Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Nick Matzke – Book Burner?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Nick Matzke famously got the publishing company Springer to suppress the publication of the papers of a conference held at Cornell.  See here. He did this without having seen, much less read, any of the papers.  Obviously, his motivation could not have been the content of the papers.  He was motivated by the mere fact that several of the conference participants were well-known ID proponents.

Let us do a little thought experiment.  Suppose that Nick had published his famous piece on Panda’s Thumb a few days later, and the head of Springer had called him up and said, “Hey, Nick, I’ve got some bad news and some good news.  The bad news is that it is too late to stop publication of the book.  The printer has done his work and the first printing of the book is finished.  The good news is that not a single copy has left the printer’s warehouse, and they are all in a pile that has been drenched in gasoline.  Nick, all you have to do is come over and toss a match on the pile of books and it will be as if they were never published in the first place.”

Nick follows UD and posts here from time to time, so I have two questions for him:

(1) Nick would you have tossed the match?

(2) If the answer to (1) is “no,” are you not a hypocrite?  After all, the ultimate outcome from tossing the match would be identical to what you actually did – i.e., no book out there for people to buy.

BKA:  Updated in response to Dr. Sewell’s comment @ 2.

Comments
Pleased to see, UB, in the fog of words that you now make it somewhat clearer that you are attacking OOL theories rather than the theory of evolution.
LoL! You can't have an alleged "theory of evolution" without having living organisms and how living organisms came to be directly impacts how it diversified. So we are pleased to see that you still refuse to grasp that simple fact. That tells us quite a bit about your agenda.
Does anyone in the ID movement have an inkling about OOL?
Yes, given the consilience of evidence, living organisms were designed, intentionally.Joe
July 6, 2013
July
07
Jul
6
06
2013
01:57 PM
1
01
57
PM
PST
Elizabeth:
Yes, all life forms are based on DNA now, but I see no reason to think that the precursors of DNA life forms could not have non-DNA ancestors, or that you can’t have Darwinian evolution without DNA.
So it doesn't bother you that your "reasoning" is evidence free? The point being is the only reason to think there was a non-DNA based pre-cursor is because DNA based life is far too complex to be accounted for by chance and necessity. Look, even given a self-sustained replication of RNAs, darwinian evolution was absent and there was no indication that anything more complex would come about. IOW Lizzie's position is one of eternal hope, ie an infinite set of promissory notes to be cashed in when the last one is handed out. ;) :razz:Joe
July 6, 2013
July
07
Jul
6
06
2013
01:53 PM
1
01
53
PM
PST
That is your assertion, Upright.
Dr Liddle, none of the preceding paragraph was a mere assertion. Line by line: UB: "...living things are not made up of nucleotides" There is no question about this. UB: "...at some point in the history of this planet, arrangements of nucleotides started being translated into something other than themselves" There is no question this is also true. UB: "...and that required a system of relationships to be established in a material system" This is the incontrovertible observation that the phenotype is related to the genotype only through the process of genetic translation. The mapping in translation is determined by arbitrary relationships established in a material system (in the example of protein synthesis) by the set of aaRS. It is not a theoretical construct, it is a demonstrated reality. UB: "....And all of this is required prior to the onset of Darwinian evolution" Darwinian evolution is wholly dependent on the genotype/phenotype architecture. It could not precede them. This leads back to the question which you have thus far avoided.: What forces of raw inanimate matter (prior to any information-based biological organization on earth) can establish dimensionality within a coding medium, as well as organize a system to translate it?
It may be true, but I do not see why it must be true
If the argument I've been making to you was merely an assertion, as you suggest, then perhaps this comment would have some meaning, but that is not the case. You have already agreed that it is not possible to transfer information into a physical effect without the use of a material medium. Everything else I've stated follows directly from that fact. Von Neumann predicted this before genetic translation was even elucidated. His work was then confirmed through experiment. Then others, such as Pattee, demonstated these were the necessary conditions of open-ended evolution. And in the end, despite your empty insistence otherwise, there isn't a person on the planet that can even conceptually describe the transfer of information in any other way.So your dismissive “I don't see why it must be true” is nothing but a ideological defense against material facts. It is simply empty.
Yes, all life forms are based on DNA now, but I see no reason to think that the precursors of DNA life forms could not have non-DNA ancestors, or that you can’t have Darwinian evolution without DNA.
. This is a red herring. The argument presented to you does not rely on DNA. The material conditions are dictated by what must be accomplished, not the specific matter used to accomplish it.
Indeed that is the premise of OoL research. You might find it absurd, but it is at least not self-evidently absurd, because many people in the field disagree with you.
To the contrary Dr Liddle, watch closely what is being attempted on OoL. At its core, it attempts to emulate the argument being presented, just at the level of the medium (not the level of producing anything but the medium). I look forward to the continuation of OoL research, as it continues to validate the argument made. Thats what happens when descriptions are true. You do not realize this out of pure ideological bias. Actual OoL research doesn't even begin with the mythical replicating strand of nucleotides your side wishes to posit, and it will not end with one.
It’s not even as though my position is that a Designer was not involved. My position is merely that we cannot infer that a Designer must have been.
Your first line here is simply disenginuous. In actual practice, you tag your opponents arguments as meritless without engaging the substance of those arguments (a defensive maneuver, plain and simple) and operate a website where belligerent materialists can exercise their spleens under the false premise of skepticism.. Your second line here simply highlights the number of questions you refuse to engage. One of the many is this one: What forces of raw inanimate matter (prior to any information-based biological organization on earth) can establish dimensionality within a coding medium, as well as organize a system to translate it?Upright BiPed
July 6, 2013
July
07
Jul
6
06
2013
11:31 AM
11
11
31
AM
PST
Upright:
I am left shaking my head. Does the reality not occur to you that living things are not made up of nucleotides? No matter what you wish to believe about the OoL, at some point in the history of this planet, arrangements of nucleotides started being translated into something other than themselves, and that required a system of relationships to be established in a material system. And all of this is required prior to the onset of Darwinian evolution
That is your assertion, Upright. It may be true, but I do not see why it must be true. Yes, all life forms are based on DNA now, but I see no reason to think that the precursors of DNA life forms could not have non-DNA ancestors, or that you can't have Darwinian evolution without DNA. Indeed that is the premise of OoL research. You might find it absurd, but it is at least not self-evidently absurd, because many people in the field disagree with you. It's not even as though my position is that a Designer was not involved. My position is merely that we cannot infer that a Designer must have been.Elizabeth B Liddle
July 5, 2013
July
07
Jul
5
05
2013
01:54 PM
1
01
54
PM
PST
Upright, Your comment itself, rather than your later "paraphrase" of it, tells the story:
In any case, how is the establishment of CTA resulting in leucine being added to a polypeptide in a local system “paid for” by an increase in surrounding entropy, when the establishment of CTA resulting in leucine being added to a polypeptide in a local system cannot be derived from the Second Law of thermodynamics?
As that comment shows, you thought that a) since codon-to-AA mappings can't be derived from the second law, then b) the compensation idea presents a problem for the evolutionist or OOL theorist. That is wrong, of course, as you now seem to realize, but you certainly believed it then. Otherwise there would have been no reason to 1) post your comment on a thread about entropy, compensation, and the second law, and 2) to pose this challenge: "...how is the establishment of CTA resulting in leucine being added to a polypeptide in a local system “paid for” by an increase in surrounding entropy, when... ?" We didn't just fall off the turnip truck, Upright.keiths
July 5, 2013
July
07
Jul
5
05
2013
12:47 PM
12
12
47
PM
PST
But as has been pointed out to you before, such processes are reversible...
But temperature dependent. Imagine an aqueous environment that is rich in inorganic and possibly organic material, turbulent and with huge variations in temperature from 3-400°C to near freezing. Equilibrium is a problem in a "warm little pond". Perhaps less so at a hydrothermal vent.Alan Fox
July 5, 2013
July
07
Jul
5
05
2013
12:00 PM
12
12
00
PM
PST
Pleased to see, UB, in the fog of words that you now make it somewhat clearer that you are attacking OOL theories rather than the theory of evolution. You are on much safer ground as there is as yet no evidence good enough to promote or dis-confirm any of them. Does anyone in the ID movement have an inkling about OOL? Genesis, I guess.Alan Fox
July 5, 2013
July
07
Jul
5
05
2013
11:45 AM
11
11
45
AM
PST
I liked flowering better!Alan Fox
July 5, 2013
July
07
Jul
5
05
2013
11:40 AM
11
11
40
AM
PST
Keith In my first post on this thread I made it abundantly clear what my position is: a) I have not spent time with Sewell's argument, but provided a limited quote from it which I was responding to, and b) the second law of thermodynamics does not play a determinant role in Sewell's appearance of computers and spaceships because the coding structures in genetic information are not locally derivable from thermodynamic law. To support this limited position, I posted the observations from Physics that the coding structures in genetic information are not locally derivable from thermodynamic law. You, however, are in an alternate reality where I meant just the opposite of the words appearing immediately under my name on this threrad. Further, you have placed yourself in a flowing red cape as the Corrector of my embarrassement. You are welcome to these visions, however they may come to you.Upright BiPed
July 5, 2013
July
07
Jul
5
05
2013
09:20 AM
9
09
20
AM
PST
Dr Liddle, I have a couple of quick comments about your post at 254. You begin your post by saying that you do have a some conception as to how the relationships required to organize inanimate matter into living systems emerged from inanimate matter. That conception is exactly what I was hoping you might share – given that on this forum you have branded your conception as “plausible”. Thus far, you've only said that the system “emerged”, which (I think we can all agree) falls somewhat short of the general idea of plausibility (either in science or logic). Obviously, no one knows exactly how life began on Earth, but one would think if you take a strong position (which you have) and you promote that position as “plausible” and beseech your fellow man that their ideas are wrong, then surely you have something to say in support of your conception, other than it happened. Frankly, it is not entirely obvious that you've set out to find and integrated the relavent information necessary to make any meaningful assessment about plausibility either way, so I hope you'll finally demonstrate that you have indeed done so, and that you have more than ideological disagreement with the issues that others point out to you. In your response, you once again bring up the concept of “templating”. This is a concept you've used before in the promotion and defense of your position; where monomers form a double strand, which then dissociates into two single strands, then reassociates with freely available monomers, ending in the formation of two indentical double strands. But as has been pointed out to you before, such processes are reversible, typically driven by pair bonding, which is only seen in the transcription of sequences and not in the irreversible translation of sequences. In other words Dr Liddle, its has nothing at all to do with establishing the material conditions necessary for the relationships required by the system. So here again, there are serious questions as to whether you've attempted to seek out and integrate the information necessary to say that one idea is plausible, while another has no merit – which is the position you've taken personally and have chosen to promote to others. So when you say you simply disagree with me (and a lot of others, including von Neuman and Pattee, etc, etc) and that a system of semiotic translation isn't necessary, I am left shaking my head. Does the reality not occur to you that living things are not made up of nucleotides? No matter what you wish to believe about the OoL, at some point in the history of this planet, arrangements of nucleotides started being translated into something other than themselves, and that required a system of relationships to be established in a material system. And all of this is required prior to the onset of Darwinian evolution and the biological organization that stems from recorded information. The data is out there Dr Liddle, why do you choose not integrate it? Is your demonstrated adversion to it based on knowledge that the data is wrong, or it is based on the knowledge that it represents an almost instractible barrier to inanimate matter? What forces of raw inanimate matter (prior to any information-based biological organization on earth) can establish dimensionality within a coding medium, as well as organize a system to translate it? If you do not wish to confront such questions, then it should probably be no mystery why you position such bservations as having no merit.Upright BiPed
July 5, 2013
July
07
Jul
5
05
2013
09:17 AM
9
09
17
AM
PST
Timaeus, I would put it a bit more forcefully than Lizzie did. I think that almost all academic fields encompass a range of issues from the trivial and obvious to the subtle and arcane, and that it is appropriate for outsiders to comment on any of them provided that they have the necessary knowledge and expertise to do so. Knowledge and expertise, not credentials. Suppose someone makes a complex and nuanced argument that Pyrrho was one of Socrates' major influences. Do I need to shy away from the debate because I am not an expert on Greek philosophy? Of course not. I don't need to know anything about the subtleties of Socrates' or Pyrrho's thought to refute that argument; I simply need to point out that Socrates lived and died before Pyrrho was even born. Pyrrho couldn't have influenced him (unless he was a time traveler). Toward the other end of the continuum, suppose someone is expounding on Stoic undercurrents in medieval thought. If I had never heard of the Stoics before today, and the entirety of my knowledge of medieval thought came from Monty Python and the Holy Grail, then I would be unwise to enter the fray. Those are admittedly extreme examples, but my point is that they fall on a continuum. Granville's mistakes are far closer to the "trivial and obvious" end of the spectrum than they are to the "subtle and arcane" end. I would hesitate to venture into a discussion of black hole entropy without reading up on the topic. I know very little about it now. (For example, is it meaningful to talk about the microstates of a black hole? If not, how can we quantify the entropy? I have no idea, though I know that it's been done.) However, I do know enough about entropy and the second law to see the deep flaws in Granville's paper. It really is atrocious, and you don't need to be an expert in thermodynamics to see that. I'm not asking you to take my word for it. I predict that if you spend the necessary time and effort to learn about the topic, you'll find that I'm right.keiths
July 4, 2013
July
07
Jul
4
04
2013
07:43 PM
7
07
43
PM
PST
One small point in my defense, Timaeus: in some way science is easier than the humanities: you aren't an expert in a piece of literature, or a body of writing, until you know it extremely well, and have spent many hours on it. On the other hand, scientific concepts can be grasped fairly quickly and easily - you don't have to read a vast number of text books to understand a topic in physics or statistics; you don't have to compare X's views on the 2nd Law with Y's. You just need to look at the equations, and figure out what they mean. The same equation in two different text books is still the same equation. I'm a trained musician, but I'd never weigh in with an generalisation on Beethoven, because there's lots of Beethoven I don't know very well. But you don't need to read lots of versions of the same equation to understand the equation! (Although some sciences are more like Beethoven - I am more than happy to accept that gpuccio knows far more about proteins than I do, or will ever do, for instance; on the other hand, I think I am slightly better at understanding the probability arguments, given the information itself, which I have to take on trust! He of course would disagree...)Elizabeth B Liddle
July 4, 2013
July
07
Jul
4
04
2013
05:55 PM
5
05
55
PM
PST
keiths: I pretty much agree with everything in your 235 above. Your example of Plato's Timaeus, however, while apt, allows me to expand on and clarify my view. I have in fact studied a good deal of Greek philosophy, and while I'm not at the "academic specialist" rank in that area, I'm certainly capable of graduate-level work in parts of the field. Plato in particular I know reasonably well, and I have in fact worked a lot on parts of the Timaeus and even translated parts of it from Greek, and I have a reasonable acquaintance with the secondary literature on it as well. So yes, if someone was "BS-ing" about the Timaeus, or even making honest errors, I would in many cases feel confident enough to correct the person's errors without first consulting the specialist literature. But note a few caveats: The Timaeus is a very difficult dialogue, and there are parts of it where even I would not venture a judgment without consulting the literature written by the experts. And, given that I probably know the Timaeus at least as well as Elizabeth knows the physics literature on entropy, this would suggest that Elizabeth might be a little bit more cautious in rendering judgments. Not all judgments, of course. But some. So it might be that Sewell says some things that *every* physicist would reject; but it might be that interpretations of entropy vary enough among physicists (and from what I have read, they certainly have varied *over time* from 150 years ago to today, with the concept expanding considerably beyond its original limited reference), and it might be that *some* of what Sewell is saying (about differing definitions of entropy with their differing employment) is more in the realm of "broad judgment about the employment and application of a rich and subtle notion" than in the realm of "correct or incorrect understanding of scientific fact." Certainly a good deal of Sewell's article presumes that a broad discussion of what the term *can mean* is vital to applying it to the matter at hand. So when I read Elizabeth's comments, I'm quite willing to believe that Sewell may have made some statements which most physicists would disagree with, but I'm not quite convinced that *all* physicists would regard Sewell's discussion in quite the cut-and-dried manner in which Elizabeth views it. Note that I am not saying that Elizabeth is wrong; I'm just saying, my own experience of graduate-level work in difficult and subtle conceptual material makes me somewhat unsure of myself, even with material I know pretty well. It seems to me that concepts are frequently trickier than even fairly bright people recognize. Now change the text from Plato's Timaeus to Aristotle's Metaphysics, and it's a whole new ball game. I have read parts of the Metaphysics, and I can check out passages in Greek; I have read lots of general stuff on Aristotle's thought; I know some of his other works well, and that helps. But in the end, my understanding of the Metaphysics is shaky, even though I have good "basic training" in both Greek language and Greek philosophy. (As Elizabeth has good "basic training" in general physics, but not much if any specialist training in it.) So if someone made what appeared to me a blunder in writing about the Metaphysics, I would be hesitant to correct even what might seem to me to be the most obvious of blunders, and certainly I would hesitate to render a verdict on a whole paper. I could, of course, give the impression of knowing more than I do; I could spend a couple of hours reading parts of the book in English, and a couple of hours looking up some Greek constructions, and a couple of hours looking at secondary sources I have lying around, some by good authorities, some by mediocre ones. I could then come roaring back the next day and sound like a master of Aristotelian thought (to most readers) and (in the eyes of perhaps all readers present) crush the unfortunate writer like a worm. But I would feel guilty doing so, because I would know that in the final analysis, my understanding of Aristotle on some of the material was only a little above the level of a plausible hypothesis. So even if my quick study enabled me to nail some errors down, I would hesitate to condemn the *overall argument* of the paper in question, though I suspected major weaknesses. And this is after about 30 years of (albeit intermittent) study of Greek philosophy; Elizabeth tells us she start studying science at age 50, only 11 years ago. So I'm unconvinced that "good general training in science" *necessarily* translates into the ability to judge, with a few hours' or even a few days' quick research, a subtle argument involving thermodynamics and evolution. In the case of the present article, Sewell's, maybe it *is* enough. I'm just nervous about this as a general practice, and, without trying to pick on Elizabeth, it seems that she follows this fast-track procedure quite often when criticizing ID papers. Just a little point I could make here: on the other thread she insists that thermodynamics always boils down to a discussion of "heat," and places great emphasis on the "thermo" etymology (and etymology is of course not reliable because terms can change their meaning over time); yet I have standard physics reference books here, one used by grad students and professors, which say that the key concept is not "heat" narrowly but "energy" generally. And while there are ways of finagling Elizabeth's statement so that it can be compatible with the wider definition, to the reader it might look as if Elizabeth made a *mistake* -- got the definition wrong. So how can we be sure that Granville didn't make what looks to Elizabeth like a crude error, but can be finagled so as to match up with her "correct" understanding? Again and again it's the same problem. I don't object to Elizabeth's right to look up definitions and criticize. I guess what bothers me is *the degree of confidence* which she exudes in dealing with just about any scientific question she takes an interest in. She always seems to move very quickly from "I'm interested in this question" to "I now understand this perfectly and the ID writer is wrong." Sometimes her "training period" is less than 24 hours. And that happens too often for me to uniformly accept her judgments as sound and reliable. Maybe I am just a temperamentally cautious person, a double- and triple-checker, or something. I just find the degree of confidence of Elizabeth, and of many if not most ID critics, to be unrealistically high. I'd like to see more intellectual humility, more academic caution, more "this article has some good points nonetheless," etc., from Matzke, the Panda's Thumb gang, the whole bunch of them. (And by the way, you still owe me that psychoanalysis of belligerent anti-ID yahoos.) I don't know what more I can say. I've shot my bolt. Next topic! Best wishes.Timaeus
July 4, 2013
July
07
Jul
4
04
2013
05:32 PM
5
05
32
PM
PST
Upright, I'm still trying to figure out why you would jump into the middle of a discussion of entropy and the second law if, as you claim, your point has nothing to do with either. I think your claim is false. It's obvious from your earlier comment:
In any case, how is the establishment of CTA resulting in leucine being added to a polypeptide in a local system “paid for” by an increase in surrounding entropy, when the establishment of CTA resulting in leucine being added to a polypeptide in a local system cannot be derived from the Second Law of thermodynamics?
Your question is clearly about entropy, compensation and the second law. You thought they were relevant. Now you realize that they aren't, and you wish to avoid the embarrassment of admitting it. Let me put you on the spot: Do you now concede that your question made no sense, and that compensation is perfectly possible and explicable even though the second law doesn't determine the triplet-to-amino-acid mapping?keiths
July 4, 2013
July
07
Jul
4
04
2013
05:08 PM
5
05
08
PM
PST
Well, I have some conception, Upright Biped, but as you know, we do not have a really persuasive theory of OoL yet, although we have lots of suggestive parts (hypothesise that have produced confirmed predictions). But that's because I do not share your conviction that self-replication is impossible without what you describe as a "semiotic" information transfer system. Templating is a possible (and in my view likely) precursor.Elizabeth B Liddle
July 4, 2013
July
07
Jul
4
04
2013
04:43 PM
4
04
43
PM
PST
The reason I asked the question, Upright Biped, is that I thought you were implying that the 2nd Law was violated
You needn't have wondered about that Dr Liddle, I was entirely clear in my very first post on this thread that I believe no such violation occured. On the other hand, my question to you was based directly on your own words and thoughts. You have stated that the emergence from inanimate matter of those relationships required to organize inanimate matter into living things is "plausible". I am trying to understand exactly what criteria you used to generate this assessment. Apparently, plausibility in this instance begins with having no meaningful conception of how such a thing can happen, and apparently having no particular interest in what is even necessary.Upright BiPed
July 4, 2013
July
07
Jul
4
04
2013
04:01 PM
4
04
01
PM
PST
Perhaps something that reflects the certainty you’ve reached in your skeptisicm of ID arguments – having claimed to have never heard one of any merit?
This is not unique to Dr. Liddle. The conviction that there is no scientific theory of ID is a fairly general one among those who have attempted to delve its secrets from outside. Where Lizzie is unusual is in giving ID proponents the time of day. The evidence is that there is no scientific theory of "Intelligent Design".Alan Fox
July 4, 2013
July
07
Jul
4
04
2013
10:29 AM
10
10
29
AM
PST
What is going to happen to keiths and Lizzie once it is finally laid to rest and the only mechanism capable of producing the genetic code is intentional, ie intelligent, design? My bet is they will just deny it and say we haven't covered everything...Joe
July 4, 2013
July
07
Jul
4
04
2013
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PST
Upright Biped:
In any case, how is the establishment of CTA resulting in leucine being added to a polypeptide in a local system “paid for” by an increase in surrounding entropy, when the establishment of CTA resulting in leucine being added to a polypeptide in a local system cannot be derived from the Second Law of thermodynamics?
The reason I asked the question, Upright Biped, is that I thought you were implying that the 2nd Law was violated by the addition of leucine to a polypeptide, or the addition of CTA to a DNA sequence, and so how could I explain that. But as we both agree that either the mutation of a DNA sequence or the pathway between the triplet and the polypeptide is not claimed to violate the 2nd Law of thermodynamics, what is the point of your question? I am not a biochemist, and I don't know how many of the relevant biochemical reactions are exothermic and how many endothermic, so I can't tell you how the pathway is "paid" for. But as neither of us have reason to doubt that it is paid, what is the problem? Or are you asking me to explain how the system evolved? Again, I can't tell you. I don't think anyone knows, although there is some literature on the subject. But again, what has it got to do with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics?Elizabeth B Liddle
July 4, 2013
July
07
Jul
4
04
2013
09:11 AM
9
09
11
AM
PST
Upright, You are asking "how does compensation happen if the triplet-to-AA mapping isn't determined by the second law?" The question makes no sense. Compensation always happens for any local entropy decrease. Otherwise the second law would be violated. None of that depends on the exact mechanism by which the mapping is established, nor does any of that imply a particular mechanism.keiths
July 4, 2013
July
07
Jul
4
04
2013
09:09 AM
9
09
09
AM
PST
Dr Liddle, just so that we might loose our place:
Dr Liddle: local increases in entropy are “paid for” by entropy decreases in the immediate surroundings on earth. . . . . UB: I did not see Keith’s correction of you, but it seems you my have stated this backwards. In any case, how is the establishment of CTA resulting in leucine being added to a polypeptide in a local system “paid for” by an increase in surrounding entropy, when the establishment of CTA resulting in leucine being added to a polypeptide in a local system cannot be derived from the Second Law of thermodynamics? 1) there is no physicochemical relationship between specific nucleotides and amino acids 2) there is no physicochemical relationship between the specific arrangement C-T-A and leucine 3) there is no thermodynamic principle involved in establishing dimensionality within a medium . . . . Dr Liddle: Are you suggesting that biochemical reactions violate the 2nd Law, Upright Biped? That the 2nd law is violated every time a protein is expressed? . . . . UB: Hardly. Now, that you have that out of the way, can you answer the question with something approaching an answer? Perhaps something that reflects the certainty you’ve reached in your skeptisicm of ID arguments – having claimed to have never heard one of any merit?
I'll check back later for any answer you might have.Upright BiPed
July 4, 2013
July
07
Jul
4
04
2013
08:42 AM
8
08
42
AM
PST
keiths:
You might as well complain that the law of gravitational attraction doesn’t establish the triplet-to-AA mappings.
Nothing wrt materialism can establish that mapping. THAT is the point.Joe
July 4, 2013
July
07
Jul
4
04
2013
08:42 AM
8
08
42
AM
PST
Keith, You ask why I posted on this thread, and apparently you have some emotional need to relate this to your intellect in a way that indicates a sense of unusual prowess on your part. Please, feel free.Upright BiPed
July 4, 2013
July
07
Jul
4
04
2013
08:41 AM
8
08
41
AM
PST
Upright, This is amusing. If your question has nothing to do with entropy or the second law, then why did you post it on a thread dealing with precisely those topics? The answer is that you did think it had something to do with those things, at least until I pointed out how goofy that idea was. Look at your question again:
In any case, how is the establishment of CTA resulting in leucine being added to a polypeptide in a local system “paid for” by an increase in surrounding entropy, when the establishment of CTA resulting in leucine being added to a polypeptide in a local system cannot be derived from the Second Law of thermodynamics?
Judging from that question, you are (or at least were) obviously under the impression that compensation cannot happen, or cannot be explained, unless the second law predicts the triplet-to-AA mapping. Bizarre.keiths
July 4, 2013
July
07
Jul
4
04
2013
08:25 AM
8
08
25
AM
PST
You might as well complain that the law of gravitational attraction doesn’t establish the triplet-to-AA mappings.
Great. We can remove gravitation too. Now what mechanism does Dr Liddle suggest?Upright BiPed
July 4, 2013
July
07
Jul
4
04
2013
08:05 AM
8
08
05
AM
PST
They don’t depend on the second law. Why do you think that triplet-to-AA mappings must? I'm not suggesting it does. I am pointing out the fact that it doesn't. And now that we agree we can remove local thermodynamics from the establishment of the coding system required to input the information that organizes inanimate matter into living systems, I am curious for Dr Liddle to gaze out upon the prarie of inanimate matter and suggest what mechanism is capable of the task. She is very confident after all.Upright BiPed
July 4, 2013
July
07
Jul
4
04
2013
08:00 AM
8
08
00
AM
PST
Upright, You might as well complain that the law of gravitational attraction doesn't establish the triplet-to-AA mappings. True, but who cares?keiths
July 4, 2013
July
07
Jul
4
04
2013
07:36 AM
7
07
36
AM
PST
Upright,
Spectral lines are established by the fundamental forces, Keith.
Exactly. They don't depend on the second law. Why do you think that triplet-to-AA mappings must?keiths
July 4, 2013
July
07
Jul
4
04
2013
07:26 AM
7
07
26
AM
PST
Elizabeth:
But nobody is suggesting that it is is “random draw” – chemistry is not “random draw”.
Without design all of what we observe is a random draw- that includes the laws of physics. And your position cannot explain any of it.Joe
July 4, 2013
July
07
Jul
4
04
2013
07:14 AM
7
07
14
AM
PST
Spectral lines are established by the fundamental forces, Keith. Elizabeth?Upright BiPed
July 4, 2013
July
07
Jul
4
04
2013
07:02 AM
7
07
02
AM
PST
1 2 3 9

Leave a Reply