Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Intelligent Design=Pattern Recognition

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

This Phys.Org press release isn’t about a particularly interesting scientific paper. However, what the authors tells us about how this paper came to be is very interesting. And, I may add, very revealing.

Listen to what they have to say about their “aha” moment:

Inside some of the data that a standard mapping algorithm normally clips out, Zhang and postdoctoral fellow Xiaolong Chen, Ph.D., recognized that the clipped pattern in the DNA looked like an L1 inside of the FOXR2 gene. In a moment of serendipity, Diane Flasch, Ph.D., a postdoctoral fellow who previously worked with L1s, recognized the signs of an L1 regulatory element. The researchers performed a special technique that sequences longer regions of DNA to decode the structure of this retrotransposed L1 in FOXR2.

This is exactly the mental process William Dembski proposes as underlying “design” recognition and so confirming a “design inference.” In the movie, Contact, the SETI researchers recognized that a string of 1s and 0s was not random but was actually the prime numbers from 2 to 101 and from this concluded this was evidence of “extraterrestial intelligence.” One has to ask: how is what is described by the authors here any different?

All this is now followed by the authors telling us why their “aha” moment hadn’t occurred to other scientists before:

The scientists used samples obtained over time to learn when the retrotransposition occurred during the tumor’s development. The L1 promoter donation happened before other cancer-associated mutations, so it likely was the driving event that caused the cancer.

Since inserted L1 regulatory elements had never been suspected to be involved in tumorigenesis, existing computational algorithms were not designed to detect such an event.

And what happened in their case?

It took a human mind to see and understand the pattern for the first time.

Yes, indeed, intelligence is all about recognizing patterns, as is intelligent design.

And the author’s bottom-line on all of this:

“Scientists need to keep their eyes open for all the possibilities,” Chiang said. “Don’t filter out information that you think is garbage. Sometimes the gold is in the garbage.”

Sometimes the “gold” is the “garbage”; as in evolutionary theory. Sometimes the “garbage” (in the mind of the evolutionary biologists, otherwise known as Darwinists) is “gold”; as in intelligent design.

Comments
Let's not forget this: In 2005, before the genomic revolution was taking hold, we were told that genes made up 20-25% of the genome. In 2012, as more and more was being learned, this was downgraded to about 10%. And now, in 2022, we're told that genes constitute only 2% of the genome. From the beginning, my position here at UD was that genes were only the "material list" for the cell. The "blueprint" was the remainder of the genome. 49 times more "blueprint" than "material list" sounds about right for an engineering project.PaV
April 25, 2022
April
04
Apr
25
25
2022
03:51 PM
3
03
51
PM
PDT
Writing off 98% of DNA as garbage is one of the largest blunders in scientific research history.
When you say about a computer that only the processor is working and the rest is junk that means you know a lot about computers... :)))Sandy
April 25, 2022
April
04
Apr
25
25
2022
01:39 PM
1
01
39
PM
PDT
DD, actually, Darwin in summary spoke of chance variation [CV] and differential reproductive success [DRS] with natural culling/selection and sexual selection as two types [DRS:NC/S & SS]. These were expected to lead to survival of favoured races [SFR] thus descent with (unlimited) modification [DWUM] thence branching tree macro evolution [BTME] and the tree of life {TOL], through fine gradations {FG]: 1: CV + DRS:NC/S & SS --> 2: SFR --> 3: DWUM --> 4: BTME/TOL, FG The driver is phase 1, and obviously DRS:NC/S & SS SUBTRACTS the less favoured races . . . right there in the title, so the only actual information source is CV. Which, is grossly inadequate to account for searching the sorts of FSCO/I-rich config spaces implied by 100 - 1,000 kbases for OOL and 10 - 100mm+ bases for novel body plans. So phase 1 fails. 2: Is of course notorious and the source of things like eugenics, euthanasia, forced euthanasia and genocide, alleged self direction of human evolution, i.e. the proposed breeders of humanity tend to fail the responsibility test, while of course this is ID they proposed to implement. Or, per the stories, did implement on Barbuda. There is a recognisable Barbuda breed with traces to this day in the EC. Survival implies subtraction, reinforcing issues with phase 1. Phase 3 is far more problematic when we contrast phases 4 and 5 with the islands of function pattern that starts with deeply isolated islands of function for protein fold domains and goes on to things like sharply distinct sex determination systems etc. The claimed tree of life pattern requires a broad, spreading continent of function allowing the circumpolar species pattern to replicate itself all over the fossil deposits and current bio-geographic patterns, including with higher taxa. But that is neither the fossil pattern [with the Cambrian fossils well known since Darwin] nor the global pattern today. We find limited variation across families and even within that strong distinction of kinds. Where, species has become a rather troubled concept. And, sharp distinction goes up to the top taxa. So, the observations don't fit the theory, they have been stretched or cut to fit. And much more. KFkairosfocus
April 25, 2022
April
04
Apr
25
25
2022
01:37 PM
1
01
37
PM
PDT
Fred Hickson:
Darwin postulated a mechanism of selection and used the examples of plant and animal breeders who have engineered populations of plants and domesticated animals long before anyone had any idea about genes by controlling breeding by selecting desired traits. Selection is a fact. The mechanism is now well understood to be variation in genetic sequences. It is a design process.
Clueless. Natural selection is a process of elimination. It is nothing more than contingent serendipity. There isn't any evidence that natural selection is a design process. From "What Evolution Is" page 117:
What Darwin called natural selection is actually a process of elimination.
Page 118:
Do selection and elimination differ in their evolutionary consequences? This question never seems to have been raised in the evolutionary literature. A process of selection would have a concrete objective, the determination of the “best” or “fittest” phenotype. Only a relatively few individuals in a given generation would qualify and survive the selection procedure. That small sample would be only to be able to preserve only a small amount of the whole variance of the parent population. Such survival selection would be highly restrained. By contrast, mere elimination of the less fit might permit the survival of a rather large number of individuals because they have no obvious deficiencies in fitness. Such a large sample would provide, for instance, the needed material for the exercise of sexual selection. This also explains why survival is so uneven from season to season. The percentage of the less fit would depend on the severity of each year’s environmental conditions.
Artificial selection = the selection definition whereas natural selection = the elimination definition. The difference is huge, as Mayr describes. Natural selection could NEVER produce the different breeds of dogs. However, remove humans and natural selection will get rid of those breeds.ET
April 25, 2022
April
04
Apr
25
25
2022
12:46 PM
12
12
46
PM
PDT
Fred Hickson: Selection is the 'elimination' of the unfit: and no more than that. But where does the 'fit' come from? And, what makes Darwinian theory Darwinian is the Law of Divergence. Why don't you ask animal breeders about that?PaV
April 25, 2022
April
04
Apr
25
25
2022
07:37 AM
7
07
37
AM
PDT
At ET Darwin postulated a mechanism of selection and used the examples of plant and animal breeders who have engineered populations of plants and domesticated animals long before anyone had any idea about genes by controlling breeding by selecting desired traits. Selection is a fact. The mechanism is now well understood to be variation in genetic sequences. It is a design process.Fred Hickson
April 24, 2022
April
04
Apr
24
24
2022
09:48 PM
9
09
48
PM
PDT
Bob O'H:
But in that process the researchers recognised something because it looks explicitly like something they already knew. If that’s what ID does, then it is going to struggle recognising something as designed unless it explicitly looks like something they already know is designed.
Knowledge of cause-and-effect relationships drive our scientific inferences. And it is still up to the people claiming that nature produced whatever is being investigated to support that claim.ET
April 24, 2022
April
04
Apr
24
24
2022
06:46 PM
6
06
46
PM
PDT
Bob O'H: How did the SETI investigators "know" that a pattern existed? They recognized something they knew (prime numbers) in something that they knew nothing about (a random looking binary string). When that string is 500 characters long, then, per ID, it is the hallmark of a designing intelligence. Intelligence operates by first recognizing patterns. What are MENSA IQ tests made up of generally? Pattern recognition problems. We recognize the operation of an intellect by patterns produced in range of possible patterns that is enormously large. DNA has all the hallmarks of this kind of complex pattern formation.PaV
April 24, 2022
April
04
Apr
24
24
2022
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT
Hi Been reading stuff here for a while. Seems to me the burden is to show how it is possible stuff isn't designed (for those that need to) then move on to check how stuff that is designed (everything) gets designed.Fred Hickson
April 24, 2022
April
04
Apr
24
24
2022
02:35 AM
2
02
35
AM
PDT
This is exactly the mental process William Dembski proposes as underlying “design” recognition and so confirming a “design inference.”
But in that process the researchers recognised something because it looks explicitly like something they already knew. If that's what ID does, then it is going to struggle recognising something as designed unless it explicitly looks like something they already know is designed.Bob O'H
April 24, 2022
April
04
Apr
24
24
2022
02:00 AM
2
02
00
AM
PDT
Interesting... Don't filter out information you think is 98% Junk DNA for a failed theory and rename it Neo-Darwinism? ;-) Tandem Repeats for example <-- have function, written off by Darwinist and "Scientist" for ages as Junk. But if you were looking for design features you would find function in TRs. Writing off 98% of DNA as garbage is one of the largest blunders in scientific research history. All thanks to Darwinism and the zealots who blindly claimed 98% of DNA as blind junk.DATCG
April 22, 2022
April
04
Apr
22
22
2022
03:49 PM
3
03
49
PM
PDT
Like the man said, Look about you. Take hold of the things that are here. Talk to them. Let them talk to you.polistra
April 22, 2022
April
04
Apr
22
22
2022
01:46 PM
1
01
46
PM
PDT

Leave a Reply