Intelligent Design Uncensored hot off the press

_{William Dembski

May 3, 2010

Intelligent Design}

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

My newest book, Intelligent Design Uncensored, co-authored with Jonathan Witt, is now available. You can purchase it here at Amazon.com. It provides a nice overview of the scientific issues at stake but then also deals with the cultural spillover as it relates to both the theistic and atheistic evolutionists.

Comments

warehuff, Please tell us the "cause" for the the wave function collapses to a "uncertain" 3-D material particle state upon observation.bornagain77_{May 14, 2010
May
05
May
14
14
2010
03:20 AM
3
03
20
AM
PDT}

kairosfocus @ 86: PS: Onlookers, observe how hard KF dances around the fact that the only empirically known source of CSI did NOT have anything to do with the OOL. Furthermore, the only empirically known intelligence is not capable of originating life, at least as yet. So his argument boils down to, "A human could have started life if a human had been present three or four billion years ago to do it, which they weren't, and if a human knew how to start life, which they don't. Therefore, ID. Ditto for the fine tuning argument. When physicists and cosmologists can't seem to come up with a theory that DOESN'T result in multiple universes, the fact that this universe makes someone think that God did it is not compelling. Let us Dance.warehuff_{May 14, 2010
May
05
May
14
14
2010
02:38 AM
2
02
38
AM
PDT}

kairosfocus @ 85: Thanks for citing a text instead of a video. I'm using the version of the EF at the Idea Center ( http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1203 ) which says it is "From 'Mere Creation: Science, Faith and Intelligent Design' ". It goes like this: START Is it Highly Probable? --> YES --> Law NO Is it Intermediate Probability? --> YES --> Chance NO Is it Specified and Small Probability? --> YES --> Design NO CHANCE Please show us the entry for "Is it caused by a combination of chance (mutations) and regularity (natural selection) --> YES --> Evolution There is none. ID "wins" by not even considering evolution. It's been "expelled" from the EF.warehuff_{May 14, 2010
May
05
May
14
14
2010
02:37 AM
2
02
37
AM
PDT}

BA77: What? Still no comment on Dr. Quantum's Double Slit Mistake? I don't blame you, any answer is going to be embarassing. Why do you keep going on about hidden variables? Nobody has said anything about them but you, nobody cares about them but you. Hidden variable theories were refuted when I was in high school. I don't believe in them if that will help you get over them. Now please tell us how Dr. Quantum could measure the position of an electron (it's right here, going through this slit) without simultaneously destroying the wave information in that same electron. And why are you amazed that the interference pattern disappears when it depends on the wave information that Dr. Quantum destroyed when he measured the electron's position? And what does all that have to do with consciousness? "This is ludicrous ... You rationalize away ... ignoring the pertinent points I illustrated ... you do this because you find the conclusions unpalatable ... you refuse to deal directly with the evidence. ... your preconceived philosophical bias ... you have the audacity to find Dr. Quantum wrong instead of humbly admitting the truth that you are wrong. ... I find you extremely biased in your reasoning to the point of being delusional. ... you refuse to be fair with the evidence and to only follow other materialists ... refuses to be fair with the evidence ... your fairy tale land of make believe ... just make up rules of evidence ... lie to yourself all day long" Why should anybody want to argue anything with you, Bornagain77? You refuse to debate. All we ever get from you is a bunch of quote mines, error ridden videos and abuse like the above. Either tell us how Dr. Quantum measures the position of the electron without destroying all information on it's wave nature or be ignored.warehuff_{May 14, 2010
May
05
May
14
14
2010
02:36 AM
2
02
36
AM
PDT}

PS: Onlookers, observe how hard WH dances around the fact that the only empirically known source of FSCI is intelligence [he cannot gleefully cite a counter example but wants to beg the quesiton on origin of DNA by a priori evolutionary materialism in the disguise of methodological naturalism, so called]. Also observe that we have excellent reason to see that there are only two serious causal candidates for high contingency: undirected variation, and directed variation. (Necessity, the third major causal category, gets its name from the predictable low or no contingency outcome, e.g. dropped rocks etc routinely and reliably fall at 9.8 N/kg and then go on to achieve a terminal velocity influenced by shape, density, air pressure etc. It is astonishing how a champion of the power of lawlike regularities refuses to see one in action when it is not convenient to acknowledge the fact of the limits of mechanical necessity. Even sensitive dependence on initial conditions leads to unpredictability because of noise or slight differences of initial position, not the unreliability of lawlike forces of necessity.) Chance is swamped by the sea of non functional configs which makes it maximally implausible that once we have 1000 bots or more of info, a random walk can get to shores of an island of function. But as posts in theis blog and computer operating systems show, intelligences routinely produce FSCI. Of course being cell based beings, we did not originate the FSCI in the cell. But we have no good reason to infer that we exhaust the list of possible or actual intelligent beings. And when we factor in how the cosmos is evidently fine tuned for c-chemistry cell based life, that moves us to the inference that the cosmos is the product of an intelligence, i.e. we have reason to see that intelligence is prior to matter; not just life as we experience it.kairosfocus_{May 13, 2010
May
05
May
13
13
2010
05:59 AM
5
05
59
AM
PDT}

WH: I do not have a lot of time this AM to go in circles chasing materialism-begged questions. But, I will take up one key point:
have you noticed that the Explanitory Filter ONLY checks to see if something is PURELY random or PURELY regular? It’s not even possible to feed evolution, which uses both, into it!
EEERRP! Plainly, you have not followed the recent discussion. By simply reviewing the fact that the EF [note my diagram and discussion focussed on analysing aspects and synthesising explanations] is a retrospective explanation of what scientists routinely do [cf the weak argument correctives from 29 on, on the point next time before hitting that submit button . . . ], it was easy enough to see that once we look at phenomena, processes and objects aspect by aspect, we can examine the matrix of credible causal factors involved. This is similar to how the rate of fall of a rock, 9.8 N/kg near earth's surface, is independent of whether it is dolomite or andesite, or whether it has been painted white or green, etc. (And BTW, that 9.8 N/kg force on the rock highlights how what is going on is that the presence of the earth's mass warps space, creating a field of influence so other masses near earth respond to the field of influence caused by the collective mass of the earth. Adding in how the moon's centripetal acceleration shows that the attenuation with distance is essentially that of a flux going through ever expanding spherical surfaces as radius expands, leads to the Newtonian Law of Gravitation. And, along the way, to the weighing of the earth based on the force a rock of known mass feels near it. Thus we are tracing out mechanical forces and resulting natural regularities as one aspect of the phenomenon of a falling rock. The moon of course is just a very big rock in perpetual fall that results in orbit as there is a sideways component of speed. In short, your dismissal is looking a little threadbare.) In my always linked note, Section A, I highlight that we routinely distinguish meaningful signal from corrupting noise, and reliably identify which is which to the point where signal to noise ratio plays a vital role in comms and information theory. Also, in lab work or observational studies, we routinely distinguish the natural law based quantity being measured from the scatter of error, and the inaccuracies of bias up to and including the notorious personal equation of astronomical observation. That is, as I pointed out above by noting on what scientists ROUTINELY do, isolating aspects for scientific observation and analysis is not a novelty or an unusual practice. Indeed, it is routinely embedded in just about any experimental field of science that makes actual measurements. Just, the evo mat veto wants to selectively rule such out a priori, when the philosophical commitments of the magisterium in lab coats is under challenge. That is selective hyperskepticism, not good reasoning. So, you are flat wrong; and wrong because you projected a strawman instead of addressing the actual issue, as was just a couple of clicks away. G'day GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{May 13, 2010
May
05
May
13
13
2010
05:43 AM
5
05
43
AM
PDT}

warehuff I hope you apply the Dunning Kruger effect to yourself for you surely suffer acutely from it! you also stated: "That’s about the fourth time you’ve flung that Dr. Quantum – Double Slit video in my direction. I told you where the Dr. went wrong and you didn’t even bother to reply." This is ludicrous warehuff. You rationalize away the experiment away by ignoring the pertinent points I illustrated, such as the refutation of hidden variables which solidifies its basis in theism. I find that you do this because you find the conclusions unpalatable and that is why you refuse to deal directly with the evidence. This is NOT science warehuff. This is you bringing your preconceived philosophical bias front and center and demanding that I give it more credence than the experiment at hand. Furthermore you have the audacity to find Dr. Quantum wrong instead of humbly admitting the truth that you are wrong. And since this as such, I find you extremely biased in your reasoning to the point of being delusional. And since you refuse to be fair with the evidence and to only follow other materialists, such as yourself, who will "tickle your ears" with high sounding rhetoric, exactly how am I suppose to reason with someone who refuses to be fair with the evidence warehuff? Am I suppose to give up my reasoning and join you in your fairy tale land of make believe where I can just make up rules of evidence as I go? I think not. You can lie to yourself all day long for all I care but do not expect me to give you one inch of credence for the deception you have chosen to believe in. Skillet:: Awake and Alive http://vimeo.com/9309408bornagain77_{May 13, 2010
May
05
May
13
13
2010
04:30 AM
4
04
30
AM
PDT}

warehuff; if you truly believe that materialism is true, please explain the origination matter-energy, space-time in the big bang. Or do you hold the absurd position that everything came from nothing so as to avoid dealing with the reality of Almighty God?bornagain77_{May 13, 2010
May
05
May
13
13
2010
03:30 AM
3
03
30
AM
PDT}

http://www.samueljohnson.com/refutati.html That's about the fourth time you've flung that Dr. Quantum - Double Slit video in my direction. I told you where the Dr. went wrong and you didn't even bother to reply. I will be reading the Darwin's God blog and studying the Dunning-Kruger effect until you do. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/04/some-good-news-for-biology-students.html?showComment=1272490979925#c3994186637879424898warehuff_{May 13, 2010
May
05
May
13
13
2010
01:52 AM
1
01
52
AM
PDT}

Warehuff, but ask yourself is your foundation basis of materialism, which you draw your perceptions of reality from, true? Why Quantum Theory Does Not Support Materialism - By Bruce L Gordon: Excerpt: Because quantum theory is thought to provide the bedrock for our scientific understanding of physical reality, it is to this theory that the materialist inevitably appeals in support of his worldview. But having fled to science in search of a safe haven for his doctrines, the materialist instead finds that quantum theory in fact dissolves and defeats his materialist understanding of the world. http://www.4truth.net/site/c.hiKXLbPNLrF/b.2904125/k.E94E/Why_Quantum_Theory_Does_Not_Support_Materialism.htm Uncertainty Principle - The "Non-Particle" Basis Of Reality - video and article http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4109172 http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-uncertainty/ "Atoms are not things" Werner Heisenberg What blows most people away, when they first encounter quantum mechanics, is the quantum foundation of our "material reality" blatantly defies our concepts of time and space. Most people consider defying time and space to be a "miraculous & supernatural" event. I know I certainly do! This "miraculous & supernatural" foundation for our physical reality can easily be illuminated by the famous "double slit" experiment. (It should be noted the double slit experiment was originally devised, in 1801, by a Christian named Thomas Young). Dr. Quantum - Double Slit Experiment & Entanglement - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4096579 Wheeler's Classic Delayed Choice Experiment: Excerpt: So it seems that time has nothing to do with effects of quantum mechanics. And, indeed, the original thought experiment was not based on any analysis of how particles evolve and behave over time – it was based on the mathematics. This is what the mathematics predicted for a result, and this is exactly the result obtained in the laboratory. http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/basic_delayed_choice.htm This following experiment highlights the centrality of consciousness in the Double Slit Experiment as to the wave collapse and refutes any "detector centered" arguments for wave collapse: Delayed choice quantum eraser http://onemorebrown.wordpress.com/2008/02/10/god-vs-the-delayed-choice-quantum-eraser/ of note; Consciousness must be INFORMED with local certainty to cause the wave to become a particle. We know from the Double Slit Experiment, with delayed erasure, that the simple fact of a detector being present is NOT sufficient to explain the wave collapse. If the detector results are erased after detection but before conscious analysis we see the wave form result instead of the particle result. This clearly establishes the centrality of consciousness to the whole experiment. i.e. The clear implication from the experiment is that consciousness is primary, and detection secondary, to the collapse of the wave function to a 3-D particle. Consciousness must precede 3-Dimensional material reality. As well, the actions observed in the double slit experiment are only possible if our reality has its actual basis in a "higher dimension": Explaining The Unseen Spiritual Realm - Dr. Quantum - Flatland - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4119478 Why, who makes much of a miracle? As to me, I know of nothing else but miracles, Whether I walk the streets of Manhattan, Or dart my sight over the roofs of houses toward the sky,,, Walt Whitman - Miracles It should also be noted that the most solid indestructible "things" in the atom are the unchanging transcendent universal constants which exercise overriding "non-chaotic" dominion of all quantum events. Testing Creation Using the Proton to Electron Mass Ratio Excerpt: The bottom line is that the electron to proton mass ratio unquestionably joins the growing list of fundamental constants in physics demonstrated to be constant over the history of the universe.,,, http://www.reasons.org/TestingCreationUsingtheProtontoElectronMassRatio Psalm 119:89-91 Your eternal word, O Lord, stands firm in heaven. Your faithfulness extends to every generation, as enduring as the earth you created. Your regulations remain true to this day, for everything serves your plans.bornagain77_{May 12, 2010
May
05
May
12
12
2010
03:53 AM
3
03
53
AM
PDT}

KF: Nobody disputes that intelligent humans can do the things we do. But humans weren't around 3-4 billion years ago when the first living things came into existence. Your example is a non-sequitur. Has functionally specific, complex information ever been observed as produced by chance plus necessity? We would have to see it by examining actual changes to base-pairs in DNA. We've only had that capability for the last few years, but now that genome sequencing is getting inexpensive, let me make a prediction from evolutionary theory: teosinte, an ordinary grass with tiny rock hard seeds, evolved into modern corn (maise) in about ten thousand years. Teosinte still exists, we have plenty of modern corn and archaeology has provided us with samples of teosinte/corn from various times during the changeover. Several teams are investigating the samples and tracking the changes made to the DNA and the effects those changes caused to the plant. They should be publishing in a few years. I predict that they will present a step by step account of which random mutations caused which DNA changes to transform a weed into corn. Unfortunately, I also predict that ID will find a reason to reject the results. Mycoplasma pneumoniae is the result of three or four billion years of evolution, which has equipped it to live in the modern world. It's an example of a von Neumann self-replicator. Nobody should be surprised that it's very complicated. Current theory is that the first self-reproducer was much simpler and used embedded information to reproduce itself without needing external code to store information, hardware to do the replication or metabolic machines to power the replication. If I understand your theory, an all-powerful, all-knowing supernatural Being desired some animals, plants and people for the planet, so he created a cell three or four billion years ago and sat back. This looks to me like the imposition of theology as an a priori. Once again, the rock example proves nothing. You and Upright are claiming that it is impossible for law-like regularity and randomness to produce a tiny self-reproducing molecule. I will readily concede that a falling rock can not do that, but that's all your example proves. Finally, have you noticed that the Explanitory Filter ONLY checks to see if something is PURELY random or PURELY regular? It's not even possible to feed evolution, which uses both, into it!warehuff_{May 12, 2010
May
05
May
12
12
2010
03:17 AM
3
03
17
AM
PDT}

Upright, if you provided evidence or logic to refute anything, I missed it unless you think your falling rock "logic" proves something in which case this conversation is never going to get anywhere. Modern OOL theories call for a very simple start to life using small amounts of embedded information with first chemical and then biological evolution adding the rich information found in modern cells. Since you apparently can't believe that information can be embedded in an object, we are obviously never going to agree. I would be interested in hearing your opinion of where the information is in those punches, though, if it's not embedded. For that matter, what's the difference between the Venus de Milo and an equal weight of marble dust if it's not embedded information? Unfortunately, as I said at the beginning, neither side has examples of the first life so we will probably never have proof of exactly what happened. BA77, I really wish you'd find another venue for your videos. This time I was "treated" to watching a half dozen people die in various gruesome ways with the promise that I can see lots more of the same when some movie opens on May 27. I prefer the old tampon ads. As far as the amazing math is concerned, I think that if you're living in a three dimensional universe and things hang around, adding two pebbles to two pebbles will tend to produce four pebbles and I really don't think any gods or goddesses are necessary to maintain the exact count. Besides, if this universe really was made by God, Pi would be an exact number ;-) Perhaps I'll make a video of my own: "Irrational Numbers: Proof that God Does Not Exist"warehuff_{May 12, 2010
May
05
May
12
12
2010
03:13 AM
3
03
13
AM
PDT}

4] WH, 71: The fact that you believe that only intelligence can create information is one of the reasons I believe you don’t half understand what information even is. We’ve been telling you where the information found in living things comes from for years – mutations create the information and natural selection sieves out the useless information and keeps what works. Now, of course, this begs the question bigtime. It thus inadvertently exposes the circularity and incoherence of he a priori evolutionary materialist story on origin of life and of body plans. For, natural selection is about the differential success of already reproducing populations [i.e. they have to embed von Neumann replicators]. As a logical consequence, origin of cell based life cannot be explained on random generation of information with natural selection. That is, WH, you here commit a logical blunder that unravels the whole story. Next, we observe that the quantum of information required for a von Neumann type replicator greatly exceeds 500 - 1,000 bits, as his analysis and subsequent work to date have shown. So it is not unexpected that in the smallest simplest organisms we find DNA covering in excess of 100 k bits. But, just 125 bytes, or 1,000 bits, implies a configuration space of 1.07 * 10^301. This -- as we at UD have pointed out over and over for years now -- is over ten times the square of the number of Planck-time quantum states of our observed universe of ~ 10^80 atoms, across its thermodynamic potential lifespan [~10^25 s, or about 50 million times the 13.7 BY generally said to have elapsed since the big bang]. In short, if the whole universe we observe were to be viewed as a search engine as it develops from the initial singularity forward, it could not scan through an appreciable fraction of the config space for just 1,000 bits worth of storage capacity. That is, we have an excellent reason to see that a random walk based process would not credibly arrive at the shores of ANY island of functionality in the von Neumann sense. In short, blind chance plus undirected necessity are utterly incapable of credibly originating bio-information, not to mention the underlying codes and algorithms or the coordinated implementing machines. All of which have to be in place at one and the same time for a von Neumann replicator based entity to be self replicating. That is, on entities ii to iv, it is irreducibly complex, and i and v are background requisites as well. No self-replication, no reproduction, and no differential success of competing reproducing populations. In short WH, you have committed a confident declaration of an absurdity. 5] you don’t half understand what information even is As to definitions of/understanding information, the UD glossary, accessible by scrolling up and clicking at the top right, will cite from and augment Wikipedia [as an admission against interest by that evolutionary materialism dominated outfit, just see what their moderators do . . . ]:
“ . . that which would be communicated by a message if it were sent from a sender to a receiver capable of understanding the message . . . . In terms of data, it can be defined as a collection of facts [i.e. as represented or sensed in some format] from which conclusions may be drawn [and on which decisions and actions may be taken].”
That is, the context -- and I here make reference to my expanded version of the Shannon info model [you will see the way I set up the more modern layercake digital comms systems a la ISO in it], that I used to use to teach students in telecomms -- is:
SOURCE -> ENCODER (&/OR MODULATOR) -> TRANSMITTER -> CHANNEL (NOISE) -> RECEIVER -> RECEIVER -> DEMODULATOR AND DECODER -> SINK
The point here is that information and its transfer from source to sink depends on a convention in common, on which messages may be sent as encoded and/or modulated on an agreed/in-common standard. Which may be analogue or digital. That convention is physically expressed by modulation of a medium or carrier, e.g glyphs on a computer screen or electrical signals that set up those glyphs according to ASCII code or its extensions in UTF-8. Thus, high contingency is a requisite of information transfer, and an agreed convention is required so that signals can be distinguished from noise, the latter often tracing to at random variations in the channel media and components, based on random behaviour of molecules etc, e.g Johnson or shot noise. [And BTW, the very concept signal to noise ratio shows how deeply embedded inference to intelligence vs chance is in information theory.] So, information is indeed dependent on giving recognisable, deliberate form to a variable medium, and on associated symbols and rules or conventions specifying the vocabulary, and the grammar etc. Without such intelligent action somewhere along the chain, no information is possible; on the evidence in hand as we saw with the von Neumann replicator. Indeed,the key point is that the vNR is an information system based entity. So, once we see functionally specific complex signals and codes at work in systems, we can be confident -- absent arbitrary a priori imposition of materialism -- that intelligence was involved. Chance simply cannot credibly pull together that many elements into a functional structure on the gamut of our observed cosmos, and the only other known source of high contingency is intelligence. (The link is to Abel's recent peer reviewed paper on the universal plausibility metric and bound.) 6] Dropping a rock and watching it fall sure isn’t an explanation. Strawman. UB took time to point out that we observe mechanical necessity in action by the universal pattern of falling heavy objects, e.g a rock. Have you ever seen a rock dropped that did not fall? I.e. law-like regularity is the signature of mechanical forces of necessity. Similarly, if the object was a fair die, we would see it drop, tumble and read from 1 to 6 at random. Statistically distributed,credibly undirected contingency is the signature of chance. If the die were loaded, or if we came across a tray of 200 die all reading 6, we would see the signature of directed, purposeful contingency, i.e design. So, we see the basis for scientifically examining the aspects of objects of phenomena or processes, and identifying the relevant causal factors, thus being able to empirically elucidate cause across chance, necessity, intelligence. That is, the design theory explanatory filter is a reasonable scientific procedure. ____________________ All in all, WH, you have given us an opportunity to actually look at the issues on the merits, and for that we must thank you. However, you might find it helpful to spend some time working though the UD weak argument correctives. G'day GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{May 11, 2010
May
05
May
11
11
2010
05:39 AM
5
05
39
AM
PDT}

WH: You have presented a target-rich environment. Let;s take your 71 as a good start: 1] WH, 71: If you have any evidence that God, an Intelligent Designer or an Unnamed Agent is responsible for anything, put it on the table and if it’s persuasive, scientists will investigate H'mm' who or what produced the posts in this thread? Who or what write computer languages, codes, algorithms, data structures, programs etc? Who or what make and orgtanise clusters of machines that interpret such instructions and data, then use them to execute algorithms? Who or what wrote Linux? Who or what make Asus Eee machines like the one I am currently using? --> Has undirected chance plus blind mechanical force ever been observed to do that? --> Similarly, has functionally specific, complex information ever been observed as produced by chance plus necessity as opposed to agents? --> Onlookers, observe as well WH's huffing and puffing to ridicule the supernatural as a possibility, because he refuses to engage the real alternative on the table: nature [chance + necessity] vs art [intelligence] and signs of intelligence. 2] Are you claiming to have concrete evidence that “other causes” created the first self-reproducer? Let’s hear it! But you really don’t have such evidence or you would have put it on the table long ago. None so blind as those who refuse to see. First, we have seen just above signs of intelligence as an issue, and the known cause of the sort of entities that have been observed in cell based life, down tot he disappointment when supposedly primitive unicellular organisms such as Mycoplasma pneumoniae were recently investigated. Observe the response of the investigators, who had been hoping to find a simpler architecture for life:
"At all three levels [as investigated: (i) “the RNA molecules, or transcripts, produced from its DNA,” (ii) “the metabolic reactions that occurred in it,” and (iii) “every multi-protein complex the bacterium produced”], we found M. pneumoniae was more complex than we expected."
Now, why was that surprise so? Had investigators taken seriously the analysis -- and a mathematico-logical analysis is also evidence -- of von Neumann from the late 1940's would have highlighted the requisites of a self replicating entity: (i) an underlying code to record/store the required information and to guide procedures for using it, (ii) a coded blueprint/tape record of such specifications and (explicit or implicit) instructions, together with (iii) a tape reader that reads and interprets the coded specifications and associated instructions, and (iv) implementing machines (and associated organisation and procedures) to carry out the specified replication (including that of the constructor itself); backed up by (v) either: (1) a pre-existing reservoir of required parts and energy sources, or (2) associated “metabolic” machines carrying out activities that provide required specific materials and forms of energy by using the generic resources in the surrounding environment. 3] Science looks for unguided forces at work in OOL because that’s the only kind of forces we know of except for what humans and a few animals do and none of them was around at the OOL. Show us some evidence for agents in the OOL and we’ll start looking for them . . . Bingo! There we see the imposition of evolutionary materialism as an a priori. It is obvious that you cannot bring yourself to acknowledge explicitly that in addition to Monod's "Chance and Necessity," we have Plato's "Art." Nor can you acknowledge that chance, necessity and art produce characteristic signs, such that we can -- and, save where commitments of evolutionary materialism are in question -- routinely do empirically identify the signified causal factor from its empirically reliable traces. In the heart of the cell, we find digital codes, data structures, step by step algorithms that carry out key steps as envisioned by von Neumann BEFORE DNA was fully identified and its informational role elucidated. (Cf. video summary here. [Kindly explain, with details and empirical observations, how such could be originated by chance + necessity at the OOL.]) In short, we have evidence that language, algorithms, data structures, and programs, together with executing machinery, predate life, and are a key component of it. Whether or not your evolutionary materialist fervour blinds you to it, that is strong evidence of intelligence -- on inference to best, empirically supported explanation -- as the cause of cell based life. And, this, in a cosmos that is fine tuned to support carbon chemistry, cell based life. So, the best, empirically anchored explanation for cell based life in a cosmos fine tuned to support such life, is a cosmos-creating intelligent agent with intent to create life. And, since matter is a part of that observed cosmos, it is reasonable to further seriously consider that the extra-cosmic agent is mind not dependent on matter. [ . . . ]kairosfocus_{May 11, 2010
May
05
May
11
11
2010
05:33 AM
5
05
33
AM
PDT}

warehuff asks: Where’s the abstracted information in the punches? Good question warehuff. And while you are at please try to find where the abstracted information of these foundational equations of reality reside: The Underlying Mathematical Foundation Of Nature -Walter Bradley http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4491491 Job 38:4-7 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? Shoot while you at it warehuff please try to find where all these reside: Systematic Search for Expressions of Dimensionless Constants using the NIST database of Physical Constants Excerpt: The National Institute of Standards and Technology lists 325 constants on their website as ‘Fundamental Physical Constants’. Among the 325 physical constants listed, 79 are unitless in nature (usually by defining a ratio). This produces a list of 246 physical constants with some unit dependence. These 246 physical constants can be further grouped into a smaller set when expressed in standard SI base units.,,, http://www.mit.edu/~mi22295/constants/constants.html Proverbs 8:26-27 While as yet He had not made the earth or the fields, or the primeval dust of the world. When He prepared the heavens, I was there, when He drew a circle on the face of the deep, Euler's Number - God Created Mathematics - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4003905 This following website has the complete working out of the math of Pi and e in the Bible, in the Hebrew and Greek languages, for Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1: http://www.biblemaths.com/pag03_pie/ Michael Denton - Mathematical Truths Are Transcendent And Beautiful - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4003918 Mathematics is the language with which God has written the universe. Galileo Galilei "The reason that mathematics is so effective in capturing, expressing, and modeling what we call empirical reality is that there is a ontological correspondence between the two - I would go so far as to say that they are the same thing." Richard Sternberg - Pg. 8 How My Views On Evolution Evolved John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Of Note: The greek meaning for the word "word" in John1:1 is Logos and is the root word from which we get our english word "logic".bornagain77_{May 11, 2010
May
05
May
11
11
2010
05:22 AM
5
05
22
AM
PDT}

Where's the abstracted information in the punches?warehuff_{May 11, 2010
May
05
May
11
11
2010
04:53 AM
4
04
53
AM
PDT}

warehuff, In your response you simply give up the conversation. You are now simply re-asserting comments you've made which have been refuted by evidence and ordinary logic. If life operates by means of information processing, and you want to claim that life is the result of purely material causes, then you must provide a material cause for information processing. Capisch? Repeatedly suggesting that the first life forms did not process information is not an explanation - it is simply a re-assertion of your original belief that material causes can lead to information procecssing. And it is doing so without the burden of explaining how. It is now pointless to tell you once again that you cannot just assume your conclusions. I am absolutely more than happy to allow any observer to make of this exchange what they will. Going back to comment #59, I wanted to show that there is a) no evidence to support a materialistic account of origins, b) that you don't even have a viable conception of how inanimate chemistry could form an abstraction of itself (which is necessary in any OOL scenario) and start processing that information, and c) that you could not admit to it. You have been a perfect candidate for that endeavor.Upright BiPed_{May 11, 2010
May
05
May
11
11
2010
03:49 AM
3
03
49
AM
PDT}

Upright BiPed @ 60: "This is just not true. Like before, you simply assume what must be explained. When you say that "the information is in the layout of the molecule" you are making a serous category error. The layout in is the layout, but until that layout becomes abstracted and placed into a medium, then no information exist." http://www.amazon.com/3mm-NUMBER-LETTER-PUNCH-PIECE/dp/B001GQFH7S Here's a set of letter punches. 36 pieces of tool steel, each with a letter or number forged into one end. Put one of them against a piece of softer metal, hit it with a hammer and it punches a letter or digit into the metal. All of the information is in the layout of the tool steel pieces, nothing is abstracted and placed into another medium, yet information exists and can be copied with simple pressure. I think the problem here is that you're overlooking the enormous amounts of information that are embedded in all materials and only looking at the tiny amounts of information that are abstracted into forms like DNA. "You may then say that chemical evolution could have preceded evolution by means of information and copying errors. To which I say fine, you’ve done no more than restate your belief that chemicals can somehow create an abstraction of themselves in order to be replicated and to have that abstraction transferred to their offspring." No abstractions are needed if a molecule can copy itself directly. You keep thinking of modern organisms, which are the products of long periods of evolution and contain the information provided by that evolution.warehuff_{May 11, 2010
May
05
May
11
11
2010
03:03 AM
3
03
03
AM
PDT}

Upright BiPed @ 59: "It is constantly argued that science must operate (without any exceptions) as if we already know it happened by purely unguided means. ... So, on what grounds do we operate as if we know for certain it happened by non-guided means ... You may counter this claim by providing references to OOL researchers (or materialist such as yourself) who allow for a possible act of agency in the origin of living organisms." As I explained in @67, science made the pragmatic decision to leave the supernatural to the theologians and concentrate on what can be observed a long time ago and that policy has worked excellently for centuries.. If you have evidence of an act of agency in the OOL, by all means present it here. If you don't have such evidence, by all means explain your theory to the theologians. I agree that we have life as we find it operating today to observe and we can get some clues to the OOL from those observations. That's why I think the first self-reproducing thing was probably an RNA-like molecule made of a long chain of smaller units. What I DON'T believe is that the first self-reproducer was a modern cell or used information stored externally to the self-reproducing molecule. If you have evidence to the contrary, please present it here. Nobody, including Dr. Koonin, knows what the conditions at the OOL were, so it's premature to write off an RNA like molecule. I think you're totally wrong about the OOL. I think the OOL was ENTIRELY about making one biomolecule into two biomolecules. Since doing this automatically reproduces the information embedded in those biomolecules, that reproduction also takes care of all the information processing. The information in OOL is assumed to have come from the ordinary chemical reactions that go on constantly. We assume that the original replicator was a small molecule with very little information in it, not a complex set of molecules. The information for making more complex organisms would have been obtained in small pieces through evolution. You ARE making a positive claim that it is "universally known" that "chemistry cannot form a semiotic abstraction of itself". If you can back that claim up, please do so now. I'm not holding my breath until you do. If you can't back it up, then your claim would more accurately be phrased as, "I believe that chemistry cannot form a semiotic abstraction of itself" and that claim has no more authority than any other belief you might have.warehuff_{May 11, 2010
May
05
May
11
11
2010
03:02 AM
3
03
02
AM
PDT}

Upright BiPed @ 70 Boy, you sure have a weird conception of how science is done! I can see it now, thousands of scientists, repeating to themselves, "Must ... not ... believe ... in ... God ... arrghh!! The Pain!! The Pain!!" It's not like that. If you have any evidence that God, an Intelligent Designer or an Unnamed Agent is responsible for anything, put it on the table and if it's persuasive, scientists will investigate. Remember, some scientists are believers to begin with. But you don't have any such evidence. Instead, you're insisting that God / ID / UA be shoehorned into everything because it seems to you that God / ID / UA exists and so he/she/it should have done something back at the OOL. Well, why stop there? Why aren't people seriously considering that Wotan did it? And how about Thor? After all, we hear thunder! That's evidence! Why do scientists refuse to consider an Intelligent Hammerer as a cause for thunder? And maybe he hammered the first self reproducer into shape! And how about those invisible Intelligent Unicorns. They are so smart they've completely avoided detection for as long as the human race has existed. Surely an entity that smart should be able to create life, yet those danged politically correct scientists just plain refuse to even look for hoofprints! Why don't we get some free and open inquiry and start considering ALL of the possibilities? What do you mean by this: "In a historical observation (such as origins) where we have no evidence that unguided forces can accomplish the specific effect in question (but concrete evidence that other causes can and do create the specific effect in question) we are only allowed to consider unguided forces." Are you claiming to have concrete evidence that "other causes" created the first self-reproducer? Let's hear it! But you really don't have such evidence or you would have put it on the table long ago. Science looks for unguided forces at work in OOL because that's the only kind of forces we know of except for what humans and a few animals do and none of them was around at the OOL. Show us some evidence for agents in the OOL and we'll start looking for them, but if you don't have any evidence then YOU look for them and we'll save a Nobel prize for you when you succeed. "The fact that you want to lean on some completely irrelevant “prayer effectiveness” studies (for crying out loud) as a means to ignore that agents are the only cause known to have ever been shown to create information, is simply par for the course." First of all, the scientists studying prayer effectiveness were (attempting to) study God, since He's the one responsible for answering prayers. The fact that all of their experiments have failed is just more reason for science to leave the supernatural to the theologians and concentrate on the material causes like the ones that we've discovered every time in the past. The fact that you believe that only intelligence can create information is one of the reasons I believe you don't half understand what information even is. We've been telling you where the information found in living things comes from for years - mutations create the information and natural selection sieves out the useless information and keeps what works. But I really don't think you're ever going to believe that. "warehuff, I explained the concept of universal experience." Where? Certainly not in this thread. Dropping a rock and watching it fall sure isn't an explanation. We've been watching rocks fall as long as there have been humans. Longer than that, actually, because I'm sure some of our ape ancestors saw things fall, But when you talk about abstracting information, you're talking about something that happenes in cells at the molecular level. We've only had the capability of "seeing" such events for less than one human lifetime and the abstraction was a done deal billions of years before molecular biology was invented. Your falling rock explanation is completely invalid.warehuff_{May 11, 2010
May
05
May
11
11
2010
02:55 AM
2
02
55
AM
PDT}

Warehuff, First question: “There is no Pope of science, so there’s some variation of opinion of what science MUST do.” What you imply simply does not stand up to the reality on the ground. As an adjunct to the first question I raised, I asked you to post references to researchers who (based on evidence) allow for the possibility of agency input in the origin of biological information. You posted nothing of the kind. That is because there is nothing to post. Therefore my original point stands unaltered: In a historical observation (such as origins) where we have no evidence that unguided forces can accomplish the specific effect in question (but concrete evidence that other causes can and do create the specific effect in question) we are only allowed to consider unguided forces. In other words, a politicized arbitrary rule is allowed to take precedence over rational empirically-based observations. And we will call this an unfettered search for truth. “Generally, the decision to leave the supernatural to the theologians was a pragmatic one. Adding in supernatural causes turned out to be very non-productive.” This is simply an old defensive maneuver. Having established the fact that we have no evidence to support the mandate that unguided forces are responsible for the effect in question, we will now simply stop talking about it, right? We will no longer discuss observations made in the real world, and will instead turn our attention to academic politics and arbitrary rules violations, correct? We’ll change the focus away from actual observations, and then inject some spooky imaginary problems that aren’t even part of the evidence, is that it? No thanks. The moment someone argues that it’s more productive to force feed ourselves that 2+2=5 than it is for us to consider our universal experience that 2+2=4, then I know I am talking to a willful partisan whose judgment cannot be trusted and whose conclusions are not impacted by scientific observation. The fact that you want to lean on some completely irrelevant “prayer effectiveness” studies (for crying out loud) as a means to ignore that agents are the only cause known to have ever been shown to create information, is simply par for the course. You’ve apparently given up on science to defend your position. On the other hand, I do not have to. Second question: “Modern life does [operate by encoded algorithmic information] but the first living thing was almost certainly much, much simpler.” This comment is an effort to simply skip over (to ignore, to not respond to) what you’ve already been told. In my previous post I said: “If we are going to explain how life as we know came to exist, then we have to explain where information came from — not that tab A sticks in slot B — but how the instructions for sticking tab A in slot B came to be instantiated in an encoded semiotic state within a material medium. So, without putting any prior restrictions on you to explain when in the process such information came to be, it is nevertheless a requirement to explain how it came to be. Why? Because that is how we find it today” … “You may then say that chemical evolution could have preceded evolution by means of information and copying errors. To which I say fine, you’ve done no more than restate your belief that chemicals can somehow create an abstraction of themselves in order to be replicated and to have that abstraction transferred to their offspring. But you certainly haven’t provided any conceptual idea as to how that abstraction came to be. Nor have you shown anything of the organization and control which would be required prior to the onset of information.” So… simply repeating that information wasn’t necessary at the start of life (but only appeared later) is a tremendous leap of faith which is virtually baseless. But if you are going to make the claim, then it will require at least some viable explanation for the organization (food intake, waste control, respiration, energy management, etc) necessary for even a simple form of life without the control afforded by information (as we see it in operation today). Plus you’ll need to provide an explanation of the onset of information control itself. So again I say to you, I will not place any prior restriction on you to explain WHEN the abstraction took place, but you have to explain HOW it took place. Or, you must admit that you have not even a conceptual idea as to how it happened – which was my original point. Are you now willing to concede (for the sake of honest argument) that there is not even a conceptual idea of how inanimate chemicals can create an abstraction of themselves? Third Question: warehuff, I explained the concept of universal experience. It is certainly not a difficult concept to understand. If there was any confusion whatsoever as to what is meant by the term “universal experience”, then I think the explanation I gave would be all that is necessary to clear up that confusion. In fact, I am quite willing to assume that perhaps every living person on the surface of the planet can relate to what it means. If in order to avoid reconciling the fact that you answer “no” to the first two questions, you are forced to pretend to be confused about the third, then, well… what can be said? I can only assume you are fudging that you do not understand it. I’m forced to give you the benefit of the doubt. Now, as to your question of “what it [universal experience] has to do with a molecule that directly reproduces itself without using any coded information such as DNA” I simply have to laugh. Once again you just assume what needs to be explained. And now you’ve added an assumption which is completely unsupported. Your vision of a metabolizing molecule organized without the control of information is nothing more than an unsupported assertion. Are you listening to yourself??? What does universal experience tell us about a metabolizing molecule which reproduces without DNA?? I don’t know – you tell me of any metabolizing molecule that reproduces without DNA and I’ll answer the question! Geeez, warehuff. Get serious. - - - - - - Here is the bottom line: Q1 No, Q2 No, Q3 ObfuscateUpright BiPed_{May 10, 2010
May
05
May
10
10
2010
03:18 PM
3
03
18
PM
PDT}

#64 vjtorley Thanks for the links. I should explain my interest is more sociological than philosophical. I am trying to understand why human embryro research in general is not a big controversy in the UK and is in the USA - while the reverse is true of, for example, GMO.Mark Frank_{May 10, 2010
May
05
May
10
10
2010
07:10 AM
7
07
10
AM
PDT}

Have to go to work. I'll answer @60 tomorrow. vjtorley, I see you have a web page. Is there anywhere on it where we can have a long discussion of abortion and dualism/monism?warehuff_{May 10, 2010
May
05
May
10
10
2010
04:55 AM
4
04
55
AM
PDT}

Upright BiPed @ 59: First question: There is no Pope of science, so there's some variation of opinion of what science MUST do. Generally, the decision to leave the supernatural to the theologians was a pragmatic one. Adding in supernatural causes turned out to be very non-productive. There are a few current scientists that have tried to investigate possible supernatural factors and they've been unsuccessful. I'm thinking of the various prayer experiments where typically people in a hospital are prayed for or not prayed for and the outcomes are compared. The non-results of these experiments confirm that leaving out supernatural causes is the way to go. Second question: "...we know life operates by means of encoded algorithmic information." Modern life does, but the first living thing was almost certainly much, much simpler. The first living thing was probably a single molecule or a few simple molecules that managed through simple mechanical/chemical means to reproduce themselves directly, with no intermediate coding. My guess is that the first self-reproducing molecule was RNA or something RNA like mostly because RNA is still at the heart of all living things today. Generally, if you find a protein that's doing something significant with regard to reproduction, you'll still find a tiny stretch of RNA buried in the protein that's doing the actual work. The third question: You say that there is "universal knowledge that chemistry cannot form a semiotic abstraction of itself." Well, this is news to me. Please tell me more about this knowledge, what exactly it is, who thought it up, what evidence supports it and what it has to do with a molecule that directly reproduces itself without using any coded information such as DNA. Think of this question as a corrective. It's intent is to make you support your claim instead of just making it. You claim that chemistry cannot make a coded abstraction of itself, it's up to you to support ithis claim. Talking about rocks falling to the ground has nothing to do with this.warehuff_{May 10, 2010
May
05
May
10
10
2010
04:34 AM
4
04
34
AM
PDT}

above: From my perspective, watching the positions regularly taken by opponents on this site, it would seem that denial has much in common with their multiverse theory - not only is it possible, it is inevitable. VJT: When you first posted that essay, I put it away for a different day. When I finally came back to it, I enjoyed it very much. KF: ...thanks monUpright BiPed_{May 9, 2010
May
05
May
9
09
2010
08:51 PM
8
08
51
PM
PDT}

UB: Excellent! GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{May 9, 2010
May
05
May
9
09
2010
02:32 PM
2
02
32
PM
PDT}

Mark Frank (#58) You might like these articles too: Life: Defining the Beginning By The End by Professor Maureen Condic. What We Know About Embryonic Stem Cells by Professor Maureen Condic. 8 Bad Arguments for Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research by Josh Brahm. Libertarians for Life Upright Biped (#62) Thanks for remembering the article I posted a couple of years ago. Warehuff (#58) Unfortunately I don't have a blog up and running at the moment. I'll let you know when I get one.vjtorley_{May 9, 2010
May
05
May
9
09
2010
09:57 AM
9
09
57
AM
PDT}

@Upright biped -" But if you are going to claim that chemicals can create an abstraction of themselves, then it is a requirement for you to explain how it happened" At this point, can the materialist deny the concept of information to by-pass your challenge? In other words, can he simply say that the chemical or the biological unit does not create an abstraction of itself but merely replicates itself physically without the use of any information abstractions? Do they have grounds to deny that?above_{May 9, 2010
May
05
May
9
09
2010
09:29 AM
9
09
29
AM
PDT}

Mark at 58 VJT once posted this a couple years ago. I didn't know if you had seen it. http://www.shef.ac.uk/content/1/c6/03/49/16/FetusNew.pdfUpright BiPed_{May 9, 2010
May
05
May
9
09
2010
08:08 AM
8
08
08
AM
PDT}

Racingiron in 35, Your post is so laced with errors that it would probably be best to simply ignore it. For instance, take this gem:
YOU are trying to introduce the concept of “information” into biology…
Are you kidding me? I’m responsible for introducing the “concept of information” into biology? Have you ever heard of Francis Crick? Perhaps the concept of information in biology comes from the fact that the nucleotide arrangement of Cytosine-Thymine-Adenine in DNA results in the addition of Leucine during protein synthesis (after that arrangement has been transcribed from one medium into another). Perhaps the fact that A-G-T codes for Serine and T-A-T codes for Tyrosine is more responsible than I am. You then go on to accuse me not providing a concise definition. Yet, I copied and pasted the appropriate context directly from Claude Shannon’s paper on information theory. You could only have missed it if you tried. Perhaps you should re-read my post.Upright BiPed_{May 8, 2010
May
05
May
8
08
2010
10:05 PM
10
10
05
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply