Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

If You Want Good Science, Who Better to Ask Than Barret Brown?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Barrett Clown, oh pardon me, Barrett Brown, thinks he makes an argument against ID by humor and satire alone here at The Huffington Post. He is, after all, to be taken deadly seriously, he’s written for National Lampoon for goodness sakes and written a book about Dodo birds. Not really, Dodo birds were really just straw men, or, more accurately, scare crows. If satire counts for argument, then my blog post has done the same job that Barrett’s has. Revel in the irony that Barret would write about “bits of information” to prove his point;

Bits of information are no longer compartmentalized like so many scattered VHS tapes and gothic rock album liner notes, which is why Dembski and company can’t get away with trying to portray ID as a scientific theory with no religious intent while having already admitted that same religious intent to sympathetic Biblical literalists. But that crowd doesn’t seem to understand this fundamental aspect of the Internet, that Google waits in watch of dishonesty. And thus it is that Dembski’s blog Uncommon Descent is among the most interesting things that the Internet has to offer.

Barrett, you want to discuss information theory? I reckon a good penchant for satire gives all the credentials necessary. No, certainly not, you are right, bits of information are no longer compartmentalized like so many scattered VHS tapes and gothic rock albums liner notes, they are compartmentalized in the DNA sequence in such a way that no VHS tape or liner note, however organized, could ever accomplish. No intelligence here folks, I mean, with Barrett, that is. Seriously, he is seriously serious in his satire, which is really just a way to be covertly passive/aggressive, nothing insincere here folks. If this counts for argument, then I am arguing by the same, and this post should be counted as just as valid. I’m intentionally avoiding much real argument and focusing on satire to prove a point, and the point is to expose the absurdity by being absurd in the same way. This guy cracks me up like we were in highschool. Except, I never liked guys like him in highschool, and have even less patience with them now.  Hey Barret, try to dig up some stuff on me buddy, for nothing proves an argument more than mockery and character assassination.

Comments
PS: SG -- It is clear that UD serves as a forum of record for the ID movement [now being associated with BOTH Dr Dembski and Dr Behe, as well as Dr Hunter, Dr Sewell etc]; so much so that it is now being targetted by the ideologues at HuffPo etc. [They would never give UD exposure if they did not think the impact of this blog was insignificant.] And, in fact, UD leadership report as at some months back, 6 - 9,000 unique visitors per day; which is not insignificant for a relatively technical blog.kairosfocus
August 19, 2009
August
08
Aug
19
19
2009
01:44 AM
1
01
44
AM
PDT
Onlookers: "Interesting" isn't it when the objectors to ID "suddenly" take an interest in substantial points from the Weak Argument Correctives and Glossary? For instance, just above, CIT wants to parse the definition of Intelligence, and one of those for Design Theory. (Pardon my suspicions for a moment, let's pause and speak to the point just above.) CIT evidently wants to understand what ID is as the study of SIGNS of intelligence. Well . . .
1 --> ID is not the study of intelligence itself (an unobservable . . . ) but of its characteristic signs, from which one infers and empirically supports the presence of the signified. 2 --> This is similar to how (ever since J J Thomson's work in 1897 or so) we do not directly observe electrons and other more exotic particles -- can you show me a photograph of an electron? -- but are quite confident of their presence from signs of their interactions that leave observable traces such as bubble chamber tracks or dots on oscilloscope screens; and onward, infer to other constructs, e.g. I used to illustrate the Lorentz Force by setting an old [!] CRO to XY mode and using a hand-rotated bar magnet to deflect and pull the dot around with it in a circle, to explain Induction Motors and TV deflection yokes, etc. (Have you ever seen "energy" or "time" either?) 3 --> In short, it is a commonplace in science to have integrative constructs or concepts that are not directly observed but are viewed as well substantiated on inference to best explanation of clusters of observed phenomena and characteristic signs. 4 --> just so, we know [from personal experience and observation] that intelligences exist and act into the world, producing artifacts with characteristic traces, which of course manifest the purposefulness of intelligence, i.e reflect that intelligences plan and implement such towards goals. ID sets about studying such traces, so that from the resulting credible signs of intelligence, we may infer from sign to intelligence in cases where we do not directly observe an intelligence at work. FSCI is of course one such sign, and in the more technical form, FSC, has been not only quantified but at least one list of 35 measured values in functional bits [= "fits"] has been published for families of proteins [cf WAC 27 for the link to Durston et al].
But, such technical matters are in reality a distraction from something far more serious that has emerged in this pivotal thread, and has formed its main focus. [SG, kindly observe from the original post, the link to the HuffPo hit piece, the prominence given therein to a false accusation of "lying" as the context for his VHS video reference -- cf 104 - 5 for a detailed expose -- and then let us return to the main focus for the thread.] For, this thread has revealed: a --> The real context for the last sentence of the Touchstone 1999 article [cf esp 104 - 5 above] that Mr Brown at HuffPo et al [and behind him, Ms Forrest etc.] have latched onto. (That is, as WAC 7 highlights, having outlined ID theory and techniques c. 1999, WmAD was making some explicitly philosophical and theological remarks as he projected onward and outward from the technical scientific matters. Far from "lying" or concealing a hidden tyrannical theocratic agenda [cf. WAC's 7 - 8], he was providing a corrective to the smuggling in of a priori, Lewontinian materialism into science, education and other key institutions of our civilisation.) b --> The slander-based, demonising incivility embedded in the false accusation of lying and hidden tyrannical theocratic agendas, once it begins to snowball, is destructive to the culture of mutual respect that is foundational to our liberties. And, when I pointed this out, I found myself promptly threatened with and/or actually reported to the US Homeland Security Dept, to put me on a terror-threat watch list. In short, the thread contains a live example of slander and destructive tyrannical incivility -- from the evolutionary materialist side. [I have taken initial steps to lodge an official complaint.] c --> HuffPo reveals that the common taunt that UD is censoring and suppressive of dissent -- for all the problems we have had here -- is too often hypocritical, sometimes even evidently cynically so. Here, Mr Brown made much of how his comments were moderated and held up for a few hours, but in fact at his own thread, dissenting comments by other participants in this thread were not only sharply constricted as to length, but were held up for a day or in many cases simply never appeared, no explanation. So, if one is serious about having a civil discussion on the merits, UD is the place to do it. d --> moreover, the thread also shows that he WAC's [and glossary] do in fact form a key point of departure for addressing serious questions on design theory, by cutting away a lot of thorny, noxious brushwood based on misunderstandings -- often based on naively thinking that the critics of ID have given a true and fair view of what they are attacking [a problem that holds all the way up to Judge Jones' Dover decision . . . ] -- so that a more serious discussion can ensue. (And SG, that is a vital and even positive contribution.) GEM of TKIkairosfocus
August 19, 2009
August
08
Aug
19
19
2009
01:38 AM
1
01
38
AM
PDT
lamarck, #294
Caman, Then give me an example of ID postulating that a designer is determined to act in a certain way.
Referring to the glossary here on UD:
Intelligence – Wikipedia aptly and succinctly defines: “capacities to reason, to plan, to solve problems, to think abstractly, to comprehend ideas, to use language, and to learn."
Since ID is “the science that studies signs of intelligence,” wouldn't design itself be a sign that something planned to act in a certain way?camanintx
August 18, 2009
August
08
Aug
18
18
2009
03:00 PM
3
03
00
PM
PDT
Onlookers: It’s a good thing I decided to pass back.
Yes, they're depending on you.
Recall, the main issue on the table is deliberate slander...
I don't get that when I read Clive's article. Do you control the issues on the table? Sometimes UDers start new threads to address "pivotal" issues arising in other threads. Why don't you log in to UD as a white-box user and move this side discussion, which you are sure trumps the original in importance, to the top of the blog?Sal Gal
August 18, 2009
August
08
Aug
18
18
2009
01:12 PM
1
01
12
PM
PDT
Caman, Then give me an example of ID postulating that a designer is determined to act in a certain way.lamarck
August 18, 2009
August
08
Aug
18
18
2009
09:18 AM
9
09
18
AM
PDT
lamarck, #285
What definition of intent are you using?
Pronunciation: \in-?ten(t)-sh?n\ Function: noun 1: a determination to act in a certain way
Can a tracker follow the deer’s tracks while not worrying about intent or what if any properties the deer possesses? Are you saying we must assume a deer’s tracks are the product of a deer or that we must not?
We are talking about intelligent design, aren't we? Tracks left by deer are hardly design, much less intelligent.camanintx
August 18, 2009
August
08
Aug
18
18
2009
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PDT
Onlookers: It's a good thing I decided to pass back. SG's comments just above underscore the precise pattern of problems I have highlighted. Recall, the main issue on the table is deliberate slander, and that a secondary issue is threatening a participant with malicious report to the Homeland Security Dept; and maybe it was more than "just" a threat too. As to the ethical import of evolutionary material-ISM, ever since Plato, as already cited, the system of thought has been A-moral. Spell that: is-ought gap, as in from a material is, you cannot derive an ethical ought. (As Elizabeth Anscombe long ago corrected Hume en passant, one cannot derive the ought from the is, save when the ought is inherent in the import of the fundamental reality. That is a key advantage of theism, never mind all the current carping at deontological ethics etc [the Euthryphro dilemma being especially long since past sell-by date): the inherently good God commands that which is good and for our own good, which we can see through the light of conscience-guided reason and the pursuit of virtue, is indeed not arbitrary. [My 101 level discussion is here, including on why I do not go along with relativism on ethics.] And, the heart of sound sustainability of development analysis is the ethics of equity.) G'day again GEM of TKIkairosfocus
August 18, 2009
August
08
Aug
18
18
2009
05:00 AM
5
05
00
AM
PDT
kairosfocus, What is your estimate of the number of onlookers in comment 286? Keep it in mind that this thread no longer appears on the UD home page.Sal Gal
August 18, 2009
August
08
Aug
18
18
2009
03:55 AM
3
03
55
AM
PDT
kairosfocus:
So, so long as our innate, inescapable sense that justice is binding, matters greatly and is far more than “might makes right” speaks true, we can see that since philosophical naturalism and/or materialism reduces to amorality — and thus reduces ethics to might makes right — it patently reduces itself to absurdity.
Your view of ethics strikes me as parochial, as do those of many religious people. Have you ever taken a philosophy course in the topic? I have known some atheists who were highly ethical. If you have not, you need to get out more. Furthermore, I have known quite a few Christians who were quite unethical, regarding their salvation as a "get out of jail free" card -- i.e., they believed that their professions of faith would get them to heaven, no matter how little regard they showed for the Golden Rule.Sal Gal
August 18, 2009
August
08
Aug
18
18
2009
03:49 AM
3
03
49
AM
PDT
kairosfocus,
Not only so, but the persistent pattern of deflective arguments above to turn this tread from a decisive point through distractions to issues long since adequately answered in the Weak Argument correctives is chillingly revealing in the light of Plato’s analysis.
Don't you think this is just a bit of a stretch, going from the "weak argument correctives" (where, by the way, are the correctives for the weak arguments IDers so often trot out?) to Plato and "might makes right." The only person exercising might here at UD is Clive Hayden.Sal Gal
August 18, 2009
August
08
Aug
18
18
2009
03:37 AM
3
03
37
AM
PDT
kairosfocus, Is this your idea of civil discourse?Sal Gal
August 18, 2009
August
08
Aug
18
18
2009
03:29 AM
3
03
29
AM
PDT
kairosfocus,
This thread is a pivotal one for UD, and for he wider significance of rthe design controversy. For, in it, we see highlighted the characteristic amorality of evolutionary materialism, and its reduction to the absurdity that might makes right.
Evolutionary materialism is incapable of amorality. If you mean that you have highlighted the characteristic amorality of evolutionary materialists, come out and say it. Also explain to us how you have divined that the people who have taunted and teased you are philosophical, rather than methodological, materialists.Sal Gal
August 18, 2009
August
08
Aug
18
18
2009
03:29 AM
3
03
29
AM
PDT
Onlookers (And participants): This thread is a pivotal one for UD, and for he wider significance of rthe design controversy. For, in it, we see highlighted the characteristic amorality of evolutionary materialism, and its reduction to the absurdity that might makes right. So, per such premises, if you can get away with it, slander is no big thing, nor threatening people with -- or possibly carrying out -- false accusations of being terrorist threats, or the like. And, if you can successfully distract attention from such injustice, then that is the useful rhetorical gambit to undertake. And utility tempered by prudence if you do not hold enough power to get away with it, is the only measure of behaviour. That is sad indeed. Nor, is it a new development. For, in 360 BC, Plato already saw this in his opening salvo reductio argument against evolutionary naturalism, in the Laws, Book X: _____________ >> Ath. . . . But as to our younger generation and their wisdom, I cannot let them off when they do mischief. For do but mark the effect of their words: when you and I argue for the existence of the Gods, and produce the sun, moon, stars, and earth, claiming for them a divine being, if we would listen to the aforesaid philosophers we should say that they are earth and stones only, which can have no care at all of human affairs, and that all religion is a cooking up of words and a make-believe . . . . They say that the greatest and fairest things are the work of nature and of chance, the lesser of art [ i.e. techne], which, receiving from nature the greater and primeval creations, moulds and fashions all those lesser works which are generally termed artificial . . . . The elements are severally moved by chance and some inherent force according to certain affinities among them-of hot with cold, or of dry with moist, or of soft with hard, and according to all the other accidental admixtures of opposites which have been formed by necessity. After this fashion and in this manner the whole heaven has been created, and all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only. [[In short, evolutionary materialism is hardly a new or a primarily "scientific" view!] Art sprang up afterwards and out of these, mortal and of mortal birth, and produced in play certain images and very partial imitations of the truth, having an affinity to one another, such as music and painting create and their companion arts. And there are other arts which have a serious purpose, and these co-operate with nature, such, for example, as medicine, and husbandry, and gymnastic. And they say that politics cooperate with nature, but in a less degree, and have more of art; also that legislation is entirely a work of art, and is based on assumptions which are not true . . . . these people would say that the Gods exist not by nature, but by art, and by the laws of states, which are different in different places, according to the agreement of those who make them; and that the honourable is one thing by nature and another thing by law, and that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.- [[Relativism, too, is not new.] These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might, and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions, these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is, to live in real dominion over others, and not in legal subjection to them. >> ________________ Such an ethic of might makes "right" has been all too manifest in this thread and in the parallel HuffPo one. In short, ever since Plato, it has been plain that the view that chance and necessity acting on material entities are the prior causes leads to radical relativism and ends in equating justice to "might makes right." [Onlookers, cf the parallel thread on the new atheists and amorality in the context of the problem of evil, here.] So, so long as our innate, inescapable sense that justice is binding, matters greatly and is far more than "might makes right" speaks true, we can see that since philosophical naturalism and/or materialism reduces to amorality -- and thus reduces ethics to might makes right -- it patently reduces itself to absurdity. It is thus necessarily false, and it is manifestly pernicious and dangerous. As, the fiasco with Mr Barret Brown's slanderous fulminations backed up by censorship ever so amply demonstrates. Not only so, but the persistent pattern of deflective arguments above to turn this tread from a decisive point through distractions to issues long since adequately answered in the Weak Argument correctives is chillingly revealing in the light of Plato's analysis. So, onlookers, we have been forewarned. GEM of TKI PS: Nakashima-san et al: you will see that I am seriously disturbed at the pattern of your arguments, in the context of what is truly at stake in this thread. Please, think soberly about that. PPS: I will simply say on the matter of the search space challenge for both OOL and body-plan level biodiversity [and onlookers, yes this was in the always linked all along -- as well as much more on related issues . . . ], that it is unmet and above you simply seek to dismiss it with a literary allusion to a comical figure, don Quixote. As to the idea that oh the 22 Aa's are formed in a test-tube in a week, so life can form easily, I simply point out that racemic formation of chemicals has little to do with functionally organised, algorithmically controlled homochiral molecular nanomachines as a core aspect of life (no more so than that a cat 5 hurricane passing over a hardware store will credibly build a house out of stirring up the available components), AND that if the homochirality was injected at he outset you are failing to spot undue investigator interference. At his stage I have but little time or patience for distractions given what is REALLY at stake but is being insistently ignored and distracted from. What you have plainly demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt through enabling behaviour in the teeth of repeated reminder, is callous indifference to manifest injustice. Prudent people will take warning from that. G'day, sirs.kairosfocus
August 18, 2009
August
08
Aug
18
18
2009
01:16 AM
1
01
16
AM
PDT
Caman, "without intent there is no way to distinguish design from natural causes." What definition of intent are you using? Can a tracker follow the deer's tracks while not worrying about intent or what if any properties the deer possesses? Are you saying we must assume a deer's tracks are the product of a deer or that we must not? You have yet to clarify your position. Can you explain what you actually mean? I'm forced to guess with my own examples. If intent can be divorced from ID, and we are talking about stripped down definitions, then state your case in a new way so I can follow what it relates to. Is your problem not with ID but with how ID proponents might have communicated ID sometimes? If so what does that have to do with anything?lamarck
August 17, 2009
August
08
Aug
17
17
2009
09:01 PM
9
09
01
PM
PDT
kariosfocus, #281
Why then do you and the dominant school of thought think the DNA code for first life [probably ~ 600 - 1,000 k bits storage capacity] or for major body plan innovations [probably ~ 10's - 100's M bits storage capacity] wrote itself by chance + necessity?)
If scientists can produce 22 different amino acids in one week from just a few flasks of water, methane, ammonia and hydrogen, don't you think you might be overstating the odds just a little? Especially when nature had millions of years and a whole planet to work with.
However — as is also pointed out in the thread above — when we bring to bear the other side of deisng theory, cosmological inference on fine-tuning of the cosmos that supports life, we find that a more specific inference becomes plausible. For, the cosmos shows signs of design, and design that makes intelligent, cell-based biological life possible, in aggregate multidimensional and exquisite fine-tuning.
Before you can argue fine tuning, you first have to explain how all these cosmological constants came to have the values they do and what range of potential values they might have had. Since we aren't even sure what these constants are, I doubt you'll be able to answer the first much less the second.camanintx
August 17, 2009
August
08
Aug
17
17
2009
04:57 PM
4
04
57
PM
PDT
KF-san, If I may suggest, you might improve your argument by making it more realistic. While it is easy enough to multiply out these large numbers by adding their exponents, I think most readers of this blog already know that it is not chemical or Darwinian evolution that you are thereby refuting, it is random search. This is a windmill you have conquered over and over. It would be more powerful if you assumed what you wish to disprove, evolution, and then reason to the contradiction that there is not enough states in the universe to accomplish something useful, like building a genome. This is what you often pretend to do, but do not do.Nakashima
August 17, 2009
August
08
Aug
17
17
2009
03:00 PM
3
03
00
PM
PDT
PA: Horizontal gene transfers are irrelevant to the origin of the DNA codes in the transferred genes. It is information origination, not transfer,that is the key issue that needs to be squarely faced, not brushed aside through a convenient red herring and strawman. [And, BTW, one very well known means of horizontal transfer of algorithmically functional information and associated data structures is the code library and associated code re-use.]kairosfocus
August 17, 2009
August
08
Aug
17
17
2009
02:36 PM
2
02
36
PM
PDT
Caman: I must underscore that your arguments sound ever more like a distractive effort. Please -- fair warning -- please, remember the context of this thread, and that the party you are addressing has not just got an academic interest in the issue of slander but was threatened above -- if it was only threatened [I have had to treat the matter as more than an idle threat] -- with being reported to the US Homeland Security administration, for pointing out the implications of snowballing incivility. I do not just now have time to take you up point by point, so I will speak to a couple of pivotal misunderstandings [which you could have averted by examining the Weak Argument Correctives accessible from every page in the main UD blog]. Now, first, on your "infinite monkeys theorem," I note that the problem is that infinity is just that: infinite -- beyond the finite; i.e. non-empirical. Our observed cosmos -- all that we are warranted to assume or assert on for this -- has about 10^80 atoms, 3/4 of which are H, much of the remainder He, with C less than 1%. On using the Planck time as a yardstick [~ 10^-43 s] and 10^25s [~ 10^17 years] as a thermodynamically plausible lifespan for the cosmos, we can at most see 10^150 states of all the atoms of the cosmos. 1,000 bits entails a configuration space of ~ 10^301 states, which means that the whole cosmos acting as a search engine, and acting on chance + mechanical necessity in the ~ 13.7 *10^9 y since the singularity that is a common estimate, could not have sampled or searched or scanned as much as 1 in 10^150 of the configs; an unimaginably small fraction of the available config space of just 1,000 bits of information storage capacity. (This combinatorial explosion effect is BTW, not unrelated to the complexity challenge faced by hardware troubleshooters and software debuggers.) But, intelligence routinely uses insight and creative imagination to target precise islands of function in the space for entities that are far more complex than that. (For instance just 143 ASCII characters in contextually responsive English -- about 18 - 20 typical words -- are at the 1,000 bit threshold, and are demonstrably in an island of function as random perturbation of the string will show. Do you write by getting a million monkeys to pound away at keyboards at random, then scanning for a contextually responsive text in good English? So you expect a rock-fall down a hillside at the border of Wales to come to rest in the configuration: Welcome to Wales? Does Mr Gates write Windows 7 -- or even a "hello World" program by putting a troop of monkeys to pound away at random at typewriters? Does Dell make the computers for Mr gates by making monkeys play with the parts bins at Round Rock? Why then do you and the dominant school of thought think the DNA code for first life [probably ~ 600 - 1,000 k bits storage capacity] or for major body plan innovations [probably ~ 10's - 100's M bits storage capacity] wrote itself by chance + necessity?) Indeed, the ONLY empirically confirmed, directly observed source of such FSCI is intelligence [and that in the context of the search challenge we see above]; so much so that we can take it as a reliable sign of such intelligence. [Do you routinely assign posts on this blog to lucky noise and/or the blind mechanical forces of nature?] Now, what that means is that we have an empirically reliable principle: FSCI is a sign of intelligence, i.e a scientific finding. As to the identity or intent of he particular intelligence responsible, that is not usually something that we can establish on the mere fact of observing a sign of intelligence. (To use SB's example, we may from seeing how our house was ransacked and how files etc were disturbed and jewellery and key documents taken, that we were invaded by intelligent agents not a tornado. But that does not give you a right to fire off a half-cock accusation against a nosy or noxious neighbour. Try that and you are liable to end up on the losing side of a tort case.) However -- as is also pointed out in the thread above -- when we bring to bear the other side of deisng theory, cosmological inference on fine-tuning of the cosmos that supports life, we find that a more specific inference becomes plausible. For, the cosmos shows signs of design, and design that makes intelligent, cell-based biological life possible, in aggregate multidimensional and exquisite fine-tuning. So, it is reasonable that an extra-cosmic, very piowerful intelligence intent on making life was involved. That makes such intelligence suspect no 1 for intelligent life inthe cosmos. As to intelligent life on earth -- on specifically scientific, empirically constrained inference -- that [a] may be the direct creation of such an extra-cosmic intelligence, or [b & c] it may be an intentional or accidental by-product of already existing life in the cosmos. The strength of the third possibility depends on one's views of the powers of chance and necessity to originate major body plans. I think that -- on the same FSCI origination issue highlighted already -- the evidence points away from such capacity of chance and blind necessity, so the finger points to deliberate design of life on earth; but we cannot currently distinguish whether the particular intelligence involved was within or beyond the cosmos. And -- pace your dismissive and ad hominem laced rhetorical remarks above -- such caution is a matter of being respectful of the limits of data and reasonable inference from data in hand, not ducking issues. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
August 17, 2009
August
08
Aug
17
17
2009
02:20 PM
2
02
20
PM
PDT
kariofocus, #277
2 –> It so happens that DNA has such information in it, in the form of digital instructions and data structures to store them.
Try not to confuse analogy with reality.
3 –> Once we move beyond micro-evolution, which connects to small genetic changes, we face the problem of finding highly specific targets of complex funct6ion in configuration spaces that will be dominated by vast seas of non-function.
Zeno of Elea also proved that Achilles couldn't overtake a tortoise if it had a head start. Both arguments are fundamentally flawed.
4 –> the only KNOWN means of traversing such spaces and reliably reaching targets on the gamut of the resources of our cosmos, is intelligence.
Only if you are trying to reach a pre-determined target. Random walk processes are perfectly able to identify acceptable targets in evolutionary spaces. Stochastic Models for Horizontal Gene Transfercamanintx
August 17, 2009
August
08
Aug
17
17
2009
09:09 AM
9
09
09
AM
PDT
Mr Camanintx, The upside of that story was that the search was among only 4 trillion molecular species, a far smaller number than is usually discussed. The downside is the use of the "D" word in describing how those 4 trillion were chosen by the experimenter to be the initial population. ;) His webpage puts it slightly differently. Starting with a completely random pool provides a sparse but unbiased sample of sequence space, so that different, independent solutions to a given problem can be obtained. We can sample more than 10^15 nucleic acid sequences and, after a few cycles of selection and amplification, recover the descendants of the rare functional molecules in the initial population. In vitro selection for sequences that fold into highly specific binding sites has been used to isolate many nucleic acids, called aptamers, that bind a wide range of small biomolecules, including nucleotides, amino acids, antibiotics, and cofactors. That page is also interesting for actually having a bit measure of increased function.Nakashima
August 17, 2009
August
08
Aug
17
17
2009
08:56 AM
8
08
56
AM
PDT
kairosfocus, #275
2 –> FYI, the hurdle in OOL studies is to get TO the first body-plan, with genetic and metabolic components etc., which would be a case of complex functional information generation out of lucky noise.
So you are saying that the infinite monkey theorem is wrong?
3 –> So, the first point of relevance is that absent a viable mechanism to get to first life, evolutionary materialist paradigms do not have a root for the hypothesised tree of life. (A point that has been cleverly ducked ever since Darwin.)
Just as ID ducks the question of where the designer came from?
4 –> And dusting off a bit of my other areas of studies, BY SHARPEST CONTRAST AN ECONOMY WITHOUT COINS IS STILL VERY POSSIBLE (THOUGH LESS EFFICIENT), I.E. BARTER.
Way to miss the forest for the trees.
5 –> FYFI, and as noted already, the complex functional information generation challenge does not vanish when we move beyond first life.
Since this has been observed, the challenge appears to have been met. In Solution, Evolution Creates an Artificial Enzymecamanintx
August 17, 2009
August
08
Aug
17
17
2009
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PDT
Caman: Repeating an error does not convert it into a correct statement: 1 --> The core issue of design theory is that there are known, reliable, empirically observable signs of intelligence which once present point to design in and of themselves. (For instance, complex, functionally specific information. In all cases of known origin, FSCI comes from design, and we see why chance + necessity only would futilely exhaust the search capacity of the observed cosmos without being likely to ever find an island of function. for instance just 1,000 bits of storage capacity will specify 10^301 states, i.e. over the SQUARE of the number of quantum states the observed cosmos would scan across its thermodynamically credible lifespan. If you search 1 in 10^150 of a space of possible configs, you are not likely to find target islands of function in it. And we see the island topography as function is coded and specific so that typos so to speak do not write meaningful novel sentences that instruct the assembly of novel function, but on overwhelming probability destroy and never recover function.) 2 --> It so happens that DNA has such information in it, in the form of digital instructions and data structures to store them. 3 --> Once we move beyond micro-evolution, which connects to small genetic changes, we face the problem of finding highly specific targets of complex funct6ion in configuration spaces that will be dominated by vast seas of non-function. 4 --> the only KNOWN means of traversing such spaces and reliably reaching targets on the gamut of the resources of our cosmos, is intelligence. 5 --> So, on the FSCI in DNA etc, it is reasonable to infer to design, then to ask questions about other known characteristics of designers, i.e intent etc; and even onward possible identities. 6 --> DNA as a factor shows up in BOTH OOL (at the root of the hypothetical tree of life) AND at the major branches where we get to dozens of body plans; so the usually claimed mechanisms for evolution become credibly inadequate at these levels; but design is known to be capable of getting to such scopes of complexity. (And your money analogy has been disestablished long since.) 7 --> Now, it may be of interest to you to pose such issues, but you should note that the functional effect is to side-track a thread on a major issue: SLANDER. So, you need to be aware that your behaviour can become enabling behaviour for such slander. Please, think about that. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
August 17, 2009
August
08
Aug
17
17
2009
07:17 AM
7
07
17
AM
PDT
lamarck, #274
Regarding intent of designer, ID is tracking down design to see where it leads. How does this postulate god’s intent or have anything to do with god?
The point is, the TOE is no more concerned with the origin of life than economic theory is concerned with how the first coin was made. ID on the other hand is totally dependent on it, since without intent there is no way to distinguish design from natural causes.camanintx
August 17, 2009
August
08
Aug
17
17
2009
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PDT
Camanintx: We must of course first note that the primary focus of this thread is a slander, and that such is so important -- to to the destructive effects of snowballing incivility in our civlisation -- that it should not be distracted from; on pain of indulging in enabling behaviour. Having noted that, I observe your:
Saying that the origin of life is a problem for the TOE is akin to saying economic theory is wrong because it cannot explain how the first coin was minted.
1 --> This reveals a key gap in understanding the significance of the complex functional information generation challenge for processes tracing to chance + blind necessity; which would be best addressed here at UD by reading the weak argument correctives linked from every page of the main blog. 2 --> FYI, the hurdle in OOL studies is to get TO the first body-plan, with genetic and metabolic components etc., which would be a case of complex functional information generation out of lucky noise. And, judging by the ~ 600 k bits storage capacity for the threshold of preserved biofunction on knockout studies, we are looking at a config space challenge to find islands of function that is well beyond the critical 500 - 1,000 bits level. (At 1,000 bits, the search resources of our cosmos cannot scan as much as 1 in 10^150 of the possible configs, making chance and/or necessity utterly implausible. But of course intelligent designers routinely create FSCI using entities that go well beyond that threshold.) 3 --> So, the first point of relevance is that absent a viable mechanism to get to first life, evolutionary materialist paradigms do not have a root for the hypothesised tree of life. (A point that has been cleverly ducked ever since Darwin.) 4 --> And dusting off a bit of my other areas of studies, BY SHARPEST CONTRAST AN ECONOMY WITHOUT COINS IS STILL VERY POSSIBLE (THOUGH LESS EFFICIENT), I.E. BARTER. And, so soon as a convenient store of value and means of exchange is informally arrived at, money in some form would emerge -- whiskey, nails and cigarettes have all done that in fairly recent times -- money is in other words an emergent phenomenon that arises spontaneously from interacting intelligent, value-seeking agents. (What governments and banks do is to [sometimes] enhance credibility, convenience and credit.) That is, your rhetorical analogy multiply fails. 5 --> FYFI, and as noted already, the complex functional information generation challenge does not vanish when we move beyond first life. For, on genetic studies, the information for novel body plans is of order 10's - 100's + of mega bits; which would have to be embryologically feasible, and make for a viable reproducing population. 6 -> That is, the FSCI-generating challenge is WORSE for a theory that projects spontaneous formation of the branches of the hypothetical tree of life for a biosphere based on dozens of basic body plans. [And remember, natural selection may in part -- up to the challenge of circularity -- account for the survival of the fittest, but it does not account for their arrival. As Schutzenberger observed, typographical mistakes do not write complex functional programs. intelligent designers routinely do so.] 7 --> Thus, on seeing functionally specific complex information, we have good positive, empirically based reason to view it as a sign of intelligent design. [Indeed, in no case of known origin do we see say 1,000 bits of FUNCTIONAL complex information emerging by chance and/or necessity; but routinely see such coming from intelligences.] 8 --> So, we have excellent reason to conclude that on best explanation, when we see FSCI, we are seeing traces of an intelligent hand at work. nor, do we have any good reason to confine such intelligences to our selves as exhausting the actual or possible types of intelligent designers out there. 9 --> Therefore, pace a priori closed mindedness a la Lewontin and the US NAS' edicts, there is no good reason to reject that inference when we see such FSCI in the breadth of body plans in life forms, and in first life. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
August 17, 2009
August
08
Aug
17
17
2009
01:30 AM
1
01
30
AM
PDT
camanintx, "If you say that the designer didn’t have any particular intent when creating life, then you are admitting that random chance and unguided forces are adequate to explain it. As soon as you say that the designer intended to create life as it is, you’ve attempted to describe a property of the creator and gone much further than the Theory of Evolution ever does." Are you going to admit that there is no path from rocks to rock stars using materialism or not? Your premise is that if there was a path it would be impossible to know if god or matter was the cause and you are correct. Regarding intent of designer, ID is tracking down design to see where it leads. How does this postulate god's intent or have anything to do with god?lamarck
August 16, 2009
August
08
Aug
16
16
2009
04:02 PM
4
04
02
PM
PDT
“Since the probability of an intelligent designer existing is even more remote than life itself,” The person who wrote that is slightly confused, since the probability of life existing is obviously 1 as life does indeed exist. Similarly, if intelligence is the only plausible, observable cause which can produce the type of information processing system that defines one major aspect of life and if the information which makes up a living organism isn't even defined by law or chance (which it isn't) then the probability of intelligence existing before life and indeed designing it is closer to 1 while the probability of life arising from law and chance absent intelligence is closer to 0 if not actually 0 [since there is no available evidence of such an assertion]. Sorry for that last long winded sentence, but I'm sure you get the point.CJYman
August 16, 2009
August
08
Aug
16
16
2009
03:26 PM
3
03
26
PM
PDT
"Since the probability of an intelligent designer existing is even more remote than life itself," Why is this so? There is no evidence that nature can do it but there are lots of indications that intelligence can do it. You don't have anything so you assert something. That's not good science let alone logical. You are welcome to express faith in something but an honest person would admit it is faith. ID has some logic behind it, abiogenesis has none for it and evidence against it.jerry
August 16, 2009
August
08
Aug
16
16
2009
11:28 AM
11
11
28
AM
PDT
CarmaninTx, Well I think its probably appropriate that you repond to a paper by a molecular biologist (with the careeer path in origins research) with a paper by a physicist (with a career path in artificial life). But who cares? I am familiar with the paper you've posted, but you came up a little short on critque. So what is the specific distinction you find compelling?Upright BiPed
August 16, 2009
August
08
Aug
16
16
2009
10:58 AM
10
10
58
AM
PDT
jerry, #269
People do this all the time with ID. So are we to assume that you support ID as a possibility with as much probability as abiogenesis.
Since the probability of an intelligent designer existing is even more remote than life itself, abiogenesis is not quite the dark horse you think it is.
After all nature has no track record of producing FSCI but intelligence does. So I would assume that the leaning should be toward intelligence with the dark horse in the race, abiogenesis.
When some of these FSCI's we've created begin to exhibit the properties of life, then maybe I'll accept Abel and Trevor's conclusions.camanintx
August 16, 2009
August
08
Aug
16
16
2009
10:39 AM
10
10
39
AM
PDT
"Arguing that abiogenesis is false because it has not been proven true is a logical fallacy" People do this all the time with ID. So are we to assume that you support ID as a possibility with as much probability as abiogenesis. After all nature has no track record of producing FSCI but intelligence does. So I would assume that the leaning should be toward intelligence with the dark horse in the race, abiogenesis. I quickly went through Adami's paper and it seems that if his proposition is true, it will show up in genomes. Since genomes are getting much easier and less costly to map and to analyze, then his ideas should be verified in the near future or discredited. Adami's claim is at the heart of the debate. ID says that no naturalistic method can generate the new information for novel complex capabilities and apparently Adami says it can. Fair enough and the proof will be in the pudding, that is in the genomes.jerry
August 16, 2009
August
08
Aug
16
16
2009
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PDT
1 2 3 10

Leave a Reply