Fifty different genes for eye color?

_{Denyse O'Leary

March 29, 2021

Genetics, Human evolution, Intelligent Design}

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

Close-ups of people's | Credit: © Prostock-studio / stock.adobe.com

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

Comments

I’ll not bother you with trying anymore.
Best comment yet!jerry_{April 2, 2021
April
04
Apr
2
02
2021
05:39 AM
5
05
39
AM
PDT}

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.JVL_{April 2, 2021
April
04
Apr
2
02
2021
02:07 AM
2
02
07
AM
PDT}

. 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_{April 1, 2021
April
04
Apr
1
01
2021
04:17 PM
4
04
17
PM
PDT}

. 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: I would not be surprised at all if we find electromagnetic evidence of intelligent beings in other solar systems UB: How would we know if we found “electromagnetic evidence of intelligent beings”? What would that be? JVL: Something like in the movie Contact. A signal that’s very clearly NOT produced by unguided processes. A signal which, after inspection, was shown to have compressed data. UB: So you accept encoded symbolic content as a universal inference to the presence of an unknown intelligence in one domain, while immediately denying that same physical evidence in another domain. Why the double standard? JVL: Because there is no plausible designer available.
Upright BiPed_{April 1, 2021
April
04
Apr
1
01
2021
03:24 PM
3
03
24
PM
PDT}

.
JVL: IF the gene ‘system’ is based on chemical affinities then it’s not purely arbitrary or symbolic >UB: You even capitalize the word “IF” in your comment. “IF” was shown that pre-biotic processes could establish a semantically-closed system of symbols and constraints, THEN then the design inference would be falsified. it 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. JVL: 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.
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.
I never said the ‘evidence’ doesn’t exist, i said it wasn’t compelling.
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.Upright BiPed_{April 1, 2021
April
04
Apr
1
01
2021
03:10 PM
3
03
10
PM
PDT}

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.JVL_{April 1, 2021
April
04
Apr
1
01
2021
12:21 PM
12
12
21
PM
PDT}

.
Symbols meaning arbitrary choices.
Just like it states in the literature JVL. Symbols, meaning a rate-independent medium and a set of non-integrable constraints.
Do we know that’s true though?
Yes
Is that accounting for all the research and data?
Yes
Not the ‘predicted’ part, sure people predict things. But is the prediction true?
Yes. It was predicted, and the prediction was confirmed.
When I was reading Dr Pattee’s work he was talking about abstract systems; how much can we apply those to actual living systems?
That is absolutely false. Pattee was talking specifically about the gene system.
I accept his work in the abstract sense, in the applied case . . . what did he say about that?
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
IF the gene ‘system’ is based on chemical affinities then it’s not purely arbitrary or symbolic
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_{April 1, 2021
April
04
Apr
1
01
2021
10:57 AM
10
10
57
AM
PDT}

Also from Wikipedia:
Biosemiotics (from the Greek ???? bios, "life" and ??????????? s?mei?tikos, "observant of signs") is a field of semiotics and biology that studies the prelinguistic meaning-making, or production and interpretation of signs and codes and their communication in the biological realm.[1] Biosemiotics attempts to integrate the findings of biology and semiotics and proposes a paradigmatic shift in the scientific view of life, in which semiosis (sign process, including meaning and interpretation) is one of its immanent and intrinsic features. The term biosemiotic was first used by Friedrich S. Rothschild in 1962, but Thomas Sebeok and Thure von Uexküll have implemented the term and field.[2] The field, which challenges normative views of biology, is generally divided between theoretical and applied biosemiotics.

Biosemiotics is biology interpreted as a sign systems study, or, to elaborate, a study of signification, communication and habit formation of living processes semiosis (creating and changing sign relations) in living nature the biological basis of all signs and sign interpretation

According to the basic types of semiosis under study, biosemiotics can be divided into vegetative semiotics (also endosemiotics, or phytosemiotics),[3] the study of semiosis at the cellular and molecular level (including the translation processes related to genome and the organic form or phenotype);[4] vegetative semiosis occurs in all organisms at their cellular and tissue level; vegetative semiotics includes prokaryote semiotics, sign-mediated interactions in bacteria communities such as quorum sensing and quorum quenching. zoosemiotics or animal semiotics,[5] or the study of animal forms of knowing;[6] animal semiosis occurs in the organisms with neuromuscular system, also includes anthroposemiotics, the study of semiotic behavior in humans. According to the dominant aspect of semiosis under study, the following labels have been used: biopragmatics, biosemantics, and biosyntactics.
So, this is not fringe or unknown in biological circles.
In the 1980s a circle of mathematicians active in Theoretical Biology, René Thom (Institut des Hautes Etudes Scientifiques), Yannick Kergosien (Dalhousie University and Institut des Hautes Etudes Scientifiques), and Robert Rosen (Dalhousie University, also a former member of the Buffalo group with Howard H. Pattee), explored the relations between Semiotics and Biology using such headings as "Nature Semiotics",[8][9] "Semiophysics",[10] or "Anticipatory Systems" [11] and taking a modeling approach.
So, it seems that biosemiotics is an accepted part of biological reasoning and modelling. No longer controversial and not supportive of intelligent design. Sorry.JVL_{April 1, 2021
April
04
Apr
1
01
2021
10:04 AM
10
10
04
AM
PDT}

Is the genetic 'code' a real, arbitrary code? Maybe not. From Wikipedia:
Three main hypotheses address the origin of the genetic code. Many models belong to one of them or to a hybrid:[72] Random freeze: the genetic code was randomly created. For example, early tRNA-like ribozymes may have had different affinities for amino acids, with codons emerging from another part of the ribozyme that exhibited random variability. Once enough peptides were coded for, any major random change in the genetic code would have been lethal; hence it became "frozen".[73] Stereochemical affinity: the genetic code is a result of a high affinity between each amino acid and its codon or anti-codon; the latter option implies that pre-tRNA molecules matched their corresponding amino acids by this affinity. Later during evolution, this matching was gradually replaced with matching by aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases.[71][74][75] Optimality: the genetic code continued to evolve after its initial creation, so that the current code maximizes some fitness function, usually some kind of error minimization.[71][72]
None of which includes an intelligent designer. Sorry.JVL_{April 1, 2021
April
04
Apr
1
01
2021
09:57 AM
9
09
57
AM
PDT}

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.JVL_{April 1, 2021
April
04
Apr
1
01
2021
08:49 AM
8
08
49
AM
PDT}

.
I’d rather focus on the stuff we agree on.
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_{April 1, 2021
April
04
Apr
1
01
2021
08:31 AM
8
08
31
AM
PDT}

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.JVL_{April 1, 2021
April
04
Apr
1
01
2021
08:10 AM
8
08
10
AM
PDT}

.
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.
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_{April 1, 2021
April
04
Apr
1
01
2021
08:05 AM
8
08
05
AM
PDT}

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?JVL_{April 1, 2021
April
04
Apr
1
01
2021
07:45 AM
7
07
45
AM
PDT}

. 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_{April 1, 2021
April
04
Apr
1
01
2021
07:27 AM
7
07
27
AM
PDT}

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?JVL_{April 1, 2021
April
04
Apr
1
01
2021
06:59 AM
6
06
59
AM
PDT}

.
I just went into my views in greater depth. You choose to ignore that.
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.
Also, you have chosen NOT to even attempt to respond to my sincere queries about an ID research agenda.
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_{April 1, 2021
April
04
Apr
1
01
2021
06:34 AM
6
06
34
AM
PDT}

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.JVL_{April 1, 2021
April
04
Apr
1
01
2021
06:25 AM
6
06
25
AM
PDT}

JVL, Why don't you join us, and then work on answering those questions from our perspective(s)?EDTA_{April 1, 2021
April
04
Apr
1
01
2021
06:15 AM
6
06
15
AM
PDT}

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_{April 1, 2021
April
04
Apr
1
01
2021
06:12 AM
6
06
12
AM
PDT}

.
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.
Mischaracterize your views? Here are your views:
JVL: I would not be surprised at all if we find electromagnetic evidence of intelligent beings in other solar systems UB: How would we know if we found “electromagnetic evidence of intelligent beings”? What would that be? JVL: Something like in the movie Contact. A signal that’s very clearly NOT produced by unguided processes. A signal which, after inspection, was shown to have compressed data. UB: So you accept encoded symbolic content as a universal inference to the presence of an unknown intelligence in one domain, while immediately denying that same physical evidence in another domain. Why the double standard? JVL: Because there is no plausible designer available.
You have a blatant double standard in your reasoning.Upright BiPed_{April 1, 2021
April
04
Apr
1
01
2021
06:08 AM
6
06
08
AM
PDT}

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.JVL_{April 1, 2021
April
04
Apr
1
01
2021
05:52 AM
5
05
52
AM
PDT}

.
Why is it that no one seems to have any interest in any scientific inquiry into what happens after design is detected?
“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)
JVL: I would not be surprised at all if we find electromagnetic evidence of intelligent beings in other solar systems UB: How would we know if we found “electromagnetic evidence of intelligent beings”? What would that be? JVL: Something like in the movie Contact. A signal that’s very clearly NOT produced by unguided processes. A signal which, after inspection, was shown to have compressed data. UB: So you accept encoded symbolic content as a universal inference to the presence of an unknown intelligence in one domain, while immediately denying that same physical evidence in another domain. Why the double standard? JVL: Because there is no plausible designer available. – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 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 shouldn’t need me to point this out to you. It is specifically the finding of encoded symbolic content that confirms (beyond any reasonable doubt) it is the product of an intelligence. Clearly, if a signal was received from outer space that contained encoded symbolic content in it, then you, like everyone else on the surface of the planet, would immediately (and quite correctly) infer the presence of a previously unknown intelligence. That is to say, the presence of encoded symbolic content is a universal correlate of intelligence. Do you see how that works, JVL? Before the confirmation of a universal correlate, there is no evidence of an intelligence in either scenario. After the confirmation of a universal correlate, the evidence of a previously unknown intelligence objectively exists in both scenarios. But that logical continuity is not how you treat the evidence. You treat the evidence with a gratuitous double standard. In the SETI scenario, encoded symbolic content is a universal correlate of intelligence. In the ID scenario, it isn’t. And it should come as no surprise that if encoded symbolic content is not a universal correlate of intelligence in the second scenario, then it can’t be that in the first scenario either. But does this logical inconsistency bother you? No, it serves your ideological purposes, and that is why you invoke it. You are a smart enough person, and I don’t really believe for a moment that you can’t see how you are applying a double standard. If you also have a fair sense of self-awareness, you may even recognize that you are doing it for purely non-scientific (ideological) reasons. So what does all this mean? It certainly means the same when you do it as it means when anyone else does it. You’ve seen a Periodic Table; you know without a doubt that Peirce’s triadic relationship (symbol/referent/interpretant) is a fundamental physical requirement to specify something in this lawfully determined universe. Not only does logic demand it, but it is a universal observation without a single exception recorded anywhere at anytime. You know without a doubt that John von Neumann predicted a high-capacity system of symbols and constraints as the fundamental requirement of autonomous open-ended self-replication. It is a matter of historical record. You know without a doubt that each of the key objects required to confirm von Neumann’s prediction were discovered one by one without exception (Crick, Brenner, Hoagland, Zamecnik, Nirenberg, etc). Nobel awards were handed out along the way. And you know that the entire resulting system has been carefully described in the literature using the language of physics, and additionally, that the only other system known to science that operates in the same way is that of human language – a universal correlate of intelligence.
Upright BiPed_{March 31, 2021
March
03
Mar
31
31
2021
08:18 AM
8
08
18
AM
PDT}

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?JVL_{March 31, 2021
March
03
Mar
31
31
2021
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PDT}

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_{March 31, 2021
March
03
Mar
31
31
2021
05:02 AM
5
05
02
AM
PDT}

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. 8-) Actually, we have every right to examine and discuss (and point out contradictions in) claims made to the public.EDTA_{March 30, 2021
March
03
Mar
30
30
2021
06:18 PM
6
06
18
PM
PDT}

.
JVL: How about: no known intelligent designers about ...
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.
You came here and announced that there was no evidence of design in ID arguments. That position is patently false, so I took the time to lead you through the evidence you say doesn’t exist (specifically, the semiotic argument). Because of the nature of that evidence (being coherent, widely accepted, and historically accurate) you were unable to disagree with any of it. Indeed, you concurred with the each of the key observations that make up the design inference. You even asked to have some time to think about what you had been told, but eventually began the “others disagree” bit as a means to close off the conversation. You then jumped to another conversation and virtually the first thing out of your mouth (amazingly) was your apparent excitement over the design inference in SETI. You will notice that this is the snippet I keep re-posting each time you return to your attack on ID (as you did on Monday, which prompted this current exchange) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JVL: I would not be surprised at all if we find electromagnetic evidence of intelligent beings in other solar systems UB: How would we know if we found “electromagnetic evidence of intelligent beings”? What would that be? JVL: Something like in the movie Contact. A signal that’s very clearly NOT produced by unguided processes. A signal which, after inspection, was shown to have compressed data. UB: So you accept encoded symbolic content as a universal inference to the presence of an unknown intelligence in one domain, while immediately denying that same physical evidence in another domain. Why the double standard? JVL: Because there is no plausible designer available. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 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 shouldn’t need me to point this out to you. It is specifically the finding of encoded symbolic content that confirms (beyond any reasonable doubt) it is the product of an intelligence. Clearly, if a signal was received from outer space that contained encoded symbolic content in it, then you, like everyone else on the surface of the planet, would immediately (and quite correctly) infer the presence of a previously unknown intelligence. That is to say, the presence of encoded symbolic content is a universal correlate of intelligence. Do you see how that works, JVL? Before the confirmation of a universal correlate, there is no evidence of an intelligence in either scenario. After the confirmation of a universal correlate, the evidence of a previously unknown intelligence objectively exists in both scenarios. But that logical continuity is not how you treat the evidence. You treat the evidence with a gratuitous double standard. In the SETI scenario, encoded symbolic content is a universal correlate of intelligence. In the ID scenario, it isn’t. And it should come as no surprise that if encoded symbolic content is not a universal correlate of intelligence in the second scenario, then it can’t be that in the first scenario either. But does this logical inconsistency bother you? No, it serves your ideological purposes, and that is why you invoke it. You are a smart enough person, and I don’t really believe for a moment that you can’t see how you are applying a double standard. If you also have a fair sense of self-awareness, you may even recognize that you are doing it for purely non-scientific (ideological) reasons. So what does all this mean? It certainly means the same when you do it as it means when anyone else does it. You’ve seen a Periodic Table; you know without a doubt that Peirce’s triadic relationship (symbol/referent/interpretant) is a fundamental physical requirement to specify something in this lawfully determined universe. Not only does logic demand it, but it is a universal observation without a single exception recorded anywhere at anytime. You know without a doubt that John von Neumann predicted a high-capacity system of symbols and constraints as the fundamental requirement of autonomous open-ended self-replication. It is a matter of historical record. You know without a doubt that each of the key objects required to confirm von Neumann’s prediction were discovered one by one without exception (Crick, Brenner, Hoagland, Zamecnik, Nirenberg, etc). Nobel awards were handed out along the way. And you know that the entire resulting system has been carefully described in the literature using the language of physics, and additionally, that the only other system known to science that operates in the same way is that of human language – a universal correlate of intelligence. You knew all of this before you applied a double-standard between SETI and ID.
Upright BiPed_{March 30, 2021
March
03
Mar
30
30
2021
02:17 PM
2
02
17
PM
PDT}

From the article,
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.
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:
"It is difficult (if not impossible) to find a genome change operator that is truly random in its action within the DNA of the cell where it works. All careful studies of mutagenesis find statistically significant non-random patterns” James Shapiro - Evolution: A View From The 21st Century - (Page 82) Evolution Is Not Random (At Least, Not Totally) By Tanya Lewis October 02, 2014 Excerpt: “So in the end, most mutation is not random, at least for the DNA sequences we analyzed here,” https://www.livescience.com/48103-evolution-not-random.html
bornagain77_{March 30, 2021
March
03
Mar
30
30
2021
01:14 PM
1
01
14
PM
PDT}

Martin_r: So which one to take seriously ? No idea. Why not just wait and see how things resolve?JVL_{March 30, 2021
March
03
Mar
30
30
2021
12:21 PM
12
12
21
PM
PDT}

"But don’t it make my brown eyes blue?" Count of Crisco, I was thinking the exact same thing! Andrewasauber_{March 30, 2021
March
03
Mar
30
30
2021
12:20 PM
12
12
20
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply