Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Hieroglyphs – the Linguistic Challenge to Darwinism

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

What properties of the four forces of nature predict linguistic sequences? Or can an intelligent cause be inferred from the discovery and decryption of hieroglyphics?

That is the foundational challenge to Darwinism in explaining the discovery and deciphering of the Indus hieroglyphs.

                  J. M. Kenoyer / harappa.com
source J. M. Kenoyer / harappa.com
Markov analysis is being used to identify sequence patterns and uncover the language and meaning of the Indus hieroglyphs. See: Computers unlock more secrets of the mysterious Indus Valley script by Hannah Hickey, Univ. Washington

Four-thousand years ago, an urban civilization lived and traded on what is now the border between Pakistan and India. During the past century, thousands of artifacts bearing hieroglyphics left by this prehistoric people have been discovered. Today, a team of Indian and American researchers are using mathematics and computer science to try to piece together information about the still-unknown script.
The team led by a University of Washington researcher has used computers to extract patterns in ancient Indus symbols. The study, published this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, shows distinct patterns in the symbols’ placement in sequences and creates a statistical model for the unknown language.
“The statistical model provides insights into the underlying grammatical structure of the Indus script,” said lead author Rajesh Rao, a UW associate professor of computer science. “Such a model can be valuable for decipherment, because any meaning ascribed to a symbol must make sense in the context of other symbols that precede or follow it.”
. . .
The new study looks for mathematical patterns in the sequence of symbols. Calculations show that the order of symbols is meaningful; taking one symbol from a sequence found on an artifact and changing its position produces a new sequence that has a much lower probability of belonging to the hypothetical language. The authors said the presence of such distinct rules for sequencing symbols provides further support for the group’s previous findings, reported earlier this year in the journal Science, that the unknown script might represent a language.
“These results give us confidence that there is a clear underlying logic in Indus writing,” Vahia said.
Seals with sequences of Indus symbols have been found as far away as West Asia, in the region historically known as Mesopotamia and site of modern-day Iraq. The statistical results showed that the West-Asian sequences are ordered differently from sequences on artifacts found in the Indus valley. This supports earlier theories that the script may have been used by Indus traders in West Asia to represent different information compared to the Indus region. . . .
. . .”One of the main purposes of our paper is to introduce Markov models, and statistical models in general, as computational tools for investigating ancient scripts,” Adhikari said. . . For more information, contact Rao at rao@cs.washington.edu.(emphasis added)

See full news: Computers unlock more secrets of the mysterious Indus Valley script

Prof. Dr-Ing. Werner Gitt develops a hierarchy of information in his book: In the Beginning was Information ISBN: 3-89397-255-2

Gitt develops five levels of information:

# Fifth level Apobetics: Intended purpose & achieved result
# Fourth level Pragmatics: Expected and implemented actions
# Third level Semantics: Ideas communicated and understood
# Second level Syntax: Code employed and understood
# First level Statistics: Signal transmitted and received

Rao et al’s research is developing the first level Statistics and from that discovering the Syntax or code used and from that trying to understand the ideas being communicated.

What basis can Darwinism provide for ANY of Gitt’s five levels of information?
We have clear current and historic evidence of intelligent agents being the direct cause of encoded information (such as you are reading.) Thus, objectively, Intelligent Design provides a more satisfactory explanation for the existence of hieroglyphs – as well as for the computers and software tools used to analyze them.

Comments
Thank you both (House/Herb) for your comments. I do have a blog but I don't post every day or even every week but usually after I've been thinking for awhile. It just sort of dawned on me one day a month or three or four ago, who knows, as I was thinking about things and it hit me that if natural selection had real causal power that physicists would know about it. Particularly since "they" (Dawkins in particular) are so adamant about "n.s." being essentially physics working out is some odd ways. (I can give you some citations if you like) So I asked a dear friend of mine who's a recently retired physics professor about this and he basically said of course not. (p.s. apparently a lot of physicists don't think very much of the scientific skills of biologists and it's no wonder - anyone who can believe what apparently one has to believe to be a biologist these days cannot have a solid grasp of critical thinking processes. I'm always telling him that physicists give biologists a pass, and they do.) So anyway, then I remembered that Darwin had been influenced by the writings of Malthus and of course he got it all wrong then and the Club of Rome and their ilk get it wrong today. I don't even know if the Club of Rome is still around but I came across them in the late 70's while I was doing a master's degree and they were the "end is near because we're running out of everything gang" best I recall, I'm sure it's more complicated than that but not really, if you get my drift. Anyway, so then I already had figured out that the philosophical underpinnings of "n.s." were in direct conflict with the alleged principle itself so I figured three strikes and it's out. The physics part, the philosophy part, and the empirical part. Think about it. On a coral reef, say, the explanation for why some fish have bright colors that help them survive is "n.s." But that's the same explanation for why some fish have drab colors, it's to help them survive. It's the same explanation for everything. Wings, no wings. Color, no color. Scales, no scales. Exoskeleton, no exoskeleton. Blah, blah, blah. And finally, we all know Darwinian evolution is a crock so how could the guts of it be true if the theory is nonsense? So that's pretty much all I know about "n.s." I'm not a scientist but I do read a lot of what the "scientists" write and mostly I just try to think things through logically. I can't imagine how anyone would falsify "n.s." since it explains everything. But all it means is that living things live and only living things reproduce. That is pretty hard to argue with but to call it "the greatest intellectual achievement of mankind" as Francis Crick did or to attribute God-like causal power to it is hilarious. I think this will eventually go down in scientific history as the greatest hoax and/or fraud of all time. I wish the ID experts, the real guys with PhD's, not the amateurs like me, would really explore this some more. I have no idea about an empirical experiment but as a thought experiment I'll consider it. Maybe I'll have an idea. Thanks again. Tom p.s. tgpeeler.blogspot.com Please feel free to leave feedback, questions, challenges, etc... Iron sharpens iron... or in my case, lead. :-) The whole origin of life thing, it occurred to me today, driving back from the lake, is really the whole origin of information thing. Life is so intimately tied to information, and vice versa, I really need to think about it a lot more, but since you can't have either without the other I think it's pretty safe to say that it's fair to recast the origin question as an information question. This makes the issue a lot plainer, it seems to me. If we are talking about the "origin of life" studies, and they are all nowhere, they still hold out hope of some chemical accident getting things going. But if we realize that the problem is the origin of information, then reasoning as I have, the game is over. A mind is necessary for information whether it's biological or not. I'm guessing the people working on DNA are discovering daily how much they don't know about what goes on in the cell. Which is another way of saying that the "grammar and syntax" of the genetic language (and we KNOW it has those things, all languages do) is vastly more complex than we can probably even imagine. So how to account for this? I think the opening verse of John does it pretty well. In the beginning was the Word. In the beginning was Information. I'm not a theologian either but I think this makes sense in a lot of ways. Pretty interesting to consider. For me, at least.tgpeeler
August 8, 2009
August
08
Aug
8
08
2009
10:13 PM
10
10
13
PM
PDT
The glyphs are very interesting analogy to what Steve Meyer writes about in his new book Signature In The Cell. The DNA code and the machinery found at the center of life's structure really are even more complex and specified and many times more functional as the obviously designed glyphs. Bill Dembski has said that the fundamental question is "can design be detected in nature? Everything turns on this question." The bottom line is probability and specified patterns. Obviously if you have a very symmetrical pattern like a glyph we immediately think it was designed by an intelligence. Why? Because we dont see anyhting looking that specific and improbable in nature as a rule- we know caves dont naturally produce gylphs. Furthermore if we see more similar looking glyphs near by we know that we have an even greater puzzle of more specificity and improbability. This requires an even bigger explanation capable of influencing matter for even larger tasks and extended periods. Well the signature within the cell is many times more complex - and the DNA in the cell is vastly more numerous in the trillions of examples of SC. So the bottom line is that if we immediately think a glyph is intelligently designed then we should conclude that DNA is designed as well except we should reach that conclusion trillions of times quicker, more easily and with that much greater conviction. The bottom line is that the real objection is from the materialists who will only accept ID if a material designer can be pointed to. This is obviously an unfounded personal philosophical bias that is logically invalid. Call materialism poltical, dogmatic or religious but it sure isn't scientific.Frost122585
August 8, 2009
August
08
Aug
8
08
2009
09:47 PM
9
09
47
PM
PDT
tgpeeler,
Even some ID proponents make this horrible, horrible mistake. Acknowledging that “natural selection” can account for anything (“micro” evolution but not “macro” evolution). But wait, don’t organisms change? Don’t they adapt? Yes, they do. But it’s not “ns” that we see, it’s the interplay of exquisitely designed creatures with their environment.
This is marvelous stuff. Do you have your own blog? TBH, I've always accepted natural selection as a real phenomenon, but perhaps that's already conceding too much to the Darwinists. Could you flesh out more fully this distinction you've drawn between NS and the interplay between creatures and their environment? Is there an experiment which could distinguish between the two processes?herb
August 7, 2009
August
08
Aug
7
07
2009
04:00 PM
4
04
00
PM
PDT
Very nice, tgpeeler. I've yet to see anyone seriously address this argument (and you've made it before).HouseStreetRoom
August 7, 2009
August
08
Aug
7
07
2009
02:47 PM
2
02
47
PM
PDT
Seriously, does anyone really believe in Darwinian evolution anymore? On the one hand we posit Mind as the source of biological information and on the other hand we posit "natural selection" plus genetic mutation. How DO they stack up? "Natural selection" (I use scare quotes deliberately) is based on at least four faulty assumptions. The first is that there is a "struggle" to survive. But the materialist philosophy which is the basis for this "science" says that there is no purpose in the universe. So how can that be? There is no purpose in the universe but somehow there is a struggle for survival. We can't have it both ways, now, can we? It's either purpose or no purpose. If you allow purpose in order for "natural selection" to work then you have to explain the existence of purpose. Which you can't do. So neither do you get it for "natural selection." The second false assumption on which "ns" is based is that populations increase geometrically (a Malthusian myth). They don't. The planet would be overrun with critters if that were true, but we aren't, so it isn't. The third false assumption (also a Malthusian myth) is that food supplies increase only arithmetically. Thus the false problem of the "struggle for survival" wherein the overpopulating organisms compete with each other for a diminishing food supply. Those better able to adapt, live, and those that don't, die. What nonsense. Living things live and only living things reproduce. Wow. What insight. Being alive necessarily, by definition, means "being fit." If I'm not fit, I'm not alive. If I'm alive, I'm fit. This, THIS, is the major mechanism for the creation of biological information? ha ha chortle chortle. You must be kidding me. The fourth faulty assumption is that it even exists. I guess I could have started with this one and saved a few words. This is what I find absolutely hilarious about "ns" as an explanation for anything (it's not). This is the idea that it has causal power in nature. That is, if it is to have explanatory power at all, "ns" must have causal power. But if "ns" has causal power, and all causal power resides in physics, then "ns" must be part of physics. No? But it isn't. Ask a physicist about "ns" being one of the forces in nature and he will laugh at you, if he bothers to do that. There are four forces in nature and "ns" isn't on that list. So my unsophisticated mind reasons like this. If physics is all that has causal power (and this is the claim of the "isms" - m'ism, n'ism, and p'ism), but "ns" isn't mentioned in any of the physics books, i.e. it is not recognized as a part of physics, then it has NO CAUSAL POWER and therefore it’s not real. It’s a myth. Oh it's "real" enough if you are reading a biology book and if you take "real" to mean that someone believes it is real. But appealing to "ns" to explain anything in biology is like appealing to Santa Claus to explain Christmas presents under the tree. How funny is that? And grownups do it all the time. Even some ID proponents make this horrible, horrible mistake. Acknowledging that “natural selection” can account for anything (“micro” evolution but not “macro” evolution). But wait, don’t organisms change? Don’t they adapt? Yes, they do. But it’s not “ns” that we see, it’s the interplay of exquisitely designed creatures with their environment. The information already exists that allows for organisms to adapt. It’s not something “magically” generated on the fly. But wait, there's more hilarity. There are those, (I've read their books) who think that genetic mutations PLUS "ns" can account for an increase in biological information and thus new species. So that's akin to taking an essay and randomly altering selected letters, possibly rearranging or duplicating some words or sentences, and saying that will improve the essay. This is pretty cute in an odd sort of way. Kind of like watching a little kid pound on a piano and they think they're playing a symphony. So we've missed, as usual, the real problem which is not the alteration of biological information but the ORIGIN of it. So now we're back to the crux of the problem. To explain life you must explain information. To explain information you must explain language. To explain language you must be able to explain symbols and rules. If you are a materialist, naturalist, physicalist, you ONLY have physics with which to explain anything. So how does physics come to bear on why "cat" means one thing and "act" means another? Go ahead. Tell me what laws or forces explain the use of symbols. Well, of course, none of them do and they never will. And they don’t because physics explains the material world but we are talking about the immaterial world. But the “ists” deny the existence of the immaterial world (Gods, souls, minds, laws (except physics, of course, but no moral law)). They apparently accept the existence of information but somehow it escapes their notice that information, although encoded in material substrates, is immaterial. Another logical contradiction. This from people who allegedly worship reason as they mock ID. Pretty funny stuff, you’ll agree. The bottom line is that information always reduces to, or is explained by, Mind/mind, not matter. And naturalism, materialism, and/or physicalism, the philosophical basis for contemporary science (and much philosophy) is utter nonsense. I guess people who will believe that "ns" plus random information changes can write the biological equivalent of Shakespeare, and then some, will believe anything.tgpeeler
August 7, 2009
August
08
Aug
7
07
2009
02:24 PM
2
02
24
PM
PDT
MagicDonJuan1000(47): "What you have is circular logic (analysis of man-made (i.e. intelligent) markings has revealed that the markings were indeed designed by man) misapplied to an argument by analogy." Hardly. The decipherment work on the Indus Valley script does have a link with ID theory. The first goal of epigraphic analysis is determination of the apparent number of written symbols. From this can be determined whether the script is ideographic, syllabic or alphabetical, or a mix. If the number of written characters is limited, it is probably alphabetic or syllabic. In this case "meaning" is indirect, through the linguistic meaning of the successive spoken syllables coded in the written script chained together to form spoken words in some language independent of the script. It turned out that Egyptian heiroglyphics were a mixture of both types. The statistical work on the Indus Valley symbols is apparently an attempt to determine first, if the symbols represent a language at all (syllabic or ideographic), or are just bookkeeping ideographs. How does this relate to ID? The DNA code is analogous to a mainly alphabetic/syllabic script. The base pairs (letters or syllables) symbolize proteins (words), which symbolize biological structures and higher level functions (the biological language). In our experience only human minds are capable of originating such an efficient indirect means of coding and expressing meaning. Of course Darwinists claim absolutely anything including such a script and language must have originated by a gradual succession of random small advantageous advancements. No intelligence needed, no evidence needed, no ability to falsify needed. Sounds really scientific....magnan
August 7, 2009
August
08
Aug
7
07
2009
02:09 PM
2
02
09
PM
PDT
Lenoxus: Like I said, if you've got perpetual motion, bring it. There's a lot stacked up against random chance inventing the bee waggle dance or turning rats into bats, all in tiny accidentals steps. Several cases of possible speciation, two virtually indistinguishable versions of the exact same thing, just don't cut it. The claim they attempt to support is just too big. I understand we've only had a hundred years or so for observation. Perhaps another thousand centuries will support the faith with evidence. But all you've got is what you've got. And it doesn't include any evidence that mutations or any other random event in any numbers can do what's been said. For such a preposterous claim, the evidence must be conclusive and damning.ScottAndrews
August 7, 2009
August
08
Aug
7
07
2009
11:49 AM
11
11
49
AM
PDT
Nakashima at 38 Thank you for your considered posts.
A chemical example would be the association of G with hydrophobic amino acids and C with hydrophillic amino acids. . . .[to ] guide protein synthesis in interesting ways.
That is an interesting suggestion. However the presumed protein synthesis requires a preexisting functioning DNA/RNA coding, replication, repair and synthesis. Each step of this recursive self replicating system is dependent on each other step. In coded communication, a true code can be assigned independent of the meaning. The DNA coding sequence is independent of the properties of the synthesized protein. The Chevy company's "Nova" car had a favorable meaning in English as a bright exploding star. It had few sales in Latin America where "No va" meant "doesn't go". "To table" in the UK is to place into consideration while in the US it is to remove from consideration. "Guy" can mean male friend in English or cow in Nepali. "Gift" in German mean's "poison". etc. See "False Friends". That independence between code and meaning is at the heart of the challenge to Darwinism. May I recommend to you Werner Gitt's book In the Beginning was Information for further discussion of the different levels of information and communication.DLH
August 7, 2009
August
08
Aug
7
07
2009
09:07 AM
9
09
07
AM
PDT
Are mutations typically beneficial, neutral, or harmful? The answer tells us whether to open up the microwave.
Actually, I agree with this. Given that mutations are typically neutral, but those that have any effect are typically harmful, the answer is no, don't open that microwave. (Of course, you have more than your DNA to worry about when it comes to side-effects of high-energy EM radiation.) But you are an organism, not a species, and it is species that benefit in the long run from mutation (at the unfortunate cost of thousands of deaths). That said, I'd be the last to recommend a program of mass self-inflicted mutation, because (1) modern medicine and hygiene are well up to the task of preserving the species, (2)there's nothing morally "good" about massive amounts of evolutionary change, and (3) extreme amounts of mutation in one go are not how evolution normally works anyway.
That a variation confers survival does not make it new information. That’s why they produce countless strains and yet remain identifiable as the very same bacterial.
As I see it, what makes it new information is that it confers something different, survival or no. The new fitness is icing on the cake! But when you say "very same bacteria", you seem now to be talking about speciation, not information. Here's one page summarizing various cases of observed speciation. Of course, in every case, one can argue "that's still a fruit fly, even if it doesn't repoduce with those other fruit flies", but why should we expect any more significant change in a mere hundred years of looking for it? (Conversely, if there really is a phenomenon of Design constantly at work, why doesn't rapid natural speciation appear to us all the time? Has Design stopped, or does it too take a long, long time?)Lenoxus
August 7, 2009
August
08
Aug
7
07
2009
08:42 AM
8
08
42
AM
PDT
Lenoxus:
Obviously, the fact that some mutations increase both fitness and information doesn’t mean that mutation is generically “good”.
Much of the argument hinges on this, but there's no evidence to back it up. Mutations change information. Changed information is not increased information. The idea that such mutations create information as opposed to simply altering it is purely speculative. It shouldn't be in the same book as halfway decent hypothesis. Are mutations typically beneficial, neutral, or harmful? The answer tells us whether to open up the microwave. Self-inflicted is irrelevant. As for the example of antibiotic resistance: Yes, variation produces a strain that survives. But is that new information? If we measured every man and woman and chopped off everything taller than 4 feet, the survivors would reproduce and everyone would be short. That a variation confers survival does not make it new information. That's why they produce countless strains and yet remain identifiable as the very same bacterial. Random chance is no more plausible an explanation than it was several posts ago.ScottAndrews
August 7, 2009
August
08
Aug
7
07
2009
08:06 AM
8
08
06
AM
PDT
ScottAndrews:
Random, accidental, step-by-step invention of machines, features, and languages is on par with perpetual motion machines.
I actually like this comparison. I mean, in and of itself, that's an interesting thought problem.
Shall I tamper with the door of my microwave so that I can increase my functional information while I boil water? Or should I just wear less sunblock?
I guess what you're talking about is self-caused mutation by radiation. That would be extreme change of a sort which is almost always harmful. Of course, most mutations do not involve extreme change, and some can be beneficial, yadda yadda you've heard this before :). Obviously, the fact that some mutations increase both fitness and information doesn't mean that mutation is generically "good". For an individual organism, it's usually risky. The fact that a given population of bacteria is likely to gain antibiotic resistance should not make a specific bacterium happy. What do I mean by "functional information is produced by even the tiniest of mutations"? Well, if mutations allow an organism to acquire antibiotic resistance or to digest a new food source, does this not count as an increase of functional information? Or is it an example of increased function at the cost of information, a claim I've seen many times here but never seen substantiated? Is there simply a kind of "upper limit" to the amount of positive change that can occur before a genome has "run out"?Lenoxus
August 7, 2009
August
08
Aug
7
07
2009
07:09 AM
7
07
09
AM
PDT
Lenoxus: The mechanism is certainly worth worrying about. That's why I don't find Darwinism substantial. It proposes mutation and horizontal gene transfer and recombinance, but there is no evidence indicating that such mechanisms produce the changes attributed to them, undirected or otherwise. It's a leap of blind faith. Random, accidental, step-by-step invention of machines, features, and languages is on par with perpetual motion machines. Historical science or not, when someone tries to sell the impossible, they don't deserve to be taken seriously until they cough up some real hard evidence.
Well, how about deoxyribonucleic acid? Every step of its functioning seems to occur without intelligent intervention, yet functional information is produced by even the tiniest of mutations, unless you sufficiently distort the definition of “information”.
Surely you jest. Shall I tamper with the door of my microwave so that I can increase my functional information while I boil water? Or should I just wear less sunblock?ScottAndrews
August 7, 2009
August
08
Aug
7
07
2009
04:50 AM
4
04
50
AM
PDT
So the argument is as follows: 1) Computer analysis of man-made drawings is indicating that the drawings share characteristics of language, such as repetition of characters and symbols 2) This analysis indicates that the man-made symbols were indeed designed by an intelligent being 3) Therefore, other aspects of nature that exhibit similar repetition, which we can call organization for shorthand, were designed by intelligence. Rather than a refutation of evolution, this is awful collee freshman logic. What you have is circular logic (analysis of man-made (i.e. intelligent) markings has revealed that the markings were indeed designed by man) misapplied to an argument by analogy. You have a system, call it language, that only has any utility whatsoever if there is a common, agreed upon set of rules between sentient beings. If aberrations occur within language exchange, i.e. conversation or common usage, either a new word, phrase, etc. that suits all parties is adopted, or we assume that the person belched, or is uneducated, or has an accent. Through random events concepts and symbols are introduced that either are accepted or fail in the context of the user group, call it the pool of resources accessible to words for them to thrive. Taking a single snapshot of the field of competition at any one point reveals what looks like organization although over time the words, symbols and usage change. This is many ways is similar to evolution, as a system that proves beneficial to all parties ("life") adapts and changes in fits and starts, indeed with randomness, to increasing levels of sophistication. Therefore, regardless of the circularity of your initial argument, I would argue that the argument by analogy in fact subverts your whole argument.MagicDonJuan1000
August 6, 2009
August
08
Aug
6
06
2009
09:56 PM
9
09
56
PM
PDT
ScottAndrews: I really appreciate your civility, and again confess that I have been overly snarky, a bad habit of mine.
No designer has ever been caught in the act of creating or adding new features to living things. That is true. Neither has anything else.
With that, I'll just have to agree to disagree. Any given example of "new features" seen developing in our lifetimes or recent history (for example, nylon-eating bacteria) will simply be regarded by UD denizens as insufficiently different from old features, or as bringing a loss-of-information cost, or perhaps (though surprisingly rarely) as actual design in action.
The test is solid, unless you know of a thing besides intelligence that generates functionally specific, useful information.
Well, how about deoxyribonucleic acid? Every step of its functioning seems to occur without intelligent intervention, yet functional information is produced by even the tiniest of mutations, unless you sufficiently distort the definition of "information".
If you disregard intelligent design, disregard it for something better.
The thing is, any non-design based explanation is sooner or later going to be lumped in with "materialist science" and all its frailties. By that standard, there is nothing "better" which could please ID.
Given an event such as the origin of the “waggle dance,” how are unspecified, unmeasured random accidents which have never been observed to produce such a result, and for which there is no true hypothesis a better explanation?
If all explanations are to be measured strictly on the basis of whether the proposed mechanism has been seen to produce specifically the phenomenon in question, than that rules out not only evolution but much of archaeology, astronomy, etc. The inference that evolution lead to language in bees is derived from the knowledge that evolution has lead to advantageous developments in other organisms; with ID, there is no record of known past design to refer to.
It’s trading “that makes sense, I wonder how it was done,” for “I bet bees accidentally developed a detailed method of signaling distance and direction in relation to the sun, even no one has ever seen such a thing or knows how it would happen.” How is that an improvement?
The second quotation seems to describe ID just as well (except for the "accidentally" part), whereas with the first, I admit I'm suspicious about "I wonder how it was done". Why is there yet no agreed-upon mechanism? What does the lack of an agreed-upon mechanism tell us about the actual design mechanism, which must (according to ID) tangibly exist? That it's not really worth worrying about?Lenoxus
August 6, 2009
August
08
Aug
6
06
2009
07:42 PM
7
07
42
PM
PDT
Lenoxus: (My overreaction was a bit unnecessary. Sorry about that.) No designer has ever been caught in the act of creating or adding new features to living things. That is true. Neither has anything else. So by that logic, haven't we just eliminated all possible origins? You can't apply that to one and not to the other. Given that life exists, that line of reasoning may be discarded. It's logical to wish to know the mechanisms of design, or of evolution. Intelligent design is simply a test to determine whether a thing required an intelligent cause. The test is solid, unless you know of a thing besides intelligence that generates functionally specific, useful information. If it only answers that one question and leaves the rest blank, so be it, if the test is accurate. My thermometer accurately tells me the temperature, but cannot tell me where the heat is measures comes from. Is is faulty? If you disregard intelligent design, disregard it for something better. Given an event such as the origin of the "waggle dance," how are unspecified, unmeasured random accidents which have never been observed to produce such a result, and for which there is no true hypothesis a better explanation? It's trading "that makes sense, I wonder how it was done," for "I bet bees accidentally developed a detailed method of signaling distance and direction in relation to the sun, even no one has ever seen such a thing or knows how it would happen." How is that an improvement?ScottAndrews
August 6, 2009
August
08
Aug
6
06
2009
12:30 PM
12
12
30
PM
PDT
I guess I was getting tiresome with my harping on that one objection… I'm sorry. What's fundamentally bugging me here is the way in which ID sometimes refuses to allow naturalistic biology to operate normally. When solely evolutionary mechanisms are proposed to explain something, they are accused of being insufficient. If additional mechanisms to basic Darwinian evolution are proposed (such as punk eek or HGT), the argument is made that those contradict evolution, that they put evolution as a whole on thin ice, and that such mechanisms are just hat-pulled from nothing to avoid the obvious conclusion of Design. Any given explanation for, say, the origin of bee language or of mutualism is just a "magic incantation" derived from overactive imaginations, whereas the inference of generic, non-mechanistic design is purely hard logic. Any given naturalistic explanation can be "picked apart". Design, however, cannot. (For example, you can never claim that that designer "wouldn't do that", because you're not the designer.) Yet, with Design, what's being proposed is a phenomenon that has never been observed. Yes, "design" has generically been observed. But "Design" as a mechanism for the origin of biological structures hasn't been, at least not in a way that even experts within the ID community can agree on. (Do gaps in the fossil record indicate saltation, or does each reproductive event involve little change? Are all genomes "designed to evolve", or do they deteriorate due to "genetic entropy"? And why can't such ideas be accused of being hat-pulled, especially given the lack of evidence for any of them?)Lenoxus
August 6, 2009
August
08
Aug
6
06
2009
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PDT
Lenoxus: As is my occasional habit, I addressed this exact type of "reasoning" in another thread, giving you the benefit of the doubt that perhaps you were actually interested in the answers to the questions you raised. Why did I bother? Now I know better. You adhere to an ideology, and contradictory information will bounce off of you like bullets off of Superman's forehead. Some people are ignorant, but a rare few are proud of their refusal to learn.ScottAndrews
August 6, 2009
August
08
Aug
6
06
2009
10:23 AM
10
10
23
AM
PDT
Yeah, well, look at all the problems the Designer would have had to face in giving those bees language. First, she would have had to and then, she would Finally, she'd add a dash of and that would largely solve the remaining issues. Huh, something seems to be wrong with my keyboard…Lenoxus
August 6, 2009
August
08
Aug
6
06
2009
08:55 AM
8
08
55
AM
PDT
But I’ve learned by now that nothing is a showstopper for Darwinism. The impossible is inevitable. “Improbable” is just another word for “it took longer.” No big deal. It’s just a few more mutations. Or a few more of something else. We’re not sure which or how many or why or how, but we’ll call it an explanation and call it science
thats RIGHT!!! whatever it is, it HAD to evolve, because EVOLUTION IS TRUE..and the alternative is UNTHINKABLE!!!! PRAISE DARWIN!! evolution is a religion...atheism posing as science...tsmith
August 6, 2009
August
08
Aug
6
06
2009
07:32 AM
7
07
32
AM
PDT
Nakashima:
The process of arriving at an agreed signal system can be viewed as an example of co-evolution. Since symbols are arbitrary, they can begin as any random association which then become habituated.
In the case of bees which communicate cooperatively, any behavior which sends a message offers no benefit unless the it is understood. Keep in mind that these are not people consciously attempting to communicate and to understand. These are unreasoning animals. Any visible behavior which relates to possessed knowledge is a mutated accident. One bee is not trying to tell the other anything. And, if its behavior does not produce results because there isn't another bee to receive the message, then it confers no advantage. Likewise, the "receiving" bee, unable to think abstractly, does not understand the meaning of the message. It has mutated an inexplicable instinct to fly in a certain direction in response to the sight of another bee moving in its own oddly mutated manner. If there is no bee with a mutation to send that signal, there is no advantage. I left out one minor detail - the message takes into account the position of the sun, even when the bees have been in the hive for extended periods. Apparently they had some additional mutations that affected both the sending of the messages and the response to them to take the sun into account. So now we have an abstract message calculated using direction and distance to the flowers and the position of the sun. And one more - worker bees don't reproduce. But I've learned by now that nothing is a showstopper for Darwinism. The impossible is inevitable. "Improbable" is just another word for "it took longer." No big deal. It's just a few more mutations. Or a few more of something else. We're not sure which or how many or why or how, but we'll call it an explanation and call it science.ScottAndrews
August 6, 2009
August
08
Aug
6
06
2009
06:13 AM
6
06
13
AM
PDT
Megan, I was trying to give you the benefit of the about asking if the truth (based on the best evidence) was important. Some people rightly find such questions intellectually primitive. I am one of those people As for your continued implication that medicine is dependent on origins research, I will simply let the implications of the Plos article speak for itself.Upright BiPed
August 5, 2009
August
08
Aug
5
05
2009
08:47 PM
8
08
47
PM
PDT
Mr Tgpeeler, There were a lot of citations today to the evolution of mutual behaviors today on the Scrumptious Wrasse thread. But if we consider bees dancing, dancing behavior and reactions to dancing behavior could begin as random and uncoordinated. However, even slight correlations betwen dance and reaction will lead those bees to more food than the other random combinations, and cetainly more food than the anti-correlated bees. Even though waggling is arbitrary behavior, as good as hopping or buzzing, it now means something. An arbitrary behavior has become a symbol, conveying meaning, simply by correlation. A chemical example would be the association of G with hydrophobic amino acids and C with hydrophillic amino acids. That is a much smaller and less precise genetic code than the one we have today. But it would still guide protein synthesis in interesting ways. The G-phobic, C-phillic would just be a frozen accident.Nakashima
August 5, 2009
August
08
Aug
5
05
2009
04:13 PM
4
04
13
PM
PDT
Upright BiPed, "With all due respect, your comments seem to be based on something other than fact." Which comments of mine are you referring to? And what happened to answering my questions? "Actually, as I read your remarks I am wondering just what the assumptions are that you operate with." Gravity? "Are you under the belief that having a view of the origins of nucleic sequencing which is based solely on the observable evidence will somehow inhibit our ability to solve biological problems? Are you thoughts such that our medical progress is subject to an incorrect reading of the data?" I dunno, you tell me... "Either way, I am surprised that you suggest that recognizing reality is less valuable to mankind than willfully perpetrating a mistake (after it has been proven to be so)." Ok, whatever, so what has come of your alternative approach? Anything tangible? "In any case, such recognition has practical value, for instance, we might not have wasted the past 35 years operating under the ridiculous assumption that junk DNA was actually junk." Nothing at all? When can we expect some developments? I'm not asking for headline news, just some new data/greater understanding based on ID theory.MeganC
August 5, 2009
August
08
Aug
5
05
2009
03:40 PM
3
03
40
PM
PDT
Mr. Nakashima says: "The process of arriving at an agreed signal system can be viewed as an example of co-evolution. Since symbols are arbitrary, they can begin as any random association which then become habituated. This could even be at the chemical level. What starts as a very loose association becomes, through feedback over time, a much tighter and precise relationship." I don't understand the claim(s) that you are making and I sure don't know what your foundational assumptions are. What, exactly, are you claiming? That arbitrary symbols somehow created information? When you trace back the antecedent chain of causes where do you arrive? What is at the bottom of information? Chance? Chance can't possibly create meaningful information even given symbols and rules. Plus, information is meaningless outside the context of life. You can't have information without life and you can't have life without information. So which came first? How did it "evolve"? If that is your claim.tgpeeler
August 5, 2009
August
08
Aug
5
05
2009
02:59 PM
2
02
59
PM
PDT
There is a difference between a code and mere design. A code is a type of design but a step removed—its information must be decoded by a mind or a machine before its function or specification can be realized. All codes are to one degree or another arbitrary, not so the design instantiated in matter. A shovel or mouse trap is immediately functional. An English paragraph or a sequence of DNA is not. Thus it is ordinarily much easier to guess the function of an archaeological artifact (pottery, weaponry, etc.) than the meaning of a code such as in the Indus Valley tablets. Without a key to the code we are typically lost. Without the Behistan inscription and the Rosetta stone we would have been hard pressed to decipher Akkadian and Egyptian. But language has certain characteristics, as do various writing systems (logographic, syllabic and phonetic), which can be analyzed independently of meaning, and speaks to the nature of design as opposed to the repetitive or random noise patterns found in nature. The Indus Valley writings are interesting in that they are close to as old as the Mesopotamian and thus among the oldest on earth. Outside of India most would be epigraphers have assumed the language to have been Dravidian—not Indo-Aryan—but that theory carries political liability in India, as David McAlpin was to learn. Anyway the identification and decipherment of ancient writing provides a real example of design detection and the fact that the science doesn’t stop with the detection.Rude
August 5, 2009
August
08
Aug
5
05
2009
02:40 PM
2
02
40
PM
PDT
Mr Tgpeeler, The process of arriving at an agreed signal system can be viewed as an example of co-evolution. Since symbols are arbitrary, they can begin as any random association which then become habituated. This could even be at the chemical level. What starts as a very loose association becomes, through feedback over time, a much tighter and precise relationship.Nakashima
August 5, 2009
August
08
Aug
5
05
2009
02:38 PM
2
02
38
PM
PDT
Some quotes on life and information: “You can treat the genetic code as a dictionary in which sixty-four words in one language (the sixty-four possible triplets of a four-letter alphabet) are mapped onto twenty-one words in another language (twenty amino acids plus a punctuation mark).” River Out of Eden, page 11. “Life is just bytes and bytes and bytes of digital information.” River Out of Eden, page 19. “Indeed, the whole DNA/protein-based information technology is so sophisticated – high tech, it has been called by the chemist Graham Cairns-Smith – that you can scarcely imagine it arising by luck, without some other self-replicating system as a forerunner.” River Out of Eden, page 150. “We have seen that DNA molecules are the centre of a spectacular information technology.” The Blind Watchmaker, page 126. “…so that the language that is used in the nucleic acid polymers is universal.” Of Molecules and Men, page 10. The existence of a genome and the genetic code divides the living organisms from nonliving matter. There is nothing in the physico-chemical world that remotely resembles reactions being determined by a sequence and codes between sequences. Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, page 2. The belief of mechanist-reductionists that the chemical processes in living matter do not differ in principle from those in dead matter is incorrect. There is no trace of messages determining the results of chemical reactions in inanimate matter. If genetical processes were just complicated biochemistry, the laws of mass action and thermodynamics would govern the placement of amino acids in the protein sequences. page 5. Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies. page 6 The genetic information system is the software of life and, like the symbols in a computer, it is purely symbolic and independent of its environment. Of course, the genetic message, when expressed as a sequence of symbols, is nonmaterial but must be recorded in matter or energy. page 7. Life is guided by information and inorganic processes are not. page 8.tgpeeler
August 5, 2009
August
08
Aug
5
05
2009
02:05 PM
2
02
05
PM
PDT
Ah, I was going by American time. :-) I'm saying that ultimately, at the bottom of all human information, we will find a human mind. Not physics. So I am extrapolating to all other kinds of creatures whether they be sentient aliens or mindless bugs. If life requires information, and it does. And information requires language, and it does. And language requires symbols and rules, and it does. THEN we must explain symbols and rules. But physics can't do that. So any "ism" that relies on physics as its explanatory work horse can never explain symbols and rules, therefore language, therefore information, therefore life. That's my point. Neo-Darwinian evolution is a fraud and a farce and there will be a lot of red faces someday. As far as animals go, they create and use information all the time. Just watch a nature show on how whales hunt or how army ants maneuver through the jungle. But obviously they are not using information like we do. They are, as far as I know, not self-aware, rational, moral creatures, like we allegedly are. They don't have "minds" like human minds. But they do interact with their environment and they do communicate. So I would not say that bees have a "mind" but then that poses the question: where does that information come from, then? I say it's built into the DNA. I say this as a logical deduction, not an empirical observation. Let me try it this way. I'm saying that only living things communicate. On a conceptual level, language is required for the communication of information. I don't see how this cannot be true. Try to communicate or even imagine communication apart from language. At its core, language is symbols and rules for organizing those symbols. The symbols can be letters, sounds, bumps, dots and dashes, ones and zeroes, chemical "odors", gestures, and so on. But in order for communication to take place, the sender and receiver must be on, or nearly on, the same wavelength. I must recognize the symbols you use and the rules for using them otherwise I can't understand what you say. Does this help?tgpeeler
August 5, 2009
August
08
Aug
5
05
2009
01:50 PM
1
01
50
PM
PDT
Mr Tgpeeler, It is actually either a very late "konban ha", or a very early "ohayo gozaimasu" in Japan right now! But ohayo just means "it's early, isn't it?" so maybe that is more appropriate. Anyway, I'm not clear on whether life is necessary or whether mind is necessary. Are you saying that since bees use language that they have minds? Or that language can be created by life, even if not life with a mind like ours? Thank you if you can clarify.Nakashima
August 5, 2009
August
08
Aug
5
05
2009
01:17 PM
1
01
17
PM
PDT
Megan, With all due respect, your comments seem to be based on something other than fact. Actually, as I read your remarks I am wondering just what the assumptions are that you operate with. Are you under the belief that having a view of the origins of nucleic sequencing which is based solely on the observable evidence will somehow inhibit our ability to solve biological problems? Are you thoughts such that our medical progress is subject to an incorrect reading of the data? http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.0050112 Either way, I am surprised that you suggest that recognizing reality is less valuable to mankind than willfully perpetrating a mistake (after it has been proven to be so). In any case, such recognition has practical value, for instance, we might not have wasted the past 35 years operating under the ridiculous assumption that junk DNA was actually junk.Upright BiPed
August 5, 2009
August
08
Aug
5
05
2009
12:30 PM
12
12
30
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply