Otangelo Grasso on the difficulties of reasoning with atheists

_{Denyse O'Leary

October 9, 2022

Atheism, Intelligent Design, Irreducible Complexity, Science}

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

Conversation in Clubhouse ( a conversation app ) with an atheist:

Please answer with yes or no.

Are computers always designed?

Yes

Is hardware, and software, always designed?

Yes

Are machines always designed?

Yes

Are factories always designed?

Yes

Are transistors always designed?

Yes

Are energy turbines always designed?

Yes

Are codes always designed?

Yes

Good. All this, we see analogously, but also literally in the cell.

Neurons are literally computers

DNA is the hardware, and the sequence of DNA nucleotides is the software

Proteins are molecular machines

Cells are chemical factories

Neurons are transistors

ATP synthase is an energy turbine.

The genetic code is a real code

Is it logical to infer that therefore, these things were also designed?

Atheist answer: No. The first mentioned things, we know humans design them. The secondly mentioned things in nature, we don’t know how they came to be.

It’s sometimes so frustrating to have a conversation with atheists…. Others deny and claim the things mentioned in nature are not analogous to human made artifacts.

Once you back up the claim:

The Cell is a super computer
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2712-the-cell-is-a-super-computer

1. A transistor can be considered an artificial Neuron. Every living cell within us is a hybrid analog–digital supercomputer. The brain is like 100 billion computers working together.
2. Biological cells are programmed to be experts at taking inputs, running them through a complicated series of logic gates through circuit-like operations and producing the desired programmed output.
3. The origin of programs, logic gates, and complex circuits to obtain a purposeful specific outcome is always tracked back to intelligent implementation.

The hardware and software of the cell, evidence of design
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2221-the-hardware-and-software-of-the-cell-evidence-of-design

Paul Davies: the Fifth Miracle page 62: Due to the organizational structure of systems capable of processing algorithmic (instructional) information, it is not at all clear that a monomolecular system – where a single polymer plays the role of catalyst and informational carrier – is even logically consistent with the organization of information flow in living systems, because there is no possibility of separating information storage from information processing (that being such a distinctive feature of modern life). As such, digital–first systems (as currently posed) represent a rather trivial form of information processing that fails to capture the logical structure of life as we know it.

Molecular machines in biology
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1289-molecular-machines-in-biology

1. Machines are always designed.
2. Proteins are machines.
3. Therefore, proteins were designed.

The factory maker argument
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2245-abiogenesis-the-factory-maker-argument

1. Blueprints, instructional information and master plans, and the making of complex machines and factories upon these are both always tracked back to an intelligent source which made them for purposeful, specific goals.
2. Biological cells are a factory park of unparalleled gigantic complexity and purposeful adaptive design of interlinked high-tech fabrics, fully automated and self-replicating, directed by genes and epigenetic languages and signalling networks.
3. The Blueprint and instructional information stored in DNA and epigenetics, which directs the making of biological cells and organisms – the origin of both is, therefore, best explained by an intelligent designer which created life for his own purposes.

Inside the neuron
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2292-neurons-remarkable-evidence-of-design#7201

HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT 9 The Physics Of Consciousness Andrew Thomas:
The similarity between transistors and neurons is elucidated when we consider how most transistors are used nowadays. The vast majority of transistors are micro-miniaturised onto a semiconductor substrate to form an integrated circuit (“silicon chip”). The latest fabrication techniques allow extraordinary densities of up to 25 million transistors on a square millimetre of silicon. This actually results in an individual transistor size which is rather smaller than a neuron, but it is clear that the principle of packing microscopic transistors onto an integrated circuit resembles the packing of microscopic neurons in a brain.

The irreducibly complex ATP Synthase nanomachine, amazing evidence of design
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1439-the-irreducibly-complex-atp-synthase-nanomachine-amazing-evidence-of-design

1. ATP synthase is a molecular energy-generating nano-turbine ( It produces energy in the form of Adenine triphosphate ATP. Once charged, ATP can be “plugged into” a wide variety of molecular machines to perform a wide variety of functions). It consists of two very different subunits that have to be externally and stably tethered together, just the right distance apart. The two major subunits (F0 & F1) are connected together by an external tether, and just the right distance apart. This tether doesn’t have anything to do with the functionality of either subunit but without it ATP synthase would not be able to perform its function. One of the subunits has to be embedded in the cell membrane so that an energy gradient can be formed ( The proton energy gradient is like the water in a dam, feeding a water turbine to generate energy). The second subunit has to be stably tethered to the membrane the proper distance away.
2. This is an irreducibly complex system, where a minimal number of at least five functional parts of ATP synthase must work together in an interlocked way, in a joint venture to bear function. The challenge is particularly onerous because these components are highly complex in all of life and are interdependent to provide energy for life. Individually, the subunits have no function whatsoever ( Not even in different setups). Besides ATP synthase, the membrane is essential to pump protons across the membrane. This setup cannot be the product of evolution, because it had to be fully operational and functional to start life ( The origin of life has nothing to do with evolution). No life form without ATP synthase is known.
3. We know by experience that complex machines made of various interlocked subparts with specific functions are always created by intelligent minds. Therefore, ATP synthase is definitely evidence of a powerful intelligent creator, who knew how to create power-generating turbines.

The genetic code, insurmountable problem for non-intelligent origin
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2363-the-genetic-code-insurmountable-problem-for-non-intelligent-origin

1. Creating a translation dictionary, for example of English to Chinese, requires always a translator, that understands both languages.
2. The meaning of words of one language that are assigned to words of another language that mean the same requires the agreement of meaning in order to establish translation.
3. That is analogous to what we see in biology, where the ribosome translates the words of the genetic language composed of 64 codon words to the language of proteins, composed of 20 amino acids.
4. The origin of such complex communication systems is best explained by an intelligent designer.

John Frederick William Herschel: A Preliminary Discourse on the Study of Natural Philosophy, page 149, 1830
If the analogy of two phenomena be very close and striking, while, at the same time, the cause of one is very obvious, it becomes scarcely possible to refuse to admit the action of an analogous cause in the other, though not so obvious in itself.Flagellum, Behe’s prime example of irreducible complexity
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1528-the-flagellum-behe-s-prime-example-of-irreducible-complexity

The irreducible complexity of the flagellum
1. The flagellum has 36 different proteins essential for the function of the flagellum. Every protein is a complex structure of average 300 amino acids
2. All proteins are required and one has no function without another just like a piston of a car engine has no use without the other engine parts.
3. Evolutionary biologists are unable to give any explanation on how all these proteins could have evolved in a gradual fashion to form the flagellum
4. Therefore, the only option is set up by an intelligent designer.

They will still deny it…..

Comments

The exact same thing can be said of you Alan
Really? Have you read something by me in UD comments pushing an atheist agenda?Alan Fox_{October 12, 2022
October
10
Oct
12
12
2022
09:45 AM
9
09
45
AM
PDT}

Larry Moran and Dan Gruar have both discredited anything they have to say about biology when they refused to accept the results of the massive ENCODE study, and subsequent studies, that found, and continue to find, widespread functionality across the entire genome??
And they were right. The ENCODE study was badly misrepresented. The fact remains that over half the human genome serves no positive purpose for humans. https://www.newscientist.com/article/2140926-at-least-75-per-cent-of-our-dna-really-is-useless-junk-after-all/ https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-complex-truth-about-junk-dna-20210901/Alan Fox_{October 12, 2022
October
10
Oct
12
12
2022
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PDT}

The exact same thing can be said of you AlanAnimatedDust_{October 12, 2022
October
10
Oct
12
12
2022
09:38 AM
9
09
38
AM
PDT}

I can say that I, as an atheist, feel no anger towards the Christian God, although I can’t say the same about some prominent self-proclaimed Christians here.
Myself, I just find the certainty, the misplaced confidence, of some of the chest-beating Christian regulars here a bit off-putting.Alan Fox_{October 12, 2022
October
10
Oct
12
12
2022
09:18 AM
9
09
18
AM
PDT}

Sev: "Are you saying that all non-Christian children are born with an innate belief in the Christian God?" Did the study I listed say that? No, of course not. The study I listed clearly said a generic "Supreme Being". That you would even ask such a stupid question is just one more example of you being extremely biased against Christianity in particular. Sev: "I can say that I, as an atheist, feel no anger towards the Christian God, although I can’t say the same about some prominent self-proclaimed Christians here." HUH? Are you kidding? Right here on UD you have displayed your severe hostility towards Judeo-Christian Theism time and time again. Since you have no real time evidence to support your Darwinian atheism, railing against Judeo-Christian Theism is literally your bread and butter argument for your atheism.,,, Are we just suppose to forget all those times you have displayed your extreme hatred against Judeo-Christian Theism? Sorry Seversky, it just doesn't work that way. Sev: "And what would be irrational would be to be angry at a being you don’t believe exists. That would be like being angry at Emperor Palpatine or Sauron. Are you angry at them?" Well Seversky, besides the words that you yourself have written betraying you, I did list a study that puts the lie to your claim that atheists are not hostile towards God.,,, Go figure. Just one more example, in a long line of examples, of you ignoring any and all evidence that contradicts your worldview.
When Atheists Are Angry at God – 2011 Excerpt: I’ve never been angry at unicorns. It’s unlikely you’ve ever been angry at unicorns either.,, The one social group that takes exception to this rule is atheists. They claim to believe that God does not exist and yet, according to empirical studies, tend to be the people most angry at him. A new set of studies in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology finds that atheists and agnostics report anger toward God either in the past or anger focused on a hypothetical image of what they imagine God must be like. Julie Exline, a psychologist at Case Western Reserve University and the lead author of this recent study, has examined other data on this subject with identical results. Exline explains that her interest was first piqued when an early study of anger toward God revealed a counterintuitive finding: Those who reported no belief in God reported more grudges toward him than believers. http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/01/when-atheists-are-angry-at-god
bornagain77_{October 12, 2022
October
10
Oct
12
12
2022
08:52 AM
8
08
52
AM
PDT}

Seversky @84 perhaps you haven't noticed, but i have always considered biologists and all other -logists (natural science graduates) as completely incompetent people in all design/creation/evolution debates. Talking to a biologist who denies design in nature - this is very frustrating ...martin_r_{October 12, 2022
October
10
Oct
12
12
2022
08:16 AM
8
08
16
AM
PDT}

which makes him a rather more competent authority in biology than an engineer, wouldn’t you say?
But yet can not produce any evidence for what he espouses. Are we into my biologist vs your biologist? When Larry Moran produces any evidence, people will take him seriously. If what he produces is just genetics, then ID agrees usually 100%. But genetics is not Evolution. That is the mistake Darwin made and nearly every evolutionary biologist since then. Genetics leads to lack of variation, not to increased complexity that is necessary in Evolution. And there is no evidence that new body plans arise in the genome. Where is the evidence? Aside: notice the appeal to authority by Seversky. Tries to undermine a valid comment anyway one can. That is the game being played nearly 100% of the time by anti ID people everywhere. Find some trivial point to object to. Irony - on this particular point, this means that any comment Seversky makes is to be discredited immediately because he is not trained in the discipline. The interesting thing is why they do this instead of defending their position with evidence. The answer is that they have no evidence and they know it. So they play games using one fallacy after the other. But why do they do it?jerry_{October 12, 2022
October
10
Oct
12
12
2022
08:11 AM
8
08
11
AM
PDT}

Martin_r/79
I have quickly checked the link you sent … Never heard of Dr. Moran … […] Who is this clown ?
This "clown" is a biochemist and
Professor Emeritus in the Department of Biochemistry at the University of Toronto.
which makes him a rather more competent authority in biology than an engineer, wouldn't you say?Seversky_{October 12, 2022
October
10
Oct
12
12
2022
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PDT}

Seversky at 81, Yet you do not fail to bring up God/Creator on a regular basis and judge Him or judge those that believe in Him.relatd_{October 12, 2022
October
10
Oct
12
12
2022
07:05 AM
7
07
05
AM
PDT}

Seversky at 80, More evidence. I rest my case. You, like some here, live behind a barrier. On one side: Living things are actually designed. On your side: Living things are not designed. You can cross over to the design side. Literally nothing is stopping you.relatd_{October 12, 2022
October
10
Oct
12
12
2022
07:03 AM
7
07
03
AM
PDT}

Bornagain77/78
Atheists are shown to have an innate belief in God, an innate belief that they suppress, and are also shown to be irrationally angry towards God
Are you saying that all non-Christian children are born with an innate belief in the Christian God? I can say that I, as an atheist, feel no anger towards the Christian God, although I can't say the same about some prominent self-proclaimed Christians here. And what would be irrational would be to be angry at a being you don't believe exists. That would be like being angry at Emperor Palpatine or Sauron. Are you angry at them?Seversky_{October 12, 2022
October
10
Oct
12
12
2022
07:00 AM
7
07
00
AM
PDT}

Origenes/72
Anyone who accepts intelligent design as a valid competing explanation for life, will, given its towering functional complexity, come to the conclusion that intelligent design is the best explanation by far. IOW given two equally valid competing explanations for life, and given its many intricacies, ID is winning by a mile.
While the evidence from biology supporting the theory of evolution is incomplete, it far outweighs the evidence for the existence of a Designer/Creator, let alone how it accomplished its designs.Seversky_{October 12, 2022
October
10
Oct
12
12
2022
06:53 AM
6
06
53
AM
PDT}

Sir Giles @73 I have quickly checked the link you sent ... Never heard of Dr. Moran ...
Dr. Moran: I've been trying to reason with creationists for more than 30 years, beginning with debates on talk.origins back in the early 1990s. Sometimes we make a little progress but most of the time it's very frustrating.
Who is this clown ?martin_r_{October 12, 2022
October
10
Oct
12
12
2022
05:33 AM
5
05
33
AM
PDT}

Atheists are shown to have an innate belief in God, an innate belief that they suppress, and are also shown to be irrationally angry towards God
When Atheists Are Angry at God - 2011 Excerpt: I’ve never been angry at unicorns. It’s unlikely you’ve ever been angry at unicorns either.,, The one social group that takes exception to this rule is atheists. They claim to believe that God does not exist and yet, according to empirical studies, tend to be the people most angry at him. A new set of studies in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology finds that atheists and agnostics report anger toward God either in the past or anger focused on a hypothetical image of what they imagine God must be like. Julie Exline, a psychologist at Case Western Reserve University and the lead author of this recent study, has examined other data on this subject with identical results. Exline explains that her interest was first piqued when an early study of anger toward God revealed a counterintuitive finding: Those who reported no belief in God reported more grudges toward him than believers. http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/01/when-atheists-are-angry-at-god Children are born believers in God, academic claims - 24 Nov 2008 Excerpt: "Dr Justin Barrett, a senior researcher at the University of Oxford's Centre for Anthropology and Mind, claims that young people have a predisposition to believe in a supreme being because they assume that everything in the world was created with a purpose." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/3512686/Children-are-born-believers-in-God-academic-claims.html Humans 'predisposed' to believe in gods and the afterlife - July 14, 2011 - University of Oxford Excerpt: A three-year international research project, directed by two academics at the University of Oxford, finds that humans have natural tendencies to believe in gods and an afterlife. The £1.9 million project involved 57 researchers who conducted over 40 separate studies in 20 countries representing a diverse range of cultures. The studies (both analytical and empirical) conclude that humans are predisposed to believe in gods and an afterlife,,, https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110714103828.htm Design Thinking Is Hardwired in the Human Brain. How Come? - October 17, 2012 Excerpt: "Even Professional Scientists Are Compelled to See Purpose in Nature, Psychologists Find." The article describes a test by Boston University's psychology department, in which researchers found that "despite years of scientific training, even professional chemists, geologists, and physicists from major universities such as Harvard, MIT, and Yale cannot escape a deep-seated belief that natural phenomena exist for a purpose" ,,, Most interesting, though, are the questions begged by this research. One is whether it is even possible to purge teleology from explanation. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/10/design_thinking065381.html Studies have now established that the design inference is ‘knee jerk’ inference that is built into everyone, especially including atheists, and that atheists themselves have to mentally work suppressing their “knee jerk” design inference! Is Atheism a Delusion? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ii-bsrHB0o
Verse:
Romans 1:19-20 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
bornagain77_{October 12, 2022
October
10
Oct
12
12
2022
03:30 AM
3
03
30
AM
PDT}

RC Sproul said it best: Atheists believe in God, and they hate Him.
Who is R C Sproul and how did he establish that "atheists" (by definition, people who do not believe in any god) "believe in God, and they hate him"? ETA must be that all atheists are Cretans.Alan Fox_{October 12, 2022
October
10
Oct
12
12
2022
03:19 AM
3
03
19
AM
PDT}

Sir Giles, you do realize that, as far as empirical science is concerned, that Larry Moran and Dan Gruar have both discredited anything they have to say about biology when they refused to accept the results of the massive ENCODE study, and subsequent studies, that found, and continue to find, widespread functionality across the entire genome??
Why Are Biologists Lashing Out Against Empirically Verified Research Results? - Casey Luskin July 13, 2015 Excerpt: no publication shook this (ID vs Darwin) debate so much as a 2012 Nature paper that finally put junk DNA to rest--or so it seemed. This bombshell paper presented the results of the ENCODE (Encyclopedia of DNA Elements) Project, a years-long research consortium involving over 400 international scientists studying noncoding DNA in the human genome. Along with 30 other groundbreaking papers, the lead ENCODE article found that the "vast majority" of the human genome shows biochemical function: "These data enabled us to assign biochemical functions for 80 percent of the genome, in particular outside of the well-studied protein-coding regions."3 Ewan Birney, ENCODE's lead analyst, explained in Discover Magazine that since ENCODE studied 147 types of cells, and the human body has a few thousand cell types, "it's likely that 80 percent will go to 100 percent."4 Another senior ENCODE researcher noted that "almost every nucleotide is associated with a function."5 A headline in Science declared, "ENCODE project writes eulogy for junk DNA."6,,, Evolutionists Strike Back Darwin defenders weren't going to take ENCODE's data sitting down.,,, How could they possibly oppose such empirically based conclusions? The same way they always defend their theory: by assuming an evolutionary viewpoint is correct and reinterpreting the data in light of their paradigm--and by personally attacking, (i.e. ad hominem), those who challenge their position.,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/07/the_encode_embr097561.html Toppling Another Evolutionary Icon, ENCODE Suggests Endogenous Retroviruses Are Functional - Casey Luskin - September 7, 2015 Excerpt: ENCODE didn't merely study the genome to determine which DNA elements are biochemically active and making RNA. It also studied patterns of biochemical activity, uncovering highly non-random patterns of RNA production--patterns which indicate that these vast quantities of RNA transcripts aren't junk.... ENCODE's results suggest that a cell's type and functional role in an organism are critically influenced by complex and carefully orchestrated patterns of expression of RNAs inside that cell. As Stamatoyannopoulos observes, ENCODE found that "the majority of regulatory DNA regions are highly cell type-selective," and "the genomic landscape rapidly becomes crowded with regulatory DNA as the number of cell types" studied increases. Thus, as two pro-ENCODE biochemists explain, "Assertions that the observed transcription represents random noise . . . is more opinion than fact and difficult to reconcile with the exquisite precision of differential cell- and tissue-specific transcription in human cells." http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/09/toppling_anothe099111.html Dan Graur, Darwin’s Reactionary - June 21, 2017 Excerpt: In 2013, biologist Dan Graur criticized the “evolution-free gospel of ENCODE” and accused its researchers of “playing fast and loose with the term ‘function,’ by divorcing genomic analysis from its evolutionary context.”81 In a lecture at the University of Houston, Graur argued that “if the human genome is indeed devoid of junk DNA as implied by the ENCODE project, then a long, undirected evolutionary process cannot explain the human genome.” In other words: “If ENCODE is right, then evolution is wrong.” But for Graur, evolution can’t be wrong. His solution to the problem? “Kill ENCODE.”82,,, Lots of evolutionists think that way but only the rare Darwinian atheist materialist is willing to state the matter as nakedly as this. No wonder Dr. Graur is among a list of individuals thanked by Dr. Wells in his Acknowledgments for “making embarrassingly candid or unwittingly humorous statements.” https://evolutionnews.org/2017/06/dan-graur-darwins-reactionary/ Discovery Of Useful “Junk DNA” “Has Outstripped The Discovery Of Protein-Coding Genes By A Factor Of Five… – March 30, 2021 Excerpt: With the HGP draft in hand, the discovery of non-protein-coding elements exploded. So far, that growth has outstripped the discovery of protein-coding genes by a factor of five, and shows no signs of slowing. Likewise, the number of publications about such elements also grew in the period covered by our data set. For example, there are thousands of papers on non-coding RNAs, which regulate gene expression. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/discovery-of-useful-junk-dna-has-outstripped-the-discovery-of-protein-coding-genes-by-a-factor-of-five/
etc.. etc.. etc..bornagain77_{October 12, 2022
October
10
Oct
12
12
2022
03:15 AM
3
03
15
AM
PDT}

Anyone who accepts intelligent design as a valid competing explanation for life, will, given its towering functional complexity, come to the conclusion that intelligent design is the best explanation by far.
Well, that's completely circular. :)Alan Fox_{October 12, 2022
October
10
Oct
12
12
2022
03:13 AM
3
03
13
AM
PDT}

RC Sproul said it best: Atheists believe in God, and they hate Him.OldArmy94_{October 11, 2022
October
10
Oct
11
11
2022
06:48 PM
6
06
48
PM
PDT}

Dr. Moran is referencing this thread over on his blog. https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2022/10/on-reasoning-with-creationists.html?m=1Sir Giles_{October 11, 2022
October
10
Oct
11
11
2022
06:00 PM
6
06
00
PM
PDT}

Anyone who accepts intelligent design as a valid competing explanation for life, will, given its towering functional complexity, come to the conclusion that intelligent design is the best explanation by far. IOW given two equally valid competing explanations for life, and given its many intricacies, ID is winning by a mile. The only way to avoid accepting ID as the best explanation, is making the case that intelligence is not allowed.Origenes_{October 11, 2022
October
10
Oct
11
11
2022
02:47 PM
2
02
47
PM
PDT}

Molecular switches control various cell functions. Some are not just on and off. Some include sensors to insure that the right amount of a fluid, for example, enters a cell. When molecular switches malfunction, it could lead to disease. Computational Biology is analyzing the data and getting results. https://www.mayo.edu/research/departments-divisions/computational-biology/focus-areasrelatd_{October 11, 2022
October
10
Oct
11
11
2022
02:02 PM
2
02
02
PM
PDT}

Just uploaded:
Systems Biology and Intelligent Design - Emily Reeves - video lecture (Oct. 2022) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PD0iXgu_S8
A few related notes:
How the Burgeoning Field of Systems Biology Supports Intelligent Design - July 2014 Excerpt: Snoke lists various features in biology that have been found to function like goal-directed, top-down engineered systems: *"Negative feedback for stable operation." *"Frequency filtering" for extracting a signal from a noisy system. *Control and signaling to induce a response. *"Information storage" where information is stored for later use. In fact, Snoke observes: "This paradigm [of systems biology] is advancing the view that biology is essentially an information science with information operating on multiple hierarchical levels and in complex networks [13]. " *"Timing and synchronization," where organisms maintain clocks to ensure that different processes and events happen in the right order. *"Addressing," where signaling molecules are tagged with an address to help them arrive at their intended target. *"Hierarchies of function," where organisms maintain clocks to ensure that cellular processes and events happen at the right times and in the right order. *"Redundancy," as organisms contain backup systems or "fail-safes" if primary essential systems fail. *"Adaptation," where organisms are pre-engineered to be able to undergo small-scale adaptations to their environments. As Snoke explains, "These systems use randomization controlled by supersystems, just as the immune system uses randomization in a very controlled way," and "Only part of the system is allowed to vary randomly, while the rest is highly conserved.",,, Snoke observes that systems biology assumes that biological features are optimized, meaning, in part, that "just about everything in the cell does indeed have a role, i.e., that there is very little 'junk.'" He explains, "Some systems biologists go further than just assuming that every little thing has a purpose. Some argue that each item is fulfilling its purpose as well as is physically possible," and quotes additional authorities who assume that biological systems are optimized.,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/07/when_biologists087871.html Systems Biology as a Research Program for Intelligent Design - David Snoke - 2014 Abstract: Opponents of the intelligent design (ID) approach to biology have sometimes argued that the ID perspective discourages scientific investigation. To the contrary, it can be argued that the most productive new paradigm in systems biology is actually much more compatible with a belief in the intelligent design of life than with a belief in neo-Darwinian evolution. This new paradigm in system biology, which has arisen in the past ten years or so, analyzes living systems in terms of systems engineering concepts such as design, information processing, optimization, and other explicitly teleological concepts. This new paradigm offers a successful, quantitative, predictive theory for biology.,, http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/viewArticle/BIO-C.2014.3
I might add, via George Ellis, that the 'bottom up' approach taken by Darwinian materialists, i.e. by reductive materialists, (as opposed to the 'top-down' approach that is now taken by systems biologists), is simply the completely wrong approach to take in order to try to understand biological systems,
How Does The World Work: Top-Down or Bottom-Up? - September 29, 2013 Excerpt: To get an handle on how top-down causation works, Ellis focuses on what's in front of all us so much of the time: the computer. Computers are structured systems. They are built as a hierarchy of layers, extending from the wires in the transistors all the way up to the fully assembled machine, gleaming metal case and all. Because of this layering, what happens at the uppermost levels — like you hitting the escape key — flows downward. This action determines the behavior of the lowest levels — like the flow of electrons through the wires — in ways that simply could not be predicted by just knowing the laws of electrons. As Ellis puts it: “Structured systems such as a computer constrain lower level interactions, and thereby paradoxically create new possibilities of complex behavior.” Ellis likes to emphasize how the hierarchy of structure — from fully assembled machine through logic gates, down to transistors — changes everything for the lowly electrons. In particular, it "breaks the symmetry" of their possible behavior since their movements in the computer hardware are very different from what would occur if they were just floating around in a plasma blob in space. But the hardware, of course, is just one piece of the puzzle. This is where things get interesting. As Ellis explains: “Hardware is only causally effective because of the software which animates it: by itself hardware can do nothing. Both hardware and software are hierarchically structured with the higher level logic driving the lower level events.” In other words, it's software at the top level of structure that determines how the electrons at the bottom level flow. Hitting escape while running Word moves the electrons in the wires in different ways than hitting escape does when running Photoshop. This is causation flowing from top to bottom. For Ellis, anything producing causes is real in the most basic sense of the word. Thus the software, which is not physical like the electrons, is just as real as those electrons. As Ellis puts it: “Hence, although they are the ultimate in algorithmic causation as characterized so precisely by Turing, digital computers embody and demonstrate the causal efficacy of non-physical entities. The physics allows this; it does not control what takes place. Computers exemplify the emergence of new kinds of causation out of the underlying physics, not implied by physics but rather by the logic of higher-level possibilities. ... A combination of bottom-up causation and contextual affects (top-down influences) enables their complex functioning.” The consequences of this perspective for our view of the mind are straightforward and radical: “The mind is not a physical entity, but it certainly is causally effective: proof is the existence of the computer on which you are reading this text. It could not exist if it had not been designed and manufactured according to someone's plans, thereby proving the causal efficacy of thoughts, which like computer programs and data are not physical entities.” http://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2013/09/29/225359504/how-does-the-world-work-top-down-or-bottom-up Recognising Top-Down Causation - George Ellis Excerpt: Causation: The nature of causation is highly contested territory, and I will take a pragmatic view: Definition 1: Causal Effect If making a change in a quantity X results in a reliable demonstrable change in a quantity Y in a given context, then X has a causal effect on Y. Example: I press the key labelled “A” on my computer keyboard; the letter “A” appears on my computer screen.,,, Definition 2: Existence If Y is a physical entity made up of ordinary matter, and X is some kind of entity that has a demonstrable causal effect on Y as per Definition 1, then we must acknowledge that X also exists (even if it is not made up of such matter). This is clearly a sensible and testable criterion; in the example above, it leads to the conclusion that both the data and the relevant software exist. If we do not adopt this definition, we will have instances of uncaused changes in the world; I presume we wish to avoid that situation.,,, ,,,However there are many topics that one cannot understand by assuming this one-way flow of causation. The flourishing subject of social neuroscience makes clear how social influences act down on individual brain structure[2]; studies in physiology demonstrate that downward causation is necessary in understanding the heart, where this form of causation can be represented as the influences of initial and boundary conditions on the solutions of the differential equations used to represent the lower level processes[3]; epigenetic studies demonstrate that biological development is crucially shaped by the environment[4] What about physics? In this essay I will make the case that top-down causation is also prevalent in physics, even though this is not often recognised as such. This does not occur by violating physical laws; on the contrary, it occurs through the laws of physics, by setting constraints on lower level interactions. Excerpt: page 5: A: Both the program and the data are non-physical entities, indeed so is all software. A program is not a physical thing you can point to, but by Definition 2 it certainly exists. You can point to a CD or flashdrive where it is stored, but that is not the thing in itself: it is a medium in which it is stored. The program itself is an abstract entity, shaped by abstract logic. Is the software “nothing but” its realisation through a specific set of stored electronic states in the computer memory banks? No it is not because it is the precise pattern in those states that matters: a higher level relation that is not apparent at the scale of the electrons themselves. It’s a relational thing (and if you get the relations between the symbols wrong, so you have a syntax error, it will all come to a grinding halt). This abstract nature of software is realised in the concept of virtual machines, which occur at every level in the computer hierarchy except the bottom one [17]. But this tower of virtual machines causes physical effects in the real world, for example when a computer controls a robot in an assembly line to create physical artefacts. Excerpt page 7: The assumption that causation is bottom up only is wrong in biology, in computers, and even in many cases in physics, for example state vector preparation, where top-down constraints allow non-unitary behaviour at the lower levels. It may well play a key role in the quantum measurement problem (the dual of state vector preparation) [5]. One can bear in mind here that wherever equivalence classes of entities play a key role, such as in Crutchfield’s computational mechanics [29], this is an indication that top-down causation is at play.,,, Life and the brain: living systems are highly structured modular hierarchical systems, and there are many similarities to the digital computer case, even though they are not digital computers. The lower level interactions are constrained by network connections, thereby creating possibilities of truly complex behaviour. Top-down causation is prevalent at all levels in the brain: for example it is crucial to vision [24,25] as well as the relation of the individual brain to society [2]. The hardware (the brain) can do nothing without the excitations that animate it: indeed this is the difference between life and death. The mind is not a physical entity, but it certainly is causally effective: proof is the existence of the computer on which you are reading this text. It could not exist if it had not been designed and manufactured according to someone’s plans, thereby proving the causal efficacy of thoughts, which like computer programs and data are not physical entities. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1212.2275.pdf
bornagain77_{October 11, 2022
October
10
Oct
11
11
2022
12:04 PM
12
12
04
PM
PDT}

Relatd: But you cannot entertain, even for a microsecond, the idea that living things are actually designed. I can entertain that notion but I expect you to provide shed loads of data and evidence and research and experiences which support that. And I have an alternate hypothesis which entails fewer assumptions. So, I take the simpler, more supported explanation.JVL_{October 11, 2022
October
10
Oct
11
11
2022
11:41 AM
11
11
41
AM
PDT}

JVL at 67, They're doing "science"? Really? No, they're not. You know what your problem is? The dividing line between living things are actually designed and believing they are not. But you cannot entertain, even for a microsecond, the idea that living things are actually designed.relatd_{October 11, 2022
October
10
Oct
11
11
2022
10:47 AM
10
10
47
AM
PDT}

Relatd: You, and scientists, don’t know how it happened. No one said they did know. They have guesses, they have ideas, they're trying to check some of those out. They're doing science. And can you get spontaneous generation of life from anything? Probably not from old episodes of Friends. Why do you ask such pointless and vague questions? Are you really even trying to understand the current state of understanding?JVL_{October 11, 2022
October
10
Oct
11
11
2022
10:32 AM
10
10
32
AM
PDT}

JVL at 64, You, and scientists, don't know how it happened. And can you get spontaneous generation of life from anything?relatd_{October 11, 2022
October
10
Oct
11
11
2022
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PDT}

Flagellum evolution in Nature Reviews Microbiology By Nick Matzke September 7, 2006 04:29 MST Seversky_{October 11, 2022
October
10
Oct
11
11
2022
09:59 AM
9
09
59
AM
PDT}

Relatd: Life from dead chemicals also relies on a miracle. How do you know if you don't know how it might have happened?JVL_{October 11, 2022
October
10
Oct
11
11
2022
09:50 AM
9
09
50
AM
PDT}

I think it means ID accepts miracles as science.
I'm there now.Alan Fox_{October 11, 2022
October
10
Oct
11
11
2022
09:44 AM
9
09
44
AM
PDT}

JVL at 61, Life from dead chemicals also relies on a miracle.relatd_{October 11, 2022
October
10
Oct
11
11
2022
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply