# Guest Post, Dr YS: “Intelligent Design and arguments against it”

Dr YS, contribtes thoughts again that are well worth pondering:

>>I’d like to present a summary of the arguments against the design hypothesis that I have come across either as a reader or as an author of a pro-design blog over the past 8 years since I became interested in intelligent design.

# The Design Hypothesis

Before we do it, let us first recap on what the design hypothesis really is. It states that some configurations of matter in specific conditions are best explained as caused by purposeful activity of one or more intelligent agents.

• The ‘specific conditions’ means that we could not directly observe how these configurations of matter came into being and can only analyse them post-factum.
• ‘Intelligence’ in this context means the capabilities of foresight, goal-setting, strategy planning and strategy realization. Put simply, it is the capability of using adequate means for a purpose.
• The ‘purpose’ corresponds to selecting a goal state from among physically or chemically equivalent states (states with minimal total potential energy). Selection is done on a non-physical basis (pragmatic utility).
• E.g. muckers is a game in which players take turns throwing rings from a distance at a vertically positioned pole on a horizontal playing ground. A player who throws a ring so that it lands at the pole, receives one point. The player getting a maximum score wins. The scoring aside, no matter how you throw a ring or where it lands on the playing field, it ends up in a position where its potential energy is at a minimum value. The ‘meaning’ to each toss that distinguishes a trajectory from among a set of possible trajectories, is assigned by imposing additional (symbolic) constraints specifying the ‘target’ area for a trajectory. The additional constraints are local to the particular physical system (the ring + gravity + the pole).
• ‘Best’ means the ‘most appropriate’, ‘most parsimonious’ or even ‘characterized by the highest probability’, depending on the context.
• ‘Design’ means either the process of purposeful activity or an outcome of it.
• E.g. a personal computer is a design whereas pebbles on the beach are most likely not. It is possible that pebbles themselves or their particular arrangements can be a design. However, methodologically, it is best to assume they are not unless we have more observations that can help further refine our design-inferential probabilistic model.

Importantly, not every cause in nature is intelligent. For example, gravity is not an intelligent type of causation whereas creating a deck of Microsoft PowerPoint slides, most probably, is. If we have observations that can throw a reasonable doubt on non-intelligence of gravity, for example, we will further refine our understanding of material reality. In the absence of such observations these doubts are not scientifically justified.

The effects of intelligent and non-intelligent causes are sometimes different also. Analyzing this difference is what Intelligent Design is all about. Based on an analysis of some special class of artifacts we can reliably tell if we are dealing with designs. In other cases, it is not possible to distinguish designs from non-designs post-factum, without additional information.

It is important to distinguish between intelligent and non-intelligent causation because this distinction helps us categorize our knowledge of the material world better and, consequently, propose better scientific explanations. The distinction is well supported empirically and, without it, it is not possible to adequately explain a whole class of observations. For example, treating this text as a random collection of differently colored pixels on the screen is a valid scientific model but I doubt it has any practical use as it adds virtually nothing new to our knowledge of the world.

The design hypothesis can be useful in a lot of contexts, such as archaeology and forensics. It adds a lot of insight when applied to biological systems. It is not generally disputed that the ID methodology is sound. At least, I have never encountered anyone who would seriously question the design detection methodology in relation to forensics, archaeology, medicine or cyber-intrusion detection, for instance. The only area of application where ID faces strong opposition is biology. Science has nothing to do with it.

The scientific agenda of Intelligent Design is non-trivial as the main design hypothesis leads to interesting research questions. Intuitively, when we assume that a particular configuration of matter is intelligently created we can reverse-engineer it and then reuse our findings elsewhere. This is done in bionics, for example. ID can lead to non-trivial testable secondary hypotheses in biology per se, as this article shows.

The design detection methodology is summarized by the following abductive inference:

1. We observe phenomenon Р.

2. Р could be explained if hypothesis Н was true.

3. Consequently, we have grounds to believe that H is true.

Examples of P:

– the semiotic triple {sign-interpretant-referent}, notably persistent self-reproducing semiotic triple as in biological systems;

– statistically significant levels of functional complexity.

The basis of abduction in relation to P in the biosphere:

– In all observations other than in biological systems, whose origins are in question, P is a correlate of intelligence. No observations exist where P would arise ab initio without intelligent agency.

I specifically stress that the presented reasoning is nowhere near circular.

Having said this, I will now present arguments against ID that I have encountered. I am not intending to ridicule the reasoning of ID opponents. Simply, in my experience, this is the best they can really offer. In the list below, I will put my comments next to each bullet point.

# Popular arguments against Intelligent Design

 # Argument against ID Comment 1 ID is based entirely on Fisherian hypothesis testing. Instead of ruling out any hypothesis entirely, it would have been better to keep all relevant hypotheses on the table because, as we collect observations, different hypotheses can really change their relative importance. Statistical hypothesis testing is an established practical method of assessing scientific hypotheses. ID-opponents are welcome to come up with a better model, if they wish so. 2 Who designed the Designer? (=Who painted the painter?) The point of this argument is to demonstrate that ID reasoning is either circular or suffers from infinite regress. Neither is true. 3 What are the properties of the Designer of life? The Designer of life is intelligent: capable of forethought and planning, decision making and strategy implementation. The scale and grandeur of the design of life suggests that the capabilities of the Designer are matching the task. The Designer of life must have had the linguistic capacity since life is inherently linguistic. The only real problem I can see here is complexity because, by the same argument as presented in this OP, the Designer of life should be very complex (perhaps, infinitely complex). My personal take on this, is that the complexity argument does not apply the way the ID opponents want to use it: our consciousness is simple and yet we create complex artifacts. In any case, we just have no other data than human artifacts and life. Perhaps, the AI singularity, if it happens at all, when it does happen, will provide more data to refine our understanding of the complexity issue. 4 We have insufficient data to classify life with respect to design. It is the purpose of science to extrapolate our knowledge onto something that has not been observed yet and to make predictions. The workflow is as usual: from observations through analysis to prediction. As more observations become available, predictions are corrected appropriately. 5 How the Designer of life created it? By instantiating a persistent self-reproducing semiotic core into physicality. 6 I could have done it better. Therefore it is not a design. An example of flawed reasoning. A poor design is still a design. On the other hand, examples of alleged ‘bad designs’ are simply misunderstandings. People are not taking into consideration the fact that organisms are a result of multicriteria optimization. What appears to be a poor choice is really a compromise between different conflicting objectives. 7 Believing in the design of life is the same as believing that the Earth is flat. A rhetorical device aimed at discrediting the opponents by association. It has no real scientific value. 8 Information is in your head. This extreme view denies the objectivity of information processing. It does not take into account the fact that the genetic information translation apparatus installed in all organisms predates humans and is part of objective reality. Questioning the objectivity of information translation phenomenon is equivalent to questioning science itself. 9 A river flowing around stones sends information to and receives information from them. This view is the opposite extreme. It does not take into account the fact that it is meaningful to speak about information only where there is information translation. Natural phenomena (apart from organisms and human artifacts) do not involve information translation. 10 The cycle of star formation follows an algorithm. Spotting natural regularity can be formalized as an algorithm. However, regularity itself is NOT an algorithm. An algorithm is a set of coherent instructions that must explicitly be present in memory, read from it and be processed in order for the system to achieve a goal state. In most cases, to achieve a pragmatic purpose an algorithm should be a set of instructions such that the processor eventually stops and produces a result. 11 Everything can be coded with 1 bit. That one is a best-seller. The answer is, obviously, yes, if you have previously established all the information context for it. It is the establishment of the context that involves all the remaining complexity… 12 The design hypothesis is circular. Simply wrong. In the above, there is no circularity at all. 13 DNA is not code. The notion of code is ephemeral and subjective. DNA/RNA carry instructions that are interpreted by the cell in the context of protein synthesis. The genetic code is the set of rules used by living cells to translate information encoded within genetic material (DNA or mRNA sequences) into proteins. Translation is accomplished by the ribosome, which links amino acids in an order specified by messenger RNA (mRNA), using transfer RNA (tRNA) molecules to carry amino acids and to read the mRNA three nucleotides at a time. 14 Replication of crystals and replication of organisms are essentially the same. A categorical error. They are not the same. Matrix copying (similar to crystal copying) is part of replication of organisms, but it is only part of it. Replication of living things requires a symbolic memory to store genetic instructions, a mechanism of retrieval and interpretation of those instructions together with a mechanism of interpretation of instructions to replicate the interpreter. Nowhere near replication of crystals. 15 Crystallisation is an example of self-organisation. A categorical error. Organization relates to function, not order. Order is routinely observed in nature as a result of the tendency of system dynamics towards states with minimum total potential energy. This is fundamentally different from organization. Organization involves a non-uniform (irregular) functional whole where function is understood in terms of pragmatic utility. Regular structures like crystals can be used as part of functional systems but, by themselves, neither crystals nor any other naturally occurring regular structures can produce a non-trivial functional whole. Organization imposes specific (e.g. symbolic) constraints on the dynamics of matter in the system. ‘No specific constraints’ means ‘no function’ means ‘no organization’. 16 Everything in nature is self-organized just like sand gets sorted by centrifugal forces on river banks. The same categorical error as above equating the motion of matter towards states of minimum total potential energy to functional organization that produces pragmatic utility. 17 Semiotics is demagoguery. Another bestseller argument. 18 Semiotic effects are reducible to the laws of nature. Including this OP? Are there laws of nature that can predict someone writing this OP?! 19 Abduction is fiction, Charles Peirce’s idiosyncrasy. Again, a wonderful counter-argument indeed. It misses a whole history of discoveries and scientific advances based on the seminal ideas of Charles Peirce. 20 Lots of vastly different things appeared in ‘every which way’ in the past. Life is just what happened to prevail. An ‘interesting’ thought. And a very specific one, too. 21 Science knows a single type of intelligence, that is, one correlated with a protein-based body/brain. Consequently, a hypothetical statement about intelligence outside of a protein body/brain is nonsense. There is a killer counter-example for it, i.e. silicon-based artificial intelligence. The counter-example demonstrates that intelligence can function and multiply outside of protein bodies. 22 — Gravity is all that is necessary for our world to appear. — And where did gravity come from? — M-theory. A categorical error conflating reality with our mental models of it. It lacks coherence and misses the point of organization completely.  This argument is due to Stephen Hawking [paraphrased]. See J. Lennox, “God and Stephen Hawking: Whose design is it anyway?”

>>

Again, food for rich thought. END

## 186 Replies to “Guest Post, Dr YS: “Intelligent Design and arguments against it””

1. 1
kairosfocus says:

Guest Post, Dr YS: “Intelligent Design and arguments against it”

2. 2
aarceng says:

Tree rings record information about the climate over thousands of years, and this is not motion of matter towards states of minimum total potential energy.
No designer required.

3. 3
EugeneS says:

Aarceng 2

You conflate a configuration of matter with how an observer INTERPRETS it. For information as a phenomenon, data is not sufficient. It is always a triple: data+interpeter+the effect of interpretation, or {sign,interpretant,referent} in the Peircean parlance. Your rings are just data. What you also need is the interpreter or processor of that data. An educated person has it in their cortex in the form of particular arrangements of synapses that, upon receiving a visual signal from the eye, help interpret the number of rings in a tree trunk as the age of that tree.

No interpretation – no information. Data is only data in the context of information translation.

4. 4

.
First scan … nice.

How the Designer of life created it? — By instantiating a persistent self-reproducing semiotic core into physicality. [the mechanism of ID]

YS = ES ?

5. 5
EugeneS says:

UB

Yes, it is me ))

KF

Thanks very much for posting it on my behalf.

The reference is:
M. Sherman, The universal Genome and the Origin of Metazoa.

Thanks.

6. 6
7. 7
Bob O'H says:

On Point 1, we’ve diverged from Fisher and use Neyman-Pearson instead. This means specifying the alternative hypothesis as well. For non-trivial examples it’s necessary, as the test is a comparison between likelihoods, each specified by a model.

One problem with the Fisherian approach is that one can reject a null hypothesis, but the null hypothesis could be false in many ways. It’s generally accepted by statisticians that pretty much any null hypothesis will be rejected with enough data.

8. 8
asauber says:

“Tree rings record information about the climate over thousands of years”

This is how pervasive climate propaganda is. It makes people stupid.

Tree ring widths are the product of lots of things, some of which have something to do with weather, and some that have nothing to do with weather.

Andrew

9. 9
EugeneS says:

Bob,

Thanks very much for your comment. The point of this OP is to have a useful discussion. It would be interesting to take your comment and elaborate on how this can influence the design classifier in the presence of empirical evidence. How will this change the prediction given that the only data we have is phenomenon P is correlated with intelligence? No data exists that would support the null hypothesis anyway, the null hypothesis being ‘functionally complex structures/semiotic structures can arise unaided by intelligent agency’. The null hypothesis is rejected for the right reason.

… pretty much any null hypothesis will be rejected with enough data

Can you think of anything else that could influence the rejection so that the null h is rejected for the wrong reason?

10. 10
11. 11
EugeneS says:

KF
Thanks

12. 12
EugeneS says:

It occurred to me that I’d forgotten to explicitly mention in the OP that in the context of biological systems, pragmatic utility we are talking about is homeostasis (as far as an individual organism is concerned) and persistence (as a means to mitigate the detrimental effect of the 2nd law of thermodynamics on an individual organism). More on this in: David Abel ‘The First Gene’.

13. 13
Nonlin.org says:

Those are not necessarily arguments against ID.
Correction, “DNA is not [the whole] code” – http://nonlin.org/dna-not-essence-of-life/
No, “silicon-based artificial intelligence” is NOT intelligence – http://nonlin.org/ai/

Many others are simply silly, hence not worth mentioning.

14. 14
EugeneS says:

Nonlin

Thanks very much.

In the OP I define intelligence as follows:

‘Intelligence’ in this context means the capabilities of foresight, goal-setting, strategy planning and strategy realization. Put simply, it is the capability of using adequate means for a purpose.

These things are already part of weak AI. Robot path planning with obstacle avoidance, malicious software and autopilots are examples of intelligence as defined in the OP. If you have a different definition, I have no objection.

Correction, “DNA is not [the whole] code”

I simply do not deal with this issue. I focus on DNA/RNA as code. As regards other codes, yes, they exist, sugar code, membrane code, for example.

15. 15
Nonlin.org says:

Eugene,

AI is just an interface between the intelligent human and the world. Think of AI as a hammer. Does the hammer nail the roof? No, the human nails the roof with dumb tools like hammers. Does a hammer have a purpose? Does AI?

16. 16
EugeneS says:

Nonlin

I agree that AI does not have an internal “I”. If this is what you mean. However, do you not know that a robot can perfectly well drive a nail into the roof? Ok, it does so via a program written by a human. And still, the physical activity of driving the nail into the roof is not done by a human.

Again, if you want to use another definition of intelligence, fine by me. I have already stated my operational definition of intelligence, which is merely decision making. Under this definition, a spider or even an amoeba doing chemotaxis is intelligent. Under this definition, intelligence need not be conscious.

AI is what it is, intelligence, i.e. human reasoning extracted from our heads and instantiated into machines. That’s it. I see nothing wrong with that. Of course, it is not self conscious. Nor will it ever be. I do not believe that it will ever surpass humans. Strong AI is sci-fi, not science. However, within the boundaries I have delineated, it is perfectly legitimate to think about programs as agents.

17. 17
Bob O'H says:

EugeneS @ 9 –

It would be interesting to take your comment and elaborate on how this can influence the design classifier in the presence of empirical evidence.

I’m sorry, but what do you mean by “this”? And if you’re talking about classifiers, then you’re into inference, not hypothesis testing, so Fisher and Neyman-Pearson aren’t relevant (well, except that Fisher probably did something in classification, because he’s Fisher). If you’re classifying, then you need a model for design, in order to calculate the probability of the data given design.

18. 18
EugeneS says:

Bob

Yes, I have been a bit vague. By “this” I meant the difference between what Neyman/Pearson proposed as a means of hypothesis testing and what Fisher proposed. The question is whether it will change the outcome of hypothesis testing in our case, and if it does, to what extent. What I am trying to say is, whether your comment makes a practical difference in the case of design given the data:

1. We have observations whereby P arises by human intervention resulting in a special sort of human artifacts.
2. We have observations of P as a given, in living systems.
3. We have zero observations of P arising without intelligence.

19. 19
Bob O'H says:

EugeneS – it makes a huge difference because it means you have to specify a model for design.

Your logic suffers from one slight problem – if the only thing that gives rise to P is human intervention, then human intervention must have given rise to P. So living systems (including humans) must have come about through human intervention.

20. 20
EugeneS says:

Bob

if the only thing that gives rise to P is human intervention

Obviously this can’t be true. I have never said that. What I said is:

1. We observe phenomenon P.
2. P could be explained if hypothesis H was true.
3. Consequently, we have grounds to believe that H is true.

H is intelligent agency, which is not necessarily human agency. Can you see that this is not the same as what you wrote?
My logic has no flaw apparently. Not that I can see, at any rate.

What I can see is your denial of the grounds for the abductive reasoning, I am afraid. It is your logic that has a problem, to my estimation. You apparently want me to accept that if P is correlated with human intelligence and human intelligence is correlated with a body with two legs, then P can only arise via two-legged agents (which is item 21 in my list).

I can refer to this in my defense as to how to extrapolate what we know to make useful predictions. Unfortunately, I can’t quickly find the page I want because the pdf is not searchable. Essentially, Feynmann dismisses complains of people who says that it is incorrect to extrapolate our knowledge about particles onto the physics of atoms. He points out that it is not only okay but it is necessary to do so to make useful predictions.

21. 21
Pater Kimbridge says:

@EugeneS

What Bob said is correct. If something reminds you of things that humans create, then the only reasonable inference is that humans created it. Widening the inference to “intelligent being” is an obvious creationist tactic to include their god in the basket.

Why would anyone expect a supreme being to design things the way humans do?

22. 22
asauber says:

“If something reminds you of things that humans create, then the only reasonable inference is that humans created it”

Pater,

You are misstating the scenario. If something reminds you of things an intelligence would create, then the only reasonable inference is that an intelligence created it.

Andrew

23. 23
EugeneS says:

Regarding the model for design.

How do we design things? We have an idea and the corresponding mental representation of the goal state. Then we work out a strategy to achieve the goal state. Then we implement it.

Regardless of the particular strategy, the designer must:
– have a representation of the goal state
– have the ability to measure the current state and compare it with the goal state
– be able to control system dynamics so as to achieve the goal state

24. 24
EugeneS says:

Pater

I can accept I have one point of reference and I draw a line through that point.

Do you have a better alternative? Do you have anything at all? I doubt it.

25. 25
bornagain77 says:

Bob O’H states,

EugeneS – it makes a huge difference because it means you have to specify a model for design.
Bob: Your logic suffers from one slight problem – if the only thing that gives rise to P is human intervention, then human intervention must have given rise to P. So living systems (including humans) must have come about through human intervention.

Pater Kimbridge joins with Bob:

Pater: @EugeneS
What Bob said is correct. If something reminds you of things that humans create, then the only reasonable inference is that humans created it. Widening the inference to “intelligent being” is an obvious creationist tactic to include their god in the basket.
Why would anyone expect a supreme being to design things the way humans do?

Please notice that this is a Theological claim about how God would create, if He were to create, and is not a empirically backed claim about what unguided natural and/or material processes are capable of creating.

Which is just as well that they are making a Theologically based argument since Darwinists have ZERO substantiating evidence that unguided natural and/or material processes are capable of creating anything beyond the exceedingly trivial, For instance;

“The immediate, most important implication is that complexes with more than two different binding sites-ones that require three or more proteins-are beyond the edge of evolution, past what is biologically reasonable to expect Darwinian evolution to have accomplished in all of life in all of the billion-year history of the world. The reasoning is straightforward. The odds of getting two independent things right are the multiple of the odds of getting each right by itself. So, other things being equal, the likelihood of developing two binding sites in a protein complex would be the square of the probability for getting one: a double CCC (chloroquine complexity cluster), 10^20 times 10^20, which is 10^40. There have likely been fewer than 10^40 cells in the world in the last 4 billion years, so the odds are against a single event of this variety in the history of life. It is biologically unreasonable.”
– Michael Behe – The Edge of Evolution – page 146

Moreover, that Bob and Pater are forced into making a Theological argument is nothing new. Charles Darwin himself, since he himself also had no empirical evidence to support any of his Atheistic claims, instead made numerous faulty Theological claims in his book “Origin”. In fact Charles Darwin made the same exact Theological argument that Bob and Pater are making right now. Namely, “Human beings are not justified in believing that God creates in ways analogous to the intellectual powers of the human mind.”

Charles Darwin, Theologian: Major New Article on Darwin’s Use of Theology in the Origin of Species – May 2011
Excerpt: The Origin supplies abundant evidence of theology in action; as Dilley observes:
I have argued that, in the first edition of the Origin, Darwin drew upon at least the following positiva theological claims in his case for descent with modification (and against special creation):
1. Human beings are not justified in believing that God creates in ways analogous to the intellectual powers of the human mind.
2. A God who is free to create as He wishes would create new biological limbs de novo rather than from a common pattern.
3. A respectable deity would create biological structures in accord with a human conception of the ‘simplest mode’ to accomplish the functions of these structures.
4. God would only create the minimum structure required for a given part’s function.
5. God does not provide false empirical information about the origins of organisms.
6. God impressed the laws of nature on matter.
7. God directly created the first ‘primordial’ life.
8. God did not perform miracles within organic history subsequent to the creation of the first life.
9. A ‘distant’ God is not morally culpable for natural pain and suffering.
10. The God of special creation, who allegedly performed miracles in organic history, is not plausible given the presence of natural pain and suffering.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....46391.html

Please note that that particular theological claim about what God would and would not do is not based on any empirical evidence of any sort but is just naked claim that is made by atheists about what God would and would not do. In fact, that particular claim is directly contradictory to the Theological claim made in the Bible which states that God created us in His image:

Genesis 1:26-27
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Thus not only are atheists making a evidence free Theological claim based on nothing else than their own personal opinion, but they are also making a Theological claim that happens to run directly contrary to the Theological claim that is made in the Bible.

But be that as it may, who is correct in their claim about God? The atheist or the Christian?

And, of course, the Christian is the one who, once again, is correct and can back up his Theological claim that we are made in the image of God with empirical evidence. And the atheist, once again, has got nothing but bluff and bluster.

Although the supposed genetic and fossil evidence for human evolution is far more illusory and misleading than many people have falsely been led to believe,

Refutation of human-chimp genetic similarity, i.e. alternative splicing, dGRNs- October 2019
The Missing Link is still missing – October 2019
https://uncommondescent.com/human-evolution/but-if-homo-erectus-was-just-an-ordinary-dude/#comment-686077

Although the supposed genetic and fossil evidence for human evolution is far more illusory and misleading than many people have falsely been led to believe, the one place that even leading evolutionists admit that they have no realistic clue how a particular trait in humans could have possible evolved is with human language.

Leading Evolutionary Scientists Admit We Have No Evolutionary Explanation of Human Language – December 19, 2014
Excerpt: Understanding the evolution of language requires evidence regarding origins and processes that led to change. In the last 40 years, there has been an explosion of research on this problem as well as a sense that considerable progress has been made. We argue instead that the richness of ideas is accompanied by a poverty of evidence, with essentially no explanation of how and why our linguistic computations and representations evolved.,,,
(Marc Hauser, Charles Yang, Robert Berwick, Ian Tattersall, Michael J. Ryan, Jeffrey Watumull, Noam Chomsky and Richard C. Lewontin, “The mystery of language evolution,” Frontiers in Psychology, Vol 5:401 (May 7, 2014).)
Casey Luskin added: “It’s difficult to imagine much stronger words from a more prestigious collection of experts.”
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....92141.html

The late best selling author Tom Wolfe was so taken aback by this honest confession from leading Darwinists that he wrote a book on the subject. Here is a general outline of his main argument;

“Speech is 95 percent plus of what lifts man above animal! Physically, man is a sad case. His teeth, including his incisors, which he calls eyeteeth, are baby-size and can barely penetrate the skin of a too-green apple. His claws can’t do anything but scratch him where he itches. His stringy-ligament body makes him a weakling compared to all the animals his size. Animals his size? In hand-to-paw, hand-to-claw, or hand-to-incisor combat, any animal his size would have him for lunch. Yet man owns or controls them all, every animal that exists, thanks to his superpower: speech.”
—Tom Wolfe, in the introduction to his book, The Kingdom of Speech

In other words, although humans are fairly defenseless creatures in the wild compared to other creatures, such as lions, bears, and sharks, etc.., nonetheless, humans have, completely contrary to Darwinian ‘survival of the fittest’ thinking, managed to become masters of the planet, not by brute force, but simply by our unique ability to communicate information and, more specifically, infuse information into material substrates in order to create, i.e. intelligently design, objects that are extremely useful for our defense, shelter, in procuring food, furtherance of our knowledge, etc..

What is more interesting still, besides the fact that humans have a unique ability to understand and create information and have come to ‘master the planet’ through the ‘top-down’ infusion of information into material substrates, is the fact that, due to advances in science, both the universe and life itself are now found to be ‘information theoretic’ in their foundational basis.

In the following video at the 48:24 mark, Anton Zeilinger states that “It is operationally impossible to separate Reality and Information” and he goes on to note, at the 49:45 mark, the Theological significance of “In the Beginning was the Word” John 1:1

48:24 mark: “It is operationally impossible to separate Reality and Information”
49:45 mark: “In the Beginning was the Word” John 1:1
Prof Anton Zeilinger speaks on quantum physics. at UCT – video

Vlatko Vedral, who is a Professor of Physics at the University of Oxford, and who is also a recognized leader in the field of quantum mechanics, states, ““The most fundamental definition of reality is not matter or energy, but information–and it is the processing of information that lies at the root of all physical, biological, economic, and social phenomena.”

“The most fundamental definition of reality is not matter or energy, but information–and it is the processing of information that lies at the root of all physical, biological, economic, and social phenomena.”
Vlatko Vedral – Professor of Physics at the University of Oxford, and CQT (Centre for Quantum Technologies) at the National University of Singapore, and a Fellow of Wolfson College – a recognized leader in the field of quantum mechanics.

It is hard to imagine a more convincing scientific proof that we are made ‘in the image of God’ than finding both the universe, and life itself, are both ‘information theoretic’ in their foundational basis, and that we, of all the creatures on earth, uniquely possess an ability to understand and create information, and, moreover, have come to ‘master the planet’ precisely because of our unique ability infuse information into material substrates.

Perhaps a more convincing evidence that we are made in the image of God could be if God Himself became a man, defeated death on a cross, and then rose from the dead to prove that He was indeed God. And that is exactly the proof claimed within Christianity:

Shroud of Turin: From discovery of Photographic Negative, to 3D Information, to Quantum Hologram – video

Astonishing discovery at Christ’s tomb supports Turin Shroud – NOV 26TH 2016
Excerpt: The first attempts made to reproduce the face on the Shroud by radiation, used a CO2 laser which produced an image on a linen fabric that is similar at a macroscopic level. However, microscopic analysis showed a coloring that is too deep and many charred linen threads, features that are incompatible with the Shroud image. Instead, the results of ENEA “show that a short and intense burst of VUV directional radiation can color a linen cloth so as to reproduce many of the peculiar characteristics of the body image on the Shroud of Turin, including shades of color, the surface color of the fibrils of the outer linen fabric, and the absence of fluorescence”.
‘However, Enea scientists warn, “it should be noted that the total power of VUV radiations required to instantly color the surface of linen that corresponds to a human of average height, body surface area equal to = 2000 MW/cm2 17000 cm2 = 34 thousand billion watts makes it impractical today to reproduce the entire Shroud image using a single laser excimer, since this power cannot be produced by any VUV light source built to date (the most powerful available on the market come to several billion watts )”.
Comment
The ENEA study of the Holy Shroud of Turin concluded that it would take 34 Thousand Billion Watts of VUV radiations to make the image on the shroud. This output of electromagnetic energy remains beyond human technology.
https://www.ewtn.co.uk/news/latest/astonishing-discovery-at-christ-s-tomb-supports-turin-shroud

Verses :

Genesis 1:26
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

John 1:1-4
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made. In Him was life, and that life was the Light of men.

Colossians 1:15-20
The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

26. 26

.

Widening the inference to “intelligent being” is an obvious creationist tactic”

Is it?

Perhaps you’ve head of the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence. It is a well-known project that searches for unknown intelligence by using an operational definition (of “intelligence”) to produce valid results. Lori Marino PhD (SETI/NASA Virtual Resource Center for Interdisciplinary Inquiry into Intelligent Life) explains SETI’s approach to the concept of intelligence:

”There is no consensus on a strict definition of intelligence, and there likely never will be because intelligence is what is known as a fuzzy concept; it lacks well-defined boundaries and contains multiple components.? However, the study of intelligence lies firmly in the domain of empirical science because its features can be operationally defined and its correlates can be quantified and measured.

In the SETI project, intelligence is operationally defined by a specific physical capacity. That physical capacity is “the capacity to transmit a narrow-band radio signal detectable from earth”. This definition is derived from our universal experience that narrow-band radio signals are not produced by natural causes, but are the unambiguous product of intelligence. A clear distinction is therefore made between those things that can be explained by natural unguided causes and those things that are a measurable consequence of intelligent action. SETI explains:

”Narrow-band signals – perhaps only a few Hertz wide or less – are the mark of a purposely built transmitter. Natural cosmic noisemakers, such as pulsars, quasars, and the turbulent, thin interstellar gas of our own Milky Way, do not make radio signals that are this narrow.”

This methodology is explicitly endorsed by NASA, the National Academy of Sciences, the National Science Foundation, the British Royal Society, and university science departments around the world (you know, all those creationist strongholds). And like SETI, design advocates already have a completely measurable correlate of intelligence to derive an operational definition – that is, the multi-referent symbol system found in language, and also found in protein synthesis– which was not only predicted to exist prior to its discovery, but has been subsequently measured and recorded in the scientific literature (starting about 50 years ago).

The bottom line here Skippy, is that you and Bob are utterly and completely wrong.

27. 27
ET says:

Bob O’H:

Your logic suffers from one slight problem – if the only thing that gives rise to P is human intervention, then human intervention must have given rise to P.

Unless, of course, human intervention was impossible. In which case we pass it off to some unknown intelligent agency. And it would still remain that to falsify such an inference all one has to do is step up, present a viable, scientific alternative and the design inference would be in deep in trouble, if not outright falsified.

28. 28
jawa says:

Eugene S (YS),

Thought-provoking OP on such a difficult topic! Thank you.
Also thanks to KF for posting it here.

29. 29
PavelU says:

Here you have recent papers showing why Darwinian evolution is true:

https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006673

IDers sat confidently on the wall but had a great fall… sorry for spoiling your optimism.

30. 30
PavelU says:

Here’s another paper clearly supporting Darwinian evolution:

There’s abundant literature confirming Darwinian macro-evolution.

Just leave your echo chamber and look out there. You’ll see the Darwinian macro-evolution is very extensively documented.

31. 31
PeterA says:

Glad to see such an insightful OP by Dr EugeneS, courtesy of KF.
Also enjoying the discussion. Well done, Dr YS!
Thanks!

32. 32
bornagain77 says:

PavelU, what a joke. Do you even read your citations before you post them? Do you even know that sequence comparisons blew up in Darwinian faces years ago?

Logged Out – Scientists Can’t Find Darwin’s “Tree of Life” Anywhere in Nature by Casey Luskin – Winter 2013
Excerpt: the (fossil) record shows that major groups of animals appeared abruptly, without direct evolutionary precursors.
Because biogeography and fossils have failed to bolster common descent, many evolutionary scientists have turned to molecules—the nucleotide and amino acid sequences of genes and proteins—to establish a phylogenetic tree of life showing the evolutionary relationships between all living organisms.,,,
Many papers have noted the prevalence of contradictory molecule-based phylogenetic trees. For instance:
• A 1998 paper in Genome Research observed that “different proteins generate different phylogenetic tree[s].”6
• A 2009 paper in Trends in Ecology and Evolution acknowledged that “evolutionary trees from different genes often have conflicting branching patterns.”7
• A 2013 paper in Trends in Genetics reported that “the more we learn about genomes the less tree-like we find their evolutionary history to be.”8
Perhaps the most candid discussion of the problem came in a 2009 review article in New Scientist titled “Why Darwin Was Wrong about the Tree of Life.”9 The author quoted researcher Eric Bapteste explaining that “the holy grail was to build a tree of life,” but “today that project lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence.” According to the article, “many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded.”,,,
Syvanen succinctly summarized the problem: “We’ve just annihilated the tree of life. It’s not a tree any more, it’s a different topology entirely. What would Darwin have made of that?” ,,,
“battles between molecules and morphology are being fought across the entire tree of life,” leaving readers with a stark assessment: “Evolutionary trees constructed by studying biological molecules often don’t resemble those drawn up from morphology.”10,,,
A 2012 paper noted that “phylogenetic conflict is common, and [is] frequently the norm rather than the exception,” since “incongruence between phylogenies derived from morphological versus molecular analyses, and between trees based on different subsets of molecular sequences has become pervasive as datasets have expanded rapidly in both characters and species.”12,,,
http://www.salvomag.com/new/ar.....ed-out.php

New Paper by Winston Ewert Demonstrates Superiority of Design Model – Cornelius Hunter – July 20, 2018
Excerpt: Ewert’s three types of data are: (i) sample computer software, (ii) simulated species data generated from evolutionary/common descent computer algorithms, and (iii) actual, real species data.
Ewert’s three models are: (i) a null model which entails no relationships between any species, (ii) an evolutionary/common descent model, and (iii) a dependency graph model.
Ewert’s results are a Copernican Revolution moment. First, for the sample computer software data, not surprisingly the null model performed poorly. Computer software is highly organized, and there are relationships between different computer programs, and how they draw from foundational software libraries. But comparing the common descent and dependency graph models, the latter performs far better at modeling the software “species.” In other words, the design and development of computer software is far better described and modeled by a dependency graph than by a common descent tree.
Second, for the simulated species data generated with a common descent algorithm, it is not surprising that the common descent model was far superior to the dependency graph. That would be true by definition, and serves to validate Ewert’s approach. Common descent is the best model for the data generated by a common descent process.
Third, for the actual, real species data, the dependency graph model is astronomically superior compared to the common descent model.
Where It Counts
Let me repeat that in case the point did not sink in. Where it counted, common descent failed compared to the dependency graph model. The other data types served as useful checks, but for the data that mattered — the actual, real, biological species data — the results were unambiguous.
Ewert amassed a total of nine massive genetic databases. In every single one, without exception, the dependency graph model surpassed common descent.
Darwin could never have even dreamt of a test on such a massive scale. Darwin also could never have dreamt of the sheer magnitude of the failure of his theory. Because you see, Ewert’s results do not reveal two competitive models with one model edging out the other.
We are not talking about a few decimal points difference. For one of the data sets (HomoloGene), the dependency graph model was superior to common descent by a factor of 10,064. The comparison of the two models yielded a preference for the dependency graph model of greater than ten thousand.
Ten thousand is a big number. But it gets worse, much worse.
Ewert used Bayesian model selection which compares the probability of the data set given the hypothetical models. In other words, given the model (dependency graph or common descent), what is the probability of this particular data set? Bayesian model selection compares the two models by dividing these two conditional probabilities. The so-called Bayes factor is the quotient yielded by this division.
The problem is that the common descent model is so incredibly inferior to the dependency graph model that the Bayes factor cannot be typed out. In other words, the probability of the data set, given the dependency graph model, is so much greater than the probability of the data set given the common descent model, that we cannot type the quotient of their division.
Instead, Ewert reports the logarithm of the number. Remember logarithms? Remember how 2 really means 100, 3 means 1,000, and so forth?
Unbelievably, the 10,064 value is the logarithm (base value of 2) of the quotient! In other words, the probability of the data on the dependency graph model is so much greater than that given the common descent model, we need logarithms even to type it out. If you tried to type out the plain number, you would have to type a 1 followed by more than 3,000 zeros. That’s the ratio of how probable the data are on these two models!
By using a base value of 2 in the logarithm we express the Bayes factor in bits. So the conditional probability for the dependency graph model has a 10,064 advantage over that of common descent.
10,064 bits is far, far from the range in which one might actually consider the lesser model. See, for example, the Bayes factor Wikipedia page, which explains that a Bayes factor of 3.3 bits provides “substantial” evidence for a model, 5.0 bits provides “strong” evidence, and 6.6 bits provides “decisive” evidence.
This is ridiculous. 6.6 bits is considered to provide “decisive” evidence, and when the dependency graph model case is compared to comment descent case, we get 10,064 bits.
But It Gets Worse
The problem with all of this is that the Bayes factor of 10,064 bits for the HomoloGene data set is the very best case for common descent. For the other eight data sets, the Bayes factors range from 40,967 to 515,450.
In other words, while 6.6 bits would be considered to provide “decisive” evidence for the dependency graph model, the actual, real, biological data provide Bayes factors of 10,064 on up to 515,450.
We have known for a long time that common descent has failed hard. In Ewert’s new paper, we now have detailed, quantitative results demonstrating this. And Ewert provides a new model, with a far superior fit to the data.
https://evolutionnews.org/2018/07/new-paper-by-winston-ewert-demonstrates-superiority-of-design-model/

Response to a Critic: But What About Undirected Graphs? – Andrew Jones – July 24, 2018
Excerpt: The thing is, Ewert specifically chose Metazoan species because “horizontal gene transfer is held to be rare amongst this clade.” Likewise, in Metazoa, hybridization is generally restricted to the lower taxonomic groupings such as species and genera — the twigs and leaves of the tree of life. In a realistic evolutionary model for Metazoa, we can expect to get lots of “reticulation” at lower twigs and branches, but the main trunk and branches ought to have a pretty clear tree-like form. In other words, a realistic undirected graph of Metazoa should look mostly like a regular tree.

33. 33
jawa says:

Can the moderator keep trolls like PavelU off?

34. 34
Ed George says:

BA77

PavelU, what a joke.

The same words have been the first sentence in every published paper that overturned a scientific paradigm. And most OPs published at Intelligent Reasoning.

35. 35
ET says:

PavelU:

Here’s another paper clearly supporting Darwinian evolution:

Unfortunately just saying so doesn’t make it so. Please, make your case that said paper supports Darwinian evolution. I dare you to try.

36. 36
ET says:

Ed George:

The same words have been the first sentence in every published paper that overturned a scientific paradigm.

That PavelU is a joke, really?.

And most OPs published at…

Sure, blame the messenger. Coward

…Intelligent Reasoning

Two words that are never associated with Ed George, his fellow sock-puppets nor his ilk.

37. 37
pw says:

Dr YS,

Interesting topic.
Does this book relate?
Soren Brier
Cybersemiotics: Why Information Is Not Enough (Toronto Studies in Semiotics and Communication)
Description
Product description
A growing field of inquiry, biosemiotics is a theory of cognition and communication that unites the living and the cultural world. What is missing from this theory, however, is the unification of the information and computational realms of the non-living natural and technical world. Cybersemiotics provides such a framework.

By integrating cybernetic information theory into the unique semiotic framework of C.S. Peirce, Søren Brier attempts to find a unified conceptual framework that encompasses the complex area of information, cognition, and communication science. This integration is performed through Niklas Luhmann’s autopoietic systems theory of social communication. The link between cybernetics and semiotics is, further, an ethological and evolutionary theory of embodiment combined with Lakoff and Johnson’s ‘philosophy in the flesh.’ This demands the development of a transdisciplinary philosophy of knowledge as much common sense as it is cultured in the humanities and the sciences. Such an epistemological and ontological framework is also developed in this volume.

Cybersemiotics not only builds a bridge between science and culture, it provides a framework that encompasses them both. The cybersemiotic framework offers a platform for a new level of global dialogue between knowledge systems, including a view of science that does not compete with religion but offers the possibility for mutual and fruitful exchange.

Søren Brier is a professor in the Department of International Culture and Communication Studies at the Centre for Language, Cognition, and Mentality, Copenhagen Business School.

38. 38
Pater Kimbridge says:

Asauber said “You are misstating the scenario. If something reminds you of things an intelligence would create, then the only reasonable inference is that an intelligence created it.”

What “intelligences” besides humans do you have direct experience of?

39. 39
Pater Kimbridge says:

EugeneS said ” I can accept I have one point of reference and I draw a line through that point.

How many points does it take to define a line?

I think I see your problem.

40. 40
ET says:

Pater:

What “intelligences” besides humans do you have direct experience of?

We have knowledge of cause-and-effect relationships. That is all we need to make a scientific inference when it comes to the unknown cause of an event

41. 41
kairosfocus says:

F/N: It seems some basic logic of being is in order as the pretence that we must confine inferences regarding intelligence to embodied human efforts is again being pushed as a rhetorical gambit.

FYI, we are manifestly contingent creatures; that is why it is a staple of Sci Fi, of mythology, of literature etc that we do not exhaust the possibilities for even verbalising embodied intelligence. Thus too, the millions spent and being spent on the search for extra-terrestrial intelligence [SETI] etc. Similarly, beavers and other creatures show that we do not exhaust intelligent capabilities.

So, immediately, the argument is exposed as fundamentally unserious and lacking in basic respect for seriousness in discussion. It fails at outset.

Next, we must observe that there is no good reason to conflate computation on a substrate with responsible, rational freedom to intelligently infer, argue, warrant, believe on such, know, analyse, decide soundly etc. This gives us reason to hold that what we need for our reasoning to be credible transcends embodiment. A conclusion which is hardly new. Here, J B S Haldane, a pioneer of neo-darwinist theory:

“It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. In order to escape from this necessity of sawing away the branch on which I am sitting, so to speak, I am compelled to believe that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter.” [“When I am dead,” in Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209.]

More recently, Reppert:

. . . let us suppose that brain state A [–> notice, state of a wetware, electrochemically operated computational substrate], which is token identical to the thought that all men are mortal, and brain state B, which is token identical to the thought that Socrates is a man, together cause the belief [–> concious, perceptual state or disposition] that Socrates is mortal. It isn’t enough for rational inference that these events be those beliefs, it is also necessary that the causal transaction be in virtue of the content of those thoughts . . . [But] if naturalism is true, then the propositional content is irrelevant to the causal transaction that produces the conclusion, and [so] we do not have a case of rational inference. In rational inference, as Lewis puts it, one thought causes another thought not by being, but by being seen to be, the ground for it. But causal transactions in the brain occur in virtue of the brain’s being in a particular type of state that is relevant to physical causal transactions

So, already, the objection collapses. But in a context where we routinely see clinging to the absurdity of dismissing inescapable first principles and duties of reasoning despite such objections inevitably depending on what they object to, we should not be surprised or astonished by such a resort. Saddened yes, astonished or caught by surprise, no.

However, we are not finished.

In observing our cells and those of other living creatures, we find D/RNA and associated molecular nanotech execution machinery. This in an observed cosmos where the physics is evidently set up at a deeply isolated operating point that sustains the possibility of C-chem, aqueous medium, cell based life etc. Where, D/RNA is code — a point emphasised at the outset by Crick in his letter to his son Michael of March 1953. That is, we see here a 4-state code based machine language [with about 2 dozen dialects] and molecular nanotech execution machinery using the properties of C, connecting biochemistry with cosmology and theory of computation as well as linguistics. For computer code is a linguistic phenomenon.

And, language is a signature of verbalising intelligence.

Intelligent design, antecedent to the origin of cell based life.

Intelligent design, antecedent to the origin of the observed cosmos with its embedded world of life.

Further to this, intelligent, rational freedom required for our intelligence is inescapably morally governed under the force of known, inescapable first principles and duties of right reason. Which points to the need for an inherently good, utterly wise reality root that we separately know must be a necessary being. Thus, eternal.

For, non-being [the genuine nothing] has no causal powers. Thus were utter non-being ever the case, such would forever obtain. Thus, as a world is, something of independent character always was. Where too, as traversal of a transfinite successive chain of finite temporal-causal chain is an impossible supertask on the logic of structure and quantity, the reality root is finitely remote. There was a beginning to our physical world and to whatever quasi-physical state was antecedent to it. Which also obtains if there are multiple instantiated worlds.

So, we have no good reason to rhetorically confine inference to intelligence to embodied and/or human creatures. Arguments like that are at best ill informed. Worse, too often they reflect refusal to seriously engage other material lines of reasoning such as has yet again been outlined.

But then, we deal with objectors who in too many cases are dismissive towards inescapable, self-evident first principles and duties of right reason.

To such, we must say, rhetoric does not prevail against reason and its evidential base.

KF

42. 42
pw says:

KF,
Excellent clarification.

43. 43
Bob O'H says:

Eugene @ 20 – as has already been pointed out, you’re moving your goalposts from

We have observations whereby P arises by human intervention resulting in a special sort of human artifacts.

to

We observe phenomenon P.

You apparently want me to accept that if P is correlated with human intelligence and human intelligence is correlated with a body with two legs, then P can only arise via two-legged agents (which is item 21 in my list).

If you’re going to suggest non-human intelligence can do P, then you’re going to have to provide some scientific evidence for the existence of non-human intelligence that can do P.

And no sniggering at the back.

44. 44
EugeneS says:

PavelU:

What does Darwinian evolution being true or falsified have to do with this OP?

I did not make any claims regaring it here. Even though it is off-topic, I can say that, yes, it is true. So what?! Can it explain statistically significant levels of functional complexity in the bioshpere? Certainly not. Can it explain the existence of the semiotic triple right in the center of all biological functionality – in the replication system? Certainly not. The semiotic core is a prerequisite for Darwinian evolution, not the other way around. Can Darwinian evolution explain anything? Yes, it explains slight variations of existing functionality in a population. Anything larger – certainly not. The problem of Darwinian evolution is of statistical nature. Darwinian evolution is hopeless in view of huge statistical barrier a system evolving new complex biofunction needs to get over. It includes a series of fixations of a set of necessary mutations that need to happen in a population. The joint probability is so small that it becomes an operational implausibility. Another problem is the genetic drift. There was a very nice OP here called “Gambler’s Ruin is Darwin’s Ruin”, to which I refer for details.

So Darwinian evolution, whatever its actual capabilities, has absolutely nothing to do with the claim of this OP that the Design Hypothesis is scientific.

In the end of the day, do you guys have anything substantial to support your claims? The answer is, no. The flat earth…

BA77

Thank you.

I would not conflate a theological argument with a purely scientific one. Theology is a heavy-weight league, which I would not even touch. The counter-ID argumentation is trivial and inconsequential from the theological standpoint. There is a whole body of patristic literature on the Hexameron which exhibit the concensus patrum on Creation in Six Days. What I am doing here is a very small task, which pales in comparison with the theological argument. But you are right, it is all bluff on their part: – Where did gravity come from? – M-theory. And that is one of the best thinkers from their camp… Pathetic.

45. 45
DerekDiMarco says:

How many points does it take to define a line?

I think I see your problem

😀

46. 46
EugeneS says:

Pw #37

Thank you very much for the reference!

47. 47
EugeneS says:

Pater K. #38

Kindly see no. 21 on the list in the OP. Is it really difficult to see/read? I don’t know why you think it is a problem.

Like I said in a comment to Nonlin above, animal intelligence is intelligence under the definition accepted in the OP. Do you have a problem accepting the operational definition I discussed above? Please state your reasons. There’s AI also, which is, to a considerable extent, independent of humans. I doubt it will ever reach a singularity point, but it is another question altogether.

You have problems accepting the definition of intelligence I proposed and discussed, fine by me. Do you have an alternative?

Even so, for whatever reason you do not think the definition I am using is unacceptable, I have, at least, one point: multiple examples of human intelligence which can be analysed and used in predictions. You guys do not have even that. You have no case at all.

If you do not agree, kindly provide empirical evidence of statistically significant levels of functional complexity arising by an unguided (‘natural’) process.

48. 48
EugeneS says:

Bob OH:

provide examples of non-human intelligence that can do P.

Why do you think so? Can’t I sample human intelligence from different cultures and epochs and draw conclusions based upon that?

What is it that makes you think that human intelligence is not enough to make hypothetical generalizations? What would the real impact of science be if we could not generalize observations onto something not yet seen? Is it not what we do in science all the time?

49. 49
asauber says:

“What “intelligences” besides humans do you have direct experience of?”

Wait a minute, Pater. You are jumping to assumptions. Do I have to have direct experience of something for it to exist?

If so, there’s a giant universe full of stuff out there to be explored that doesn’t exist.

Andrew

50. 50
EugeneS says:

Asauber #49

That is exactly my point ) What would the purpose of science be if all it could do was describe only what we observed?! The real purpose in science is in making non-trivial predictions about something we haven’t yet observed. A wonderful scientific prediction is gravitational waves: predicted by A. Einstein in 1916, first observed in 2016.

Our interlocutors want to make sure we don’t ‘smuggle in a theological agenda’. Trouble is, they overdo it to the extent that they cut the branch on which they are sitting.

51. 51
Bob O'H says:

Eugene – if you want to argue that humans designed life, then looking at humans is fine. But if you want to argue that a non-human intelligence did it, then you need to provide some evidence for this non-human intelligence.

You’re right, in science we do generalise, but we generalise from what we know. If we have to add an ad hoc inventions then we have to be able to test the predictions made when this invention is added to our model for the universe.

52. 52
ET says:

Bob O’H:

But if you want to argue that a non-human intelligence did it, then you need to provide some evidence for this non-human intelligence.

LoL! The DESIGN is such evidence, Bob. But I digress. Why don’t YOU actually ante up and tell us how we can determine if blind and mindless processes did it? Why are you too cowardly to actually make a claim that can be scrutinized?

If we have to add an ad hoc inventions then we have to be able to test the predictions made when this invention is added to our model for the universe.

Your side doesn’t have any models nor testable predictions, Bob. You have nothing but to attack ID with your ignorance. And that hasn’t worked for you.

53. 53
EugeneS says:

Bob

Absolutely! ID predictions are based entirely on what we know. What makes you suggest that the generalization on the entire technological base of humanity is an ad-hoc one?!

If you can provide some examples of a false positive for ID, I will seriously question the ID methodology.

Do you have a model whereby a semiotic triple arises by unguided processes?

54. 54
Bob O'H says:

Eguene @ 50 – yes, we can make predictions of things we haven’t seen (despite News regularly decrying such activities), but to do that we have to make stability assumptions, i.e. that the conditions are sufficiently similar. If you’re saying that humans do stuff, so some form of intelligence might have as well, then the key stability assumption is the presence of such intelligences. These are clearly not human, so that stability assumption breaks down. Which means you have to introduce a new intelligence, without any evidence (either empirical or theoretical) for it. Gravity waves were postulated because there was theoretical evidence that pointed directly to them. ID simply doesn’t have that: at best your evidence points away from something else.

55. 55
ET says:

Bob:

Which means you have to introduce a new intelligence, without any evidence (either empirical or theoretical) for it.

Except for the fact that we have the evidence. Bob’s willful ignorance is not an argument.

Strange that IDists have presented the evidence that Bob sez we don’t have.

56. 56
DerekDiMarco says:

Based on Newton’s laws and observations that didn’t match, Neptune is a distribution of mass that was was predicted before it was observed.

Based on Newton’s laws and observations that don’t currently match, Dark Matter is a distribution of mass that has been predicted, but not yet observed.

We solve the easier problems sooner, for obvious reasons.

57. 57
EugeneS says:

Bob 54
And yet, this is the best one can do given the evidence in all its entirety. Do you have any at least potential alternative? Is it the RNA world, DNA world, metabolic networks, anything else?! Is there any evidence for natural phenomena that could create semantically closed persistent systems, that could organize a functional whole with symbolic constraints, encode their own descriptions into memory as instructions for later reconstruction, including the reconstruction of the interpreter of these instructions? Perhaps there is evidence for some steps towards this functional self-contained self-reproducing persistent whole?

If evidence is for another intelligence, what is the problem really? We know (a) it must have been intelligence and (b) it predates humans. We can potentially derive some knowledge about how, in what order, when, and even for what (engineering) purpose certain things might have been implemented. We can even draw some hypothetical consclusions as to some properties of the Designer.

I can’t see what the problem is. There are things in nature that can’t just be put together happenstantially without foresight.

58. 58
ET says:

The criteria for inferring design in biology is, as Michael J. Behe, Professor of Biochemistry at Lehigh University, puts it in his book Darwin ‘ s Black Box:

“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.”

59. 59
Bob O'H says:

Derek @ 56 –

Based on Newton’s laws and observations that didn’t match, Neptune is a distribution of mass that was was predicted before it was observed.

Right, but it was observed, because the theory made specific predictions about where it should be. So the astonomers looked for it, and found evidence for it.

Based on Newton’s laws and observations that don’t currently match, Dark Matter is a distribution of mass that has been predicted, but not yet observed.

Again, dark matter has been postulated because a theory made specific predictions. And although it hasn’t been observed, physicists are looking for it.

60. 60
ET says:

And ID makes the specific prediction posted in comment 58. And that is more than blind watchmaker evolution makes.

61. 61
Bob O'H says:

EugeneS @ 57 –

Do you have any at least potential alternative?

Somehow I think you know the answer to that.

We can potentially derive some knowledge about how, in what order, when, and even for what (engineering) purpose certain things might have been implemented [by an intelligence]. We can even draw some hypothetical consclusions as to some properties of the Designer.

Indeed. And even though it seems obvious that this should be the next step, I’m repeatedly told that ID isn’t about this.

62. 62
ET says:

No, Bob O’H doesn’t have an alternative. And just because ID is NOT about the who, how and when doesn’t mean those are off limits.

Bob clearly cannot think and reason.

63. 63
asauber says:

“Again, dark matter has been postulated because a theory made specific predictions. And although it hasn’t been observed, physicists are looking for it.”

Well, according to Pater (you know, the undesigned noisy bag of meat), dark matter could never exist because there is/has been no direct experience of it.

Andrew

64. 64
EugeneS says:

Bob #61

Thank you very much for an honest answer, seriously.

Well, next is next. The bottom line is, we have something, you guys don’t, unfortunately. The surprising thing is, postulating design, just like postulating dark matter — ok, ‘they are looking for it’ (c) but why ID’ers aren’t allowed to make the same claim, no one knows — leads to an interesting and non-trivial research agenda with testable secondary hypotheses as M. Sherman demonstrates. I wonder why this is.

In fact, the design assumption is tacitly present in the entire enterprise of science, the usual public denials notwithstanding. Otherwise, science simply does not work. I can only do something meaningful if I actually assume that the world outside “me” can be reasoned about in a meaningful way. Why is this so? One of the answers is, because it was designed in a wise and meaningful manner. Because it is designed, I can reverse engineer it, understand how it works and reuse the logic. All of this is because ‘design’ is written all over it.

65. 65
john_a_designer says:

Notice that none of our interlocutors are really making any kind of valid argument. Rather they are simply dismissing the logical possibility that life could be designed a priori. If they don’t agree that it is possible that life could be designed they need to logically refute that claim. In other words, they need to prove that it’s logically impossible for life to be designed.

Notice all the following quotes are from men who believe that evolution is a mindless and purposeless process. (HT: BA77)

“This appearance of purposefulness is pervasive in nature…. Accounting for this apparent purposefulness is a basic problem for any system of philosophy or of science.”
George Gaylord Simpson – “The Problem of Plan and Purpose in Nature” – 1947

“living organisms “appear to have been carefully and artfully designed”
Richard C. Lewontin – Adaptation,” Scientific American, and Scientific American book ‘Evolution’ (September 1978)

“Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.”
Francis Crick – What Mad Pursuit – p. 138 (1990)

“Organisms appear as if they had been designed to perform in an astonishingly efficient way, and the human mind therefore finds it hard to accept that there need be no Designer to achieve this”
Francis Crick – What Mad Pursuit – p. 30

“Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”
Richard Dawkins – The Blind Watchmaker (1996) p.1

If something appears to be designed isn’t it logically possible it really could be designed?

The main argument for the design then can be stated very simply:

1.If it appears to be designed, it really could be designed.

2. Even the simplest self-replicating life forms, like Mycoplasma genitalium, appears to be designed.

3. Therefore, it really could be designed.

In other words, if it’s logically possible that something could be designed then it’s not illegitimate to consider the possibility that it really might be designed. Indeed, it would be intellectually dishonest not to do so.

66. 66
hazel says:

Sure it’s logically possible that life was designed. Is that a controversial statement? I haven’t been reading this thread, but where above did someone say this is a logical impossibility?

67. 67
ET says:

It is not logically possible that life arose via blind and mindless processes, ie a process that was not trying to do so.

68. 68
asauber says:

“Sure it’s logically possible that life was designed. Is that a controversial statement?”

Hazel,

So how does the typical Evolutionist logically get from “Sure it’s logically possible that life was designed” to———->”Widening the inference to “intelligent being” is an obvious creationist tactic to include their god in the basket.”

That’s sure sounds like “logically possible” got turned into “creationist tactic”.

Andrew

69. 69
EugeneS says:

John_a_designer 65

A very good comment.

70. 70
hazel says:

re 68: I don’t think I know what you are talking about???

71. 71
asauber says:

Hazel,

It’s simple. Upthread Evolutionist Pater says “Widening the inference to “intelligent being” is an obvious creationist tactic to include their god in the basket.”

Evolutionist Hazel says: “Sure it’s logically possible that life was designed.”

So is ID a logical possibility (Hazel) or a ploy (Pater)?

Andrew

72. 72
hazel says:

I can’t speak for Pater, and am not involved in whatever discussion is taking place.

I’m merely responding to logical possibility, which covers a very wide area. Of course it is logically possible that life was designed. That statement itself says virtually nothing. The Hindu myth that the universe is completely destroyed and then recreated slightly differently a billion times a second in a way that appears to show cause-and-effect ii logically possible. As I said in the Einstein thread, it is logically possible that life was design by a divine being who does not care at all about the affairs of humankind. Many things are logically possible.

JAD said that some person or people here were “simply dismissing the logical possibility that life could be designed a priori”, and I said I didn’t think that was reasonable.

73. 73
Bob O'H says:

The bottom line is, we have something, you guys don’t, unfortunately.

A nicer collection of gaping holes? 🙂

The surprising thing is, postulating design, just like postulating dark matter — ok, ‘they are looking for it’ (c) but why ID’ers aren’t allowed to make the same claim, no one knows

Oh, we all know – because IDers aren’t looking for it. There is an amazing amount of resistance to even asking about positive evidence for design.

74. 74
bornagain77 says:

Bob O’Hara tries to be cute

A nicer collection of gaping holes?

We are not arguing from ignorance but from what we know

“A God of the gaps argument is an argument that has a formal logical structure that in logic is known as a ‘argument from ignorance’. It is an informal fallacy. Arguments from ignorance have the following form.,,,
1. Cause A is not sufficient to produce effect X
2. Therefore cause B must have produced effect X
,,, but if I have no independent evidence that cause B can produce effect X, then I have committed a fallacy of arguing from ignorance. Because, just because cause A is not sufficient to produce effect X doesn’t mean that some other cause did it. You have to have independent evidence that that other cause is capable of doing it (i.e. producing the effect in question). That then becomes a God of the gaps argument when you say various natural processes are not sufficient to produce, say, the origin of the first life or the origin of the first animals in the history of life. If I were then to say, “Therefore God did it”, that would be a God of the gaps argument. It would be an argument from ignorance.
But that is not how we are arguing when we make the case for Intelligent Design because we are adding an additional premise. We are saying that.,,,
1. Various natural processes are not sufficient to produce new functional information, (specifically the digital code that is stored in the DNA molecule).
2. We do know of a cause that does produce (functional digital) information. (We have independent evidence that intelligent agency, that mind,,, can create (functional digital) information.),,,
,,, so we are not arguing from our ignorance. We are arguing from our knowledge of cause and effect in the world. (Specifically we are arguing from what we know minds can do, i.e. produce information.)
– Stephen Meyer Debunks the “God of the Gaps” Objection – video

And although Theists and/or Intelligent Design Advocates are often accused by atheists of making ‘God of the Gaps’ style arguments, the fact of the matter is that, as science has progressed, it is the Darwinian Atheist himself who has had to retreat further and further into ‘Materialism/Naturalism of Gaps’ style arguments. i.e. into “Science will figure a materialistic answer out to that mystery someday” style argument.

To clearly illustrate the ‘materialism of the gaps’ style argument that the materialistic/atheistic philosophy makes, the materialistic and Theistic philosophy make, and have made, several contradictory predictions about what type of scientific evidence we will find.
These contradictory predictions, and the evidence we have now found by modern science, can be tested against one another to see if either Atheistic materialism or Theism has made true predictions and/or to see which of those overarching philosophies has had to retreat further and further into ‘gap style arguments’:

1. Naturalism/Materialism predicted space-time energy-matter always existed. Theism predicted space-time energy-matter were created. Big Bang cosmology now strongly indicates that time-space energy-matter had a sudden creation event approximately 14 billion years ago.

2. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that the universe is a self sustaining system that is not dependent on anything else for its continued existence. Theism predicted that God upholds this universe in its continued existence. Breakthroughs in quantum mechanics reveal that this universe is dependent on a ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, cause for its continued existence.

3. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that consciousness is an ‘emergent property’ of material reality and thus should have no particularly special position within material reality. Theism predicts consciousness precedes material reality and therefore, on that presupposition, consciousness should have a ‘special’ position within material reality. Quantum Mechanics reveals that consciousness has a special, even a central, position within material reality. –

4. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the rate at which time passed was constant everywhere in the universe. Theism predicted God is eternal and is outside of time. – Special Relativity has shown that time, as we understand it, is relative and comes to a complete stop at the speed of light. (Psalm 90:4 – 2 Timothy 1:9) –

5. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the universe did not have life in mind and that life was ultimately an accident of time and chance. Theism predicted this universe was purposely created by God with man in mind. Scientists find the universe is exquisitely fine-tuned for carbon-based life to exist in this universe. Moreover it is found, when scrutinizing the details of physics and chemistry, that not only is the universe fine-tuned for carbon based life, but is specifically fine-tuned for life like human life (R. Collins, M. Denton).-

6. Naturalism/Materialism predicted complex life in this universe should be fairly common. Theism predicted the earth is extremely unique in this universe. Statistical analysis of the hundreds of required parameters which enable complex organic life to be possible on earth gives strong indication the earth is extremely unique in this universe (G. Gonzalez; Hugh Ross). –

7. Naturalism/Materialism predicted it took a very long time for life to develop on earth. Theism predicted life to appear abruptly on earth after water appeared on earth (Genesis 1:10-11). Geochemical evidence from the oldest sedimentary rocks ever found on earth indicates that complex photosynthetic life has existed on earth as long as water has been on the face of earth. –

8. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the first life to be relatively simple. Theism predicted that God is the source for all life on earth. The simplest life ever found on Earth is far more complex than any machine man has made through concerted effort. (Michael Denton PhD) –

9. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the gradual unfolding of life would (someday) be self-evident in the fossil record. Theism predicted complex and diverse animal life to appear abruptly in the seas in God’s fifth day of creation. The Cambrian Explosion shows a sudden appearance of many different and completely unique fossils within a very short “geologic resolution time” in the Cambrian seas. –

10. Naturalism/Materialism predicted there should be numerous transitional fossils found in the fossil record, Theism predicted sudden appearance and rapid diversity within different kinds found in the fossil record. Fossils are consistently characterized by sudden appearance of a group/kind in the fossil record(disparity), then rapid diversity within that group/kind, and then long term stability and even deterioration of variety within the overall group/kind, and within the specific species of the kind, over long periods of time. Of the few dozen or so fossils claimed as transitional, not one is uncontested as a true example of transition between major animal forms out of millions of collected fossils. –

11. Naturalism/Materialism predicted animal speciation should happen on a somewhat constant basis on earth. Theism predicted man was the last species created on earth – Man (our genus ‘modern homo’ as distinct from the highly controversial ‘early homo’) is the last generally accepted major fossil form to have suddenly appeared in the fossil record. (Tattersall; Luskin)–

12. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that the separation of human intelligence from animal intelligence ‘is one of degree and not of kind’ (C. Darwin). Theism predicted that we are made in the ‘image of God’- Despite an ‘explosion of research’ in this area over the last four decades, human beings alone are found to ‘mentally dissect the world into a multitude of discrete symbols, and combine and recombine those symbols in their minds to produce hypotheses of alternative possibilities.’ (Tattersall; Schwartz). Moreover, both biological life and the universe itself are found to be ‘information theoretic’ in their foundational basis.

13. Naturalism/Materialism predicted much of the DNA code was junk. Theism predicted we are fearfully and wonderfully made – ENCODE research into the DNA has revealed a “biological jungle deeper, denser, and more difficult to penetrate than anyone imagined.”. –

14. Naturalism/Materialism predicted a extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA which was ultimately responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see on earth. Theism predicted only God created life on earth – The mutation rate to DNA is overwhelmingly detrimental. Detrimental to such a point that it is seriously questioned whether there are any truly beneficial, information building, mutations whatsoever. (M. Behe; JC Sanford) –

15. Naturalism/Materialism predicted morality is subjective and illusory. Theism predicted morality is objective and real. Morality is found to be deeply embedded in the genetic responses of humans. As well, morality is found to be deeply embedded in the structure of the universe. Embedded to the point of eliciting physiological responses in humans before humans become aware of the morally troubling situation and even prior to the event even happening.

16. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that we are merely our material bodies with no transcendent component to our being, and that we die when our material bodies die. Theism predicted that we have minds/souls that are transcendent of our bodies that live past the death of our material bodies. Transcendent, and ‘conserved’, (cannot be created or destroyed), ‘non-local’, (beyond space-time matter-energy), quantum entanglement/information, which is not reducible to matter-energy space-time, is now found in our material bodies on a massive scale (in every DNA and protein molecule).

As you can see when we remove the artificial imposition of the materialistic philosophy (methodological naturalism), from the scientific method, and look carefully at the predictions of both the materialistic philosophy and the Theistic philosophy, side by side, we find, since Atheistic materialism has made wrong predictions over and over again, the scientific method is very good at pointing us in the direction of Theism as the true explanation. – In fact, modern science is even very good at pointing us to Christianity as the solution to the much sought after ‘theory of everything’

One of the most profound implications for us personally is that allowing the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics, as the Christian founders of modern science originally envisioned,,,, (Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, James Clerk Maxwell, and Max Planck, to name a few of the Christian founders),,, and as quantum mechanics itself now empirically demands (with the closing of the free will loophole by Anton Zeilinger and company), by rightly allowing the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics then that provides us with a very plausible resolution for the much sought after ‘theory of everything’ in that Christ’s resurrection from the dead provides an empirically backed reconciliation, via the Shroud of Turin, between quantum mechanics and general relativity into the much sought after ‘Theory of Everything”. Here are a few posts where I lay out and defend some of the evidence for that claim:

Overturning of the Copernican Principle by both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/we-are-invited-to-consider-a-simpler-perspective-on-the-laws-of-physics/#comment-680427

(February 19, 2019) To support Isabel Piczek’s claim that the Shroud of Turin does indeed reveal a true ‘event horizon’, the following study states that ‘The bottom part of the cloth (containing the dorsal image) would have born all the weight of the man’s supine body, yet the dorsal image is not encoded with a greater amount of intensity than the frontal image.’,,,
Moreover, besides gravity being dealt with, the shroud also gives us evidence that Quantum Mechanics was dealt with. In the following paper, it was found that it was not possible to describe the image formation on the Shroud in classical terms but they found it necessary to describe the formation of the image on the Shroud in discrete quantum terms.
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/experiment-quantum-particles-can-violate-the-mathematical-pigeonhole-principle/#comment-673178
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/experiment-quantum-particles-can-violate-the-mathematical-pigeonhole-principle/#comment-673179

Supplemental note from this morning about the catastrophic epistemological failure inherent within methodological naturalism, in case Bob missed it:

Bob O’H states that he is embarrassed that one of his alumni could dare to support ID education.
That is an odd thing for Bob to be embarrassed about given that he himself believes in Darwinian evolution. If Bob’s ’embarrassment meter’ were working properly he should rightly be embarrassed to say that he believes in Darwinian evolution.,,,
,,,, although the Darwinian atheist may firmly believe that he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for methodological naturalism), the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic and/or naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinian materialists are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to.

Again, It would be hard to fathom a worldview that turns out to be more antagonistic towards modern science, indeed more antagonistic towards reality itself, than the presumption of methodological naturalism has turned out to be.
https://uncommondescent.com/education/wealthy-scandinavian-benefactor-gives-us1-6-million-eqv-to-promote-id/#comment-687780

Verse:

1 Thessalonians 5:21
but test everything; hold fast what is good.

75. 75
EricMH says:

I totally agree with Bob O’H on the next step for ID. If ID is truly a science, then it should allow us to make predictions about the world, which we can go out and test. And not high level predictions like “there’s order” or “there has to be a conscious observer”, but fine grain predictions. It is the fine grain predictions that move ID from the philosophy camp to the empirical science camp.

76. 76
77. 77
bill cole says:

Eric

I totally agree with Bob O’H on the next step for ID. If ID is truly a science, then it should allow us to make predictions about the world, which we can go out and test. And not high level predictions like “there’s order” or “there has to be a conscious observer”, but fine grain predictions. It is the fine grain predictions that move ID from the philosophy camp to the empirical science camp.

I think a prediction is that we will see more evidence of mind as mechanistic explanation for observations going forward. I am starting to see evidence of this in some of the Quantium gravity models where atoms are being modeled as computational devices.

78. 78
ET says:

Bob O’H:

There is an amazing amount of resistance to even asking about positive evidence for design.

Only to the willfully ignorant. Everyone else knows that ID has presented the positive evidence for design.

79. 79
ET says:

Eric- ID does make predictions about the world- see comment 58 for a start

80. 80
ET says:

Intelligent Design also predicts that living organisms are not reducible to physio-chemical processes. Meaning there is at least one essential, fundamental and vital component that is neither matter nor energy. I say at least one because it seems that living organisms are also more than matter, energy and guiding/ guided information. And yes, it is what most people call a soul or mind. But to me it is inherent to all living organisms.

Gonzalez and Richards predict that if we find technologically capable extraterrestrials, they would have most, if not all, of the factors required for earth to exist as a habitable planet. Theirs is a prediction based on a universe designed for discovery.

81. 81
Bob O'H says:

Yayyy, Eric @ 75! I’ve been watching ID for about 15 years, and this has always been shouting at me as what ID has to do if it wants to be taken seriously by the scientific community. It seems to be stuck in the “pre-science” phase, without a nice paradigm to use to develop a research programme.

82. 82
ET says:

LoL! @ Bob O’H- You are a hypocrite, Bob. You cannot show there is a blind watchmaker research program. You cannot produce any testable predictions born from blind watchmaker evolution. You have nothing but your bluffing cowardice and willful ignorance.

ID has done what has been shouting at you for 15 years. Again, your willful ignorance is neither an argument nor a refutation. Everything you have asked for in order for ID to be taken as science, has been given. And when compared to mainstream evolutionary thought, ID easily surpasses it.

83. 83
EugeneS says:

Eric #75 and Bob

It is the fine grain predictions that move ID from the philosophy camp to the empirical science camp.

Kindly familiarize yourselves with the referenced paper, as an example: M. Sherman, Universal Genome and the Origin of Metazoa. It is available in full text for free. If this is not science, what is? The real difference that opens the door to a non-trivial scientific agenda with testable hypotheses substantially different from what we have now, is postulating design upfront. There’s scientific work going on in design as much as there is money for it.

84. 84
ET says:

Eugene- Bob O’H is willfully ignorant and won’t accept ID until the Designer comes and explains everything to him. And Eric doesn’t seem to be familiar with what IDists have been writing and saying since the 1980s.

Bob and fellow evos will NEVER ante up and show us how blind watchmaker evolution is science to the exclusion of ID- they will never use blind watchmaker evolution as an example of what science is and ID isn’t.

85. 85
DerekDiMarco says:

Bob O’HNovember 14, 2019 at 2:57 am
Yayyy, Eric @ 75! I’ve been watching ID for about 15 years, and this has always been shouting at me as what ID has to do if it wants to be taken seriously by the scientific community. It seems to be stuck in the “pre-science” phase, without a nice paradigm to use to develop a research programme.

sitting on an obscure blog claiming you’ve Destroyed Darwin! for the 750th time doesn’t accomplish anything scientific. It might make insecure creationists feel better, but that’s about it.

86. 86
Bob O'H says:

EugeneS – I think I read that paper a few years ago. I just checked and Web of Science lists 7 citations of it, of which 6 are from linguistics. Front loading seems to have died a death.

The real difference that opens the door to a non-trivial scientific agenda with testable hypotheses substantially different from what we have now, is postulating design upfront. There’s scientific work going on in design as much as there is money for it.

Of course, there is money at the Biologic Institute. Their scientific output has hardly been spectacular, and they certainly haven’t done a good job of developing a Design Paradigm, which is what Eric and I want to see.

87. 87
ET says:

Bob, you are a hypocrite. You should shut up until you can lead by example, which you never will.

88. 88
ET says:

Derek- any objective person knows that blind watchmaker evolution is totally bogus. No one uses it for anything and it doesn’t drive any research. It has never added anything to our knowledge beyond how not to go about science.

89. 89
john_a_designer says:

Have you noticed how our interlocutors hardly ever answer the basic questions?

For example, some time ago on an earlier thread (8/17/17) I asked the following questions which so far have gone unanswered:

How did the universe originate from absolute nothing?

Why does the universe appear to be fine-tuned for life, including advanced intelligent life?

How did life originate from non-life?

How did chemistry “create”** code?

How did a non-teleological process, like Darwinian evolution, “create” things that are clearly teleological?

How did consciousness and mind originate from mindless matter and a mindless process?

To answer any of these questions naturalistically, as far as I can see, requires the belief in what amounts to be a set of “naturalistic miracles.” How is a naturalistic miracle not an extraordinary claim?

https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/neurosurgeon-michael-egnor-why-need-we-pretend-that-the-universe-has-no-purpose/#comment-637966

In other words, as a skeptic, why would I think a naturalist/materialist has a reasonable or viable world view if he cannot answer these questions? Does science really support such a world view? Or is it more the result of personal bias?

If they can’t answer the questions listed above how are they warranted in ruling out ID as a possibility a priori?

90. 90
Pater Kimbridge says:

@John_a_designer #89
A theistic world view does not answer those questions either, except with fables, handwaving, kicking the can down the road, and pretending to solve the mystery by inventing a bigger mystery.

91. 91
hazel says:

92. 92
ET says:

Pater:

A theistic world view does not answer those questions either, except with fables, handwaving, kicking the can down the road, and pretending to solve the mystery by inventing a bigger mystery.

That is your uneducated opinion, anyway. At least a theistic world view has us on the right path. And it has the evidence and a testable methodology.

93. 93
ET says:

hazel- pater missed the nail and banged his thumb

94. 94
asauber says:

“A theistic world view does not answer those questions either”

Pater,

According to your own blabber, you are just a mindless, noisy bag of meat reacting chemically to environmental stimuli. What do you know of worldviews and questions?

Andrew

95. 95
EugeneS says:

Bob

I think I read that paper a few years ago. I just checked and Web of Science lists 7 citations of it, of which 6 are from linguistics. Front loading seems to have died a death.

What happened later is not the same as whether it was science or not in the first place. If you had read the paper why did you bring this question up as unsettled? The question whether it is science is pretty much answered I believe. It may or may not be fruitful in your estimation, but it is another matter.

Even if you think ID has not delivered on its promises, I think you should know there were scientific hypotheses which turned out to be wrong. I think one should give them credit for what they are, scientific hypotheses. It is a matter of intellectual honesty.

96. 96
EugeneS says:

They keep on saying: “We can’t just now, but we will answer all of those questions in the future!”

It is like saying that a man climbing a tree is getting closer to the Moon. Steady progress…

97. 97
EugeneS says:

It just so happened that I was browsing my old blog pages and in there I found an old comment by our friend GP on exactly what we are discussing here. I’ll just reference it here as relevant and to the point.

98. 98
john_a_designer says:

Can the following be explained by neo-Darwinian theory?

Genetic comparisons between simple multicellular organisms and their single-celled relatives have revealed that much of the molecular equipment needed for cells to band together and coordinate their activities may have been in place well before multicellularity evolved.

This suggests pre-planning, preadaptation or some kind of genetic pre-programming. In other words, a guided, directed, teleological form of evolution. That’s not exactly what Darwin had in mind.

You can’t salvage Darwinian evolution by arbitrarily smuggling in teleology where ever and whenever you need it. “Pre-adaptation” is evidence of intelligent design.

Single cell Choanoflagellates for some reason are protozoa which have signaling proteins that are necessary in higher multicellular animals including human beings.

Choanoflagellates, or at least their ancestors, have long been suspected as being the bridge between microorganisms with only one cell and metazoan, or multi-cellular organisms…

By analyzing the recently-sequenced choanoflagellate genome, the researchers discovered another similarity between choanoflagellates and most metazoans–their genetic code caries the markers of three types of molecules that cells use to achieve phospho-tyrosine signaling proteins.
Animals depend on tyrosine phosphorylation to conduct a number of important communications between their cells, including immune system responses, hormone system stimulation and other crucial functions. These phospho-tyrosine signaling pathways utilize a three-part system of molecular components to make these communications possible.

Tyrosine kinases (TyrK) ‘write’ messages between cells by adding phospho-tyrosine modifications, protein tyrosine phosphatases (PTP) are molecules that modify or ‘erase’ these modifications, and Src Homolgy 2 (SH2) molecules ‘read’ these modifications so the recipient cell gets the message.

Without these three molecules to help our cells ‘write,’ ‘read’ and ‘erase’ chemical messages between them, our bodies would never be able to conduct the complex tasks needed to survive such as reproduction, digesting food or even breathing.

Other genome analysis showed that some microorganisms contain some of these molecules in small levels, but never all three. This makes sense considering these organisms don’t need the tools to communicate between cells since they are made up of only one cell. What makes choanoflagellates unique, however, is that they have all three of these molecules. What’s more, they have relatively large quantities of them in amounts commonly seen in larger metazoan organisms.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080701165050.htm

Frankly this undermines neo-Darwinism. What is the Darwinian explanation for a single celled organism evolving a function that they do not need? From an ID perspective, on the other hand, this looks like a case of pre-planning or pre-adaptation. NS + RV is non-teleological it cannot anticipate or look ahead. Darwinism has to rely on lucky accidents that sometime/somehow happened millions of years in the past. How do you prove that these lucky accidents (and there has to be a long series of them) ever occurred?

PS The findings appear to be similar to those found in the paper Eugene cited earlier, M. Sherman, Universal Genome and the Origin of Metazoa.

99. 99
DerekDiMarco says:

“My logic has no flaw apparently. Not that I can see, at any rate.”

Correct.

100. 100
ET says:

Derek- Please show the flaw in his logic or shut up. You are being a pathetic troll and that isn’t an argument.

101. 101
ET says:

Pater:

If something reminds you of things that humans create, then the only reasonable inference is that humans created it.

Beaver dams remind me of dams human children build in stream. Yet it isn’t a reasonable inference that humans built the beaver dams.

102. 102
EugeneS says:

Dereck

“My logic has no flaw apparently. Not that I can see, at any rate.” Correct.

I was just trying to be polite ) In the actual fact, the more I read evo-mats the more I wonder, how is it possible at all to spend one’s lifetime studying biology and still not be able to notice the most important thing there is about life, i.e. that it is designed?! This is pathetic.

103. 103
Pater Kimbridge says:

@John_a-designer #98

Are you sure you are a designer? When you find the concept of a hierarchy so mysterious that you think it must be planned?

What do you design? Clothes? Billboards?

Hydrogen + gravity forms stars without any guidance.
Stars form heavier elements without any planning.
Atoms form molecules which form organic molecules, even in intersteller space, without any planning.
Any time a subunit forms, it has the potential to combine with other subunits to form a larger unit higher up on a hierarchy.
Sure, life is more complex and take more time to form, but the principle of hierarchies forming in nature is
pretty ubiquitous.

104. 104
Seversky says:

EugeneS@ 102

I was just trying to be polite ) In the actual fact, the more I read evo-mats the more I wonder, how is it possible at all to spend one’s lifetime studying biology and still not be able to notice the most important thing there is about life, i.e. that it is designed?! This is pathetic.

Is there any reason to think that the perception of design in nature is anything other than a form of pareidolia? The only designer of which are aware is ourselves and we have no reason to think we designed ourselves – although it might explain the faulty nature of some aspects of the “design”.

If life on Earth is the outcome of intervention by some extraterrestrial intelligence I would have no problem with that although, to be persuaded, I would like to see some reliable means of distinguishing artifice from natural processes that works with both human and extraterrestrial source material.

If the putative designer is the Christian God then we have to ask, following John Stuart Mill, why an all-powerful, all-knowing God would bother to work within design constraints?

It is not too much to say that every indication of Design in the Kosmos is so much evidence against the Omnipotence of the Designer. For what is meant by Design? Contrivance: the adaptation of means to an end. But the necessity for contrivance—the need of employing means—is a consequence of the limitation of power. Who would have recourse to means if to attain his end his mere word was sufficient? The very idea of means implies that the means have an efficacy which the direct action of the being who employs them has not. Otherwise they are not means, but an incumbrance. A man does not use machinery to move his arms. If he did, it could only be when paralysis had deprived him of the power of moving them by volition. But if the employment of contrivance is in itself a sign of limited power, how much more so is the careful and skilful choice of contrivances? Can any wisdom be shown in the selection of means, when the means have no efficacy but what is given them by the will of him who employs them, and when his will could have bestowed the same efficacy on any other means? Wisdom and contrivance are shown in overcoming difficulties, and there is no room for them in a Being for whom no difficulties exist. The evidences, therefore, of Natural Theology distinctly imply that the author of the Kosmos worked under limitations; that he was obliged to adapt himself to conditions independent of his will, and to attain his ends by such arrangements as those conditions admitted of.

105. 105
DerekDiMarco says:

Pater, there are more things in heaven and Earth than are dreamt of in the creationists’ philosophy.

106. 106
john_a_designer says:

ID’ists do not reject the idea of natural causation a priori. Indeed, much of what we perceive in the natural world can be (indeed should be) explained “naturally.” What we do reject is that natural causes are the only kind of causes that must be used to explain the origin and evolution of life.

For example, in his book Darwin’s Black Box, Michael Behe asks,

“Might there be an as yet undiscovered natural process that would explain biochemical complexity? No one would be foolish enough to categorically deny the possibility. Nonetheless we can say that if there is such a process, no one has a clue how it would work. Further it would go against all human experience, like postulating that a natural process might explain computers… In the face of the massive evidence we do have for biochemical design, ignoring the evidence in the name of a phantom process would be to play the role of detective who ignore the elephant.” (p. 203-204)

Basically Behe is asking, if biochemical complexity (irreducible complexity) evolved by some natural process x, how did it evolve? That is a perfectly legitimate scientific question. Notice that even though in DBB Behe was criticizing Neo-Darwinism he is not ruling out a priori some other mindless natural evolutionary process, “x”, might be able to explain IC.

Behe is simply claiming that at the present there is no known natural process that can explain how irreducibly complex mechanisms and processes originated. If he and other ID’ist are categorically wrong then our critics need to provide the step-by-step-by-step empirical explanation of how they originated, not just speculation and wishful thinking. Unfortunately our regular interlocutors seem to only be able to provide the latter not the former.

Behe made another point which is worth keeping in mind.

“In the abstract, it might be tempting to imagine that irreducible complexity simply requires multiple simultaneous mutations – that evolution might be far chancier than we thought, but still possible. Such an appeal to brute luck can never be refuted… Luck is metaphysical speculation; scientific explanations invoke causes.”

In other words, a strongly held metaphysical belief is not a scientific explanation.

So why does Neo-Darwinism persist? I believe it is because of its a-priori ideological or philosophical fit with naturalistic or materialistic world views. Human being are hard wired to believe in something– anything to explain or make some sense of our existence. Unfortunately we also have a strong tendency to believe in a lot of untrue things.

On the other hand, if IC is the result of design, it has to answer the question of how was the design instantiated. If ID wants to have a place at the table it has to find a way to answer questions like that. Once again, one of the primary things science is about is answering the “how” questions.

Or as another example, ID’ists argue that the so-called Cambrian explosion can be better explained by an infusion of design. Okay that is possible. (Of course, I whole heartedly agree because I am very sympathetic to the concept of ID.) But how was the design infused to cause a sudden diversification of body plans? Did the “designer” tinker with the genomes of simpler life forms or were they specially created as some creationists would argue? (The so-called interventionist view.) Or were the new body plans somehow pre-programmed into their progenitors (so-called front loading.) How do you begin to answer such questions that have happened in the distant past? At least the Neo-Darwinists have the pretense of an explanation– though extra emphasis should be put on the word pretense. Can we get them to abandon their theory by declaring it impossible? Isn’t it at least possible, as Behe acknowledges, that there is some other unknown natural explanation “x.”

On the other hand, is saying something is metaphysically possible a scientific explanation? Obviously not. The goal of science is to find some kind of provisional proof or compelling evidence. Why for example was the Large Hadron Collider built at the cost of billions of dollars (how much was it in euros?) Obviously it was because in science mere possibility is not the end of the line. The ultimate quest of science is truth and knowledge. Of course, we need to concede that science will never be able to explain everything.

107. 107
EugeneS says:

Seversky

By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, and all the stars by the breath of His mouth.

For He spoke, and it came to be; He commanded, and it stood firm.

Psalms 33

I find it really hard to see what Mill meant. I do not see any limitation of divine power in something that God created. What kind of limitation is it for God to be able to create everything out of nothing by His Word?!

Mill’s view, in my opinion, is based on scientism, an extreme belief that everything there is can be (potentially) explained by science. I do not hold that view. In fact, I am ready to go with science, or ID for that matter, only up to a point because, as an Orthodox Christian, I can see a limit to what science can do. It cannot explain the miracle of creation. Scientifically, we can only do so much. E.g. no.5 on the list in the OP is just a generalization, i.e. what it amounts to in terms of the properties of material systems. Exactly how this was done by God, we do not know.

108. 108
EugeneS says:

Pater 103

Hydrogen + gravity forms stars without any guidance.

Firstly, that is possible as a consequence of parameter fine-tuning.

Secondly, guidance is necessary for complex function. Natural regularities (like the tendency towards states with a minimum of total potential energy) do not result in complex functional structures. Complex function is organization based on pragmatic rules instantiated into physicality.

109. 109
ET says:

Pater:

Hydrogen + gravity forms stars without any guidance.

Actually there has to be something else. Hydrogen doesn’t just collapse on itself. And then the heat generated by the collapse would tend to cause, guess what, expansion.

Stars form heavier elements without any planning.

Question-begging. ID would have that as part of the intelligently designed universe that could sustain itself.

Atoms form molecules which form organic molecules, even in intersteller space, without any planning.

Question-begging. See above

Any time a subunit forms, it has the potential to combine with other subunits to form a larger unit higher up on a hierarchy.

That subunits form is evidence for Intelligent Design, Pater. The process of going from nucleotide source code to a polypeptide that folds into a functionally relevant form is evidence for ID, Pater.

Sure, life is more complex and take more time to form, but the principle of hierarchies forming in nature is
pretty ubiquitous.

Again with your question-begging. ID says it- the hierarchy- was intelligently designed. And Spiegelman’s Monster is evidence against spontaneous generation. Nature tends towards the simple. It is OK with rocks and water.

110. 110
ET says:

seversky:

Is there any reason to think that the perception of design in nature is anything other than a form of pareidolia?

Yes. That “perception”, as you call it, is based on our KNOWLEDGE of cause-and-effect relationships. We have a standing criteria we can test for. And we have a scientific SOP to guide us.

The only designer of which are aware is ourselves and we have no reason to think we designed ourselves – although it might explain the faulty nature of some aspects of the “design”.

You mean your perceived faulty nature of some aspects of the design.

If the putative designer is the Christian God then we have to ask, following John Stuart Mill, why an all-powerful, all-knowing God would bother to work within design constraints?

Infantile. That is the only way to have it continue to work once the Designer(s) went away- hands-off mode. Set it and forget it. Let it run its course.

Why create a perfect universe? Or maybe that was already accomplished an was found to be very boring. So a universe in which there is chaos was intelligently designed, set in motion and given inhabitants to explore it.

111. 111
Ed George says:

ET

Beaver dams remind me of dams human children build in stream. Yet it isn’t a reasonable inference that humans built the beaver dams.

That is because we know about beavers and have observed them build dams. If we didn’t have this knowledge, it would certainly be reasonable to infer that humans did it.

112. 112
ET says:

Ed George:

If we didn’t have this knowledge, it would certainly be reasonable to infer that humans did it.

Not likely. And definitely not on close inspection. Then there is the fact of no other human artifacts and pointed stumps with obvious teeth marks. You know, evidence, Ed.

Have you ever seen a beaver dam and the surrounding area, Ed?

113. 113
EugeneS says:

Ed

That is because we know about beavers and have observed them build dams. If we didn’t have this knowledge, it would certainly be reasonable to infer that humans did it.

Do you agree that building a dam requires intelligence = {foresight, planning, strategy realization}? In the context of the discussion, regarding dams I do not think it matters who exactly built them, beavers or humans. What matters is that they were built by intelligent agents, not by the forces of nature.

114. 114
Ed George says:

ET

Not likely. And definitely not on close inspection. Then there is the fact of no other human artifacts and pointed stumps with obvious teeth marks. You know, evidence, Ed.

In spite of you saying that they look like the dams built by children in streams.

Have you ever seen a beaver dam and the surrounding area, Ed?

I see them every day. It is very difficult to distinguish between a tree felled by a small hatchet and one felled by a beaver. Especially if you have no idea what a beaver is.

115. 115
ET says:

Ed George:

In spite of you saying that they look like the dams built by children in streams.

I said Beaver dams remind me of dams human children build in stream.

The messy nature. The use of smaller branches as opposed to the log. Then there is the size of the project to consider

It is very difficult to distinguish between a tree felled by a small hatchet and one felled by a beaver.

It would be quite the task for a human to make hatchet strikes produce close to perfect stump spikes. Humans tend to hit one side then the opposite. Beavers go around the tree and branches. Humans don’t waste the time.

116. 116
DerekDiMarco says:

Ed: “That is because we know about beavers and have observed them build dams.” ET’s only observed beavers on the internet.

117. 117
Ed George says:

ET

It would be quite the task for a human to make hatchet strikes produce close to perfect stump spikes. Humans tend to hit one side then the opposite. Beavers go around the tree and branches. Humans don’t waste the time.

Actually, if all you have is a small hatchet, going around the stump is the most effective approach. I dare you to distinguish between a beaver felled tree and a Native American felled tree. Unless, of course, you are suggesting that indigenous Americans aren’t human.

118. 118
Ed George says:

DDM

ET’s only observed beavers on the internet.

I’m pretty sure that ET’s dog has placed a net nanny on his internet. 🙂 He has a history of getting in trouble (fired) for posting threats on company computers.

119. 119
ET says:

Ed George:

Actually, if all you have is a small hatchet, going around the stump is the most effective approach.

Why would anyone go around the stump? Have you ever used an axe or hatchet, Ed?

I dare you to distinguish between a beaver felled tree and a Native American felled tree.

Easily done.

Unless, of course, you are suggesting that indigenous Americans aren’t human.

My great, great, great, great grandmother was a Micmac.

He has a history of getting in trouble (fired) for posting threats on company computers.

And you have a long history of being a lying coward and lowlife loser.

120. 120
EDTA says:

Sev @ 104,
>…although it might explain the faulty nature of some aspects of the “design”.
>If the putative designer is the Christian God then we have to ask, following John Stuart Mill, why an all-powerful, all-knowing God would bother to work within design constraints?

I think it bears repeating that any being capable of creating us and our universe could have purposes and self-chosen constraints that we don’t know about, or that we can even conceive of if we were told of them. That will make it hard to get all of our questions answered, but that’s the price of being finite beings.

121. 121
Ed George says:

ET

Why would anyone go around the stump? Have you ever used an axe or hatchet, Ed?

Yup

Easily done.

Prove it.

My great, great, great, great grandmother was a Micmac

And she would be rolling over in her grave if she saw what her great, great, great, great grandson turned out to be.

And you have a long history of being a lying coward and lowlife loser.

It is those insightful comments that have endeared you to the ID crowd. And made you the poster-child for those opposed to ID for everyone else. Please don’t change

122. 122
ET says:

LoL! @ Ed- The stump is what is left AFTER the tree has been cut down. Only Ed and his relatives would then go around the stump with a hatchet to make it into a point.

OK, Ed, get your Native American and a beaver and I will tell you which one cut down which tree.

The Statue of Liberty was closed on September 11, 2001. It reopened to visitors in August of 2004. In July of 2004 I was given a personal, private tour of the Lady by a Colonel of the NY State Troopers. I got to look out at the hundreds of people looking up and wishing they were me that day.

And then there was that meeting with the top General of the Egyptian Army to discuss secure communications from their bases to their satellite. Or going deep inside Saudi Navy headquarters to install encryption on their land to sea missile communications. Or working with Ericsson in Norway on secure comms for the Patriot missile system deployed in the Mideast. Or perhaps those two weeks in Kuwait and Iraq, right there, in the triangle, helping save lives. Don’t get me started on the two tours to Colombia.

And given the way I deal with lowlifes like you, I am sure all of my ancestors are proud to call me a descendent.

As for my insightful comments- they always follow your pathetic lies- always. You could never support the [SNIP, crude expression] you say and yet you say it anyway. You are a lowlife, Ed. You are a pathological liar. You obviously cannot help it. It’s like Tourette’s.

123. 123
Ed George says:

ET

The Statue of Liberty was closed on September 11, 2001. It reopened to visitors in August of 2004…[self promoting, unsubstantiated nonsense]

Sorry, while you were [SNIP, vulgarities] I was working to ensure that our drinking water was safe, our food was safe to eat, our air was safe to breath and our lakes were safe to swim in.

[–> warning given below]

124. 124
ET says:

Ed George- Jealous, quote-mining coward and pathological liar. Embarrassed by its ignorance, it tries to inflate its less than mediocre life. Everything Ed says he did could be accomplished merely by Ed’s passing.

125. 125
Reapers Plague says:

ET and Ed, you two are so[SNIP, vulgarities] that the flies are circling. ET, nobody believes your “war” stories. And Ed, nobody believes your holier-than-thou sermons.

126. 126
ET says:

Reapers Plague- I am comfortable knowing there are many people who can verify what I said. That means there are many people who know what I said is true.

127. 127
Reapers Plague says:

Those who have truly done great deeds don’t feel the need to tell others.

128. 128
Ed George says:

Those who have truly done great deeds don’t feel the need to tell others.

Hahaha!! That’s going to leave a mark. 🙂

129. 129
kairosfocus says:

ET and EG, also RP, kindly cut back on insults and vulgarities [EG & RP, I am looking at you]. I have little time to monitor– this being a most inconvenient week — but will take steps to deal with what I find. And no, I do not accept immoral equivalency and derived demands. Just stop, now. KF

130. 130
kairosfocus says:

PK, 103:

Hydrogen + gravity forms stars without any guidance.
Stars form heavier elements without any planning.
Atoms form molecules which form organic molecules, even in intersteller space, without any planning.
Any time a subunit forms, it has the potential to combine with other subunits to form a larger unit higher up on a hierarchy.
Sure, life is more complex and take more time to form, but the principle of hierarchies forming in nature is
pretty ubiquitous.

A capital example of argument by ideologically loaded assertion that ignores highly relevant and accessible context. Here, the astonishing fine tuning of the cosmology required to sustain a cosmos that forms stars etc and sets up C-Chemistry, aqueous medium terrestrial planet cell based life. Further, it ignores the information-rich complex coherent organisation required for such life and the only empirically warranted causal source for such FSCO/I, intelligently directed configuration. Where, the config space challenge set by a string of just 500 – 1,000 y/n choices overwhelms the blind search resources of the sol system up to the observed cosmos, by way of making a blind search maximally unlikely to find shorelines of function for hill climbing because the search to space ratio impliues effectively, negligible search. Where, as search is a sample from a set, the space of possible searches for n bits is 2^n in scale, an exponentially harder search challenge so the search for a golden search is far harder.

The FSCO/I challenge is real and will not go away; where Newton was right to say that in explaining what we did not directly observe we are only warranted to explain on causal factors seen to produce the like effect.

I challenge you to read and respond to, say, Luke Barnes, here: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1112.4647.pdf

Just for starters.

If something was impressive enough to catch and hold the attention of a Hoyle (just for one), that should give pause before making breezy assertions as I just highlighted.

KF

131. 131
kairosfocus says:

RP, BTW, a silly put-down like that shows first that you do not understand the significance of history, and in a context where credibility kills have been attempted, such a summary is appropriate. The notion that in today’s age of agit prop lynch mobs a dignified silence is a good response is dead, killed by the lawfare of kangaroo courts and linked media circuses . . . as we have seen so many times in recent years and currently . . . driven by dishonest quacks posing as journalists and bought and paid for “experts” playing at Alinksky’s version of Hitler’s tactics of big lies, turnabout accusations, scapegoating, piling on, guilt by oft-repeated accusation, strawman caricature twisting,locking out material but inconvenient factors, sheer rudeness, outright gaslighting and the like. Though I do note Paul’s famous I feel like a fool to be forced to stoop to listing accomplishments and sacrifices. Fools who attack the man and deliberately poison the well and the atmosphere. The well we just may all have to drink from. Years ago I outlined the tactical pattern: distractive red herrings dragged away to strawman caricatures soaked in ad hominems and set alight to cloud, poison, confuse and polarise the atmosphere, to frustrate sound discussion that goes towards inconvenient and unwelcome truth. Where, we know whose native language is lies and what an out of control hellish blaze can be set by a spark of deceit or accusation. So, just stop. KF

132. 132
kairosfocus says:

F/N: a distraction above is Beaver didit. The design inference is that twerdun. That is, on evidence, design as process is the best explanation. Whodunit is an onward question and it is irrelevant to focal purposes to go off on red herring tangents over Beavers, Amerindians with stone axes and the like. That opened up strawman caricatures, ad hominems and atmosphere poisoning. Fallacious, a trifecta of fallacies. KF

133. 133
Bob O'H says:

EugeneS @ 95 –
(don’t worry, this is nothing to do with beavers)
But if you only have one paper (which is a commentary) from over a decade ago and no follow-up, your sciencing has failed. There isn’t a research programme – no hypotheses are being tested, no experiments are being done, no theory is being developed. There doesn’t seem to be any science being done to advance a research agenda to explain intelligent design.

134. 134
ET says:

Reapers:

Those who have truly done great deeds don’t feel the need to tell others.

Except when called out by a pathological liar and lowlife coward, as I was.

Why don’t you TRY to follow along? That seems to be a problem with you.

Apologies kairosfocus. But I had to set the record straight.

135. 135
ET says:

Bob O’H:

But if you only have one paper (which is a commentary) from over a decade ago and no follow-up, your sciencing has failed.

Your opinion is meaningless and your side doesn’t even have that, loser.

136. 136
kairosfocus says:

BO’H: It seems you are still in ignorance on the actual publication record. Pardon a chunck, which is up to 3 years ago, it was pointelss to keep going:

BIBLIOGRAPHIC AND ANNOTATED LIST OF
PEER-REVIEWED PUBLICATIONS
SUPPORTING INTELLIGENT DESIGN
UPDATED MARCH, 2017

PART I: INTRODUCTION
While intelligent design (ID) research is a new scientific field, recent years have been a period of encouraging growth, producing a strong record of peer-reviewed scientific publications.

In 2011, the ID movement counted its 50th peer-reviewed scientific paper and new publications continue to appear. As of 2015, the peer-reviewed scientific publication count had reached 90. Many of these papers are recent, published since 2004, when Discovery Institute senior fellow Stephen Meyer published a groundbreaking paper advocating ID in the journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. There are multiple hubs of ID-related research.

Biologic Institute, led by molecular biologist Doug Axe, is “developing and testing the scientific case for intelligent design in biology.” Biologic conducts laboratory and theoretical research on the origin and role of information in biology, the fine-tuning of the universe for life, and methods of detecting design in nature.

Another ID research group is the Evolutionary Informatics Lab, founded by senior Discovery Institute fellow William Dembski along with Robert Marks, Distinguished Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Baylor University. Their lab has attracted graduate-student researchers and published multiple peer-reviewed articles in technical science and engineering journals showing that computer programming ”points to the need for an ultimate information source qua intelligent designer.”

Other pro-ID scientists around the world are publishing peer-reviewed pro-ID scientific papers. These include biologist Ralph Seelke at the University of Wisconsin Superior, Wolf-Ekkehard Lonnig who recently retired from the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research in Germany, and Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe.

These and other labs and researchers have published their work in a variety of appropriate technical venues, including peer-reviewed scientific journals, peer-reviewed scientific books (some published by mainstream university presses), trade-press books, peer-edited scientific anthologies, peer-edited scientific conference proceedings and peer-reviewed philosophy of science journals and books. These papers have appeared in scientific journals such as Protein Science, Journal of Molecular Biology, Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, Journal of Advanced Computational Intelligence and Intelligent Informatics, Complexity, Quarterly Review of Biology, Cell Biology International, Physics Essays, Rivista di Biologia / Biology Forum, Physics of Life Reviews, Quarterly Review of Biology, Journal of Bacteriology , Annual Review of Genetics, and many others. At the same time, pro-ID scientists have presented their research at conferences worldwide in fields such as genetics, biochemistry, engineering, and computer science.

Collectively, this body of research is converging on a consensus: complex biological features cannot arise by unguided Darwinian mechanisms, but require an intelligent cause.

Despite ID’s publication record, we note parenthetically that recognition in peer-reviewed literature is not an absolute requirement to demonstrate an idea’s scientific merit. Darwin’s own theory of evolution was first published in a book for a general and scientific audience — his Origin of Species — not in a peer-reviewed paper. Nonetheless, ID’s peer-reviewed publication record shows that it deserves — and is receiving — serious consideration by the scientific community.

The purpose of ID’s budding research program is thus to engage open-minded scientists and thoughtful laypersons with credible, persuasive, peer-reviewed, empirical data supporting intelligent design. And this is happening. ID has already gained the kind of scientific recognition you would expect from a young (and vastly underfunded) but promising scientific field . . .

KF

137. 137
DerekDiMarco says:

Bob: “There doesn’t seem to be any science being done to advance a research agenda to explain intelligent design.”

Sure, biologists publish like 1300 research papers every day, because they’re unscientific atheist losers. Real Science is writing repetitive manifestoes and bible verses.

138. 138
ET says:

Derek:

Sure, biologists publish like 1300 research papers every day, because they’re unscientific atheist losers.

And not one supports the claims of blind watchmaker evolution. You must be proud to be an equivocating coward.

139. 139
EugeneS says:

Bob

Surely there is more that just one paper. I thought you would know what it takes to falsify a general statement.

140. 140
EugeneS says:

Derek,

In USSR every scientific publication even in particle physics needed to quote the decisions of the previous Communist Party Congress. It does not mean that it is the Marxist ideology that got us first into space.

141. 141
Pater Kimbridge says:

@DerekDiMarco #105
Derek said “Pater, there are more things in heaven and Earth than are dreamt of in the creationists’ philosophy.”

Indeed. Like physics, chemistry, biology, archaeology, paleontology, …..

142. 142
ET says:

Umm, physics, chemistry, and biology all provide evidence for and support Intelligent Design.

143. 143
DerekDiMarco says:

@Pater: don’t forget astronomy. That’s def one they could have used. 😛

144. 144
ET says:

Astronomy? Read “the Privileged Planet”- astronomy is in ID’s arsenal, too.

145. 145
EugeneS says:

From a different and well forgotten thread:

The best arguments against ID are delivered by evolutionary biologists working in the Institute for Protein Design.

Our flat earth theory is quickly gaining supporters around the globe.

I think I must have said that already a while ago, but a lot of our problems are to do with a lack of classical education. I have live journal friends who sometimes smile at something I, as an engineer, put forward as a question. University education should really include heavy philosophy stuff even for engineering students, if we really want them to start thinking.

Many of our opponents’ philosophical conundrums which as they think give them reason to dismiss design are like childish pranks compared to questions that great minds of the past were dealing with. Miller, Dawkins, and others are just poor philosophers and are only popular because the overall level of classical education globally is miserable. Answers for those who are looking for them are already out there in the Scripture and in the Ecclesiastical Tradition (particularly, in the writings of the fathers). Can people like Dawkins or Hawking say anything new?! Gravity out of M-theory… Pathetic.

146. 146
john_a_designer says:

One of the so-called icons of irreducible complexity (IC) is the bacterium flagellum. However, there other perhaps even better examples of IC. In my opinion, prokaryote DNA replication is a far more daunting problem for the Darwinist. However, instead of one molecular machine, like the flagellum, you have several interacting machines acting in a coordinated manner. This still fits Behe’s definition of IC as being “a single system which is composed of several interacting parts, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to cease functioning.”

For example, to start replication in prokaryote DNA you need an initiation enzyme which creates a replication bubble where another enzyme called helicase attaches itself and begins, like a zipper, to unbind the two complimentary strands of DNA double helix. Another enzyme called primase creates another starting point (a primer) on both of the separated strands known as the 5’ and 3’ or leading and lagging strands. DNA polymerase III uses this primer– actually a short strand of RNA– and adds the complementary nucleobases (A to T, T to A, C to G, G to C) to the single parent strand. In a nutshell, helicase divides one double stranded DNA helix into two single “parent” or template stands to which complimentary nucleotides are added by pol III and the result is two identical double stranded DNA helixes.

Of course, it is somewhat more complicated than that. (Please watch the first video below.) For example, as helicase unbinds the two strands of the double helix, which are wrapped around each other to begin with, there is a tendency for tangling to occur as a result of the process. Another enzyme called gyrase (or topoisomerase II) is needed to prevent this tangling from occurring. Another problem is that the bases for the lagging strand must added discontinuously which results in short segments know as Okazaki fragments. These fragments must eventually be joined back together by an enzyme known as ligase. (We could also discuss error correction which is another part of the replication process.)

Here are a few videos which describe the process in more detail.

While it’s true that the flagellum is irreducibly complex it is not essential for life itself. There are a number of single celled organism that exist without flagella. However, life cannot exist without DNA replication (nor transcription, translation etc.) Furthermore, with DNA replication the Darwinist cannot kick the can down the road any further. DNA replication in prokaryotes is as far as you can go and then you are confronted with the proverbial chicken or egg problem. DNA is necessary to create the proteins which are used in its own replication. For example, the helicase which is absolutely essential for DNA replication is specified in the DNA code which it replicates. How did that even get started? Maybe one of our know-it-all interlocutors can tell us.

The problem with the Darwinian approach is not scientific; it is philosophical. The people committed to this approach believe in it because they believe that natural causes are the ultimate explanation for their existence. However, science has not proven such a world view to be true. (That’s not something science can do.) So ironically, whatever they believe, they believe it by faith.

147. 147
EugeneS says:

A testimonial of a school teacher in Russia (I think the trend is really global).

Twenty years ago I would ask my class a question and leave them with books to find an answer to it. I was sure that they would have found it when I returned. Ten years ago the top 5% of the class could not use the book but surfed the internet to find the answer. Now the top 5% of the class cannot even surf the internet but they fail to find it if google does not have a link to it. The problem is, children can no longer use a book even if it is there on the table. They can’t find in the book what they are after.

The general public are satisfied with really stupid answers to who are we, how did we come about, what is the meaning in life. That is the aftermath of Darwinist rule in society.

148. 148
EugeneS says:

The problem that is in front of naturalists is gigantic: to explain how the first ever interdependent triple of configurations of matter came into being in the world where this triple was nowhere else to be found. This triple is, the sign (token), the interpretant and the referent.

Where did the first ever instruction and a processor that could execute it, come from? Neither the instruction nor the processor has any sense one without the other, and both of them need the middle bit, i.e. the agreed protocol, in order to function together as a unified whole.

In the naturalist’s kit there are simply no adequate tools for the task. There are not many people amongst ardent internet defenders of naturalism who really understand what the problem is, unfortunately.

149. 149
MatSpirit says:

ET: “The Statue of Liberty was closed on September 11, 2001. It reopened to visitors in August of 2004. In July of 2004 I was given a personal, private tour of the Lady by a Colonel of the NY State Troopers. I got to look out at the hundreds of people looking up and wishing they were me that day.

And then there was that meeting with the top General of the Egyptian Army to discuss secure communications from their bases to their satellite. Or going deep inside Saudi Navy headquarters to install encryption on their land to sea missile communications. Or working with Ericsson in Norway on secure comms for the Patriot missile system deployed in the Mideast. Or perhaps those two weeks in Kuwait and Iraq, right there, in the triangle, helping save lives. Don’t get me started on the two tours to Colombia.”

Don’t forget when you were a Marine Biologist named Sharon.

150. 150
ET says:

Matspirit:

Don’t forget when you were a Marine Biologist named Sharon.

Only in the minds of willfully ignorant and desperate trolls. 😛

151. 151
MatSpirit says:

Pardon me. Retired Marine Biologist named Sharon.

152. 152
ET says:

You want a retired marine biologist named Sharon to pardon you?

153. 153
kairosfocus says:

MS & ET, pointless tangent. Kindly stop. KF

PS: It is highly significant to see the reactions and rhetorical stunts that evade the absolutely serious issues being posed. Given UD’s status as always under extremely hostile scrutiny, you can take it to the bank that YS has hit home hard with his argument.

154. 154
john_a_designer says:

The following is something that I have written about couple times before, on other threads, which I think is worth is repeating here, again.

The origin of life is like the origin of the universe. It appears to be a singular, non-repeating, highly improbable event which occurred very early in earth’s history. Furthermore, all the clues of how and why it occurred have been lost. But then added to that problem are other problems: how does chemistry create code? What is required to create an autonomously self-replicating system which has the possibility of evolving into something more complex? The naturalist/ materialist then compounds the problem by demanding a priori that the origin of life must be completely natural– undirected without an intelligent plan or purpose.

That seems like it was a miracle… Well, maybe it was. But a completely “naturalistic miracle” seems to be an absurd self-defeating claim for the naturalist/materialist to make.

One of my pipe dreams as a real life (now retired) machine designer is to design a self-replicating machine or automata– the kind that was first envisioned by mathematician John von Neumann. My vision is not a machine that could replicate itself from already existing parts but a machine– well actually a system of “symbiotic” machines– which could replicate themselves from raw material they would find on a rocky planet in some distant star system.

One practical advantage of such machines is they could be sent out in advance some far-in-the-distant-future expedition to terraform a suitable planet in another star system preparing it for colonist who might arrive centuries or millennia later.

By analogy, that is what the first living cells which originated on the early earth had to do.

Even the simplest prokaryote cell is on the sub-cellular level a collection of machines networked together to replicate the whole system. To suggest that somehow the first cell emerged by some fortuitous accident is betray an ignorance how really complex primitive cells are.

Try thinking this through on a more macro level, as I have described above, and I think you will begin to appreciate how really daunting the problem is.

https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/is-ool-part-of-darwinian-evolution/#comment-634766

The whole thread by Eric Andersen, is not very long and IMO is worth reading. Notice how quickly our regular interlocutors bailed out of the discussion. But at least some of them weighted in.

155. 155

.
With nothing meaningful to say, the ID critics on this thread dragged the bottom of the bucket once again; complaining that ES could not use human-made intelligent artifacts as a marker of design, because (in their words):

…if the only thing that gives rise to P is human intervention, then human intervention must have given rise to P. So living systems (including humans) must have come about through human intervention.

Snappy logic, isn’t it? It was then followed by:

”If something reminds you of things that humans create, then the only reasonable inference is that humans created it. Widening the inference to “intelligent being” is an obvious creationist tactic to include their god in the basket.”

This tag-team of logical insight was provided by Bob and PK in comments #19 and #21.

Then in comment #26, their “objections” were gutted and put into proper perspective:

Widening the inference to “intelligent being” is an obvious creationist tactic”

Is it?

Perhaps you’ve heard of the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence. It is a well-known project that searches for unknown intelligence by using an operational definition (of “intelligence”) to produce valid results. Lori Marino PhD (SETI/NASA Virtual Resource Center for Interdisciplinary Inquiry into Intelligent Life) explains SETI’s approach to the concept of intelligence:

”There is no consensus on a strict definition of intelligence, and there likely never will be because intelligence is what is known as a fuzzy concept; it lacks well-defined boundaries and contains multiple components.? However, the study of intelligence lies firmly in the domain of empirical science because its features can be operationally defined and its correlates can be quantified and measured.”

In the SETI project, intelligence is operationally defined by a specific physical capacity. That physical capacity is “the capacity to transmit a narrow-band radio signal detectable from earth”. This definition is derived from our universal experience that narrow-band radio signals are not produced by natural causes, but are the unambiguous product of intelligence. A clear distinction is therefore made between those things that can be explained by natural unguided causes and those things that are a measurable consequence of intelligent action. SETI explains:

”Narrow-band signals – perhaps only a few Hertz wide or less – are the mark of a purposely built transmitter. Natural cosmic noisemakers, such as pulsars, quasars, and the turbulent, thin interstellar gas of our own Milky Way, do not make radio signals that are this narrow.”

This methodology is explicitly endorsed by NASA, the National Academy of Sciences, the National Science Foundation, the British Royal Society, and university science departments around the world (you know, all those creationist strongholds). And like SETI, design advocates already have a completely measurable correlate of intelligence to derive an operational definition – that is, the multi-referent symbol system found in language, and also found in protein synthesis – which was not only predicted to exist prior to its discovery, but has been subsequently measured and recorded in the scientific literature (starting about 50 years ago).

You might ask: What was their response to this undeniable, well-documented truth of the matter?

Answer: Absolutely nothing, of course. Nothing whatsoever.

In comment #38, PK returned without missing a beat, continuing on as if nothing had been said. In other words, he responded to documented reality by simply ignoring it.

Then in comment #43, Bob returned to double-down for himself, suggesting that one cannot infer a non-human intelligence unless one first has independent knowledge of that non-human intelligence – again, he merely proceeds as if nothing whatsoever had been said.

They both simply ignored the actual reality of the matter. This is standard fare for internet critics on UD and elsewhere. To understand their game in as few words as possible: they don’t care, and it doesn’t matter.

The notion that their objections stem from logic and reason is laughable.

156. 156
157. 157
EugeneS says:

KF, UB.

We have evidence that it is possible to get five words of sense spoken together even from people like Dawkins…

The only problem I have with what he says there is, to me, believing that ‘little green men’ did it is a lot less meaningful than God did it. I find the latter far more consequential in terms of who I am and what I should live for, and, lastly, far more intellectually satisfying.

158. 158

.
None of objectors upthread appear to be willing to return and address the issue they so clearly ignored at the time. Not surprising.
______________________

A factual aside: IF a distinct narrow-band radio signal was ever to be received by SETI, they indicate that they would first confirm that the signal was not an earth-bound communication being received by mistake, and upon that confirmation, they would then inform the whole world of their success as quickly and widely as possible.

Of course, human nature being what it is, there would inevitably be questions about the validity of the conclusion, and the very first thing that SETI scientists would do to address those concerns is to begin studying the structure of the signal for any indications of semiotic content – the very thing already measured and described in genetic translation. If they indeed found such content, all doubts about the veracity of their claims would be immediately and forever extinguished. So, the very thing that would confirm SETI beyond any reasonable doubt whatsoever, is the very thing that ID proponents point to inside the cell — and also the very thing that materialist ideologue refuse to acknowledge at all costs.

This is the unambiguous fact of the matter — that is, facts and reason do not matter in the modern defense of materialism — and the corrosive side effects of this can be seen virtually every day here on UD and elsewhere.

159. 159
kairosfocus says:

UB, yes. The reactions we have seen to objectivity, first principles and duties of reason, mathematics, aesthetics etc show that the reaction we have seen to the design inference is not isolated. There is a deep rooted rejection of reason afoot in today’s world that is closely connected to evolutionary materialistic scientism and fellow traveller ideologies. KF

160. 160
john_a_designer says:

UB and KF,

Are you expecting valid evidence based arguments from any of our interlocutors? I’m not. I don’t think any of them have any arguments. But I could still be wrong, though I very seriously doubt that.

161. 161
kairosfocus says:

JAD, busy week, Election. One hopes that participants will respect first principles and first duties of right reason, however, the persistent manifestation of breakdowns here itself tells a story. As such principles are now too often not explored seriously, that too is worth doing. And, we have cause to declare epistemic independence. Their selective, undue hyperskepticism and breakdown of rational conduct should not hamper our confident knowledge. KF

162. 162
PavelU says:

Here’s a scientific paper that strongly supports Darwinian RV+NS macroevolution

https://dev.biologists.org/content/145/14/dev143818

I’m sure a highly educated Russian professional like Zhenya will understand and accept this, because he seems to be a careful and thorough reader.

163. 163
PavelU says:

Dr YS

Check this out:

https://lyricstranslate.com/en/%D1%82%D1%8B-%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%B8-%D1%8F-ty-ili-ja-you-or-me.html

I heard it first time at their live concert in Sochi in the summer vacation of 1973.

Back then they were not heard or seen in the official radio/tv because they were not patriotic like “moi adres nie dom i nie ulitsa…” nor romantic like “nie povtaryayetsa takoe nikogda” (piervaya liubov) or “dlia menya niet tebya prekrasniei” not were naively silly like “kak prekrasyen etot mir posmotri”

On the contrary their lyrics were a mirror of rough reality which could not be acceptable to the establishment.

But apparently they were allowed into the mainstream media after glasnost took over in the second half of the ‘80s?

By then I wasn’t there anymore.

164. 164
bornagain77 says:

PavelU here are the concluding remarks of your cited paper:

Concluding remarks
We have presented three canonical examples of inductive ERK signaling in Ciona, Drosophila and C. elegans to demonstrate the important unanswered questions related to multiple aspects of ERK dynamics and function. There are a number of issues that need to be resolved to explain how a single pathway, like the ERK pathway, can have such diverse effects during embryogenesis. We need a quantitative understanding of signal initiation, as there may be important ligand-receptor dynamics that shape the inputs to signaling pathways. The interpretation of incoming signals ultimately determines the downstream transcriptional responses. In many cases, it is still not known how active ERK interacts with downstream targets and ultimately alters their functions. Moreover, we must now quantify the context-dependent limits on signaling parameters such as spatial extent, duration and signaling strength to understand the origins of the remarkable robustness observed in differentiating tissues. Accomplishing these tasks is crucial for laying down the foundation for a quantitative picture of developmental ERK signaling and is impossible without well-studied experimental systems, such as those discussed in this Review.
https://dev.biologists.org/content/145/14/dev143818

You do realize that they are are honestly admitting they have no clue how these things came to be nor how they currently operate don’t you?

i.e. This paper is in fact evidence for Intelligent Design PavelU!

PavelU, watch this video, it might just help you from embarrassing yourself like this again:

How to Build a Worm – Paul Nelson

165. 165
PavelU says:

Here’s an interview with scientists providing extensive evidences that clearly support Darwinian macroevolutionary theory:

https://dev.biologists.org/content/146/20/dev184705

166. 166
PavelU says:

Here’s another recent paper (one of many) that falsifies ID:

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/673798v1

Can ID shows at least one paper that supports it?

167. 167
bornagain77 says:

Uh PavelU, again yout papers do NOT show what you claim they do but are in fact evidence for ID:

First paper:

Where will this work take the Warmflash lab?
AW We are building on this system in a few different ways. We are quite interested in directly measuring the signalling dynamics of BMP and WNT with reporters that we have previously developed and used to study signalling during germ layer patterning. We are also interested in whether we can determine the AP position at which we are achieving this patterning and in developing protocols to control it. Finally, we are interested in extending this system to three dimensions to try to recapitulate some of the morphogenesis that the ectoderm undergoes during patterning, and to be able to look at how patterning and morphogenesis are coordinated.
https://dev.biologists.org/content/146/20/dev184705

Second paper

Abstract
During neuronal wiring, extrinsic cues trigger the local translation of specific mRNAs in axons via cell surface receptors. The coupling of ribosomes to receptors has been proposed as a mechanism linking signals to local translation but it is not known how broadly this mechanism operates, nor whether it can selectively regulate mRNA translation. We report that receptor-ribosome coupling is employed by multiple guidance cue receptors and this interaction is mRNA-dependent. We find that different receptors bind to distinct sets of mRNAs and RNA-binding proteins. Cue stimulation induces rapid dissociation of ribosomes from receptors and the selective translation of receptor-specific mRNAs in retinal axon growth cones. Further, we show that receptor-ribosome dissociation and cue-induced selective translation are inhibited by simultaneous exposure to translation-repressive cues, suggesting a novel mode of signal integration. Our findings reveal receptor-specific interactomes and provide a general model for the rapid, localized and selective control of cue-induced translation.
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/673798v1

I’m embarrassed for you PavelU, both those papers support ID, not Darwinian evolution as you falsely imagine.

Since you do not even understand what the papers you are citing are actually saying, there is little hope you will understand this following video, but anyways,,,

Darwinian Materialism vs. Quantum Biology – Part II

168. 168
PavelU says:

This paper shows how science has resolved the OOL problem:

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsta.2016.0337

Why do ID proponents keep talking about OOL as if it remained still unresolved?

169. 169
PavelU says:

Here’s another big confirmation of Darwinian macroevolution including OOL. This is a major blow to ID:

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsif.2018.0159

170. 170
bornagain77 says:

PavelU, again the paper does NOT say what you claim it does. They confirmed nothing. Much less a ‘big confirmation’. They honestly admitted that nobody knows how life originated, and then ‘speculate’ as to how it might be accomplished using the ‘unorthodox platform of compositional information.’ (Which is dangerously close to admitting the need for an intelligent agent to impart information into the first self-replicating system)

15. Conclusion
Life is defined as what replicates and evolves, but its emergence paths are still widely disputed. Steps needed to break the stalemate have been outlined by Walker et al. [270, p. 6]: ‘This necessitates a re-conceptualization of the origins of life, removing the imposed hard boundary between non-life and life, and recognizing there may exist physical processes that we do not yet understand … One candidate is the physics of information’. Accordingly, we describe here a physico-chemical line of attack that defines the life/non-life boundary at the molecular level, and explores the use of the unorthodox platform of compositional information.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsif.2018.0159

171. 171
jawa says:

BA77,

thanks for correctly addressing PavelU’s nonsense and for the interesting information you share. This guy has a major reading comprehension issue he should take care of ASAP. He cites papers that point in the opposite direction than he says. His comments are so ridiculous that I feel sorry for the poor guy. He either doesn’t get the memos or doesn’t read them. Whatever it is, the guy is pathetically confused. He must wake up and smell the freshly brewed coffee instead of keeping making a clown of himself.

172. 172
PeterA says:

I agree with BA77 that PavelU has cited very interesting papers which clearly confirm the enormous functional complexity found in the biological systems, which could only be designed according to the available empirical evidences. If he would have just provided the links without adding the nonsense he wrote, one could have easily taken him as a strong ID proponent.

173. 173
Seversky says:

You do realize the questions this raises? If the complexity we observe cannot arise from simple beginnings but can only be explained as the product of intelligent design it implies that the designer must be more complex than its designs since we have ruled out simpler origins. In that case, the origin of the intelligent designer must be an even more complex designer which leaves us staring at either an infinite regress of designers or an infinite and eternal designer.that is without cause. Yet, while we observe great complexity in the universe, which certainly demands explanation, we do not see anything that is without cause, that is infinite and eternal. The only reason to consider the possibility of an uncaused designer is if you reject the possibility of abiogenesis, which we are not yet in a position to do. In fact, although the question is still unresolved. given the papers PavelU has cited, it would seem that the latter possibility is a little more likely.

174. 174
kairosfocus says:

H’mm: “Life is defined as what replicates and evolves” — rather begs the question, methinks. KF

175. 175
kairosfocus says:

Sev,

nope. The error was pointed out nearly 400 years ago. Here is Monadology, 17, Leibniz:

1. The Monad, of which we shall here speak, is nothing but a simple substance, which enters into compounds. By ‘simple’ is meant ‘without parts.’ (Theod. 10.)

2. And there must be simple substances, since there are compounds; for a compound is nothing but a collection or aggregatum of simple things.

3. Now where there are no parts, there can be neither extension nor form [figure] nor divisibility. These Monads are the real atoms of nature and, in a word, the elements of things . . .

6. Thus it may be said that a Monad can only come into being or come to an end all at once; that is to say, it can come into being only by creation and come to an end only by annihilation, while that which is compound comes into being or comes to an end by parts . . .

17. Moreover, it must be confessed that perception and that which depends upon it are inexplicable on mechanical grounds, that is to say, by means of figures and motions. And supposing there were a machine, so constructed as to think, feel, and have perception, it might be conceived as increased in size, while keeping the same proportions, so that one might go into it as into a mill. That being so, we should, on examining its interior, find only parts which work one upon another, and never anything by which to explain a perception. Thus it is in a simple substance, and not in a compound or in a machine, that perception must be sought for. Further, nothing but this (namely, perceptions and their changes) can be found in a simple substance. It is also in this alone that all the internal activities of simple substances can consist. (Theod. Pref. [E. 474; G. vi. 37].)

You are conflating rational contemplation with computation when the latter — a dynamic-stochastic, mechanical, non inferential, non rational, GIGO limited process — is categorically different.

KF

176. 176
PavelU says:

Here’s a video that confirms Darwinian macroevolution

https://youtu.be/zp8u9QN2Ghk

177. 177
bornagain77 says:

PavelU, LOL,,, microtubules? You are kidding right?

After years of debate between S. Hameroff, R. Penrose, and Darwinian materialists, researchers have finally shown microtubules to belong to the world of quantum mechanics, not to the Darwinian world of reductive materialism. In other words, with your Darwinian materialism you are not even on the correct theoretical foundation in order to properly understand microtubules in the first place:

Consciousness Depends on Tubulin Vibrations Inside Neurons, Anesthesia Study Suggests – 5-Sep-2017
Excerpt: The results provide a marked improvement to the Meyer-Overton correlation by discriminating anesthetics from non-anesthetics, and suggest that anesthetics block consciousness by altering terahertz oscillations in tubulin.,,,
Senior co-author Jack Tuszynski said:
“Scientific luminaries from Erwin Schrödinger to Sir Roger Penrose have proposed that consciousness requires quantum coherent processes, but skeptics have asserted such processes would suffer ‘decoherence’ in the ‘warm, wet and noisy’ biological milieu. Our study supports growing evidence that non-polar, pi resonance regions in microtubules and other biomolecules maintain these coherent states, and that a ‘quantum underground’ pervades the brain’s neurons.”
https://www.newswise.com/articles/consciousness-depends-on-tubulin-vibrations-inside-neurons-anesthesia-study-suggests

Stuart Hameroff defends Orch-OR theory at TSC 2010 – Pt 1 of 2

I re-recomend this video to you so that you might stop embarrassing yourself like this:

Darwinian Materialism vs. Quantum Biology – Part II – video

178. 178
ET says:

We are in the position to reject the possibility of abiogenesis via spontaneous generation. We can do so as easily as we can reject the possibility of the spontaneous generation of Stonehenge. Given Spiegelman’s Monster we can reject the possibility of replicating molecules being a precursor to the intricate complexity that embodies a minimal living organism.

179. 179
ET says:

In that case, the origin of the intelligent designer …

First you have to demonstrate there was an origin of the intelligent designer. Until then science says we work with what we have. I know that you don’t like that because when we work with what we have it screams of an intelligent design. And that is solidified by your a/ mat total failure to be able to account for it

180. 180
PavelU says:

Here’s an interesting explanation of how scientists have figured out all the mechanisms of the nervous system, thus proving that evolution can produce such a system because it isn’t as complex as ID proponents claim:

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fgene.2018.00308/full

181. 181
PavelU says:

Here’s another interesting explanation of how scientists have figured out all the mechanisms of the nervous system, thus proving that evolution can produce such a system because it isn’t as complex as ID proponents claim:

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnmol.2019.00016/full

182. 182
ET says:

PavelU- It is impossible for blind and mindless processes to produce functioning nerves. A functioning nervous system is the epitome of intelligent engineering.

183. 183
bornagain77 says:

PavelU. again, directly contrary to what you claim, your papers falsify reductive materialism, and thus, since Darwinian evolution is based on reductive materialism , falsify Darwinian evolution in the process,

first paper,

Conclusion and Future Direction
Epigenetic changes are accompanied by the reconstruction of nuclear architecture.

Second paper,

Introduction
Neuronal Ca2+-signaling is based on spatio-temporal gradients called Ca2+ waves, spikes, transients and puffs. The strict segmentation of such gradients allows for complex signaling events at the micro- and even nanoscale (Berridge et al., 2003). Consequently, the huge variety of Ca2+-evoked processes require a highly specialized machinery leading to alterations in cellular functions and Ca2+ sensor proteins from the calmodulin (CaM) family are instrumental in this regard.

Please at least try to read and understand some of what the papers are actually saying before you make such embarrassing unsubstantiated claims about them.

i.e. The papers you are citing actually support Intelligent Design!

184. 184
kairosfocus says:

PU, pardon but the whole of the above is essentially misdirected. The living cell uses coded instructions and associated execution machinery to carry out its core operations; something that was demonstrated through multiple Nobel Prize winning work 5 – 7 decades ago. genetic engineering is now a commonplace. We know that we are looking at machine language, with about 2 dozen variants in the code, dialects, rather like BASIC notoriously had. Such is inherently a linguistic phenomenon antecedent to biology. The use of complex verbal language (including machine code) is already a strong sign of intelligent design and this is deeply reinforced by the associated FSCO/I rich molecular nanotech execution machinery. There is absolutely no empirically well founded reason to believe that blind chance and/or mechanical necessity can account for such. so strong is this that we may freely point to the likes of Lewonyin’s cat out of the bag comment of 1997 and many others like that and say, stop the ideological gaslighting, please; enough is enough. KF

185. 185
EugeneS says:

PavelU

Thanks for the lyrics ) Their music (“Machina Vremeni”, the “Time machine”) does not appeal to me, to be honest, but anyway, thanks ))

As regards macro evo, I do not think it is relevant to the OP. However, I think that it is greatly exaggerated. On average, Darwinian evolution does not work. Random selection (drift) is acting against natural selection (you may want to check the OP by scordova called “Gambler’s ruin is Darwin’s ruin” here at UD). Multiple positive mutations weaken each other’s selective advantage. However, there appear to be corner cases that can demonstrate Darwinian evolution (tinkering with an already existing function).

It seems to me that a general rule is, for anything non-trivial in this world you need to have guidance and forethought.

186. 186
EugeneS says:

PavelU and all other readers who believe in the power of evolution to create statistically significant levels of functional novelty:

I suggest you try to answer the following question:

Is there any law of nature that determines how you partition your drive into logical disks?

There is a school of thought that propagates the view that all that was necessary to cause our world to appear was gravity. So with this particular view in mind, do you really think that gravity can account for how you divide your physical computer disk into logical disks?