Our frame going forward, is knowledge reformation driven by application of the adapted JoHari Window, given obvious, fallacy-riddled ideological captivity of the intellectual high ground of our civilisation:
Ideological captivity of the high ground also calls forth the perspective that we need to map the high ground:
If you want some context on validity:
So, we are now looking at ideologically driven captivity of the intellectual high ground and related institutions of our civilisation, leading to compromising the integrity of the knowledge commons through fallacy riddled evolutionary materialistic scientism and related ideologies. Not a happy thought but that is what we have to deal with and find a better way forward.
We already know, knowledge (weak, everyday sense) is warranted, credibly true (so, reliable) belief, and that it is defeasible on finding gaps or errors that force reworking. Classically, that happened twice with Physics, the shattering of the Scholastic view through the Scientific revolution, and the modern physics revolution that showed limitations of newtonian dynamics and classical electromagnetism. Physics, like Humpty Dumpty [and the underlying fallen Roman Empire], has never been put back together again.
But, how do we proceed?
Through systems thinking and systems engineering, on several levels.
First, NASA defines:
“systems engineering” is defined as a methodical, multi-disciplinary approach for the design, realization, technical management, operations, and retirement of a system. A “system” is the combination of elements that function together to produce the capability required to meet a need. The elements include all hardware, software, equipment, facilities, personnel [–> thus, these are sociotechnical systems and bridge engineering and management], processes, and procedures needed for this purpose; that is, all things required to produce system-level results. The results include system-level qualities, properties, characteristics, functions, behavior, and performance. The value added by the system as a whole, beyond that contributed independently by the parts, is primarily created by the relationship among the parts; that is, how they are interconnected. [–> functional, information rich organisation adds value] It is a way of looking at the “big picture” when making technical decisions. It is a way of achieving stakeholder functional, physical, and operational performance requirements in the intended use environment over the planned life of the system within cost, schedule, and other constraints. It is a methodology that supports the containment of the life cycle cost of a system. In other words, systems engineering is a logical way of thinking.
Systems engineering is the art and science of developing an operable system capable of meeting requirements within often opposed constraints. Systems engineering is a holistic, integrative discipline
NASA has a big scoping chart for Systems Engineering in a project/programme management context:
We can look at the Systems Engineering Vee Model (HT: ResearchGate):
Another view, notice, the implied, layer cake modularity of systems, from physical materials to base devices and components [consider a transistor or a bolt], to function units, to system modules and organisation to overall functionality based on information rich organisation:
U/D, Oct 13: We may add a chart on a key subset of SE, reverse engineering, RE:
One of the most significant RE-FE exercises was the clean room duplication of the IBM PC’s operating framework that allowed lawsuit-proof clones to be built that then led to the explosion of PC-compatible machines. By the time this was over, IBM sold out to Lenovo and went back to its core competency, Mainframes. Where, now, a mainframe today is in effect a high end packaged server farm; the microprocessor now rules the world, including the supercomputer space.
Here, let us add, a Wikipedia confession as yet another admission against interest:
Reverse engineering (also known as backwards engineering or back engineering) is a process or method through which one attempts to understand through deductive reasoning [–> actually, a poor phrase for inference to best explanation, i.e. abductive reasoning] how a previously made device, process, system, or piece of software accomplishes a task with very little (if any) [–> initial] insight into exactly how it does so. It is essentially the process of opening up or dissecting [–> telling metaphor] a system [–> so, SE applies] to see how it works, in order to duplicate or enhance it. Depending on the system under consideration and the technologies employed, the knowledge gained during reverse engineering can help with repurposing obsolete objects, doing security analysis, or learning how something works.[1][2]
Although the process is specific to the object on which it is being performed, all reverse engineering processes consist of three basic steps: Information extraction, Modeling, and Review. Information extraction refers to the practice of gathering all relevant information [–> telling word, identify the FSCO/I present in the entity, and of course TRIZ is highly relevant esp its library of key design strategies] for performing the operation. Modeling refers to the practice of combining the gathered information into an abstract model [–> that is, the inferred best explanation], which can be used as a guide for designing the new object or system. [–> guess why I think within this century we should be able to build a cell de novo?] Review refers to the testing of the model to ensure the validity of the chosen abstract.[1] Reverse engineering is applicable in the fields of computer engineering, mechanical engineering, design, electronic engineering, software engineering, chemical engineering,[3] and systems biology.[4] [More serious discussion, here.]
We can see that
one paradigm for science is, reverse engineering nature.
This directly connects to, technology as using insights from RE of nature to forward engineer [FE] our own useful systems. And of course that takes us to a theme of founders of modern science, that they were “thinking God’s thoughts after him.”
In that SE-RE-FE context, we can bring on board issues of systems architecture and related matters, as I commented earlier today:
Computer architecture at first level, is the study of the assembly/machine language view, i.e. information, its processing [including coding, algorithmic processes etc], associated function units, their organisation. Underlying physical science and technique to effect these units carries us to the layer cake, modular network, systems view. With analogue computers, the focus is on continuous state function units and how they represent key mathematical operations [famously, integration] that then integrate in a process flow network to handle continuous state information bearing signals and materials or states and phases of dynamic stochastic entities etc. This extends the context to instrumentation, control and systems engineering as well as telecommunications, bringing in frequency domain transforms and approaches as well as state/phase space approaches. These give us fresh eyes to see and more objectively understand the molecular nanotech marvels in the cell.
Obviously, this immediately allows us to reconsider the cell as a marvel of nanotechnology, e.g. here is its metabolic framework, part of how it is a metabolising, molecular nanotech self replicating automaton:
Just the top left corner, already involves a complex algorithmic process using coded information:
Then, there is the communication network this expresses, as Yockey pointed out:
All of this, we have known for decades, but now it is time to independently ponder it as a system and understand how this exemplifies and instantiates such system elements. We can immediately set aside crude fallacies of appeals to dismissible analogies, once we ponder, say, the genetic code as just that, a code:
Just for reference, by fair use doctrine, here is Lehninger’s comparison:
By starting from a systems perspective, we can then rebuild knowledge on a sounder footing than the present ideologically driven institutional capture. END
L&FP, 62: The Systems (and Systems Engineering) Perspective — a first step to understanding design in/of our world
F/N: I added the Lehninger comparison of a Cuneiform Stele with DNA bursting out of a bacterium.
F/N3: From Acknowledgements, to help us understand the significance and weight of Lehninger:
FYI
KF
We acknowledge the existence of design in the Universe. We do it.
We acknowledge the possibility of extraterrestrial design but we have no evidence for it at this time.
We acknowledge the appearance of design in nature but only the appearance based on analogies with human artefacts.
We acknowledge that the great complexity observed in the natural world still lacks a compelling explanation of origins.
We acknowledge that the naturalistic approach to science has proven more fruitful than any alternatives.
We acknowledge that the Intelligent Design/Creationist rejection of methodological naturalism in favor of creationist explanations is a form of selective hyper-skepticism similar to that of which science is accused.
Actually, a mantra that ID pretty much agrees with but the distortion creeps in at the end
It should be
Seversky at 4,
Nonsense. At the Mayo Clinic and elsewhere, guess what? The ASSUMPTION made by brainwashed Biologists had to be discarded to make actual progress in identifying the sources of human disease. How are they doing that? By looking at Junk DNA. By studying it. Not throwing it out as ‘leftovers from our long [alleged] period of Evolution.’ By studying it as opposed to ‘it doesn’t code for proteins so it’s useless.’ Those so-called non-coding regions are yielding vital information about human disease, The “natural” approach discarded them – without looking.
Sev, if we needed confirmation on the point, you just gave it . . . DV, overnight. KF
Sev, do you realise how much you gave away, by how unresponsive you have been to not only the substance in the OP or discussion over the years or even the weak argument correctives? Message: you felt a need to lay out the standard, strawman and ad hom laced talking points to trigger the standard evolutionary materialistic scientism and fellow traveller narrative, to dismiss what you object to. That game is now over.
On your talking points, in — “deconstructive” — steps of thought:
>>We acknowledge the existence of design in the Universe. We do it.>>
1- Why, yes, just by composing a complex text you exhibited a central sign of design, functionally specific, complex organisation and/or associated information [FSCO/I], y’know, the same that objectors every now and then pretend is not real or observable, cannot be defined to their satisfaction, can be dismissed on the usual “no evidence” claim.
2- But in fact you know just as well as we do that such FSCO/I exists and we have a trillion member base of observations of its only actually observed source, intelligently directed configuration, let’s abbreviate IDC, aka “design.” Also, requiring “intelligence”:
3- Where, too, we all know that simple analysis of blind search challenge in large config spaces beyond the inference threshold, 500 – 1,000 bits [3.27^10^150 to 1.07*10^301 possible configurational states] shows that the only plausible source is such IDC.
4- That is, we have a well tested highly reliable sign of design and are epistemically entitled to infer that the best explanation — absent clear actually observed counter-example of blind dynamic stochastic process [aka blind chance and/or mechanical necessity] producing FSCO/I — on observing FSCO/I is IDC.
5- Of course, neither you nor many other longstanding critics have ever provided an actual counter example that meets the actual observed cause Newton’s rules that work to prune speculation pretending to be observationally anchored science.
6- In short, you and ever so many other objectors know you have no answer to this central observationally anchored inference on good, reliable sign. So, you rhetorically dodge, set up and knock over a strawman caricature instead. (Notably, in the OP, Lehninger and/or heirs give a direct comparison between an Assyrian Stele and DNA in a cell.)
7- Further, that design exists and designers exist implies that responsible, rational significant freedom exists, which carries even more with it as this points to the logic of being of a contingent world with such creatures and its causal roots. Especially, with a world full of signs of fine tuning.
8- Of course, the Lehninger example is telling: beyond reasonable, responsible dispute, applying reverse engineering principles [REP] of systems engineering [SE], we see complex, alphanumeric, algorithmic code in the heart of the cell, implying language, text — they explicitly discuss text — stepwise goal directed process, numerically controlled molecular nanotech machinery in sophisticated organisation and fulfilling a metabolising, von Neumann kinematic self replicator automaton. On RE, Wikipedia confesses:
9- Thus, replete with FSCO/I including the additionality of the vNSR facility. See, REP and so SE at work? Language and goal directed process are particularly strong signs of design. Designers, for example have goals.
>>We acknowledge the possibility of extraterrestrial design but we have no evidence for it at this time.>>
10- In the face of a real SETI wow signal, right in the cells of our bodies, with multiple Nobel Prize winners on public record, the no evidence stunt is pulled out.
>>We acknowledge the appearance of design in nature>>
11- Oh yes, the invitation to use REP of SE is that blatant.
>> but only the appearance based on analogies with human artefacts.>>
12- A twisted caricature of the design inference on observed, tested, reliable signs and refusal to recognise REP of SE.
13- We instantiate design, but manifestly, we are contingent creatures with signs of design in our bodies, pointing to onward designers. And, for millennia there has been an ongoing literature on the blatantly manifest possibility of other designers so the penumbra of objectors cannot be ignorant of this.
14- So, to the signs we should go.
15- Where of course the analogies stunt is a way to wave away what for example Lehninger and heirs highlight as a case of parallel instantiation. As in, right there in the OP.
>>We acknowledge that the great complexity observed in the natural world still lacks a compelling explanation of origins.>>
16- Translated, refusing to attend to REP of SE and to telling signs of design, we must concede that we have no empirically well founded blind chance and/or mechanical necessity driven explanation of causal origin of:
>>We acknowledge that the naturalistic approach to science has proven more fruitful than any alternatives.>>
17- The usual, we succeeded in reverse engineering nature claim, but much of this is stolen valour and stolen achievement, pretending that Science is applied atheism. In fact a simple survey of the origin and outworking of modern science will show this to be a fundamentally dishonest caricature.
18- Philip Johnson’s reply to Lewontin’s cat out of the bag moment is telling:
19- Of course, dodged, side stepped and evaded for twenty-five years.
20- Instead, we apply a more realistic paradigm: Science is in many regards, reverse engineering of our world.
>>We acknowledge that the Intelligent Design/Creationist>>
21- Here comes ad hominem by slanderous conflation of two fundamentally distinct movements.
22- Creationists generally refers to people who start with the Bible as a text viewed as report of the Creator and seek to explain phenomena on that thesis. The design inference is a REP of SE exercise, on grounds that we can see on the face, well known signs of design. So, let us do RE of nature, asking if it makes sense and is effective,
23- ans, yes especially if science seeks to learn truth about our world on open ended empirical investigation — rather than imposing an a priori ideological frame such as Lewontin-Crick-Monod-Mahner-NSTA-NAS evolutionary materialistic scientism. Methodologically. completely different.
24- Once the general public understands that science has been ideologically, politically captured to advance radical secularist agendas, there will be hell to pay, for good reason. Especially given that it is the taxes of the despised, ruthlessly manipulated hoi polloi that have been funding this mutiny on the ship of state.
25- Let me venture a suggestion, the jumping the shark moment is going to be the mismanaged pandemic with its ideological capture of the lab and medical coat.
>>rejection of methodological naturalism in favor of creationist explanations>>
26- Ad hom laced strawman caricature and slander sustained in the teeth of longstanding, repeated correction.
27- Narrative like this will always eventually fall in the face of truth.
>> is a form of selective hyper-skepticism>>
28- A silly attempt at turnspeech, turnabout projection.
29- Pointing out that abduction controlled by requiring that suggested causes be actually seen to work, is prudence requiring adequate warrant per observation, not hyperskepticism.
30- But, thanks for the confession by projection to the other.
>>similar to that of which science is accused.>>
31- Evolutionary Materialistic scientism and its implicit theme that science is applied atheism, is not equal to science.
32- The pretence that observed hyperskepticism, such as “EXTRAORDINARY claims require
extraordinary[–> adequate] evidence,” is “science” has long since passed its sell-by date.KF
Jerry suggests an amended version of Seversky’s declaration;
A small number of phenomena? I’m curious, Jerry. Which phenomena are you suggesting that methodological naturalism is the wrong approach to investigate?
F/N: On the stolen valour, stolen achjevement point, to forestall a cheap turnabout, I put on the table an excerpt from Dan Peterson:
That can be backed up in detail, but let this stand up for now as a first summary.
KF
AF, actually, ANY phenomena as it is an expression of jumping the shark, ideological captivity. Mahner:
http://www.springerlink.com/co......html#CR31
KF
Oh the ignoance!
Some people seem impervious to understanding. “Junk” DNA is not non-coding DNA. Non-coding DNA distinguishes DNA in genomes that do not get synthesized into proteins. About 1-2% of the human genome codes for proteins. Non-coding DNA, whilst not carrying sequences that become proteins, is nevertheless shown to be functional. Junk DNA is any DNA sequence that does not play a functional role in development, physiology, or some other organism-level capacity. [From here]
I’d add more, but the Wikipedia article covers the basics.
Your link is broken, KF.
BTW, KF, your Johari window idea overlooks (insert pun here) one important and unbreachable fact. No sentient being (and I include you in that category) is capable of understanding any concept more complex than itself.
AF,
1- here is RG, now that they played the paywall game https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257662343_The_Role_of_Metaphysical_Naturalism_in_Science
2- The assertion, cannot understand — at what level? — what is more complex than oneself fails the commonplace experience test: we have a useful measure of understanding of a world involving billions of creatures like ourselves, cumulatively far more complex than we are.
3- Levels of understanding leads to recognising a difference between bounded error prone rationality and omniscience. Where the debates we have are mostly about the first three cells: the now needlessly broken knowledge commons, the imposition of error-warped agendas under colour of knowledge, the rise of a reformation movement.
4- The unknown unknowns, known only to God take in what omniscience knows but also challenge us to open up frontiers through research. Not least as what we don’t know can hurt us badly.
5- As a further challenge, we cannot exhaustively understand God, but we can understand him as an inherently good, utterly wise creator, a necessary and maximally great being worthy of respect, of loyalty and of the responsible, reasonable service of doing the good that accords with our evident nature.
6- The adapted JoHari window does address unknown and known unknowns.
7- Then there is what we refuse to acknowledge.
KF
F/N: I updated OP to add on reverse engineering. There is a diagram. KF
AF, kindly note the Lehninger image on a stele vs DNA as text, in OP. KF
None.
It just that the tools of science may not have an answer to the phenomena. So one has to look elsewhere for a possible answer. Every scientist admits there are phenomena that methodological naturalism cannot explain if it found they existed.
ID does not suggest that typical scientific methods not be applied to every phenomenon. But there may be limits to what science can explain.
That’s why ID is science+.
It’s amazing I have to say this since it so obvious to either side from the beginning.
Jerry at 18,
You still don’t see it? The COMMITMENT here is to repeat Evolution good, ID bad – forever. And to ignore any comments like yours as if they were never written.
Relatd, meanwhile, we can forge ahead and address the emerging issues. First, the systems engineering perspective for example helps us to see scientific investigation as reverse engineering the world. From that we see how engineering is using the results and often imitates phenomena (sonar and radar vs bats and whales) or discovers that its principles and strategies are present in the world (finding algorithmic code and NC machines in the cell). This lends confidence in recognising design patterns and cases in the world. Thus, Lehninger and heirs have a point when they recognise that DNA is as much text as an Assyrian artifact. KF
Calling Seversky . . .
What do you want me to say? I can repeat the clear and indisputable fact that DNA encoding bears not even the most superficial comparison to human language. Does that help?
If pressed, I doubt they could sustain that point (presuming it is the point, rather than your misinterpretation). I suspect it is an analogy that they introduce initially as window-dressing. As you demonstrate, the analogy is poor and adds nothing explanatory to how biology works.
O/T
Not that the appearance, evolution and nested relationships of human languages is not a fascinating subject in its own right. A closer look would perhaps persuade KF that the analogy between human languages and DNA coding falls apart on all levels
AF, the point is clear and direct, tracing to Crick in 1953. It is not the lack of strength of the point — which they emphasised several times — that drives your objections but rejection of manifest fact because of import. The systems architecture is plain. The appeal to how “analogies” are fallacious, is what will fall apart on closer inspection. It is little more than the thin edge of a wedge to dismiss the inconvenience of observable patterns and inductive reasoning where it is not convenient. In short, your quarrel is with foundational principles of scientific reason, using logic with a swivel tactics of selective hyperskepticism. Here, you first posed on your claimed expertise in Biochem, then on being confronted with the views of senior experts, you are still trying to deflect the reasonable identification of digital, algorithmic information processing in protein synthesis. There is a reason why we recognise a genetic code and what a couple of dozen dialects. KF
I’m saying the analogy between DNA coding is unhelpfully poor because it is. DNA sequences bear no similarity to human languages in any aspect of their function. You might claim that a written representation of human speech in a language known to the reader stores information and a DNA sequence may also store information but that’s it.
AF, DNA code is an example of machine language, which is language used to effect algorithms. I have here no interest in Spanish, French, Latin, Esperanto or Volapuk (apart from their use of string data structure chains of glyphs ie alphanumeric code), but much interest in how machine code works. Your strawman distractor fails, you know a lot better than your rhetorical stunts. KF
Tell me a word in DNA language. Put it in a sentence.
Also , if I give you a DNA sequence, can you tell me what it says?
AF, more on strawman tactics. You full well know what I just put up in a fresh OP: “we have AUG, START (and load Methionine), EXTEND (and load another specified AA), EXTEND . . . STOP.” Thus, we see algorithmic, machine code instructions in a recognisable case. That we may lack the depth of knowledge on polymer chemistry to readily predict function of a given AA string when folded, clumped together and suitably modified, does not detract from what we can and do know. Notice, my negative vs positive knowledge distinction here. Your refusal to acknowledge longstanding facts only serves to underscore their power in pointing to what you so obviously dread, design. KF
Let me be more specific, then. Take Python. Tell me how python compares to DNA sequences. Give me an example of how DNA sequence is read as instruction. And let you be more specific too
Well, that’s better. There’s no way to predict what DNA sequence “says” other than synthesizing the protein (futile for functional non-coding DNA) or comparing it to the growing database of known sequences. There’s no “language” there.
*chuckles*
Tell me, KF who is writing the code instructions, who or what is the instructor, and who or what is reading the code – who or what is being instructed? And try and stick to topics. I’ve been responding in the other thread.
AF, you full well know Python is a high level, object oriented language. Such are compiled or interpreted into machine language specific to a particular CPU and its architecture. Similarly, you insist yet again on confounding observable machine code instructions — cf genetic code — and algorithms with onward issues. The obvious and due conclusion is that the observation is fatal to your preferred views. Duly, drawn. KF
So now you claim is that DNA is written in machine code??? Goodness me!
AF, your rhetorical stunts tell us the conclusion is well warranted. The Genetic Code gives us AA chain assembly instructions in an algorithmic context as well you know. That these AA chains are folded, clumped, modified etc to form proteins may be much less well understood, but that does not change what we do know and have known for decades. All your onward antics show is that these well established facts are fatal to your view. KF
How is not why, KF.
BTW, as you claim to know better than I do, what precisely is my view?
AF, we both know that we are dealing with an algorithm. KF
No, KF, neither of us knowz that. An algorithm, briefly, might be defined as a precise set of instructions. So, tell me, KF, who or what is instructing and who or what is being instructed. I think I already asked you this.
AF, you misdefined algorithm, which is a stepwise, finite goal directed procedure that halts. Which is what mRNA coming from DNA has. That is itself telling. KF
Did I? I plagiarized it from Wikipedia but there were many similar definitions. None mention the prerequisite to halt.
What are you saying about RNA (mRNA, I assume)? What does mRNA have, apart from a sequence of nucleotides? Which is it, instructor or instructed? I rather think mRNA is a molecule, myself.
Kairosfocus: we both know that we are dealing with an algorithm.
What triggers the algorithm? Does it run all the time?
AF,
Wikipedia lead and onward excerpts, just now:
Finite of course implies halting. I explicitly included that as it is a significant issue. Goal-direction defines the intended target. A proper algorithm will include halt for abnormal states or the like.
AmHD is especially good:
Of course mRNA is a string data structure that carries encoded AA chain algorithms, as well as other supportive structures. As noted, it uses molecular nanotech, based on polymer chemistry.
KF
PS, JVL, regulation of expression of the algorithm is onward from the fact of algorithm stored in mRNA and used in the ribosome to assemble AA chains as a stage of protein synthesis. That fact is pivotal. Since we are using Wiki’s confessions, on protein synthesis:
Showing the thumb screws is very effective . . .
And what has any of that to do with mRNA? Where’s the algorithm? What is instructing, what is being instructed, where are the instructions?
AF, playing the you tell me card does not work, especially when there is already an excerpt on the table regarding protein synthesis, there are things in the OP on same and you full well know that AA chains to make proteins are assembled stepwise in the ribosome. All of this simply tells us that these readily found facts are fatal to your obvious evolutionary materialistic scientism and/or fellow traveller views. KF
Ah, I’m a fellow traveller to Scientism, am I? KF, when you decide to start listening rather than pontificating, I may consider it worth interacting with you again.
AF, so, oh, it’s pick up the ball and flounce out time. The excuse is, how dare you suggest I may be motivated by evolutionary materialistic scientism AND/OR ITS FELLOW TRAVELLERS. Which, is a fair comment, if it walks and quacks like a duck, reasonably accurate description of the dominant schools of thought of the day on origins. We can take it as confirmed that AF is uncomfortable with the facts on the table and with how things have turned out since he tried to play the it’s ignorance of biochem that makes you resort to saying the generic code is, err, ah, ahm, a code. Worse, one used to effect algorithms used for protein synthesis. Gambit failed. Sad, but sadly telling. KF
PS, As a reminder, here is what Lehninger and heirs said a few pp on:
See https://uncommondescent.com/darwinist-debaterhetorical-tactics/protein-synthesis-what-frequent-objector-af-cannot-acknowledge/
You should be used to the rhetorical games by now. Label, assign motivation, polarize, dismiss, rinse, repeat.
SG, predictable turnabout tactic to blame the target for daring to say unwelcome truth or fair comment; put up squid ink to escape behind. Implication, the real case has been lost on the merits, try to stain and irritate then escape; the just now talking points are a back handed concession, by way of confession by projection. The key clue being evasion and strawman tactics on substance. . Evolutionary materialistic [or, physicalist] scientism is the thesis that the physical world defines reality, that this reality has played out through blind dynamic stochastic forces via cosmological, chemical, biological macro and now sociocultural evolution, where big S science holds monopoly or at least overwhelming superiority on claims to knowledge. This last can reach the notion science is the only begetter of truth, a philosophical claim, so self refuting. of course evolutionary materialism radically undermines credibility of mind as say Haldane pointed out and is also self refuting in many ways. Fellow travellers are accomodationists of one form or another, including many who are religious. I challenge you to show otherwise to be the case ____________ but predict, for cause, you cannot. Fundamentally, it is clear you have no basis to reject that D/RNA includes complex coded algorithms, so language and goal directed — purposeful– procedures; strong signs of design of life from the cell on up through body plans to us. The design inference wins on merits but the establishment will never graciously concede. Revealing, sadly telling. KF
PS, for those needing a summary of evo mat scientism, Lewontin’s cat out of the bag moment:
Hmm. How was your rant different than
PPS, The late Philip Johnson’s reply:
SG, you know who is addressing and who is evading substance. Evolutionary materialstic scientism and/or fellow travellers, is a substantial summary of a dominant school of thought and its accommodationists, as you full well know. It is not a prejudicially loaded, empty namecalling label, as you also know. I have given reasons for that summary in outline, and just for further point, I now go to roots, 2360 years ago. KF
PS, Plato warned our civilisation in advance:
Yup. I am pretty sure it is clear to everyone.
SG, you provide an ironic example by way of inviting projective turnabout, MEANWHILE YOU GIVE UTTERLY NO SUBSTANTIAL CONTRIBUTION. That’s a telling clue. Pray, thee, tell us a good reason where there is no good reason to conclude that there are coded algorithms in D/RNA in the cell. Pray, tell us why it is not a reasonable conclusion that we see here language and goal directed processes, signatures of intelligently directed configuration. Tell us, post Lewontin, Crick, Monod, Mahner, NAS and NSTA, et al, that there is no good reason to understand that naturalism often boils down to evolutionary materialistic scientism, and/or that there are not ever so many fellow travellers, and/or that similar views have not haunted our civilisation since Plato in The Laws Bk X. Tell us, pray, that this has not been the main energiser of opposition to the design inference and associated design theory. Answer, predictably, you cannot substantially and accurately do so for facts are readily adduced to show that these are so. The conclusion therefore is, we here see the puff of squid ink to retreat behind tactic. KF
Kairosfocus I think the function argument instead of the code argument is more convincing with people who reject code argument for ideological conviction. They could play stupid games saying they can’t see the code but they can’t do that with function( that is in fact the execution of a code that do not exists 🙂 )
Indeed. I’d be impressed if someone here could show a non-arbitrary connection between sequences and function in a biological context.
If course reiterative rounds of reproduction with slight genotype variation producing phenotypic change over time by differential reproduction is one explanation for the otherwise arbitrary connection between sequence and function; between genotype and phenotype. So that is the bar set. Have at it!
Sandy, an interesting point, though I have seen denial of function too (often pivoting on you cannot define a function), The reality is, we are in a situation where, as the top of the OP outlines, ideological capture of the academy has broken the knowledge commons. We are therefore left to forge our own responsible path to rebuild a sound knowledge base. Part of that starts with the generally recognised fact that D/RNA in the cell contains copious coded algorithmic information. That points to language and to purpose as algorithms are goal directed. Thus, directly to two strong signs of design. The degree of complexity and functionality to chain AAs towards proteins also involves FSCO/I beyond the 500 – 1,000 bit threshold. But we will see endless hyperskeptical objections because this case goes to the start point of cell based life on earth and points to language using intelligence with coding capability backed by deep knowledge of polymer chemistry. The rhetorical stunts above reflect an attempt to pretend that code is a misnomer rooted in weak analogies, that is why I went to a key source on the point, Lehninger. As you can see, the determined objector will always find some real or imaginary hook to hang objections from. We do need to answer, in the end for record, but it is clear where the weight on merits lies. I am also bringing on board the systems engineering and reverse engineering perspective as I think this helps us clarify how we identify structures, patterns and organisation in systems such as the cell. KF
AF, you know full well that the programmed AA chains formed in the ribosome by executing code in mRNA are used to fold, cluster and function as proteins, implying deep knowledge of polymer chemistry and the system design that frames the cell. There is a clear connexion, what we have is a considerable distancce to go to understand how chaining, folding and function are sufficiently predictable to be used. That is the cell is well in advance of our current state of knowledge. KF
F/N: See Tour’s response to a key critic here https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/at-rice-u-dr-tour-exposes-the-false-science-behind-origin-of-life-research/
@Alan Fox : Could you explain a function (reproduction, respiration, digestion, etc.) only in terms of chemistry?
No. Well, chemical respiration is well-understood, perhaps. But neither can anyone else, certainly not any ID proponent. In principle, biological processes supervene on chemical processes which supervene on the physicochemical properties of molecules. What is “only” doing in your question? Do you want to imply that additional processes are involved? Needed? Such as? Be specific.
@ Whistler
The Krebs cycle, also called The Citric Acid Cycle, is central to cell respiration.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citric_acid_cycle
AF: “(o)f course reiterative rounds of reproduction with slight genotype variation producing phenotypic change over time by differential reproduction is one explanation for the otherwise arbitrary connection between sequence and function; between genotype and phenotype. So that is the bar set. Have at it!”
And yet,
In short,, directly contrary to the ‘selfish gene’ concept of Richard Dawkins, that is more of less directly based on Darwin’s own ‘survival of the fittest’ thinking about competition, genes are instead best thought of as existing in a holistic web of mutual interdependence and cooperation.
Which is, needless to say, the exact polar opposite of being ‘selfish’. (And should, if Darwinism were a science instead of basically being the religion for atheists, count as yet another direct falsification of Darwinism).
Could you explain a function (reproduction, respiration, digestion, etc.) only in terms of chemistry?
Alan Fox: No.
You admit that the chemistry cannot account for a function.
You deny the reality of the code that explains a function easily.
This is a classic case of denial of reality=a subconscious defense mechanism characterized by refusal to acknowledge (or rationalization of) unwanted or unpleasant facts, realities, thoughts, or feelings.
PS: It’s the same denial of reality of atheists about origins: We don’t know how life emerged but certainly wasn’t God. 🙂
AF, have you pondered singing, speaking, the vocal tract, thence words, language and encoded contextually sensitive meanings? Try, Sinach. KF
I admitted no such thing, Oh mischievous mover of goalposts.
ETA:
Actual reply:
No. Well, chemical respiration is well-understood, perhaps. But neither can anyone else, certainly not any ID proponent. In principle, biological processes supervene on chemical processes which supervene on the physicochemical properties of molecules. What is “only” doing in your question? Do you want to imply that additional processes are involved? Needed? Such as? Be specific.
If you didn’t admit such a thing then certainly you can explain a function only with chemistry but you forgot to explain it.
Still goalpost shifting? I said I couldn’t explain every biological process in complete detail. I did point out the Krebs cycle is well understood. Did you follow my link?
🙂 I asked you to explain how an engine’s function appeared and you tell me how is working . It’s impossible to explain a function only with chemistry because chemistry is just ore while life is like a processor with billions of transistors . The ore doesn’t build the processor and the chemistry doesn’t build life. Something else do it .
That cellular life is chemistry, follows the same rules and patterns of molecular interactions, and is eminently observable is obvious to anyone who is interested enough to give biology at least a cursory look. Sure, our current level of understanding doesn’t allow us a complete overarching understanding of the whole process in every detail but research goes on.
Whistler’s misunderstandings and misrepresentations matter not at all; the biological sciences will continue as long as they are useful.
Nonsense. It is not chemistry , it is CONTROLLED chemistry . What controls the chemistry ? Can’t be the chemistry that controls the chemistry, right?
PS: Again, how chemistry creates a function?
Any chemical reaction will proceed until it reaches equilibrium. Add more reactants or remove the products of the reaction and equilibrium is not reached. Biological entities such as cells maintain themselves out of equilibrium but require an energy source to do so. Starve an organism of its energy source and it dies, returns to equilibrium with its surroundings.
I take it your education did not include biology or chemistry. But it really doesn’t matter if Whistler disagrees that life is chemical. Life ignores Whistler and carries on regardless.
🙂 Nobody asked you to describe how proceed a chemical reaction but what directs and allow a very specific chemical reaction -not “any” random possible chemical reaction – to take place in what specific area of the cell( or organelles) for what specific purpose? Do you have understanding problems or is just a (useless) tactic to avoid humiliation?
Nothing directs. The chemistry in a cell is precisely the same as in vitro. There’s no élan vital.
Chemical reactions are not random. Mix hydrogen and oxygen and add a spark and, without direction, two atoms of hydrogen will combine with one atom of oxygen to form one molecule of water.
But there might be forces/variables that affect whether a chemical reaction takes place or not or which of the millions takes place.
From what I understand there is an immense number of factors that affects what happens in a cell. And many are unknown. Where did all these factors come from?
I believe there are millions of reactions taking place every second in each cell. The proportion of the myriad reactions differs from moment to moment and form cell to cell.
Since we have trillions of cells, the coordination of these reactions remains a mystery not only in what they are but how they arose and what controls them. Yes, a major mystery.
How many reactions? Quintillions per second?
This discussion should be taking place on an origin of life thread. But distractions are the rule not focus.
Whistler asks, “what directs and allow a very specific chemical reaction -not “any” random possible chemical reaction – to take place in what specific area of the cell( or organelles) for what specific purpose?”
AF responds, “Nothing directs. The chemistry in a cell is precisely the same as in vitro. There’s no élan vital.”
So, according to AF, nothing in the cell is directing specific chemical reactions to occur in a specific place, at a specific time, and for a specific purpose? Really???
That claim doesn’t even pass the smell test.
And AF accused Whistler of being ignorant for not believing, as AF does, that “life is chemical”?
Ba77,
All of this proven complexity, yet the ‘usual suspects’ like AF, CD, Seversky and a few others will ALWAYS deflect, deny and make it more simple than it really is. Sad.
AF, you are blind to systems architecture on this topic as acknowledging that it is real would be fatal to your preferred views. Yes, there is a physical layer using polymer chemistry based nanotech. There is a digital layer in the mRNA, using coded algorithms to sequence AA chains that then are folded etc to form functional proteins. That speaks to deep understanding of the chem but also to the digital layer using codes and algorithms. Which for weeks now you have been desperate to deny and dismiss. Even when corrected by leading authorities in the field you tried to use, to give plausibility to your denial tactics, biochem. Yes, the said authorities then go on to postulate an utterly implausible spontaneous process to get to that architecture. That is unsurprising goiven current circumstances. But that does not change the force of what has been learned since the 1950’s about protein synthesis. KF
As to AF’s appeal to ‘simple’ water to try to support his atheistic worldview, i.e. “two atoms of hydrogen will combine with one atom of oxygen to form one molecule of water.”
It turns out that even something as simple as water refutes AF’s atheistic worldview,
BA77,
You overlooked the amazing properties of the hydrogen bond that results in some of water’s unique properties as an almost universal solvent and how the hydrogen bond is central to base pairing in DNA and RNA.
BTW BA77
My original mention of water was to refute someone’s assertion that chemistry is random by pointing out that water molecules always consist of one atom of oxygen linked to two atoms of hydrogen, with paired electrons spending more time (probably – but the probability is eminently predictable and non-random) nearer the oxygen nucleus. This is the key that allows hydrogen bonds to form and explains the non-linear shape of water molecules.
PS, it also explains how water in a puddle so perfectly fills the hole.
And my point was to point out that something as ‘simple’ as water refutes the atheistic worldview and supports Intelligent Design. Funny how that works eh?
Also see,
But you are wrong. Water is not simple. And I’ve never heard the argument that because water is simple , God doesn’t exist. That is a completely mad non-sequitur.
I mean it would be equally daft to say water is not simple, therefore God. Surely nobody makes such a silly argument?
Do they?
“Do they?” 🙂
That seems to have been asked with a bit of nervousness. 🙂
But alas, (since we are indeed made in the ‘image of God’), the design intuition in humans runs very deep and it is only by purposely suppressing their innate design inference that atheists, such as yourself, can maintain their atheistic worldview against all evidence to the contrary.
Perhaps the two most famous quotes of atheists suppressing their innate ‘design inference’ are the two following quotes:
It is very easy to see why Francis Crick in particular, co-discoverer of the DNA helix, would be constantly haunted by his innate belief that life must be Intelligently Designed. DNA itself literally screams, “I AM INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED” from every angle that you look at it.
Jan 2022
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/movie-night-with-illustra-a-whale-of-a-story-and-18-trillion-feet-of-you/#comment-745611
The simpleness or otherwise of water is not mentioned. Try again, Phil.
Whatever AF. Denial is NOT a river in Egypt.
Phil, you first told me water isn’t simple, with which statement I agree, then you told me that people argue that water being not simple is an argument for God, which is a non-sequitur, but have not produced a single example. Then you tell me that atheists claim the simplicity of water proves the non-existence of God, which would be a daft argument. No examples from you. All the while claiming I am an atheist. I’m certainly not a Christian but I haven’t ruled out other possibilities. I accept the description of agnostic.
So who’s the denier here, Phil?
Denial is not a river in Egypt? Huh… huh. After all this time…
So AF does not deny God per se, he just denies that anything in the universe, like water, and/or a cell, can be evidence for Intelligent Design.. Gotcha buddy.,,, Let’s just call it ‘selective denialism for rhetorical purposes’ shall we? 🙂
Lets’s be clear. It is very simplistic to argue the universe is either the result of physical processes or due to divine intervention. Neither position is defensible. There is no empirical explanation [oops pressed post in error] for the origin of this universe or the origin of life on Earth. Nor is there any evidenced consensual religious explanation. Nobody knows, though many are full of ideas.
^^^ LOL,
And right on cue, AF gives a shining example of denialism.
You simply can’t make this stuff up, nobody would believe it. 🙂
LOL, thanks for playing.
Naughty Phil. Others can read for themselves. Actually, I have to say the relaxed moderation here is a refreshing change from earlier times.
I mean, remember the times when you would call on the voice in the ceiling to ban someone and, hey presto, they would disappear? It’s so much better now, wouldn’t you agree?
Yes I agree, the new policy of “give enough rope to a Darwinian atheist and he will hang himself” seems to working out quite well. 🙂
https://st.depositphotos.com/1009764/2328/i/950/depositphotos_23286678-stock-photo-hanging-man.jpg
May not surprise you to know that the hubristic poses if some reconstructionists, fundamentalists and right-wing evangelicals give Jesus’ published teachings a bad name, in my view.
AF, you have kept 3 mm on the side of the line, showing you know where it is. KF
AF, BTW, equally, you know the issue is origin of the system architecture of the universe which shows fine tuning, likewise origin of life using complex coded algorithms. But of course you seemingly cannot resist setting up and knocking over strawman caricatures. Showing, that you have no substantial answer on the merits. Duly noted. KF
It’s almost as if the hole was designed and finely tuned for the benefit of the puddle.
The trouble with “Puddle Thinking” is those who think they have to respond to “Puddle Thinking”. In the famous words of of the Bard “The lady doth protest too much, methinks”.
The Trouble with Puddle Thinking – Alas Lewis & Barnes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-AIItNLTDw
SG, it is obvious you are not examining the substantial issue, just setting up an inept simplistic strawman and talking as though it dismisses the substantial case. This again underscores just how insubstantial the objecting case is and how much it is driven by ideology. For just one example, a puddle argument stretched to be something substantial implies fine tuning is mechanical necessity like gravity and water settling in holes. That’s a super law argument. However, such a super law would be exquisitely fine tuned to the point we could give it one of those titles that have become names. It starts Cre _____ or. KF
F/N: As fine tuning has come up, a point of reference:
more on the anthropic principle from Lewis and Barnes https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/hitchhikers-guide-authors-puddle-argument-against-fine-tuning-and-a-response/#comment-729507
KF