this a point on which reasonable people can differ?Khan_{June 10, 2009
June
06
Jun
10
10
2009
08:11 AM
8
08
11
AM
PDT}

Upright: I am aware of the research posted. I am also aware of other studies that fundamentally dispute the claim. This stands against the backdrop of a slew of OOL researchers that are not looking to solve the issue (of the informational organization of organic matter) through chemical affinities. They’ve already been there. The speculative counter claim you’ve suggested is a piddle of an idea at the foot of a mountain of contrary evidence. I for one would love to see this mountain of contrary evidence. Just citations would be fine for now.Dave Wisker_{June 10, 2009
June
06
Jun
10
10
2009
07:47 AM
7
07
47
AM
PDT}

BTW, for the record, it should be noted that pubdef was not kicked off of this thread because things got dicey for ID, as was alleged to happen consistently by Arthur Hunt in #113.Paul Giem_{June 10, 2009
June
06
Jun
10
10
2009
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PDT}

pubdef, I'm still waiting for your answer to my questions in #104. According to #106, #108, and #115 you have read *103, and according to #114 you have read #111, so I know you have had time. In #114 you say,
I don’t think that any degree of CSI would convince me to simply ignore the other side of the question — is there any evidence at all of a plausible designer/intelligence?
If you insist for each instance that there is no evidence at all of a plausible designer/intelligence, and so therefore the object in question must not be designed, do you not cut yourself off from any possibility of ever seeing a designer/intelligence where evidence may be all over the place, simply because you treat each instance as the first? You say,
I know I’m leaving myself open to a charge of dogmatism, but so be it.
That's fine as long as you admit it up front. But then it would seem that you have no reason to complain if someone else points out that you are offering a faith-based explanation, not an evidence-based one.Paul Giem_{June 10, 2009
June
06
Jun
10
10
2009
07:25 AM
7
07
25
AM
PDT}

What does this mean? That you screwed up your HTML :-)tribune7_{June 10, 2009
June
06
Jun
10
10
2009
07:25 AM
7
07
25
AM
PDT}

#122:
I agree.
Cool.
But no one had disavowed further investigation. ID just isn’t the means to do it. It’s like fingerprint analysis. It tells us who held the gun, but not why or what they did with it. But that first piece of information tells us where to point the investigation next.
I'm not sure that "no one" has disavowed further investigation. I was pretty sure I had seen someone (Luskin, perhaps) say "the identity of the designer is not a scientific question," but I can't find it right now. And speaking of "right now," I'm signing off this thread at this point -- any of you can have the last word, and I'll see you next time.pubdef_{June 10, 2009
June
06
Jun
10
10
2009
07:23 AM
7
07
23
AM
PDT}

#116:
How does ID involve the nonmaterial?
I don't know for sure. What does this mean?pubdef_{June 10, 2009
June
06
Jun
10
10
2009
07:08 AM
7
07
08
AM
PDT}

I butchered the first part of that.
(2) a good faith, scientific, response to “something we don’t know yet” is to investigate further, which would be incompatible with any disavowal of inquiry into the nature and methods of the designer/intelligence.
I agree. But no one had disavowed further investigation. ID just isn’t the means to do it. It’s like fingerprint analysis. It tells us who held the gun, but not why or what they did with it. But that first piece of information tells us where to point the investigation next.ScottAndrews_{June 10, 2009
June
06
Jun
10
10
2009
05:13 AM
5
05
13
AM
PDT}

pubdef:
(2) a good faith, scientific, response to “something we don’t know yet” is to investigate further, which would be incompatible with any disavowal of inquiry into the nature and methods of the designer/intelligence.
(2) a good faith, scientific, response to “something we don’t know yet” is to investigate further, which would be incompatible with any disavowal of inquiry into the nature and methods of the designer/intelligence.I agree. But no one had disavowed further investigation. ID just isn't the means to do it. It's like fingerprint analysis. It tells us who held the gun, but not why or what they did with it. But that first piece of information tells us where to point the investigation next.
my answer to the meat of your question (”How does increasing the complexity and function shift us toward blind natural forces as the best explanation”) is: if increasing complexity and function moves out of the range of plausible designers/intelligence, then it seems reasonable to consider the alternatives.
That's true, if we factor in the assumption that there can't be any intelligence we don't already know about, which is an unusual response to evidence that it exists. Remember, if we identify intelligence as the cause, then natural means are ruled out.ScottAndrews_{June 10, 2009
June
06
Jun
10
10
2009
04:25 AM
4
04
25
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 10 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply