Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Integrated complexity, instantiated to achieve a specific  function is  always caused and implemented by an  intelligent mind

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Integrated complexity, instantiated to achieve a specific  function is  always caused and implemented by an  intelligent mind

Complexity, in special when implemented to achieve a specific purpose, has always only been observed to be the product of a mind. The more complex, the more evidence of design. In ID, complexity is more defined, when we talk about specified, and irreducible complexity. We see it in every living cell, combined. DNA hosts specified complexity, or in words, that can be better comprehended,  instructional assembly information.  EVERY protein, which is the product of the information stored in DNA, is irreducibly complex. In order to perform its basic function, it must have a minimal size. Unless it has it, no deal, no function.  On top of that, proteins are synthesized by the ribosome, depending on the specified complexity of the information stored in DNA.  So on top of irreducible complexity, there is an interdependence of specified, and irreducible complexity combined.

Specified complexity of information stored in DNA, dictates and directs the making of irreducible complex proteins, which all are made to perform a specific function in the cell. On top of that irreducible complexity, there are higher and higher layers of specified, and irreducible complexity. Signaling is essential in every cell, even in single cells, and protists, and was necessary for the first life form to emerge, no matter, what it was. Signals are carriers of information, that are also specified and complex. There has to be always a variegated number of signaling networks in operation, or no life. And there has to be a minimal number of proteins, for life to exist, or no deal. So, proteins are individually irreducible complex, and the cell and its proteome are irreducibly complex because a minimal number of proteins is required for life to exist.

Living cells are prime examples of irreducible and specified complexity, instantiated to perform a specific function. In order for there to be life, a minimal number of parts has to be there, fully implemented, and operational. All at once.

Graham Cairns-Smith:
We are all descended from some ancient organisms or group of organisms within which much of the machinery now found in all forms of life on Earth was already essentially fixed and, as part of that, hooked on today’s so-called ‘molecules of life’. This machinery is enormously sophisticated, depending for its operation on many collaborating parts. The multiple collaboration provides an explanation for why the present system is so frozen now and has been for so long.  So we are left wondering how the whole DNA/RNA/protein control system, on which evolution now so utterly depends, could itself have evolved. We can see that at the time of the common ancestor, this system must already have been fixed in its essentials, probably through a critical interdependence of subsystems. (Roughly speaking in a domain in which everything has come to depend on everything else nothing can be easily changed, and our central biochemistry is very much like that.

Albert-László Barabási:
Various types of interaction webs, or networks, (including protein-protein interaction, metabolic, signaling and transcription-regulatory networks) emerge from the sum of these interactions. None of these networks are independent, instead, they form a ‘network of networks that is responsible for the behavior of the cell. the architectural features of molecular interaction networks within a cell are shared to a large degree by other complex systems, such as the Internet, computer chips, and society.

Wilhelm Huck chemist , professor at Radboud University Nijmegen
A working cell is more than the sum of its parts. “A functioning cell must be entirely correct at once, in all its complexity

Comments
Martin_r @51, Thank you for the link to the interesting paper on miniproteins. I noticed this excerpt recognizes what turned out to be a long-held false assumption of "junk DNA."
“Small proteins also promise to revise the current understanding of the genome. Many appear to be encoded in stretches of DNA—and RNA—that were not thought to help build proteins of any sort.”
Thus, once again, the assumption of something unknown in stretches of DNA and RNA as random junk slowed scientific progress and discovery. An ID approach would have found its utility faster. -QQuerius
January 19, 2023
January
01
Jan
19
19
2023
11:20 AM
11
11
20
AM
PDT
Dr Selensky, nail has met hammer, wham! KFkairosfocus
January 19, 2023
January
01
Jan
19
19
2023
03:06 AM
3
03
06
AM
PDT
. #55 Exactly. Exactly.Upright BiPed
January 16, 2023
January
01
Jan
16
16
2023
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT
==sure … to even suggest that sexual reproduction evolved is beyond absurd … == The problem is that the imagination of a convinced Darwinist is so well trained that 'absurd' can easily become 'plausible' and then 'certain'.EugeneS
January 16, 2023
January
01
Jan
16
16
2023
06:24 AM
6
06
24
AM
PDT
Severski ==If it’s so simple then you should be able to tell us exactly how it was done and who did it== On the how: By implementing specific symbolic constraints to establish a semantically closed system with bio-polymeric memory; where the memory contains a description of the system to replicate, together with a description of the interpreter of that description. The implementation is based on an adapter like codon-anticodon recognition mechanism, and an interpretation/copying dual processing of bio-polymeric memory. == who did it? == An intelligent designer with the capacities of foresight and planning, and the ability to execute the plan. The data available does not reveal details like the designer's passport number or the place of birth. Will you acknowledge that this or something like this has been said on this blog many times before? I am not holding my breath.EugeneS
January 16, 2023
January
01
Jan
16
16
2023
04:04 AM
4
04
04
AM
PDT
Martin_r #27 I lost hope a long time ago.EugeneS
January 16, 2023
January
01
Jan
16
16
2023
02:14 AM
2
02
14
AM
PDT
#51 Martin I googled: A2451. This paper was the first that came up: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1074552108001257 A2451 is one of the five universally conserved active-site rRNA residues that comprise the catalytic core of the PTC at my library you find more information. Just search for 2451 with the browser search engine: https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1661-translation-through-ribosomes-amazing-nano-machines#2578 Origenes: What would convince you that ID is a real thing? Or, that it tops naturalistic explanations to explain our existence?Otangelo
January 15, 2023
January
01
Jan
15
15
2023
03:13 PM
3
03
13
PM
PDT
BA @48 thanks for the link, I will watch it tonight before I go sleep. I visit "Darwin's god"-blog regularly, unfortunately, Dr. Hunter updates his blog not very often. PS:
origin of sexual reproduction by highlighting the massive amount of “coordinated engineering”
sure ... to even suggest that sexual reproduction evolved is beyond absurd ... and then the various switches, how it switched back to asexual, but then, in time, back to sexual and so on :))))))))martin_r
January 15, 2023
January
01
Jan
15
15
2023
08:08 AM
8
08
08
AM
PDT
Otangelo, could you please send me a mainstream paper references for the following, I would like to have a closer look at it... sounds interesting #1 "And the fact, that one single specified ribonucleotide does have to be placed at very specific place in the chain in order for the entire translation machine to work?" #2 How do you deal with the fact that proteins or riboproteins require a minimum size in order to be able to perform their function? by the way, have you heard of miniproteins ? "New universe of miniproteins is upending cell biology and genetics" https://www.science.org/content/article/new-universe-miniproteins-upending-cell-biology-and-geneticsmartin_r
January 15, 2023
January
01
Jan
15
15
2023
08:04 AM
8
08
04
AM
PDT
Ontangelo @ 49
… rather than moving goal post, what about answering my question?
To be clear, my question was about your claim that “EVERY protein, which is the product of the information stored in DNA, is irreducibly complex.” My concern was whether the term ‘irreducibly complex', as defined by Behe (see #12), applies to each and every protein.
How do you deal with the fact that proteins or riboproteins require a minimum size in order to be able to perform their function?
Interesting question. Your argument is that, given that there is a minimum size for everything, everything that has a function is irreducibly complex. You are probably right. This generality was not part of my understanding of the term ‘irreducibly complex.’ Thx.
And the fact, that one single specified ribonucleotide does have to be placed at very specific place in the chain in order for the entire translation machine to work?
Amazing stuff. You have probably a good reason to bring this up, but I fail to understand how this relates to your claim that every protein is irreducibly complex.Origenes
January 15, 2023
January
01
Jan
15
15
2023
07:09 AM
7
07
09
AM
PDT
# 34 Origenes rather than moving goal post, what about answering my question? How do you deal with the fact that proteins or riboproteins require a minimum size in order to be able to perform their function? And the fact, that one single specified ribonucleotide does have to be placed at very specific place in the chain in order for the entire translation machine to work? The small-subunit rRNA has ?1500 nt, of which we identify 140 that are absolutely invariant among the 1961 species in our alignment. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35115361/ In the ribosomes of prokaryotes such as bacteria, the SSU contains a single small rRNA molecule (~1500 nucleotides) while the LSU contains one single small rRNA and a single large rRNA molecule (~3000 nucleotides). These are combined with ~50 ribosomal proteins to form ribosomal subunits. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ribosomal_RNA Leaving aside the over 50 proteins required, besides the ribonucleotides, we have 4500 ribonucleotides required. What are the odds, for the shuffling of the prebiotic earth to find a chain, where the A2451 is set in the right place, in order to be able to perform amino acid bond formation, and catenation? It is in the realm of the absolutely impossible. This alone is a death knell for abiogenesis.Otangelo
January 15, 2023
January
01
Jan
15
15
2023
04:45 AM
4
04
45
AM
PDT
Martin_r, you may appreciate this. Dr Hunter starts off his talk on the impossibility of unguided Darwinian processes explaining the origin of sexual reproduction by highlighting the massive amount of "coordinated engineering" that must go into designing an airplane.
The Evolution of Sexual Reproduction - Cornelius Hunter - 2022 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CoC5nxivawE
bornagain77
January 15, 2023
January
01
Jan
15
15
2023
04:17 AM
4
04
17
AM
PDT
I'm reading "Your Designed Body" By systems engineer Steve Laufmann and Howard Glicksmann MD. A remarkable book. https://www.amazon.com/Your-Designed-Body-Steve-Laufmann/dp/1637120206/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1ZHIUCQVXODFW&keywords=your+designed+body+by+steve+laufmann+and+howard+glicksman&qid=1673783454&sprefix=your+designed+body%2Caps%2C177&sr=8-1 This book destroys Darwinian Evolution, but only if it is read. It's all the evidence needed to come to the conclusion that evolution is false and Intelligent Design & Enginering is true without question.ayearningforpublius
January 15, 2023
January
01
Jan
15
15
2023
03:57 AM
3
03
57
AM
PDT
PM1, are you aware that in statistical thermodynamics, entropy is little more than the dominance by sheer statistical weight of predominant clusters of microstates in systems not constrained from moving there? In a sense it is applied probability and statistics; giving it powerful generality. Going to Clausius etc, we further see that injection of unconstrained energy only serves to open up more possible states, strengthening the statistical trend. So, systems open to inflow of energy and/or mass unless constrained, are prone to be more pushed to such clusters. And more. KFkairosfocus
January 15, 2023
January
01
Jan
15
15
2023
03:10 AM
3
03
10
AM
PDT
CD
Contrary to your claim, scientists design and build their own lab equipment,
Sure, using pre-designed components and tools. Pre-designed by engineers. And if they require a more advanced lab tools (e.g DNA sequencers for ENCODE project), they call real engineers. PS: I never said, that a biologist can not become an engineer for a moment ... but it just confirms what I said previously -- YOU NEED ENGINEERS ... but I won't argue about such a obvious thing ... this debate is ridiculous ...martin_r
January 15, 2023
January
01
Jan
15
15
2023
01:40 AM
1
01
40
AM
PDT
PM1, we both know non-being has no causal powers. The point is, complex, functionally specific organisation is information rich, and that needs to come from a credible causal source. The poof magic is about trying to pull such from a non existent hat. There is precisely one well warranted source for such, intelligently directed configuration. The needle in haystack search challenge to get to shorelines of fine tuned functional organisation of high complexity speaks for itself, utterly dominating incremental hill climbing within such zones. KFkairosfocus
January 14, 2023
January
01
Jan
14
14
2023
10:53 PM
10
10
53
PM
PDT
Whistler at 42, I wouldn't phrase it quite that way. There are only two ideas in play here: Evolution and Intelligent Design. ID clearly fits the facts better and orients human beings to the fact that intelligence was required for everything that was ever made, animate and inanimate. ' • The Church “proclaims that by the light of reason the human intellect can readily and clearly discern purpose and design in the natural world, including the world of living things.” '• “Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science.” "Christoph Cardinal Schönborn is archbishop of Vienna and general editor of the Catechism of the Catholic Church."relatd
January 14, 2023
January
01
Jan
14
14
2023
05:29 PM
5
05
29
PM
PDT
*poof* Miracle(s) are compulsory for all worldviews. :)))whistler
January 14, 2023
January
01
Jan
14
14
2023
05:20 PM
5
05
20
PM
PDT
Bornagain77 @
Not one scientific instrument would ever exist if men did not first intelligently design that scientific instrument. Not one test tube, microscope, telescope, spectroscope, or etc.. etc.., was ever found just laying around on a beach somewhere which was ‘naturally’ constructed by nature.
Excellent point. Science itself is the product of intelligent design. However, honesty compels the soul to confess that ChuckyD has a point: there is indeed one branch of science that is completely devoid of intelligence, namely "evolutionary biology."Origenes
January 14, 2023
January
01
Jan
14
14
2023
05:12 PM
5
05
12
PM
PDT
CD at 36, You have run out of arguments. I study the history of technology. I have a background in electronics. Unguided evolution has failed. Only by building databases based on actual observations of living things are scientists getting somewhere. Sequencing the human genome has led to a collection of a large number of DNA sequences. The following article makes two unprovable claims: That evolution continued to upgrade organisms over eons and that "decision making" was involved as if evolution has intelligence and foresight. It does not. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK25465/ To make money off this data, synthetic biology is looking to modify existing organisms to make useful/profitable biological products. https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/policy-issues/Synthetic-Biology That's where everything is heading. Darwin is no longer important, just processing the data, and identifying the functions of coding and non-coding regions of the human genome. And making money for industry. Tell me. Humans and apes allegedly had a common ancestor. When did this happen? When did an ape give birth to something that would go on to become "modern humans"? Scientists now know this never happened. That apes and humans are two separate species. Yet this idea of a common ancestor persists. Why is that?relatd
January 14, 2023
January
01
Jan
14
14
2023
04:58 PM
4
04
58
PM
PDT
ChuckyD, you don't seem to realize just how insane the Darwinian denial of design is. Regardless of whomever designs the experiments, the fact that they are INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED in the first place refutes the claim that Intelligent Design has no place in science. Not one scientific instrument would ever exist if men did not first intelligently design that scientific instrument. Not one test tube, microscope, telescope, spectroscope, or etc.. etc.., was ever found just laying around on a beach somewhere which was ‘naturally’ constructed by nature. Not one experimental result would ever be rationally analyzed since there would be no immaterial minds to rationally analyze the immaterial logic and immaterial mathematics that lay behind the intelligently designed experiments in the first place. All of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on the presupposition of intelligent design and is certainly not based on the presupposition of methodological naturalism.
Scientific instrument - examples https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_instrument#Examples_of_scientific_instruments
Verse:
1 Thessalonians 5:21 but test all things. Hold fast to what is good.
Shoot, you can't even explain the existence of the computer sitting right in front of your face without invoking 'top-down' intelligent design,
Recognising Top-Down Causation - George Ellis Excerpt: Causation: The nature of causation is highly contested territory, and I will take a pragmatic view: Definition 1: Causal Effect If making a change in a quantity X results in a reliable demonstrable change in a quantity Y in a given context, then X has a causal effect on Y. Example: I press the key labelled “A” on my computer keyboard; the letter “A” appears on my computer screen.,,, Definition 2: Existence If Y is a physical entity made up of ordinary matter, and X is some kind of entity that has a demonstrable causal effect on Y as per Definition 1, then we must acknowledge that X also exists (even if it is not made up of such matter). This is clearly a sensible and testable criterion; in the example above, it leads to the conclusion that both the data and the relevant software exist. If we do not adopt this definition, we will have instances of uncaused changes in the world; I presume we wish to avoid that situation.,,, Excerpt: page 5: A: Both the program and the data are non-physical entities, indeed so is all software. A program is not a physical thing you can point to, but by Definition 2 it certainly exists. You can point to a CD or flashdrive where it is stored, but that is not the thing in itself: it is a medium in which it is stored. The program itself is an abstract entity, shaped by abstract logic. Is the software “nothing but” its realisation through a specific set of stored electronic states in the computer memory banks? No it is not because it is the precise pattern in those states that matters: a higher level relation that is not apparent at the scale of the electrons themselves. It’s a relational thing (and if you get the relations between the symbols wrong, so you have a syntax error, it will all come to a grinding halt). This abstract nature of software is realised in the concept of virtual machines, which occur at every level in the computer hierarchy except the bottom one [17]. But this tower of virtual machines causes physical effects in the real world, for example when a computer controls a robot in an assembly line to create physical artefacts.,,, The mind is not a physical entity, but it certainly is causally effective: proof is the existence of the computer on which you are reading this text. It could not exist if it had not been designed and manufactured according to someone’s plans, thereby proving the causal efficacy of thoughts, which like computer programs and data are not physical entities. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1212.2275.pdf
Shoot, within the reductive materialistic framework of Darwinian evolution, where minds are held to be merely a consequence of physics, you can't even explain the existence of a single sentence you are writing on this blog,
Do You Like SETI? Fine, Then Let’s Dump Methodological Naturalism Paul Nelson - September 24, 2014 Excerpt: Assessing the Damage MN Does to Freedom of Inquiry Epistemology — how we know — and ontology — what exists — are both affected by methodological naturalism. If we say, "We cannot know that a mind caused x," laying down an epistemological boundary defined by MN, then our ontology comprising real causes for x won’t include minds. MN entails an ontology in which minds are the consequence of physics, and thus, can only be placeholders for a more detailed causal account in which physics is the only (ultimate) actor. You didn’t write your email to me. Physics did, and informed you of that event after the fact. "That’s crazy," you reply, "I certainly did write my email." Okay, then — to what does the pronoun "I" in that sentence refer? Your personal agency; your mind. Are you supernatural? Who knows?,, You are certainly an intelligent cause, however, and your intelligence does not collapse into physics. (If it does collapse — i.e., can be reduced without explanatory loss — we haven’t the faintest idea how, which amounts to the same thing.) To explain the effects you bring about in the world — such as your email, a real pattern — we must refer to you as a unique agent.,,, ,,, some feature of "intelligence" must be irreducible to physics, because otherwise we’re back to physics versus physics, and there’s nothing for SETI to look for. https://evolutionnews.org/2014/09/do_you_like_set/
To give an example of just how insane the denial of Intelligent Design in science is, "if Einstein did not have free will in some meaningful sense, then he could not have been responsible for the theory of relativity – it would have been a product of lower level processes but not of an intelligent mind choosing between possible options. I find it very hard to believe this to be the case – indeed it does not seem to make any sense."
Physicist George Ellis on the importance of philosophy and free will - July 27, 2014 Excerpt: And free will?: Horgan: Einstein, in the following quote, seemed to doubt free will: “If the moon, in the act of completing its eternal way around the Earth, were gifted with self-consciousness, it would feel thoroughly convinced that it was traveling its way of its own accord…. So would a Being, endowed with higher insight and more perfect intelligence, watching man and his doings, smile about man’s illusion that he was acting according to his own free will.” Do you believe in free will? Ellis: Yes. Einstein is perpetuating the belief that all causation is bottom up. This simply is not the case, as I can demonstrate with many examples from sociology, neuroscience, physiology, epigenetics, engineering, and physics. Furthermore if Einstein did not have free will in some meaningful sense, then he could not have been responsible for the theory of relativity – it would have been a product of lower level processes but not of an intelligent mind choosing between possible options. I find it very hard to believe this to be the case – indeed it does not seem to make any sense. Physicists should pay attention to Aristotle’s four forms of causation – if they have the free will to decide what they are doing. If they don’t, then why waste time talking to them? They are then not responsible for what they say. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/physicist-george-ellis-on-the-importance-of-philosophy-and-free-will/
So again, all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on the presupposition of intelligent design and is certainly not based on the presupposition of methodological naturalism. Supplemental notes:
Science and Theism: Concord, not Conflict* – Robert C. Koons IV. The Dependency of Science Upon Theism (Page 21) Excerpt: Far from undermining the credibility of theism, the remarkable success of science in modern times is a remarkable confirmation of the truth of theism. It was from the perspective of Judeo-Christian theism—and from the perspective alone—that it was predictable that science would have succeeded as it has. Without the faith in the rational intelligibility of the world and the divine vocation of human beings to master it, modern science would never have been possible, and, even today, the continued rationality of the enterprise of science depends on convictions that can be reasonably grounded only in theistic metaphysics. http://www.theistic.net/papers/R.Koons/Koons-science.pdf Rob Koons is a professor of philosophy at the University of Texas at Austin. With degrees from Michigan State, Oxford, and UCLA, he specializes in metaphysics and philosophical logic, with special interest in philosophical theology and the foundations of both science and ethics. No False Gods Before Me: A Review of Rodney Stark’s Work by Terry Scambray (December 2018) Excerpt: The distinguished philosopher and mathematician, Alfred North Whitehead, astonished a Harvard audience in 1925 when he said that science is a “derivative of medieval theology [since it arose] from the medieval insistence on the rationality of God, conceived as with the personal energy of Jehovah and with the rationality of a Greek philosopher.” Whitehead’s thesis was but another bolt from out of the blue because the notion that medieval philosophy, scholasticism, led to the development of science was astonishing! Though it should not have been, since scholasticism was complex, diverse, penetrating and devoted to reasoning from the two books that undergird Christianity: the book of God, Scripture, and the book of nature, Creation. As Stark writes, “Not only were science and religion compatible, they were inseparable—the rise of science was achieved by deeply religious, Christian scholars.”,,, So Christianity, then and now, never was antithetical to science. And this is because European Christians believed in a rational God whose imprint could be discovered in nature; thus, they confidently looked for and found natural laws. As Johannes Kepler, the venerable 17th century cosmologist, wrote, “The chief aim of all investigations of the external world” is to discover this harmony imposed by God in the language of mathematics. Stark concludes, “That the universe had an Intelligent Designer is the most fundamental of all scientific theories and that it has been successfully put to empirical tests again and again. For, as Albert Einstein remarked, the most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible” which Einstein called a “miracle.” And this “miracle” confirms the fact that creation is guided by purpose and reason. https://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm?frm=189497&sec_id=189497 Physics and the Mind of God: The Templeton Prize Address – by Paul Davies – August 1995 Excerpt: “People take it for granted that the physical world is both ordered and intelligible. The underlying order in nature-the laws of physics-are simply accepted as given, as brute facts. Nobody asks where they came from; at least they do not do so in polite company. However, even the most atheistic scientist accepts as an act of faith that the universe is not absurd, that there is a rational basis to physical existence manifested as law-like order in nature that is at least partly comprehensible to us. So science can proceed only if the scientist adopts an essentially theological worldview.” https://www.firstthings.com/article/1995/08/003-physics-and-the-mind-of-god-the-templeton-prize-address-24
bornagain77
January 14, 2023
January
01
Jan
14
14
2023
04:31 PM
4
04
31
PM
PDT
PM1@
If one thinks of emergence as a spontaneous tendency for simple systems to become more complex all on their own, would it might seem as if the system is adding more information to itself — and that information is coming ‘from nowhere’?
Sadly, some people fail to distinguish between the order created by natural processes, such as water freezing to form a snowflake, and complex functional specified organization/information. The former results from natural laws directing the arrangement of molecules. However, for a medium to contain information/specified complexity, it must have the freedom to take on numerous possible arrangements of parts. So, if the book "Hamlet" writes itself—"adding more information to itself"—, without the input of an intelligent designer in the form of a writer, then, indeed, that would mean that information is *poof*"coming from nowhere." My claim is that no sane person buys into such nonsense.Origenes
January 14, 2023
January
01
Jan
14
14
2023
03:21 PM
3
03
21
PM
PDT
Martin_r @30, 34,
It is like asking you how an Iphone was created. You wouldn’t know where to start in order to create an Iphone. Basically, you don’t understand what an Iphone is. But when you ask, I as an engineer, I am 100% sure, that life wasn’t created by heating/cooling/shaking flasks with chemicals.
Or "differential erosion and incremental horizontal deposition." Your apt analogy only fails in the number of orders of magnitude that it falls short of reality! The truth of the matter is that Darwinists use their "gods-of-the-gaps" argument--their twin gods being named MUSTA and MGHTA. The video above is indeed a "deep fake" which uses robotic text to speech technology and repetitive head, mouth, and eye movements. Instead, a simple photo and printed quote along with commentary and perhaps a bulleted summary would be better and shorter in my opinion. -QQuerius
January 14, 2023
January
01
Jan
14
14
2023
03:11 PM
3
03
11
PM
PDT
BA77 The lengths that you feel compelled to go to always have the last word border on the ridiculous. My point, as usual, is much less grandiose than you suggest. Martin_r has said over and over that only engineers are competent and capable of addressing “design” and evolution—that scientists are incapable of such activities. Or he childishly wants to parse “inventor” vs. “designer”.Beyond the fact that his observation is patently absurd, sometimes he needs to be schooled on the facts. But then.you now and again also need schooling. Rosalind Franklin used a fine-focus X-ray tube and a micro-camera that she modified. Franklin was an X-ray crystallographer and chemist. Contrary to your claim, scientists design and build their own lab equipment, or jerry-rig equipment all the time. For example, the MRI was invented by Raymond Damadian, a physician.. it was refined by Peter Mansfield, a physicist, and Paul Lauterbur, a chemist, for which they got a Nobel Prize. Marie Curie designed and built a bunch of her own equipment. Many times scientists collaborate with engineers to design and build scientific tools and equipment. But this should be obvious, even to you and Martin_r……..chuckdarwin
January 14, 2023
January
01
Jan
14
14
2023
02:42 PM
2
02
42
PM
PDT
@10
The recent push of emergentism still fails to escape the poof magic something from nothing problem, it is a disguised concession on the substance designed to shore up a failed orthodoxy.
I wonder: would it be fair to say that in your view, emergentism violates the principle of ex nihilo nihil fit ('from nothing, nothing can come')? If one thinks of emergence as a spontaneous tendency for simple systems to become more complex all on their own, would it might seem as if the system is adding more information to itself -- and that information is coming 'from nowhere'? And as a result, it now looks as if this spontaneous 'emergence' of more complex systems (which can also described as a movement away from entropy) involves the coming into being of information that wasn't there before -- thus violating the principle of ex nihilo nihil fit. Is this why you use the words "poof" and "magic" to describe emergentism?PyrrhoManiac1
January 14, 2023
January
01
Jan
14
14
2023
02:15 PM
2
02
15
PM
PDT
Ontangelo @28
there is a threshold for a minimum size of a protein. If you go lower, no function.
As I understand it, the fold of a protein, a three-dimensional structure, has a specific function. Are you saying that those parts of the structure of the protein that are seemingly unrelated to the fold are also essential to the fold function? That if you remove or change those parts of the protein that are (seemingly) unrelated to the fold structure its main function seizes?Origenes
January 14, 2023
January
01
Jan
14
14
2023
02:01 PM
2
02
01
PM
PDT
Seversky @
You guys say it was all created but you have no idea how so it was just “poofed” into existence?
Why not give us some pointers? Please tell us how you *poof* integrated complexity (instantiated in your postings to achieve a specific function) into existence. Tell us how you create your wonderful thoughts.Origenes
January 14, 2023
January
01
Jan
14
14
2023
01:16 PM
1
01
16
PM
PDT
Otangelo, I apologize again, today for my conversation with Seversky. It must be frustrating to see something like that below your post. It is a shame... I know... PS: I was wondering, are you using some deepfake technology in your videos ? Is it some software, or what is it ?martin_r
January 14, 2023
January
01
Jan
14
14
2023
01:09 PM
1
01
09
PM
PDT
Seversky
Nope. Burden of proof. You say it was created, show us your evidence.
You guys teach these nonsensical things in schools around the world. YOU HAVE TO DEMONSTRATE that the life was not created ....martin_r
January 14, 2023
January
01
Jan
14
14
2023
01:01 PM
1
01
01
PM
PDT
There’s nothing to debunk. You guys say it was all created but you have no idea how so it was just “poofed” into existence?
You keep repeating the same irrelevant questions over and over ... HOW DOES IT MATTER WHETHER WE KNOW HOW EXACTLY IT WAS CREATED ? If I would know, I would be a billionaire and get 10 Nobel prices. It is like asking you how an Iphone was created :))))))) You wouldn't know where to start in order to create an Iphone :))))))) Basically, you don't understand what an Iphone is :)))))) But when you ask, I as an engineer, I am 100% sure, that life wasn't created by heating/cooling/shaking flasks with chemicals :)))))))))))))martin_r
January 14, 2023
January
01
Jan
14
14
2023
12:56 PM
12
12
56
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply