You’ve heard this one before. From the study group: Eye color is “much more complex than previously thought.” If we’d thought of trademarking that phrase, we wouldn’t be asking for money from our readers at Christmas. On the other hand, it’s just as well used for free; it’s needed so often now.
Researchers have identified 50 new genes for eye color in a study involving the genetic analysis of almost 195,000 people across Europe and Asia.
An international team of researchers led by King’s College London and Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam have identified 50 new genes for eye colour in the largest genetic study of its kind to date. The study, published today in Science Advances, involved the genetic analysis of almost 195,000 people across Europe and Asia…
In addition, the team found that eye colour in Asians with different shades of brown is genetically similar to eye colour in Europeans ranging from dark brown to light blue…
This study builds on previous research in which scientists had identified a dozen genes linked to eye colour, believing there to be many more. Previously, scientists thought that variation in eye colour was controlled by one or two genes only, with brown eyes dominant over blue eyes.
Co-senior author Dr Pirro Hysi, King’s College London, said: “The findings are exciting because they bring us to a step closer to understanding the genes that cause one of the most striking features of the human faces, which has mystified generations throughout our history.
King’s College London, “Eye color genetics not so simple, study finds” at ScienceDaily (March 11, 2021)
Some of us recall learning in school that eye color was strictly a one-off. Brown eyes were represented by a capital B and blue eyes by a small b. Only one square in the diagram had two bb’s. That, we were told, was why blue eyes were rare…
Not that they were at all rare in our community. But hey, it was science! Who were we to argue?
Well, fast forward: Trust the science? It’s a good thing no one needed to take that one very seriously. It’s another thing when they’re dogmatically wrong about the stuff that really matters.
By the way, all this stuff supposedly came about purely by natural selection acting on random mutations (Darwinism)? Naw.
The paper is open access.
Hat tip: Philip Cunningham
The lesson is that we are still learning. We are not imprisoned by the ineluctable truths of religious dogma. Research by human scientists uncovered the role of insulin in glucose metabolism and enabled us to treat if not yet cure diabetes. In physics, hitherto entirely unknown particles like the neutrino have been detected and the strange phenomena of the quantum world exposed. The Bible told us nothing about these things, We had to discover them for ourselves. God could have told his children what caused the Black Death that was killing them in their thousands but didn’t. It took his children another 300 years to find out for themselves. So either He didn’t care or He wasn’t there.
If I remember correctly, the punnet square was used to teach us about dominant and recessive genes and the odds of what would be expressed. It had nothing to do with the number of alleles possible for a gene.
Deleted by commenter
.
Seversky, you believe that documented science (and history) is something to be strategically ignored if it conflicts with your personal ideology. You protect your beliefs by demanding nothing less than a logical impossibility as the only counter-evidence to those beliefs (rendering your claims unfalsifiable) and you do this for the explicit purpose of dismissing well-supported conclusions that you are emotionally incapable of acknowledging — even though they are based on recorded science and history that you cannot refute, and logic that you espouse yourself. Your are basically anathema to science, Seversky. It is no wonder that all your remaining comments are soaked in transparent assumptions and the most gratuitous non-sequiturs.
As to: “Researchers have identified 50 new genes for eye color,,, The genetics of human eye colour is much more complex than previously thought,”
This, (like so many other things that Darwinists ignore since it contradicts their theory), presents an insurmountable difficulty for Darwinists.
First off, within the mathematics of population genetics, we find that, “If more than about three genes (nature unspecified) underpin a phenotype, the mathematics of population genetics, while qualitatively analyzable, requires too many unknown parameters to make quantitatively testable predictions,,, Theoretical genetics simply cannot handle this level of complexity, let alone analyse the effects of mutation.”
Thus Darwinists, (since at least 50 genes underpin eye color), are at a complete loss, (with the genetic reductionism model), to explain how something as simple as eye color came about.
Moreover, as the following article states, “most human (phenotypic) traits are influenced by so many genes that there is no likely systematic cause and effect”
To repeat, “human traits are influenced by so many genes that there is no likely systematic cause and effect”.
And, needless to say, finding “no likely systematic cause and effect”, throws another big monkey wrench into the Darwinian claim that genotype generates phenotypic traits.
Here is an excellent powerpoint presentation (and article) by Dr. Jonathan Wells showing that the central dogma of Darwinian evolution, which simply stated is “DNA makes RNA makes protein makes us”, is incorrect at every step.
If fact, the irresolvable genotype-phenotype mapping problem, (as is usual for Darwinian presuppositions), is turning out to be far worse for Darwinists than just 50 genes underlying a phenotypic trait.
As the following 2016 article states, “It’s now thought that such (phenotypic) traits are the work of thousands of genetic variants, working in concert.”
And as the following 2018 article states, “in the cell types that are relevant to a disease, it appears that not 15, not 100, but essentially all genes contribute to the condition. The authors suggested that for some traits, “multiple” loci could mean more than 100,000.”
This is simply devastating to Dawkins’s entire ‘selfish’ gene concept.
As James Shapiro explains, “this notion of the genome as a collection of discrete gene units prevailed when the neo-Darwinian “Modern Synthesis” emerged in the pre-DNA 1940s. Some prominent theorists even proposed that evolution could be defined simply as a change over time in the frequencies of different gene forms in a population.,,, The basic issue is that molecular genetics has (now) made it impossible to provide a consistent, or even useful, definition of the term “gene.,, The modern concept of the genome has no basic units. It has literally become “systems all the way down.” ,,, diehard defenders of orthodoxy in evolutionary biology are grievously mistaken in their stubbornness. DNA and molecular genetics have brought us to a fundamentally new conceptual understanding of genomes, how they are organized and how they function.”
In fact, and as is somewhat obvious, having multiple interacting genes underly phenotypic traits constrain the ability of ‘genes’ to evolve.
As Jeffrey Tomkins explains, “Before the advent of modern molecular biology, scientists defined a gene as a single unit of inheritance. If a gene was found to influence multiple externally visible traits, it was said to be pleiotropic.,,, as our understanding of genetics grew through DNA science, it became clear that genes operate in complex interconnected networks.”,,, “Many studies have provided evidence for the ability of pleiotropy to constrain gene evolution.”,,, “Our study provided supportive evidence that pleiotropy constraints the evolution of transcription factors (Tfs).”,,,
In short, and directly contrary to what Darwinists had originally presupposed, neither DNA, nor the genes in DNA, can be considered “the blueprint of life”.
As the following article bluntly states, “DNA cannot be seen as the ‘blueprint’ for life,”
And as far as experimental science can tell us, biological form simply is not reducible to mutations to DNA,
As Jonathan Wells states in the following article, Studies using saturation mutagenesis in the embryos of fruit flies, roundworms, zebrafish and mice also provide evidence against the idea that DNA specifies the basic form of an organism. Biologists can mutate (and indeed have mutated) a fruit fly embryo in every possible way, and they have invariably observed only three possible outcomes: a normal fruit fly, a defective fruit fly, or a dead fruit fly.
In fact, directly contrary to Darwinian presuppositions, it is now known that “It’s the organism controlling the DNA, not the DNA controlling the organism.”
Moreover, the failure of the reductive materialism of Darwinian evolution to be able to explain the basic form of any particular organism occurs at a very low level. Much lower than DNA itself.
In the following article entitled ‘Quantum physics problem proved unsolvable: Gödel and Turing enter quantum physics’, which studied the derivation of macroscopic properties from a complete microscopic description, the researchers remark that even a perfect and complete description of the microscopic properties of a material is not enough to predict its macroscopic behaviour.,,, The researchers further commented that their findings challenge the reductionists’ point of view, as the insurmountable difficulty lies precisely in the derivation of macroscopic properties from a microscopic description.”
In other words, the reductive materialistic framework that Darwinian evolution rests upon is a non-starter in regards to ever being able to explain the ‘macroscopic’ phenotypic features of any organism.
Darwinists, (with their belief that mutations to DNA will ‘evolve’ fundamentally new body plans), are, (to borrow Shapiro’s characterization), “grievously mistaken” and are not even on the correct ‘theoretical’ playing field in order to properly understand how any organism might achieve its particular biological form. Or any of the traits of that form.
Verse:
ba77 @ 6 –
No we’re not, we have models initially developed a century ago, and since refined. Please do some basic research on quantitative genetics.
Bob O’H in response to this,
states,
Well Bob, besides the article I cited directly contradicting your claim,
This Oxford scientist also directly contradicts your claim,
Moreover Bob, different scientists do get overly attached to their own models to the point of being unable to see any flaws their own models may have.
And that is the beauty of empirical science. That is to say, can you empirically demonstrate that your particular Darwinian model is correct over and above those who say your Darwinian model is fatally flawed?
And the point is that you can’t.
In fact, when realistic, (empirically established), rates of detrimental mutations are included in Fisher’s formulation of population genetics then it falsifies Fisher’s formulation of population genetics.
Two things
First, I maintain whatever Darwinists believe, it is
nothing more than modern genetics.
Thus, it’s very useful but extremely trivial in the understanding of evolution.
Darwinism has been a bait and switch concept for a long time now. The irony is that it essentially has nothing to do with evolution.
Second, Bob O’H identifies as a Darwinist.
What is Bob O’H talking about? There aren’t any models of evolution by means of blind and mindless processes.
seversky:
You are imprisoned by the nonsensible dogma of materialism and evolutionism. Way to take a step backwards.
Neither materialism nor evolutionism have helped advance our knowledge
“We are not imprisoned by the ineluctable truths of religious dogma.”
But Sev IS imprisoned by Scientism. It has it’s own religious dogmas. And he clings to them like flies on manure.
Andrew
Of further note to Bob’s claim that Darwinists “have models initially developed a century ago” that can tell us exactly how eye color originated.
From Oxford we also see this help wanted ad: “Grand theories in physics are usually expressed in mathematics. Newton’s mechanics and Einstein’s theory of special relativity are essentially equations. Words are needed only to interpret the terms. Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection has obstinately remained in words since 1859. …”,,, “mathematical population geneticists mainly deny that natural selection leads to optimization of any useful kind.”,,,
Given the background that Darwinists can’t explain “optimization of any useful kind” with their mathematical models, can Bob please entertain us with his exact mathematical model that explains exactly how an eye can be optimized, via unguided Darwinian processes, to the point of detecting a single photon?
As far as intelligently designed man-made cameras are concerned, this level of optimization borders on being science fiction. As the following article states, “Any man-made detector would need to be cooled and isolated from noise to behave the same way.”
To be blunt, it is sheer insanity to believe that unguided Darwinian processes can possibly construct a visual system that greatly outclasses any intelligently designed camera that man has ever built.
Seversky is one of the biggest proponents of ID on this site. He has never once provided any rationale for not accepting it.
He has access to the world out there which is critical of ID but fails to come back with anything that would lead anyone to not accept ID. So do all the other so called critics of ID.
If that’s not an endorsement of ID, I fail to see what could be better. It’s almost as if someone is paying the critics of ID to post here. Their objections are so specious.
“He has access to the world out there which is critical of ID”
He defers to his Betters. Their thinking is way above his. They are lord and he is subject. He refuses to think independently. Behold the Inferior Intellect.
Andrew
Jerry: He has access to the world out there which is critical of ID but fails to come back with anything that would lead anyone to not accept ID. So do all the other so called critics of ID.
How about: no known intelligent designers about . . . .when was it exactly? Who did what exactly?
I know you think you have no questions about how intelligent design came about and was implemented but it’s not clear to me and the ID community as a whole has not addressed those issues.
How can others accept your point of view when they don’t really know what you are saying? Why not spell it out specifically?
seversky @1: “The lesson is that we are still learning. ”
no seversky… you Darwinists have infested the whole world with just-so stories, and this is the result.
As we can see with every new day, these just-so stories have nothing to do with reality…
“… more complex that thought ….”
“… it challenges a long-held theory…”
“… it upends a common view…”
“… it shakes up the dogma … ”
“… it needs a rethink … ”
“… the findings are surprising and unexpected …. ”
“… earlier than thought…”
“… younger than thought….”
“… smarter than thought ….”
in Darwinian ‘science’, using these words now became a rule, not an exception… it is a shame… Darwinism is as wrong as it can be… and i am sure, it will get much worse …
Some expert here?
So now the following is is wrong?
Livescience.com (2008):
“People with blue eyes have a single, common ancestor, according to new research.”
“A team of scientists has tracked down a genetic mutation that leads to blue eyes. The mutation occurred between 6,000 and 10,000 years ago. Before then, there were no blue eyes.
“Originally, we all had brown eyes,” said Hans Eiberg from the Department of Cellular and Molecular Medicine at the University of Copenhagen.
The mutation affected the so-called OCA2 gene, which is involved in the production of melanin, the pigment that gives color to our hair, eyes and skin”
https://www.livescience.com/9578-common-ancestor-blue-eyes.html
—
Do i get this right? So no single mutation cause blue eye? I am a bit confused… could someone explain ?
Martin_r: Do i get this right? So no single mutation cause blue eye? I am a bit confused… could someone explain ?
I think you should just wait and see how it all plays out later. Don’t take every publication that seriously.
“Originally, we all had brown eyes,”
I never had brown eyes.
Andrew
“Don’t take every publication that seriously.”
Already there.
Andrew
JVL
i am just confused.
2008: ““A team of scientists has tracked down a genetic mutation that leads to blue eyes.”
2021: 50 genes are responsible for eyes color, so it can’t be a single genetic mutation, can it?
So which one to take seriously ?
This is a nice little progression:
“Previously, scientists thought that variation in eye colour was controlled by one or two genes only”
“previous research in which scientists had identified a dozen genes linked to eye colour”
“Researchers have identified 50 new genes for eye color in a study ”
And then…
“The findings are exciting because they bring us to a step closer to understanding the genes”
Yeah, I nearly peed my jeans when I read the headline. 😉
Andrew
Andrew
But don’t it make my brown eyes blue?
“But don’t it make my brown eyes blue?”
Count of Crisco,
I was thinking the exact same thing!
Andrew
Martin_r: So which one to take seriously ?
No idea. Why not just wait and see how things resolve?
From the article,
If I’m reading this correctly, they are saying similar variations in different populations resulted in going from dark brown to light brown in one population, and dark brown to light blue in another population.
Yet, if the variations were random, as is held in Darwin’s theory, then we would not expect similar variations to occur in different populations.
This similarity, again if I am reading it right, points to ‘top-down’ directed mutations instead of the ‘bottom-up’ random mutations of Darwinian evolution.
Of note:
.
This is the profit that JVL gains by applying a gratuitous double-standard to widely available evidence for design in biology.. He cannot give up this double-standard because, clearly, he is not only unable to refute the science and history behind the design inference, but he quite agrees with it. Additionally, he not only concurs with the logic behind the design inference, he uses it himself in the exact same conditions to draw the exact same inference — hence the unbearable need for a double-standard, along with the frozen intellect (and hypocrisy) that follows..
Not surprisingly, he would also like a hall pass on the whole logical fallacy thing, and would very much prefer that I just shut up about it.
Actually, his desires are really very simple. He would like to stay here and attack people without being bothered by the science and history he wishes to ignore, or the flawed reasoning he uses to ignore it. And as would be expected, he regularly acts out by attacking me for not granting him his simple wish.
Sev,
>So either He didn’t care or He wasn’t there.
Please make this into a formal philosophical argument, so that we can more closely examine it. Thanks.
JVL @ 19,
>Don’t take every publication that seriously.
Um…are you sure you mean that? That would undercut your ability to cite any scientific literature here in the future.
@ 26,
>Why not just wait and see how things resolve?
If all the researchers would do the same, then OK. 😎 Actually, we have every right to examine and discuss (and point out contradictions in) claims made to the public.
JVL is still confused. Evolutionism is supposed to be all about the how and yet evos have nothing but stories. They don’t know how. They don’t know when. They can’t even test their own claims!
So it’s very telling that, thanks to Newton’s four rules of scientific reasoning, they have all of the power to falsify ID and instead have to flail away with their ignorance. Pathetic, really.
ET: JVL is still confused. Evolutionism is supposed to be all about the how and yet evos have nothing but stories. They don’t know how. They don’t know when. They can’t even test their own claims!
Why is it that no one seems to have any interest in any scientific inquiry into what happens after design is detected? Why is there no research agenda? IF ID isn’t a science stopper then where is the science after design detection? Which would go into when and how.
So it’s very telling that, thanks to Newton’s four rules of scientific reasoning, they have all of the power to falsify ID and instead have to flail away with their ignorance. Pathetic, really.
Uh huh. Weird how thousands of evolutionary researchers are getting millions of dollars in grants to do research while ID proponents just keep publishing popular books which reiterate the same points over and over again.
IF ID isn’t a science stopper then where is the science after design is detected? What are the questions to try and find answers to? What questions do you have in particular you’d like to see researched and explored?
.
“What happened“ was logically inferred by “what had to happen” — i.e. the physical organization required to bring about the necessary physical effect. This inference formed a prediction that was later determined by experiment to be true. You completely ignore these things because they are in conflict with your personal ideology. Instead, you insist that science and reason be put on hold as we all wait for the demonstration of an unknown and unspecified process (which is a non-falsifiable program) rendering science unable to correct itself and eliminating a critical hallmark of scientific methodology.
In other words, for no reason other than your own self-interest, you want to rebrand proper scientific reasoning as a “science stopper” so that you can indulge yourself in your own personal beliefs. And you actually expect no one to notice.
EDIT: and let us not forget your blatant double-standard (see comment #28)
Upright Biped: “What happened“ was logically inferred by “what had to happen” — i.e. the physical organization required to bring about the necessary physical effect. This inference formed a prediction that was later determined by experiment to be true. You completely ignore these things because they are in conflict with your personal ideology.
I don’t ignore them. But there is disagreement about these issues on the particular case we’re discussing. You don’t think there is any question but many others do. The most neutral response would be to say: we don’t know . . . yet.
Instead, you insist that science and reason be put on hold as we all wait for the demonstration of an unknown and unspecified process (which is a non-falsifiable program) rendering science unable to correct itself and eliminating a critical hallmark of scientific methodology.
In fact science and reason are not being put on hold by evolutionary theory. There’s lots of work and research going on. And, I can’t help but notice, that when science does correct itself many ID proponents make fun of it for getting something wrong. And by the way . . . what kind of ID research is going on?
In other words, for no reason other than your own self-interest, you want to rebrand proper scientific reasoning as a “science stopper” so that you can indulge yourself in your own personal beliefs. And you actually expect no one to notice.
I have asked over and over and over again: what is the ID research agenda? What outstanding ID questions should the ID community be looking into? And you know what responses I’ve gotten? Almost nothing. MOST ID proponents haven’t got any unanswered ID questions, they can’t tell me a possible (let alone an existing) ID research program.
Show me that ID isn’t a science stopper: tell me some unanswered ID questions you think should be researched. Tell me a viable ID research agenda. That would be a very interesting and pertinent topic of conversation I would love to have. I have some ideas of my own (from the ID point of view) but I’d love to hear yours.
When you say “because there is no plausible designer available” you are offering up a distinction that simply doesn’t exist. Does it really not occur to you that neither scenario has a “designer available” until evidence of that designer is discovered and confirmed?
You love to miscatagorise my views.
About the detection of alien beings via detected interstellar signals: IF we discover something that MIGHT be from another (alien) civilisation I am not prepared to accept that that is the case until well after it’s been looked at and scrutinised by all relevant experts in the field. A signal is going to have to pass a high bar before it and it alone is accepted as an indication of intelligent alien lifeforms. Also, I would expect people to look for other evidence that the signal source was a home to intelligent aliens; i.e. looking at their home system to try and find other indications that life exists there. This is as it should be: discovering an intelligent alien civilisation would be an extraordinary thing and we have to be incredibly sure before we assert that that has happened. Preferably we have several threads of evidence to make the case solid.
Compare that to ID: when the relevant experts in the field (biology) DO NOT accept that the design inference is correct then I try and keep an open mind and consider if there is any other evidence available of a designer. There isn’t any. So: the relevant experts don’t see evidence of a designer in DNA and there isn’t other evidence. When I say: because there is no other evidence of a designer that is the state I consider the debate to be at: the design inference is not accepted; is there other evidence? And the answer is always, even from ID proponents: no, we don’t have any other physical evidence.
It is specifically the finding of encoded symbolic content that confirms (beyond any reasonable doubt) it is the product of an intelligence.
And yet, the pertinent experts in the biological sciences disagree with you. And, I think, some of the experts in semiotic theory disagree with you. At least they didn’t immediately accept that there had to be an intelligent designer behind DNA.
Why don’t we talk about a possible ID research agenda? I honestly think that would be interesting and enlightening.
.
Mischaracterize your views?
Here are your views:
You have a blatant double standard in your reasoning.
Upright Biped: Here are your views:
I just went into my views in greater depth. You choose to ignore that. You seem to prefer a cartoon version of my views that’s got stuck in your head. You choose to ignore further data that has been brought to the table. Why not self-correct your own views?
Also, you have chosen NOT to even attempt to respond to my sincere queries about an ID research agenda. Why is that? Surely it has one, all sciences do. But somehow, no one can even give me a tentative one.
JVL,
Why don’t you join us, and then work on answering those questions from our perspective(s)?
EDTA: Why don’t you join us, and then work on answering those questions from our perspective(s)?
I’m happy to discuss a possible ID research agenda with you. As an outsider I think I can provide a perspective of what would help make the ID case to those who aren’t ‘with you’. Plus, I think sometimes it’s helpful to get someone’s perspective who is not in your camp. Finally, I’m really interested in where ID can go forward and how.
.
Ignore it? What did you add that negates the double standard in your reasoning? Please point it out specifically. Let there be no ambiguity about it.
That is irrelevant to the issue of your double standard. Your position is that there is no evidence for design in biology. I gave you that material and historical evidence. You not only cannot argue against that material and historical evidence, you agree to it. You then apply a double standard in order to avoid the conflict with your prior position. That is the issue.
Upright BiPed: Ignore it? What did you add that negates the double standard in your reasoning? Please point it out specifically. Let there be no ambiguity about it.
In both cases I think the possible design/coded information should be examined by pertinent experts in the field to build a good case that it’s not down to natural or unguided causes. That might not get us to 100% surety since there might be some natural causes we’re unaware of but it’s a start.
I would like to see additionally other evidence that the hypothesised intelligent beings existed at the pertinent time. In the case of signals from another solar system that might include other astronomical observations that add plausibility to the design inference. That other evidence may, in fact, be stronger than the disputed designed object or signal which is another reason I think it should be pursued vigorously in the case of ID. In the case of alien beings (possible intelligent designers!) a discovery of a crashed space ship would be pretty convincing even without a detected interstellar signal.
So, for both: any suspected designed object or signal must be heavily scrutinised and examined by pertinent experts. Additional evidence should be sought out and also scrutinised. The more threads of evidence the better.
Both situations are extraordinary claims/hypothesise so the case must be rock-solid before a definite decision is made.
That is irrelevant to the issue of your double standard. Your position is that there is no evidence for design in biology. I gave you that material and historical evidence. You not only cannot argue against that material and historical evidence, you agree to it.
I agree that that sort of thing might be indicative of design but that all such things must be closely examined by pertinent experts. So far, ID has not passed the scrutiny of the pertinent experts in the pertinent field. Given that I looked for other evidence of intelligent designers and found none. Which is why I made the comment: no evidence of an intelligent designer; I was assuming it was accepted that the design inference has NOT been accepted by the pertinent experts in the field.
You then apply a double standard in order to avoid the conflict with your prior position. That is the issue.
I have elucidated and expanded my views in an attempt to resolve what you think is a double standard.
If I spoke off the cuff and without sufficient depth of explanation in the past then I have tried to rectify that situation. Please take this extra data onboard and reconsider your opinion of my views.
So, what’s it to be: can we discuss a possible ID research agenda?
.
So, you are abandoning your original position, that is, that a signal containing symbolic data is a universal correlate of intelligence. Having “experts” determine the presence of symbolic content is irrelevant — because it is a given in either case — so that is not the issue at hand. But you now foresee the possibility of receiving a signal that contains data of some sort, and not inferring an intelligent cause.
Is that correct?
Upright BiPed: So, you are abandoning your original position, that is, that a signal containing symbolic data is a universal correlate of intelligence.
Perhaps . . . I admit to, at one point, just accepting that to be the case. I think discussing the issue with you has got me to think about it all much more carefully.
I think the crucial point is determining how the signal came to be produced. There is some evidence suggesting how DNA arose from chemical affinities. Does that mean the data is not purely symbolic? Maybe so. Maybe it’s not a ‘code’ then. What is a ‘code’? Mathematically? Biologically? Did biologists use the term correctly?
I can’t quite conceive how an interstellar signal could contain the prime numbers but I will defer to those who know more than I do. The universe seems more and more queer and complicated the more we examine it.
I think we have to take things on a case-by-case basis. Typically ideologies fail because they decide what’s true and what’s not ahead of time.
Having “experts” determine the presence of symbolic content is a given in either case, so that is not the issue at hand.
Good. We definitely agree on that.
But you now foresee the possibility of receiving a signal that contains data of some sort, and not inferring an intelligent cause.
What kind of data? For example: it’s widely accepted that we have now detected (via gravitational waves) two black holes colliding. (I think that’s right.). That’s information, that’s data, but it didn’t come from an intelligent source. The first 20 prime numbers . . . that I can’t see arising via natural processes but the Fibonacci numbers occur in nature so . . .
For decades biologists have referred the the genetic ‘code’ and mathematically that means it’s arbitrary. But if it isn’t then should we change the word from ‘code’ to . . . scheme? Have we got sucked into an argument about the use of a term instead of trying to get to the basic question: how did it arise?
Perhaps one thing that would be productive is for ID proponents and evolutionary theorists to agree to a common set of terms and their meanings?
.
So in the effort to un-ass yourself from the obvious double-standard in your reasoning, (and still avoid the design inference at all costs), you’ll now imagine the possibility of receiving a signal from space containing — symbolically, the only way it can — a series of prime numbers, and not inferring an intelligence.
The problem, of course (which you are fully aware of) is that none of “those who know more than I do” would say such a silly thing, or take such a silly position. In your pretzel logic, you are now appealing to people who (you do not even believe) exist.
And tomorrow, you’ll be back here on UD, chastising people for their reasoning, talking up scientific subject matter, continuing in your personal attack on ID.
Upright BiPed: So in the effort to un-ass yourself from the obvious double-standard in your reasoning, and still avoid the design inference, you’ll now imagine the possibility of receiving a signal from space containing — symbolically, the only way it can — a series of prime numbers, and not inferring an intelligence.
I have no idea! Like I said, nature spits out the Fibonacci numbers all the time. Just because we think the prime numbers are somehow special maybe there is a natural phenomena for which they are just an everyday occurrence.
The problem, of course (which you are fully aware of) is that none of “those who know more than I do” who would say such a thing, or take such a position. In your pretzel logic, you are now appealing to people who (you do not even believe) exist.
You seem entirely concerned with NOT finding any common ground in our views, which is sad. I’d rather focus on the stuff we agree on.
AND I’d love to talk about an ID research agenda. But you’re not going to do that. You’d rather make me look foolish and stupid.
Do you want your view to gain acceptance? Are you able to build on any common ground you might have with your detractors or is it only: your way or no way?
And tomorrow, you’ll be back here on UD, chastising people for their reasoning, talking up scientific subject matter, continuing in your personal attack on ID.
It really is just your way or no way. Is that how science is done? There can be no detractors or even those you disagree with?
I’m happy to discuss issues, flag up the things we disagree on, talk about things like an ID research agenda, etc.
You don’t want to do any of those things. You’re right, I’m wrong and if I don’t agree with you then I’m stupid and should shut up. Perhaps I will just do that; I’m not sure there’s a point to trying and having a real conversation.
.
We agree that a high capacity system of symbols and constraints was predicted as the fundamental requirement of autonomous self-replication. We agree that each of the material objects required of that system was discovered one by one inside the cell via experiment. We agree that the gene system has been coherently described in the physics literature as a genuine symbolic process, and that it is noted in that literature that the only other such system known to science is human language. We agree that SETI would immediately infer the presence of a previously unknown intelligence from the reception of any signal containing symbolic content.
You then apply a double standard to avoid the design inference.
Upright BiPed: We agree that that a high capacity system of symbols and constraints was predicted as the fundamental requirement of autonomous self-replication.
Symbols meaning arbitrary choices. Do we know that’s true though? Is that accounting for all the research and data? Not the ‘predicted’ part, sure people predict things. But is the prediction true?
When I was reading Dr Pattee’s work he was talking about abstract systems; how much can we apply those to actual living systems? I’m not sure how closely they are parallel. I accept his work in the abstract sense, in the applied case . . . what did he say about that?
We agree that the gene system has been coherently described in the physics literature are a genuine symbolic process, and that it is noted in that literature that the only other such system known to science is human language.
Are you including mathematics in that? Not sure if that’s part of human language . . .
Anyway, IF the gene ‘system’ is based on chemical affinities then it’s not purely arbitrary or symbolic. Even if it’s been described in that way.
We agree that SETI would immediately confirm the reception of any signal containing a symbolic content as a scientific inference to a previously unknown intelligence.
That’s getting a bit tricky . . . what would be a signal containing symbolic content look like? A stream of numbers (like the primes) seems an obvious choice . . . as long as we’re sure nature can’t generate them without guidance.
A signal that could be ‘interpreted’ as an image or music . . . maybe. But what is an image? What is music? If a being whose site was laterally shifted heavily into the infrared sent us an image would we even interpret it as such?
See, this is why I’d defer to the experts in the field who spend a lot of time thinking about this. I used to think: yeah, that’s all easy and clear. I’m not sure now. I think we should be looking, I think it’s worth doing. I’m just not sure how we’d make a definitive call. It all seems immensely complicated.
I don’t think the consensus of the people working on these topics is to conclude that our biological systems are the result of some intelligent designer. I haven’t seem them come to that conclusion. Perhaps your argument is really with them and not with me?
I’m really sad that you won’t discuss an ID research agenda. I see that as a way to work out some of the differences we have on some of these issues. You seem to have drawn a line in the sand and aren’t going to change it. That’s too bad. All science is provisional, i.e. it has to accept that it might be incorrect when new data and evidence comes in. I think that means you have to accept that sometimes the lines change. I think that means that you should be discussing views differing from your own. I think that means you might be wrong.
Is the genetic ‘code’ a real, arbitrary code? Maybe not. From Wikipedia:
None of which includes an intelligent designer. Sorry.
Also from Wikipedia:
So, this is not fringe or unknown in biological circles.
So, it seems that biosemiotics is an accepted part of biological reasoning and modelling. No longer controversial and not supportive of intelligent design.
Sorry.
.
Just like it states in the literature JVL.
Symbols, meaning a rate-independent medium and a set of non-integrable constraints.
Yes
Yes
Yes. It was predicted, and the prediction was confirmed.
That is absolutely false. Pattee was talking specifically about the gene system.
He said: “Evolution requires the genotype-phenotype distinction, a primeval epistemic cut that separates energy-degenerate, rate-independent genetic symbols from the rate-dependent dynamics of construction that they control.”
You just can’t do it, can you JVL? You stand in front of physical evidence and recorded history — evidence that you know is valid, using logic that you yourself espouse, and you can’t even say the words. Look at you, twisting and turning, anything but acknowledge the plainly documented fact that there is valid evidence of design in biology. It actually doesn’t even falsify your belief system but that doesn’t matter because your ideology doesn’t allow you to give an inch. You’d have to live with facts, and its just not worth it. You’d rather be made to squirm for words than to give up your protected and closed mind
This comment betrays your position. Prediction, confirmation, physical measurement, and universal observation say that it is genuinely symbolic. In spite of this, and with no contradictory evidence to support your beliefs, you believe that unguided forces could have produced it. You even capitalize the word “IF” in your comment. “IF” it was shown that pre-biotic processes could establish a semantically-closed system of symbols and constraints, THEN then the design inference would be falsified. That is the full meaning of your statement. And by logical extension, if such has not been shown, then the design inference (the prediction, confirmation, physical measurement, and universal experience) stands. But when you comment on this blog, that is not your position. Your position is that such evidence of design does not exist – which is a gratuitous falsehood. You are being asked to acknowledge the documented scientific facts and history, and you just can’t do it.
Thus, being unable to refute the evidence, you insist on a double standard.
Upright BiPed: He said: “Evolution requires the genotype-phenotype distinction, a primeval epistemic cut that separates energy-degenerate, rate-independent genetic symbols from the rate-dependent dynamics of construction that they control.”
But he did not say: therefore Intelligent Design. That is also true.
You just can’t do it, can you JVL? You stand in front of physical evidence and recorded history — evidence that you know is valid, using logic that you yourself espouse, and you can’t even say the words. Look at you, twisting and turning, anything but acknowledge the plainly documented fact that there is valid evidence of design in biology. It actually doesn’t even falsify your belief system but that doesn’t matter because your ideology doesn’t allow you to give an inch. You’d have to live with facts, and its just not worth it. You’d rather be made to squirm for words than to give up your protected and closed mind
I don’t know why you care so much. Plenty of other people than me have looked at the same stuff you’re presenting and NOT come to the ID conclusion. But you insist on following me on this blog and try and get me to capitulate. Why?
This comment betrays your position. Prediction, confirmation, physical measurement, and universal observation say that it is genuinely symbolic.
That just may not be true. You’re not accounting for all the research.
In spite of this, and with no contradictory evidence to support your beliefs,
Ignoring the fact that I referenced a Wikipedia article which is referenced.
you believe that unguided forces could have produced it.
Correct. Could have. And I’m in agreement with a vast majority of working biologists.
You even capitalize the word “IF” in your comment. “IF” it was shown that pre-biotic processes could establish a semantically-closed system of symbols and constraints, THEN then the design inference would be falsified. That is the full meaning of your statement. And by logical extension, if such has not been shown, then the design inference (the prediction, confirmation, physical measurement, and universal experience) stands.
No, just because the unguided paradigm hasn’t been locked in DOES NOT grant you the design paradigm. It doesn’t. That’s a false dichotomy.
But when you comment on this blog, that is not your position. Your position is that such evidence of design does not exist – which is a gratuitous falsehood. You are being asked to acknowledge the documented scientific facts and history, and you just can’t do it.
I never said the ‘evidence’ doesn’t exist, i said it wasn’t compelling.
Thus, being unable to refute the evidence, you insist on a double standard.
You need to acknowledge that interpreting the evidence differently from you is not the same as denying or refuting the evidence.
I understand that you are very, very sure you are right. I get that. But you know that a lot of people disagree with you. And maybe you think that they are all in denial. Maybe so. But at some point you have to consider: is it tenable that a small group of people, including me, are saying something completely opposed to a vast number of other highly educated, intelligent people who have spent decades studying the issue in question? Can they all be in denial? Are they are really that blind to the truth and so afraid of their ideological and job positions that they just buy into some kind of party line? Is there really that big of a conspiracy to shut out ‘the truth’? Is that what you really believe?
And then, on top of that, you won’t even participate in a conversation about what kind of research ID could pursue. A topic that I am interested in and would like to have. You just adamantly refuse to even consider having that conversation. Why is that? Instead of just trying to make me look stupid, again, why don’t you do me the favour of addressing that? I’m really interested.
.
Oh boy. Let’s untangle this mess.
1. Either the gene system displays evidence of an intelligent origin, or it doesn’t. That is not a false dichotomy. (?!) Either it does, or it doesn’t. That is the question.
So your attempt to mis-characterize this question, and brush the science and history aside, fails immediately. It is completely flawed reasoning on your part. The facts remain.
IF it was shown that pre-biotic processes could establish a semantically-closed system of symbols and constraints, THEN then the design inference would be falsified. That has not happened (by a long shot). Therefore, the design inference, which is based on documented prediction, recorded experimental confirmation, physical analysis, and universal experience (none of which is even controversial), stands unfalsified by evidence to the contrary. It is no more a false dichotomy than asking if Bob Dylan wrote All Along the Watchtower, or if Dave Mason recorded it.
2. It is not my interpretation that John Von Neumann predicted a high capacity system of symbols and constraints as the fundamental condition of autonomous open-ended self-replication. That is a historical fact. It is not my interpretation that each of the molecular objects required to fulfill that prediction were found via experiment. That is also a historical fact, broadly recognized. Similarly, it is not my interpretation that Pattee described the gene system from a physicists point of view, and further confirmed von Neumann as well as adding significant physical details to the observation. That is also a recorded fact. None of these things is even contested. It is not my interpretation that Pattee’s (and other) analysis includes the observation that the only other such physical system known to science is human language. Again, that is a recorded fact. In short, I am not asking (nor would I ask) to be “granted” the design inference. The design inference is already on the table through well-documented science and history – none of which is even controversial.
Yes, you’ve said it isn’t compelling because there is no evidence of a designer available, which is the sacred talking point you rescue from facts and reason by applying a double standard to the evidence.
Are you unable to understand these things? Of course you understand them, you just have no choice.
** The remainder of your post is more of the same; a) attack me for not shutting up. b) fallacious appeal to authority – none of which removes the blatant double-standard from your reasoning.
.
JVL, just so you don’t lose track … you apply a gratuitous double-standard to evidence in order to avoid the design inference. You’ve said absolutely nothing to remove that double standard from your reasoning.
.
JVL, while you’re on a roll, can you tell me what experimental evidence you have found that shows unguided forces can establish a semantically-closed system of symbols and constraints?
Since you obviously consider it compelling, what exactly is that evidence, and what exactly did it demonstrate? Did it demonstrate anything like a rate-independent memory being mediated by a set of non-integrable constraints? Did the authors acknowledge the physical requirement of such things, or did they detail an evidence-based pathway to achieving them? Since the constraints have to be fixed in memory, how did they explain semantic closure coming about?
Upright BiPed: JVL, while you’re on a roll, can you tell me what experimental evidence you have found that shows unguided forces can establish a semantically-closed system of symbols and constraints?
I would say that, since the preponderance of the evidence and the opinion of a vast majority of scientists think there was no grand designer, nature has already shown it’s capable of creating the genetic ‘code’. If it is a code. If it arose via chemical affinities (as some work seems to suggest) then it was chemistry and not abstract symbolism underlying the structure.
Perhaps the best that can be said at this point is: we just don’t actually know how the genetic ‘code’ came about. Hopefully someday we will have a bit more surety.
Yes, you’ve said it isn’t compelling because there is no evidence of a designer available, which is the sacred talking point you rescue from facts and reason by applying a double standard to the evidence.
I have spent a lot of time trying to make my views clear. I’ll not bother you with trying anymore.
Best comment yet!
JVL:
Liar. Nature has never been shown it’s capable of producing the genetic code. There isn’t any evidence against ID. The scientists who reject ID don’t have anything to account for our existence. So their opinion can be dismissed.
The genetic code looks, acts and has all of the attributes of a coded information processing system.
Everything we know says that code information processing systems only arise from intelligent agency volition. There isn’t any evidence that nature can produce it and there isn’t even a way to test the claim. So that claim can be dismissed, also.
JVL:
That is true. Eliminating blind and mindless processes is only the start. Next, we use our knowledge of cause and effect relationships in accordance with Newton’s four rules of scientific reasoning. In other words, as Behe said back in 1996:
“Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.”
That is the positive side. So, if we observe that and there isn’t any evidence that nature can do it, we infer intelligent design. Science 101. That is why JVL is so confused.
ET: That is true. Eliminating blind and mindless processes is only the start.
I’ll let you argue with Upright BiPed on that point.
Upright BiPed: IF it was shown that pre-biotic processes could establish a semantically-closed system of symbols and constraints, THEN then the design inference would be falsified. That has not happened (by a long shot). Therefore, the design inference, which is based on documented prediction, recorded experimental confirmation, physical analysis, and universal experience (none of which is even controversial), stands unfalsified by evidence to the contrary.
.
Stereochemistry is your answer? Some bits stick together better than other bits?
When you ask a sock puppet for specificity, so that there is no misunderstanding … and the answer comes back as vague as possible, then…?
How does “some bits stick together better than other bits” explain the presence of a gene? No answer.
How does “some bits stick together better than other bits” explain self-reference? No answer.
How does “some bits stick together better than other bits” solve the measurement problem? No answer.
How does “some bits stick together better than other bits” organize semantic closure? No answer.
Saying that stereochemistry is a compelling explanation for the origin of the gene system is like saying “righty tighty lefty loosely” is a compelling explanation for the origin of the space shuttle. It is a compelling explanation that explains nothing whatsoever.
Oh boy, but I bet if you could have gone to the literature (or Wikipedia, ha) and cut n’ pasted a detailed explanation, you damn sure would have, right!?! You would have posted it in ALL CAPS.
But is doesn’t exist, does it, JVL.
And in nutshell, that is why you are forced to keep the flawed double-standard in your reasoning — specifically because the design inference has actual documented evidence and history in support of it, and the materialist has nothing but “some bits stick together better than other bits”.
Upright BiPed: Stereochemistry is your answer? Some bits stick together better than other bits. When you ask a sock puppet for specificity, so that there is no misunderstanding, and the answer comes back as vague as possible, then…?
It’s not really my field so I depend on experts in that field. Have you looked at the research which suggests the genetic ‘code’ isn’t an abstract/arbitrary code?
Saying that stereochemistry is a compelling explanation for the origin of the gene system is like saying “righty tighty lefty loosely” is a compelling explanation for the origin of the space shuttle. It is a compelling explanation that explains nothing whatsoever.
I didn’t say the evidence was now compelling but it seems to be a worthy area of research. Do you agree?
Oh boy, but I bet if you could have gone to the literature (or Wikipedia, ha) and cut n’ pasted the a detailed explanation, you damn sure would, right!?! You would have posted it in ALL CAPS.
No, I don’t do that. If you want to see the research behind the material I have published then you know where it is.
But is (sic) doesn’t exist, does it, JVL.
I think it does. Why don’t you go and look?
And in nutshell, that is why you are forced to keep the flawed double-standard in your reasoning — specifically because the design inference has actual confirmed evidence and history in support of it, and the dirt-did-it team has nothing but “some bits stick together better than other bits”.
I’m not going to continue to respond in the face of clear disrespect. If you want to see the evidence and research behind the statements I have made then I’m sure you can find it. IF you want to find it.
If you want to participate in a scientific endeavour then it’s up to you to keep up with the research and literature. The scientific community owes you nothing and is not obligated to whiz by your venue with every new result or research paper which might cast light on your interests. You’re convinced you’re right and seemingly have stopped considering alternate explanations. Good luck with that approach. You might find yourself left far behind the current state of knowledge.
And if you think there is no way you can be shown to be incorrect then you’re not ‘doing’ science. That’s a locked in ideological approach.
.
The projection is hilarious.
.
A person stands in front of an argument that relies on documented science and history that he cannot refute (but agrees to instead), and uses logic that he himself espouses and uses himself in the same situation, drawing the same conclusions.
Yet, he denies the argument anyway.
He calls it “not compelling.”
When asked why he denies established science and reason — what specific contrary evidence he has— he has nothing to give.
And when it is pointed out to him that he is denying fully documented science and reason because “it isn’t compelling” — yet he has no compelling counter evidence to offer in its place …
He says “I didn’t say the evidence was compelling now”, and then turns and wants to lecture you about keeping up with the science.
Good grief.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4284479/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK6584/
https://iubmb.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/iub.146
This one is from 1983, so the idea is not even new: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0022519383904319
https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-genet-120116-024713?journalCode=genet
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.02.20.958546v2.full
The idea that the genetic code arose via stereochemical means is not even new, it is taken seriously and it is being examined and researched. It’s easy to find research papers addressing the issue. Maybe all those researchers are wasting their time and taxpayers money. Maybe. Or maybe it’s a viable scientific hypothesis with some evidence to back it up and thus it’s worth looking into further.
I’m happy to let those researchers continue their work. I’m happy to keep an open mind until the answer is really clear one way or another. I’m not going to prejudge the eventual outcome.
Jerry @ 9 –
No I don’t.
ba77 @ 13 –
I never claimed that.
*sigh*
Well Bob, if your theory can’t even explain how eye color originated,,,, do I really even need to finish that sentence?
.
JVL, which one of your cites is not speculative?
What part of a “rate-independent medium, mediated by non-integrable elements constraints” (i.e. the actual measured physical description of the system) does it demonstrate?
If they are all speculative, and none of them demonstrates the required system, or even provides a demonstrated pathway to the required effect, then on what specific grounds (i.e. reasoned details) do you consider them more “compelling” than the documented predictions, experimental confirmations, and measure physical analysis that are already recorded in the literature (which you cannot deny)?
And can you please try to be specific about your reasoning this time? And please tell us: how does your answer remove the double-standard you insist on keeping in your reasoning.
Off-topic, but related to my post on HGT: can someone tell me exactly what is meant by “Darwinist” here? Thanks.
Someone who espouses the ideas of Darwin. Or today what is called the modern synthesis which has several iterations. Essentially anyone who espoused that the major mechanism for evolutionary change is natural selection operating on mutations.
Since Darwin threw in the concept of universal common descent, that is also part of it.
The term “modern synthesis” is out of favor with a lot of people but it essentially is what most understand by Darwinism.
Some throw in atheism but a lot of religious subscribe to these ideas so it isn’t really part of it. However, atheists have to explain evolution so it has become the only game in town for most of them.
There is always nuances but no major deviations from these ideas.
I believe Darwin’s ideas were revolutionary but not for evolution to the origin of species. They are the basis of modern day genetics. For evolution they are a bust. They cannot explain the appearance of proteins.
.
I believe you folks are posting on the wrong thread. A system error I assume.
** On that note, my spell check system added the word “elements” to my post at #65. It was not intended to be there.
OK. I probably have some questions about what Jerry wrote, but I won’t ask them here.
The term is in the OP. You will get lots of different opinions here.
I would characterize Darwinism as natural selection acting on the variation of heritable traits. Darwin didn’t know anything about the gene or genetics. His theory requires two things.
1) The heritability of traits (he didn’t even rule out the inheritance of acquired characteristics).
2) A source of variation of heritable traits. The current belief is that mutations are the ultimate source.
Upright BiPed: JVL, which one of your cites is not speculative?
There are all research results published in peer- reviewed journals. Why don’t you read them?
What part of a “rate-independent medium, mediated by non-integrable elements constraints” (i.e. the actual measured physical description of the system) does it demonstrate?l
The papers are examining and exploring the ways that stereochemical affinities might be responsible for the genetic ‘code’, or at least parts of it. That’s how science works, it takes a question or a piece of a bigger question and tries to answer it.
If they are all speculative, and none of them demonstrates the required system, or even provides a demonstrated pathway to the required effect, then on what specific grounds (i.e. reasoned details) do you consider them more “compelling” than the documented predictions, experimental confirmations, and measure physical analysis that are already recorded in the literature (which you cannot deny)?
I consider them worthy explorations into the limits and abilities of the actual physical systems involved. Biology doesn’t exist in the abstract or on paper; it’s best to examine its abilities and limits in the real world.
And can you please try to be specific about your reasoning this time? And please tell us: how does your answer remove the double-standard you insist on keeping in your reasoning.
I’ve explained my reasoning and why I don’t think I am ascribing to a double standard. I’ve got nothing else to add to my explanation so if you find it unsatisfactory we’ll just have to leave it.
.
They are all purely speculative, and not one of them demonstrates experimental results connecting them to the required end result. They are speculation upon speculation. Is it actually your belief that there is an rate-dependent self-replicator out there in the literature, capturing even a portion of the necessary pathway to becoming a rate-independent replicator, but it is somehow unknown in places like here at UD — somehow it is completely off the radar in the grand debate over design vs materialism? Hello?
Yes JVL, we are all quite aware of that. They are still searching for that possibility because none of its most convinced proponents knows if it is even possible. Does that simple concept — searching for something because you are neither in possession of it nor have you already found it — not make sense to you? Surely it does.
So by definition, it is speculative. Now, with that fact in hand, let us put a little qualifier on it. Go back to those papers you cited and do a word search for the word “symbol”, and see how many authors mention it. Do a word search for the word “medium” or “interpretive constraint”. Do a search for the phrase “rate-independent”. Try it for the phrase “semantic closure”. I have been reading papers like those for years now. I can tell you that you are not going to find anything. ”But!” you say, those are specific subjects that can bediscussed using different language, so that demonstrates nothing. Well then, since you indicate that “biosemiosis” is now a mainstream concept, try it for the word “semiosis” or “semiotic”. Still nothing. Okay then, look them over and see where they are talking about those critical subjects using their own language. You still won’t find anything. The point is, they are not even talking about these things; that is, they are not talking about the required core physical conditions of an autonomous open-ended self-replicator. ”But!” you say again, these researchers are only interested in finding a single piece of a much larger puzzle, and so it still means nothing. Okay, you think an inventor will stumble upon his prize without considering what is required of it, okay fine. Go to the papers you cited, and look at the papers they cite. Look for the physical requirements of self-replication among them. You are still not gong to find it. The bottom line is that the critical physical requirements of autonomous self-replication are not even discussed among the world’s leading OoL researchers. Sydney Brenner, when talking about the heady days of DNA discoveries following von Neumann’s predictions, noted that even today’s biologists (decades after the confirmation of von Neumann) are suspect in their adaptation to the new paradigm. Pattee, slightly more direct, posed the question of why reductionist biologist are rarely heard discussing the physical requirements that lay before them. He answered his own question: “Because its hard”.
So now lets ask a question, JVL. The physical conditions required to establish and bridge the “epistemic cut” (Von Neumann, Pattee), making a physical system capable of autonomous description-based self-replication (i.e. life, evolution) are very specific, entirely simultaneous, and completely unique among all other systems known to the physical sciences (except language of course). I wont cleverly ask you if those specific material conditions are somehow unimportant to OoL research; only a fool would answer that in any way other than the obvious. I simply want to point out that the cites you provide don’t even consider those specific conditions in their research, and are in fact, willfully unrelated to them. Likewise, I won’t ask “why” you think your cites are ignoring these critical physical requirements, because as you’ve already demonstrated, it is simply too easy for you to punt it all away with gratuitous platitudes about the “the way science works” or “keeping an open mind” or some other banal self-serving language.
But I would like to know the answer to a question. It is actually an old question, posed across cultures around the world. I think this is so, because perhaps it captures some core element of truth about being a human. Now, you know that a fundamental scientific prediction was made about self-replication, and that this prediction was spectacularly confirmed by experiment. And you know (even though you would never admit it) that this prediction, its confirmation, along with the chain of understanding that followed it, including the physical description of the system and its critical requirements, are all on solid scientific footing and they form a completely sound inference to design in biology. Clearly you know all this; it is demonstrated in the way you dodge and weave to avoid it all (comment after comment after comment). My question in this: with all your clumsy defenses against the science and reason, are you actually trying to convince me, or yourself? By that I mean, when you come here, knowing what you know, yet still barking out requests for evidence, are you actually trying to convince people who accept the legitimacy of the science to ignore it, or are you just trying to get by with the lowly and unfortunate consequences of your worldview?
So what. Since when does argument and evidence matter?
.
Good to see you, Mung. I hope all is well.
Likewise my friend!
We have mountains here, and northern climes, to explian snow and ice. LoL.
.
We are in the hill country here, and can’t seem to shake off the cool weather. But the lemon trees have bloomed, and so we are covered in hummingbirds.
Upright BiPed: But I would like to know the answer to a question. It is actually an old question, posed across cultures around the world. I think this is so, because perhaps it captures some core element of truth about being a human. Now, you know that a fundamental scientific prediction was made about self-replication, and that this prediction was spectacularly confirmed by experiment. And you know (even though you would never admit it) that this prediction, its confirmation, along with the chain of understanding that followed it, including the physical description of the system and its critical requirements, are all on solid scientific footing and they form a completely sound inference to design in biology. Clearly you know all this; it is demonstrated in the way you dodge and weave to avoid it all (comment after comment after comment). My question in this: with all your clumsy defenses against the science and reason, are you actually trying to convince me, or yourself? By that I mean, when you come here, knowing what you know, yet still barking out requests for evidence, are you actually trying to convince people who accept the legitimacy of the science to ignore it, or are you just trying to get by with the lowly and unfortunate consequences of your worldview?
I am not ‘barking out requests for evidence’. I’m not trying to convince anyone of anything. I try and answer questions put to me honestly. Sometimes I ask questions and I expect to be answered honestly and courteously.
I think we should just leave the topic because we’re not achieving anything. Clearly the people who are researching unguided development of the genetic system think it’s possible that it arose spontaneously. And it’s not just a few researchers who think that. I don’t know if they’ll ever figure it out but I’m happy that that work is going on. I’d love to have a plausible path elucidated in my lifetime but we’ll have to wait and see.
If you think their work is a waste of time then perhaps you should tell them so and see what they say.
JVL:
They are HOPING. They don’t have any evidence for it. Their work is as much a waste of time as is those looking for how nature produced Stonehenge.
ba77 @ 64 – again, that’s not what I wrote.
.
(just this week alone)
Thread A: ”How about: no known intelligent designers about?”
Thread B: “I see no credible evidence of a designer around at . . . what time was it?”
Thread C: “No designer means no design. Propose to me a sensible suggestion of a designer”
.
(Your words are recorded on the blog. You could have just been honest instead)
Upright Biped:
Asking questions is not the same as barking out requests for evidence. You choose to interpret everything I say in a negative, confrontational sense.
If you want to ask me a question in a collegial manner I will try and answer honestly. I can’t promise to answer in a way you find satisfying but I will try.
.
Do I have any questions for you? Well, let’s see.
Months ago, you told us of your enthusiastic expectation that the design inference would be used successfully with SETI. You were asked what specific finding would be the criteria for that success, and you replied with the finding of encoded symbolic content (i.e. a universal correlate of intelligence). You were then reminding that this is the exact criteria used in the design inference in ID, which you deny at all costs, and you were asked “Why the double-standard?” in your reasoning.
Since that time, you have used every play in the book to conceal the fact that your reasoning is fundamentally flawed, and that the ID inference is entirely valid by your own standards. Not only is it valid, the documented science and history behind it is not even controversial.
You launched into a campaign of denial and obfuscation. This included your initial attempt to simply ignore the obvious contradiction. When that didn’t work you began dishonestly attacking me personally for pointing it out to you. You then graduated into falsely suggesting that research on the subject wasn’t what it was. In your continuous attempts to deflect the problem and maintain your double-standard, you even fronted the ridiculous notion that we might receive a signal containing encoded symbolic content from outer space and not actually infer the work of a previously unknown intelligence. Hell, you were even forced to admit that the molecular evidence against the ID inference wasn’t even compelling as it stands.
So no, I don’t have any further questions for you right now.