Atheism Culture Darwinism Intelligent Design Naturalism science education

Prof claims to know how to slam dunk creationists

Spread the love

From Paul Braterman at The Conversation, we learn stuff like:

Evolution, Pence argues, is a theory, theories are uncertain, therefore evolution is uncertain. But evolution is a theory only in the scientific sense of the word. And in the words of the National Academy of Sciences, “The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.” Attaching this label to evolution is an indicator of strength, not weakness.

Actually, string theory and multiverse theories are elaborate theories too; there is just no evidence for them. It simply isn’t the case, as Braterman claims, that the word “theory” in science means that the evidence base is vast or strong or even that it exists.  And

Then look at the discovery over the past few decades of family relationships at the molecular level, and the fact that the molecular family tree matches that based on anatomical resemblances.

Has this guy never heard of convergent evolution?  Lots of people have.

And how about this:

Artificial selection, just as much as natural selection, is evolution in action. More.

Yes, that’s called design. And so?

The late Will Provine (1942–2015) used to note that creationist students tend to know more about evolution than their “just shoot the shot, pass, and forget it” peers (By Design or by Chance, p. 141). Seminars at churches are more informative than hanging out at pot shops and malls.

Note: Provine was also absolutely clear that teaching modern Darwinism meant teaching nihilism but he never fibbed about that:

Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear — and these are basically Darwin’s views. There are no gods, no purposes, and no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end of me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning in life, and no free will for humans, either. Darwinism: Science or Naturalistic Philosophy April 30 1994

Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented.

One concern is that if Darwinians cannot reach their social control goals peaceably, they will resort to other methods.

See also: Teaching evolution to creationist students: Why would anyone who was embarking on teaching evolution as a serious project in good faith try to involve a virulently anti-religious figure like Dawkins in the argument?

Tales of the Tone Deaf, featuring dim profs writing in dozy journals about why people doubt Science and how to fix them.

and

Evolution appears to converge on goals—but in Darwinian terms, is that possible?

109 Replies to “Prof claims to know how to slam dunk creationists

  1. 1
    EricMH says:

    I’ve always wondered what the evidence for evolution is. I’ve never found out.

  2. 2
    ET says:

    Evolution may be a theory in the general sense but there isn’t a scientific theory of evolution. Science requires testable claims and there doesn’t seem to be any with respect to the evolution of protein machines, for example.

    Natural selection could never produce the breeds of dogs nor corn nor edible potatoes. Natural selection is only good at weeding out the diseased and the deformed.

  3. 3
    rvb8 says:

    ET,

    we believe, and the evidence suggests, fish evolved into land dwelling creatures between 325-375 million years ago.

    We must find sedimentary rocks of around this age, which have freshwater flora and fauna. Freshawater being imporatant as it was probably a more stable secluded environment.

    We find this predicted environment in arctic islands north of Canada.

    After several years all of these predictions based on evolutionary theory, produce the expected fossil; Tiktaalik,

    ID predicts what exactly?

  4. 4
    rvb8 says:

    My suggestion now is to attack this discovery as inconsequential.

    However attacking this solid evidence is just that, an attack. It is not actually positive evidence for design.

    Please try some/any original research, sometime, somewhere, anywhere!

  5. 5

    Please see my comments 34-35 at

    https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/well-we-dont-hear-this-from-brit-toffs-every-day-darwin-was-a-fraud/

    It doesn’t take a PhD to see the validity of ID … and the absurdity of purposeful, goal directed machines such as the human body to come about through magical processes happening in “Deep Time.”

    I’ve just given you a very good example of research being conducted under the umbrella of ID.

  6. 6
    ET says:

    rvb8:

    we believe, and the evidence suggests, fish evolved into land dwelling creatures between 325-375 million years ago

    There isn’t any evidence such a transformation is even possible. What mechanism did it? How can that mechanism be tested to see if it is capable of producing such a transformation?

    All Shubin found was an organism that was adapted to its environment. And what he found doesn’t say anything about a mechanism.

    Yours is an untestable claim and as such not part of science.

  7. 7
    Mung says:

    I know how to slam dunk a basketball, but I don’t know how to slam dunk a creationist. I’ll need to read that article.

  8. 8
    Mung says:

    EricMH:

    I’ve always wondered what the evidence for evolution is. I’ve never found out.

    It depends on how you define evolution.

    For some definitions of evolution, there most certainly does exist “evidence for evolution.”

  9. 9
    DATCG says:

    ID predictions…

    Table 2. Predictions of Design (Hypothesis):
    (1) Natural structures will be found that contain many parts arranged in intricate patterns that perform a specific function (e.g. complex and specified information).
    (2) Forms containing large amounts of novel information will appear in the fossil record suddenly and without similar precursors.
    (3) Convergence will occur routinely. That is, genes and other functional parts will be re-used in different and unrelated organisms.
    (4) Much so-called “junk DNA” will turn out to perform valuable functions.

    There’s evidence of all 4 Design predictions.
    1) The immune system, blood clotting, network communications systems, repair systems, Ribosome, Nuclear Pore Complex, the Dr. Behe’s IC Bacterial flagellum, etc., etc.
    2) Cambrian Explosion (see Dr. Stephen Meyer’s Darwin’s Doubt)
    3) Common Design found through out all organisms, ATP Synthase for example
    4) the failed prediction of Darwinist claims of 98% “JUNK DNA has turned into a spectacular success so far for Intelligent Design’s prediction that “JUNK” DNA will have much function. Every single day in scientific journals around the world more and more function is found in the once hailed 98% “JUNK” claims by Darwinist.

    Link for Table 2 and…

    ID Predictions

    Also from same article, Table 3, Examining the Evidence…

    Table 3. Examining the Evidence (Experiment and Conclusion):
    (1) Language-based codes can be revealed by seeking to understand the workings of genetics and inheritance. High levels of specified complexity and irreducibly complexity are detected in biological systems through theoretical analysis, computer simulations and calculations (Behe & Snoke, 2004; Dembski 1998b; Axe et al. 2008; Axe, 2010a; Axe, 2010b; Dembski and Marks 2009a; Dembski and Marks 2009b; Ewert et al. 2009; Ewert et al. 2010; Chiu et al. 2002; Durston et al. 2007; Abel and Trevors, 2006; Voie 2006), “reverse engineering” (e.g. knockout experiments) (Minnich and Meyer, 2004; McIntosh 2009a; McIntosh 2009b) or mutational sensitivity tests (Axe, 2000; Axe, 2004; Gauger et al. 2010).
    (2) The fossil record shows that species often appear abruptly without similar precursors. (Meyer, 2004; Lonnig, 2004; McIntosh 2009b)

    (3) Similar parts are commonly found in widely different organisms. Many genes and functional parts not distributed in a manner predicted by ancestry, and are often found in clearly unrelated organisms. (Davison, 2005; Nelson & Wells, 2003; Lönnig, 2004; Sherman 2007)

    (4) There have been numerous discoveries of functionality for “junk-DNA.” Examples include recently discovered surprised functionality in some pseudogenes, microRNAs, introns, LINE and ALU elements. (Sternberg, 2002, Sternberg and Shapiro, 2005; McIntosh, 2009a)

    ENCODE is evidence ID predictions are solidly on right track versus failure of neo-Darwinism’s blind, non-scientific and ignorant claims at the time that 98% of DNA was “JUNK.”

    The failed Darwinian prediction of 98% “JUNK” DNA has blown up so bad, an angry Dan Graur is on the war path.

    Why?

    As he famously stated,” If ENCODE is right, then evolution is wrong.”

    For any readers, take note. The stakes are high. Design predicts more function will be found in misnamed “JUNK” DNA regions. The 98% Myth has died. What will happen if Dan Graur’s latest prediction is wrong? What will neo-Darwinist then claim?

    As progress continues to mount on discovery of more function in non-coded regions, expect more heads to explode.

  10. 10
    DATCG says:

    The claim of pseudogenes as “JUNK” by neo-Darwinist Ken Miller overturned…

    “Now a new paper in Genome Biology and Evolution, “Evolutionary Constraints in the ?-Globin Cluster: The Signature of Purifying Selection at the ?-Globin (HBD) Locus and Its Role in Developmental Gene Regulation,” argues that the beta-globin pseudogene is not broken, but in fact performs an important function in regulating gene expression.

    Again, claims of “JUNK” were based on faulty assumptions and ignorance, not research and trumpeted as evidence for neo-Darwinism against Intelligent Design.

    Intelligent Design predicted more function would be found in erroneously named “JUNK” DNA. Function was found.

    Function of inappropriately named pseudogene found…
    Dover Revisited: With Beta-Globin Pseudogene Now Found to Be Functional, an Icon of the “Junk DNA” Argument Bites the Dust

    Will more research of “pseudogenes” find possible functions?

    Yes…

    Example of pseudogene research pulled from PUBMED list of Pseudogene Function…

    PTEN pseudogene (PTENP1) has a tumor suppressive role in multiple cancers. However, its involvement in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) remains largely unknown. In this study, we set out to identify the role of PTENP1 in the development of ESCC.

    Research Paper on PTEN pseudogene…
    Pseudogene PTEN research

    List of Papers searched for “Pseudogene Function”
    Pseudogene Function current list of Research and growing

    Intelligent Design predicted much more function. Darwinist Miller stated emphatically no function in pseudogene was evidence against Intelligent Design.

    As more research is done, more function critical to regulatory functions of life – suppressing tumors for example – are being found.

    It will be interesting to continue to follow Pseudogene functionality in future research.

  11. 11
    DATCG says:

    functions for circRNA, more function in what was ignorantly claimed as “JUNK” by neo-Darwinist …

    Circles reshaping the RNA world: from waste to treasure.
    Liu J1, Liu T1, Wang X1, He A2.
    Author information
    Abstract
    A new type of RNAs was identified from genes traditionally thought to express messenger or linear ncRNA (noncoding RNA) only. They were subsequently named as circRNAs (circular RNAs) due to the covalently closed structure. Accumulating studies were performed to explore the expression profile of circRNAs in different cell types and diseases, the outcomes totally changed our view of ncRNAs(non-coded or previously claimed as “junk” by Darwinist), which was thought to be junk by-products in the process of gene transcription, and enriched our poor understanding of its underlying functions. The expression profile of circRNAs is tissue-specific and alters across various stages of cell differentiation. The biological function of circRNAs is multi-faceted, involving five main features (sponge effect, post-transcriptional regulation, rolling circle translation, circRNA-derived pseudogenes and splicing interference) and varying differently from the locations, binding sites and acting modes of circRNAs. The regulating role of circRNAs is not isolated but through an enormous complicated network involving mRNAs, miRNAs and proteins. Although most of the potential functions still remain unclear, circRNAs have been proved to be ubiquitous and critical in regulating cellular processes and diseases, especially in cancers, from the laboratory to the clinic. Herein, we review circRNAs’ classification, biogenesis and metabolism, their well-studied and anticipated functions, the current understanding of the potential implications of circRNAs in tumorigenesis and cancer targeted therapy.

    CircRNA paper link…

    Circles reshaping the RNA world: from waste to treasure.

  12. 12
    Axel says:

    You wait till rvb8 comes back, swinging ! He’ll fix your unsupported fligths of fancy, DATCG… detailed point by detailed point. Isn’t that right, rv ? Don’t spare any of these ‘know-nothing’ creationists.

    By the way, how are your negotiations for the purchase of Tower Bridge going ?

  13. 13
    EricMH says:

    @8, for pretty much any definition of evolution, I’ve had much difficulty finding the evidence. If you know of something I’d be interested to hear it.

  14. 14
    ET says:

    Anti-biotic resistance is a case of evolution. Lenski’s long term evolutionary experiment has the current populations genetically different from the starting populations. One branch even evolved the ability to utilize citrate in the presence of O2.

    And that is not even a start

  15. 15
    Belfast says:

    Rvb @4.
    Please change the record.

  16. 16
    Belfast says:

    ET @ 14
    They did not evolve it in a Darwinian sense, by random chance. They ‘evolved’ because the DNA contains within itself a mechanism to get out of trouble. The first thing a bacteria does is move away from a hostile environment

  17. 17
    ET says:

    Belfast- so what? EricMH said:

    for pretty much any definition of evolution, I’ve had much difficulty finding the evidence.

    My examples fit that bill

  18. 18
    EricMH says:

    @17, I look different than my parents. Is that evolution? Some people are born more intelligent and attractive than their parents, who may in turn have more intelligent and attractive children. Is that evolution? If that is what biologists mean, then evolution is the most uninteresting idea in the world.

    Evolution is interesting because it is meant to explain how we get beneficial traits in the first place. The experiments you mention do not show new traits emerging. At best, existing traits are damaged, changing the population’s fitness for their environment, such as the sickle cell mutation. But, this damaging form of adaptation is not evidence of evolution.

    For example, a car can ‘evolve’ into a shelter by removing functionality. But, a shelter cannot evolve into a car except by adding functionality. The latter case is the only kind of evolution of interest, and I do not know of any evidence that it occurs. If you know of any, I’d be very interested to see it.

  19. 19
    ET says:

    EricMH- You are now moving the goalposts. One definition for “evolution” is a mere change in allele frequency over time.

  20. 20
    EricMH says:

    Yes, I’ll move the goalposts to where the definition of evolution matters. I’ve got no problem with that. I want to find compelling evidence that A) variation and selection can create new functionality and/or B) one species is descended from another. There is no compelling evidence for either position as far as I can tell, and these are the only definitions of evolution that are of interest.

    If you want to play the definition game, and go for a trivially true definition of evolution, then your evidence is uninteresting to me, but you can win whatever rhetorical game you’re playing if that makes you happy.

  21. 21
    EricMH says:

    Look, I can define evolution as ‘change’. Everything changes, so everything evolves. Hurrah, I’ve proven evolution is true beyond a shadow of a doubt! In your face ID 😛

  22. 22
    ET says:

    EricMH- Intelligent Design is NOT anti-evolution

    YOU said:

    for pretty much any definition of evolution, I’ve had much difficulty finding the evidence.

    And now you are changing that.

    But OK, meet the mosquitos of the London underground– a new species descended from an existing species.

  23. 23
    Mung says:

    EricMH: Look, I can define evolution as ‘change’.

    Yes, you can. And even you admit that there is evidence for change over time.

    You: I’ve always wondered what the evidence for evolution is. I’ve never found out.

    Me: It depends on how you define evolution. For some definitions of evolution, there most certainly does exist “evidence for evolution.”

    So you would agree that I was correct? If you want to say which definition of evolution you have never seen evidence for perhaps we could address that.

  24. 24
    Mung says:

    EricMH:

    Yes, I’ll move the goalposts to where the definition of evolution matters. I’ve got no problem with that. I want to find compelling evidence that A) variation and selection can create new functionality and/or B) one species is descended from another.

    Where do you think modern day species came from? Was each one specially created? Were they all carried on the ark with Noah and his family?

    Even young earth creationists accept speciation, except when they are denying it ever occurs.

  25. 25
    asauber says:

    Where do you think modern day species came from?

    Mung, this is poor argumentation. It’s not up to EricMH to have a conclusion about where species came from. It’s up to the person making the original claim to provide the evidence for it.

    Even young earth creationists accept speciation

    This is even worse. So and so or Group X accepting something doesn’t demonstrate anything scientifically.

    Andrew

  26. 26
    asauber says:

    And ‘Change over time’ is a descriptive generalization, not a scientific hypothesis.

    Andrew

  27. 27
    EricMH says:

    The two specific claims of evolution that are of interest are these:
    1. Random variation and selection creates new functionality.
    2. One species can be turned into another through small incremental changes to DNA.

    These are the only claims of interest. Change over time and change in allele frequency are only necessary conditions of these claims, and by themselves are neither sufficient for #1 and #2, nor controversial.

    Is there any hard evidence for #1 and #2? All I’ve ever seen is groundless extrapolation from observation of minor change and mathematically baseless theorizing.

  28. 28
    bill cole says:

    Eric MH

    1. Random variation and selection creates new functionality.

    There is evidence that bacteria can obtain new function from random variation. The Lenski experiment is an example where citrate consumption in an oxygen condition was enabled by a few mutations over many years.

    The enzyme for consuming citrate already existed but the transporter protein for the enzyme was normally in the off condition. A few mutations allowed expression of the transporter enzyme in an oxygen environment and enabled the adoption.

    Number 2 is where the evolutionists are stuck. They try to claim evidence for 1 can be extrapolated to 2. There has not even been an established mutation rate that can support 2.

  29. 29
    EricMH says:

    @28 Your example is not generation of new functionality, it is turning on new functionality. Evidence of #1 would be random variation and selection creating the transporter protein.

  30. 30
    Mung says:

    Andrew:

    Mung, this is poor argumentation. It’s not up to EricMH to have a conclusion about where species came from.

    He already has a conclusion about where species come from. They don’t come about by evolution.

    You understand, don’t you, that young earth creationists accept speciation as a fact?

  31. 31
    Mung says:

    bill, you ought to know by now that there is no evolution, only devolution. There is no gain of function, only loss of function. But loss of function isn’t evolution, you see. Only gain of function is evolution.

    You simply can’t make this stuff up.

  32. 32
    EricMH says:

    @30 if you want to call it that, it’s a negative conclusion. It is worthwhile to see if our current explanations have evidential backing and hard theoretical coherence, even if we do not have a coherent alternative. Better no explanation than a false one.

    As far as I know, all “evidence” of evolution is either breakdown of functionality (devolution) or switching on of existing functionality. I am interested in any hard evidence of evolution proper: the creation of new functionality.

  33. 33
    Mung says:

    EricMH:

    As far as I know, all “evidence” of evolution is either breakdown of functionality (devolution) or switching on of existing functionality. I am interested in any hard evidence of evolution proper: the creation of new functionality.

    I predicted a shifting goalpost and here it is. So now you have yet another definition of evolution, maybe two.

    From your post:

    2. One species can be turned into another through small incremental changes to DNA.

    Why can’t that happen by “devolution”?

  34. 34
    bill cole says:

    Mung

    bill, you ought to know by now that there is no evolution, only devolution. There is no gain of function, only loss of function. But loss of function isn’t evolution, you see. Only gain of function is evolution.

    You simply can’t make this stuff up.

    I agree. Random change is going to move a functioning sequence away from function. This is because DNA is a sequence and there are many more ways it does not function the it does. Sometimes it can cause an adaption through serendipity (as in the Lensky case) but in every case I have seen it is through loss of function.

    Eric is right that a new protein was not created but a new function was enabled. The function of consuming citrate in an aerobic environment.

    BTW I know you are totally aware of this and I am enjoying watching you work the probability game at TSZ. 🙂 BTW I took 6 classes in statistics at UC Berkeley in the late 70’s. Its fun to watch Keiths make an ass out of himself.

  35. 35
    EricMH says:

    @33 One could define species so that a species can devolve into another. But again, that’s not super interesting, because we’re trying to come up with an explanation for the fossil record, where increase in new functionality occurs over time.

    I can call anything I want evolution, but there are only a few concepts going by that name that are notable, and there is no evidence these concepts are true, despite existing since at least Plato’s day. That’s a couple millenia to come up with something substantial, which should be more than enough time.

  36. 36
    Mung says:

    The Scientific Approach to Evolution: What They Didn’t Teach You in Biology

    See also:

    http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.....-nabt.html

    But this is dangerous reading. Perhaps there actually is evidence for evolution.

  37. 37
    EricMH says:

    Oh, well if you are defining evolution as devolution, then yes, I’m sure that sort of thing shows up in the fossil record. We could start with primordial super species which “splinter” into less functional sub species. Then, if the super species disappears, it looks like we have a bunch of distinct species. Such as if we kept chihuahuas and great danes, and eliminate all other kinds of dogs, it’d look like we have two new species that cannot interbreed.

    Such a theory would explain the ‘explosions’ in the fossil record like the Cambrian explosion. They are literally explosions of the super species into inferior species.

    This actually makes a whole lot of sense, thanks!

  38. 38
    critical rationalist says:

    ENCODE is evidence ID predictions are solidly on right track versus failure of neo-Darwinism’s blind, non-scientific and ignorant claims at the time that 98% of DNA was “JUNK.”

    Except human designers make things that are purely ornamental. And our actions result in unintended side effects, generate waste products, etc. So, If human designers are the supposed model for ID, it’s unclear why ID predicts any particular level of DNA being non-“junk” as vast amounts of DNA could have no function.

    Oh, that’s right. Everyone knows ID’s designer is God and his actions do not result in unexpected side effects. etc. IOW, any such prediction isn’t the result of supposedly scientific theory of ID. It’s based on the belief that some supernatural being is the designer.

    “That’s just what a designer must have wanted”, could explain absolutely anything, which explains nothing.

  39. 39

    Biological ID doesn’t require a supernatural being, CR.

    You already know this. Anyway, nice job.

  40. 40
    Mung says:

    No one ever said that rvb8 is THE ONLY troll here.

  41. 41
    Mung says:

    EricMH:

    Oh, well if you are defining evolution as devolution, then yes, I’m sure that sort of thing shows up in the fossil record.

    Here’s your original statement:

    I’ve always wondered what the evidence for evolution is. I’ve never found out.

    My orignal response:

    It depends on how you define evolution.

    For some definitions of evolution, there most certainly does exist “evidence for evolution.”

    Your comeback:

    …for pretty much any definition of evolution, I’ve had much difficulty finding the evidence.

    It’s no that there is no evidence for evolution. It’s that you need to spend some effort deciding which definition of evolution the evidence that does exist is relevant to.

    This is one reason I find it so difficult to to side with young earth creationists. They take these extreme positions that do nothing but propagate the stereotype of the IDiot.

    If you think you are being helpful to ID, you aren’t.

    I’ve given you a link to a book. I hope you’ll read it. You and Andrew both.

  42. 42
    ET says:

    So, If human designers are the supposed model for ID, it’s unclear why ID predicts any particular level of DNA being non-“junk” as vast amounts of DNA could have no function.

    True but you would still have to explain the histone octamer spools and the packaging of the DNA. Why design in a bunch of junk that you then have to design around to get the proper outputs and functionality?

  43. 43
    critical rationalist says:

    Biological ID doesn’t require a supernatural being, CR.

    Then why the supposed prediction of so much functional DNA?

    Again, the actions of human designers often result in mere orimentation and unexpected / unintended consiquences, which include waste product, transient states, incremental advances that leave “junk” in it’s wake, etc.

    So, why should ID’s designer be any different? Why all those predictions of functionality when we have trillions of observations of human designers producing unintended, unnecessary and unexpected results with no function? After all, every designer we have observed exhibits this. It’s unclear why you would consider one series of experiences valid inferences, yet not another, unless you were making some additional assumptions not present in ID.

    Furthermore, it would seem one could just as effectively “explain” both vast amounts of non-functional DNA and 95% functional DNA by saying “that’s just what the designer must have wanted”.

    Are you suggesting some designer couldn’t have ended up with, or even wanted life to evolve though a process that leaves a significant amount of “junk” DNA? You’d have to know more about the designer to rule this out and biological ID supposedly says nothing about the designer.

    So, if not a supernatural designer, then why the prediction of so much functionality, as indicated above? What par of the alternative that ID, the supposed scientific theory, leads to those predictions?

  44. 44
    ET says:

    Umm leaving junk in the wake is very different from leaving junk inside of it. There are diseases and deformities that are “junk in the wake” of biological ID.

    How much junk do you see in efficient computer programs?

  45. 45
    critical rationalist says:

    @ET,

    How much junk do you see in efficient computer programs?

    First, computer programs are not all that efficient. This is because people have to breakdown the problem in a way that can actually be compiled to run on existing hardware and dividing a problem into smaller tasks for optimum efficiency on multiple threads is very difficult. So, no. Even given the hardware we have today, computer programs are not nearly as efficient as they could be. Furthermore, the most efficient computer programs we have today are constantly being redesigned, updated and maintained by designers and we use software build systems strip out unused code with every release.

    Are you suggesting the designers of the biosphere are constantly redesigning, updating and releasing new builds of life, to strip away dead code? Is there a “dead code” stripping program in the genome that is constantly running that performs this task? If so, where is it in the genome? Why is it doing such a lousy job with, say, the broken vitamin c production genes in human beings?

    Even with constant maintenance, many relavitly recent computers and smart phones are running outdated and insecure software. Android alone has layers of forward compatibility libraries because most devices never actually get updated to the latest version of the OS. So entire sets of APIs are simply hanging around doing nothing because handset manufactures and carriers cannot affford to update the cheep devices they sell.

    And don’t get me started on Microsoft’s Win32, which is very out dated foundation for an OS. Things have improved, but the amount of bandaids that have been installed on top of Win32 to handle something as fundamental as the internet are staggering. Not to mention that there is code in Windows that people simply don’t know what it does and they don’t care because it all works or is required because can’t be removed without possiblly breaking something. Again, there are tools designed to remove dead code, but it’s an ongoing processs, not a one time event.

    However, if software and hardware developers didn’t have limitations, such as customers with existing installations, limited engineering resources, production budgets, shareholders, etc. All software could be ported to every new OS release. Entirely new operating systems could be written for each customer, along with entirely custom solutions. And all of their data could be migrated every time, regardless of how complex. There would be no need for backwards compatablity, etc. The entire backwards compatablity we see in the biosphere would be necessary. Heck, even human designers will eventually be able to build better solutions than those found in nature that need not share the sort of resources we observe in our biosphere.

    ID doesn’t explain any of these things. That’s because it doesn’t add to the explantion. A designer who designs by merely “choosing” different outcomes could “choose” any percentage of function, just as it could choose any percentage of material to supppsedly non-material. We could have empty skulls with eyes that attach to tiny globs of grey matter that connect to 99% non-material brains, or any other ratio. It’s arbitrary once you open the door to the idea that, supposedly, some things can exist with intelligence, yet still be completely immaterial. “That’s just what a designer must have wanted” explains nothing.

    Again, if the evidence for ID is merely the trillions of designers we have experienced designing things, it’s unclear why it should predict so much functionality. It just doesn’t add up.

  46. 46
    ET says:

    LoL! That was quite a rant and you didn’t even address what I said.

    How much junk is in efficient computer programs?

    Saying something was the result of intentional design explains quite a bit. First off it eliminates other classes of explanation. Then it adds an intentional agency and purpose, at the very least.

    Why design in a bunch of junk that you then have to design around to get the proper outputs and functionality?

  47. 47
    EugeneS says:

    CR

    “First, computer programs are not all that efficient.”

    Another quote in response:

    “Quite often critics of Intelligent Design have never designed anything themselves.”

    Marks, Dembski, Ewert “Introduction to evolutionary programming”.

    This quote says it all.

    If your statement were true, programmers would never earn a buck. You are obviously being too selective in your criticism. The issue here is not that programs could be improved but that they are invariably miles better than junk. And you know that.

    Second, optimization in practice is rarely what you would expect as a layman user because time, robustness, return on investment and many other things are part of the problem. Pareto-optimality generally allows more than one optima to exist. Choosing between them is done based on thorough knowledge of the problem domain. Naive criticisms about suboptimality in biology often stem from failure to appreciate the difficulty of the entire problem.

  48. 48
    tribune7 says:

    CR

    –First, computer programs are not all that efficient.–

    Efficiency is never an absolute measurement. A wheelbarrow is “efficient” when compared to carrying items to market on your back, OTOH, it is inefficient when carrying items to market in a truck.

  49. 49
    critical rationalist says:

    LoL! That was quite a rant and you didn’t even address what I said.

    How much junk is in efficient computer programs?

    How much junk is, or can be in an efficient computer program?

    Again, as I pointed out, there is junk in efficient code, even when we have automated systems to try and detect and remove it. Some compliers strip out junk code via optimizations. More advanced processes look through the resulting binaries to strip out unused functions, where its possible to detect it. This is optional and comes about when developers release new binary builds of applications as an ongoing process. Designers actually show up and do it when releasing a new build.

    IOW, a program can be efficient with junk binary data that simply never get’s executed.

    Furthermore, if the source is lost, entire frameworks can be shipped with a binary that are virtually unused with the exception of a few functions. Most of it is “junk” that is present because we don’t have the resources to rewrite it or cannot simply recompile it from source. Core libraries could even contain code for multiple architectures that are no longer in use, such as DEC Alpha on Window’s NT.

    Even I don’t always remember what code I wrote a few years ago did or if it’s safe to change it, let alone code that other people wrote decades ago. So, unless it get’s completely rewritten, unused variables or routines often reman in place because it would cause a complier error if removed, could cause a a crash or behavior change, etc. As they say, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

    So, it’s unclear how this doesn’t “address what you said”

    Again, are you suggesting that some designer is going around stripping dead code from the genomes of newly built organisms? Where is the designer now?

  50. 50

    CR: Everyone knows ID’s designer is God
    UB: Biological ID doesn’t require a supernatural being, CR.
    CR: Then why the supposed prediction of so much functional DNA?

    This is incoherent.

    A prediction of function in “junk DNA” does not obligate ID to a supernatural being. You’ve failed to present a case otherwise, and thus, the correction to your statement remains.

  51. 51
    critical rationalist says:

    “Quite often critics of Intelligent Design have never designed anything themselves.”

    And people can be confused about their own experiences, including the ones they give to explain the process by which design occurs. As such, it’s not necessary to be a designer to point out that a proposed description or explanation for design is absent or irrational.

    Second, I work professionally in the fields of user experience, client / server and mobile development. Currently, I’m the lead iOS developer on two applications, including one of the fastest growing mobile solutions in field service. So, even if that quote wasn’t irrelevant, that description does’t fit me.

    If your statement were true, programmers would never earn a buck. You are obviously being too selective in your criticism. The issue here is not that programs could be improved but that they are invariably miles better than junk. And you know that.

    Again, junk isn’t just random bits. It’s old routines or variables that never get used anymore, or code that get shipped despite never being used after some time, etc. Most of which gets removed because of automated processes that are applied with every new release. Are you saying that the designer of the biosphere is stripping dead code from the genome? Is it releasing new organisms?

    (BTW, where is the designer these days, anyway?)

    Android applications ship with compatibility libraries so developers can use new features not in the OS that shipped with the device. Programers make a buck because they figured out that shipping those libraries with applications themselves, which makes the original code “junk”, get’s around the fact that many Android devices simply never get updated because doing so is not cost effective.

    Tp use another domain, You might have a drawer or box of remove controls or AC adaptors that are ‘junk’ because you don’t have a working device any more. They transmit on channels or have connectors / voltages that cannot be used with anything you have. They fit the definition of “junk” despite the fact that they still may some function, but not in a useful way in it current environment. The same can be said with floppy disks that cannot be read or applications that cannot be run because you do not have necessary hardware to read them, etc.

    Our broken gene that used to synthesize vitamin-c also fits the definition of junk.

    Naive criticisms about suboptimality in biology often stem from failure to appreciate the difficulty of the entire problem.

    I’m not being naive. There is an explanation for my optimism which comes from our current, best explanation for the growth of knowledge, including knowledge in brains, books and even biological organisms.

    First, people (which would include human beings) are universal explainers. We can create explanatory theories about how the world works, in reality, which can have significant reach beyond the initial problem space. On the other hand, evolution cannot conceive of problems like we can. Nor can it conceive of explanatory theories designed to solve them like we can. So, the knowledge it creates is non-explanatory and has limited reach.

    As such, evolutionary theory would predict that biological knowledge found in organisms would have limited reach, as opposed to organisms designed by people. IOW, there would be significant room for improvement in the design of organisms because they are the result of useful rules of thumb.

    Second, regardless of how complex, something is either impossible because it violate the laws of physics, or possible because the necessary knowledge is present there. IOW, the only thing that would prevent us from achieving something not prohibited by the laws of physics is knowing how. This includes building better, more moral version of biological systems than those found in our biosphere.

    And when we do, ID proponents will no longer want to claim the design of the biosphere as a shining achievement of their preferred designer. Just as creationists today no longer bother to claim thunder.

    (Then again, they could always retreat to the old chestnut that their preferred designer had some good reason for designing the biosphere that way – we just can’t understand it)

  52. 52
    critical rationalist says:

    @UB

    Biological ID doesn’t require a supernatural being, CR.

    UB, my comment is in regards to a particular prediction of biological ID, not as a whole.

    So, are you’re disagreeing that biological ID makes that prediction?

    If not, then what reason is there for biological ID to predict so much functionality other than a supernatural designer?

    Again, if we can know nothing about biological ID’s designer, that prediction seems arbitrary, would it not?

    I mean, I could choose to design a process that resulted in vast amounts of junk, could I not? Why is this not just as valid of an inference?

  53. 53
    critical rationalist says:

    @UB

    A prediction of function in “junk DNA” does not obligate ID to a supernatural being. You’ve failed to present a case otherwise, and thus, the correction to your statement remains.

    You corrected a straw man of my statement.

    “Everyone knows ID’s designer is God” is not the same as “Biological ID necessarily requires the designer to be God.” Furthermore, not everyone agrees on the predictions of ID, with possibly yourself included.

    ID was carefully constructed to include a hole big enough to allow God. This is by, well, design. And it’s evolved as such in the hope that it will be taught as science. We have transitional forms in the case of “Of Pandas and People.”

  54. 54
    Mung says:

    ID predicts that organisms are designed to evolve.

  55. 55
    ET says:

    Again, as I pointed out, there is junk in efficient code, even when we have automated systems to try and detect and remove it.

    Evidence please. A poorly written code is different from a code with junk.

    There are diseases and deformities that are “junk in the wake” of biological ID.

    Why design in a bunch of junk that you then have to design around to get the proper outputs and functionality?
    No one said ID predicts 100% functionality. Given a good design and genetic entropy I would expect some noise, but not 90%, as Larry Moran, et al. claim.

  56. 56
    ET says:

    ID predicts that organisms are designed to evolve.

    The Origin of Species by means of Intelligent Design

  57. 57
    EricMH says:

    The bottom line of ID is that undirected processes cannot create information, which is the data processing inequality.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_processing_inequality

    All the ID theorems are different variants of this principle.

  58. 58

    UB, my comment is in regards to a particular prediction of biological ID, not as a whole.
    So, are you’re disagreeing that biological ID makes that prediction?

    Are you really asking me if I disagree that function found within “junk DNA” obligates ID to a supernatural designer? Yes, I am. It seems to me almost impossible that you could miss that point.

    If not, then what reason is there for biological ID to predict so much functionality other than a supernatural designer?

    Have you read a book by Behe or Meyer, etc., that states that any function found in junk DNA requires a supernatural designer? If so, what was their argument? If not, then be a good fellow and put a sock in it.

    “Everyone knows ID’s designer is God” is not the same as “Biological ID necessarily requires the designer to be God.”

    If the second statement is false, then so is the first.

  59. 59
    critical rationalist says:

    UB,

    I’m not sure why you’re finding this so difficult. Let me try again.

    Q1: Are you in agreement that biological ID predicts very high levels of functionality in the genome of organisms?

    Q2: If so, for what reason would biological ID make this prediction?

    Again, I’m asking because it seems rather arbitrary, given that biological ID doesn’t say anything about the designer. It’s unclear how you, or anyone else, would know what level of functionality an abstract designer would choose.

    For example, isn’t it logically possible that a designer could “choose” to create organisms in a way that makes it appear that they evolved by using a process that resulted in genomes with a significant amount of “junk” for some good reason we cannot understand? It’s unclear why an abstract designer wouldn’t do this, given that biological ID supposedly makes no claims about the motivation, constraints or even moral character of the designer, including whether it even wants anyone to know it supposedly designed the biosphere.

    So, perhaps now you can see why I’m really quite confused as to why ID proponents here are making all of these assumptions for apparently no reason at all. Am I really supposed to believe they just don’t have much of an imagination? Is that what you’re suggesting?

  60. 60

    CR: “Everyone knows ID’s designer is God” is not the same as “Biological ID necessarily requires the designer to be God.”

    UB: If the second statement is false, then so is the first.

    I’m not having any problem at all CR. You made a false statement. You were corrected on it, and are clearly unable to answer that correction.

  61. 61
    critical rationalist says:

    @UB

    I’m not having any problem at all CR.

    So, you have an explanation as to why ID proponents expect so much functionality in the genome of organisms? I’m all ears! Surely, if it’s not due to having a very specific designer in mind, then what is that reason?

    You were corrected on it, and are clearly unable to answer that correction.

    It’s unclear what you mean when you say I’m “clearly unable to answer that correction.” as, last time I checked, a correction is not a question.

    Furthermore, this statement is false….

    UB: If the second statement is false, then so is the first.

    …as it does not logically follow. Specifically, these two statement do not conflict with each other.

    S1: Everyone knows that the vast majority of ID proponents have a very specific designer in mind: God.
    S2: There is an ongoing effort to carefully refine and design S1 as to not require its proponents to explicitly confirm or deny S1, despite simultaneously continuing to claim ID makes predictions that imply S1 is true.

    Again, if we take ID at face value, it does not explicitly say anything about the motivation or moral character of the designer. Yet, for some reason, ID proponents still seem to think that said designer would want us to know it designed the biosphere, would not design it in such a way that results in a significant amount of junk in an organism’s genome, etc.

    When I’m apparently more open minded about ID’s designer than ID proponents themselves, what does that say?

    So, I’ll ask again. Are you in agreement that ID predicts a very high level of functionality in the genome? If so, what reason would you have to expect this to be the case? Please be specific.

    Note: that actually was a question, which you seem unable to answer.

  62. 62
    EugeneS says:

    CR

    “I am not being naive”.

    I am afraid, yes, you are 🙂 You are confusing so many things at once that it is difficult to get through them.

    The biggest one I can see straight away is that you conflate your world view with objective data. You have managed to even bring moral issues to the table. I am not discussing any moral or religious issues here, just science. If you like, as an Orthodox Christian priest I can discuss any of those with you but perhaps in a different thread.

    I am glad though that you agree that the processor and the code must work together in order for either not to be junk. This raises the question of the origin of a physical system that embodies the logical triple {code,protocol,processor}.

    The historically first (and perhaps simplest) triple of this kind must be explained. The trouble with explaining it using evolution is that evolution itself needs this triple to even start! In other words, the triple must have pre-dated evolution! The hypothetical pre-biotic evolution does not help either because it also, even if it did occur, would have to rely on the triple to exist in the first place. Without this triple, information read/write (and consequently, life itself) is not possible.

    Putting aside issues of design quality (which I hope we now agree on since I did not see any objections from you regarding this), do you think that design can be objectively and unambiguously distinguished post-factum from non-design?

    How do you think the translation machinery observed in the contemporary organisms formed other than by design? By translation I mean a mapping from one language to another, e.g. from Chinese to Russian or from sequences of codons to polipeptides.

    Please note that using the hypothesis of design has nothing to do with “God-of-the-gaps”. On the contrary, we know from observation that intelligence can design things. Honestly, I expect you to agree with this, given your background (BTW, FSM is my professional area as well, so we are colleagues).

    What, in your opinion, is there in the natural world that would enable a persistent information translation mechanism to arise? Is there any natural law explaining what you or I type next on our keyboards? How can the laws of nature explain why a chessman makes this move next? How in practice can “a frozen accident” create adapters to interpret code with? How can “a frozen accident” code itself up for future reproduction?

    How can the existence of the laws of nature explain the existence of rules in rule-based systems such as computer networks, games, mathematics or biological organisms?

  63. 63
    ET says:

    So, you have an explanation as to why ID proponents expect so much functionality in the genome of organisms?

    Why design in a bunch of junk that you then have to design around to get the proper outputs and functionality?

  64. 64
    Mung says:

    I don’t even know what “so much functionality in the genome” even means. And even if there was “so much functionality in the genome,” so what? It certainly wouldn’t falsify evolution.

  65. 65
    critical rationalist says:

    @EugeneS

    If your statement were true, programmers would never earn a buck.

    Are you saying that the designer of the biosphere has a boss he has to impress and bills to pay? Does it work for a company that has to compete with other companies and have limited resources? Does it have to worry about the size of an executable taking up more bandwidth when it is downloaded by customers? Does it have to compete with the products in how much space and energy it consumes on a customers devices?

    None of these things follow from ID’s designer because it is abstract and has no defined limitations. As such, the explanations for why code we produce doesn’t have much junk simply isn’t applicable to ID’s designer.

    IOW, you seem to know a awful lot about a designer that we can supposedly know nothing about. Furthermore, you would never accept placing any such limitations on said designer. Right?

    And you wonder why people have a hard time taking ID seriously?

  66. 66
    EugeneS says:

    CR

    “And you wonder why people have a hard time taking ID seriously?”

    How can you take ID seriously if you don’t even bother to understand what the claims are?

    I hoped for a fruitful and serious discussion. You did not even attempt to answer those questions I listed. I am not impressed.

  67. 67
    critical rationalist says:

    Again, my criticism was pointing to these supposed prediction of ID.

    (3) Convergence will occur routinely. That is, genes and other functional parts will be re-used in different and unrelated organisms.
    (4) Much so-called “junk DNA” will turn out to perform valuable functions.

    Both of them appear arbitrary because they make assumptions about the designer, despite ID supposedly not have a specific designer in mind.

    In the case of (3) this will not hold in the future. We will be able to create one off designs for customers that do not reuse exiting parts to due advances in design and production technology, such as 3D printing and vastly more powerful computers. Apparently, ID assumes we won’t learn anything new and assumes ID’s highly advanced designer wouldn’t either. It’s unclear how ID proponents know this.

    In the case of (4) it’s unclear how you know that ID’s designer isn’t deceptive, wants us to know it designed anything or even cares about designing things in a way that doesn’t leave junk in the genome in the process. We experience human designers are deceptive, do not care to take credit for what they create, etc. They take steps to remove “Junk” because of their limitations, as illustrated above.

    My point is, these “predictions” seem to be arbitrary given that ID’s designer is supposedly abstract and has no defined limitations. ID proponents give up their ability to make predictions when they artificially limit their designer to an abstract entity so they do not exclude their preferred designer.

  68. 68
    ET says:

    IOW, you seem to know a awful lot about a designer that we can supposedly know nothing about.

    What a joke you are CR. Just because ID is not about the designer doesn’t mean people cannot make assumptions about the designer.

    Why does anyone take evolutionism seriously, CR? It makes preposterous and untestable claims, so why would anyone take it seriously?

  69. 69
    Mung says:

    “FSM is my professional area as well, so we are colleagues”

    Flying Spaghetti Monster professionals. Great. Just great.

  70. 70
    EugeneS says:

    Mung @69

    I owe you a pint 😉

  71. 71
    critical rationalist says:

    @EugeneS

    What a joke you are CR. Just because ID is not about the designer doesn’t mean people cannot make assumptions about the designer.

    So, you’re disagreeing that ID makes those predictions? But people such as yourself can?

    That’s not the impression I got from DATCG’s #9 comment. He implied that ID makes those predictions, not people.

  72. 72
    Mung says:

    I owe you a pint

    🙂

  73. 73
    Dionisio says:

    critical rationalist @71:

    It seems like you quoted ET @68 but attributed it to EugeneS.

    Is that right?

  74. 74
    critical rationalist says:

    @Dionisio

    Yes. I copied the wrong user name when composing my comment. My apologies for the mixup.

    However, the question is open to everyone, not just ET.

  75. 75
    Dionisio says:

    critical rationalist @74:

    Apologies accepted. We’re humans, hence we make mistakes.

    Regarding the last part of your comment, I don’t understand your question @71. Can you explain it or rephrase it? What is it about? Are you sure it’s for everyone? Maybe it’s just for the person who was engaged in a discussion with you? Your questions (there are two) use personal references, hence don’t seem open to everyone.
    Thanks.

  76. 76
    LocalMinimum says:

    CR @ 67:

    I’d have to say you made a point against (3). It isn’t really an objective prediction about any necessary designer; but it is an observed quality of known designers. Also, as the number of such cases grow, the more demand is made against the (currently unknown, rumored to be entirely insufficient) guidance of the fitness landscape for evolution to be viable.

    on (4), are you stating that junk DNA is not supportive of evolution? Because it really does rest on a “no designer would do this” sort of basis, which you seem to be disagreeing with. In any case, if it turns out there is little to no junk and/or that junk is all deprecated/broken code, then the necessarily messy/junky process of evolution could hardly be credited.

    So, I agree that a designer is being unnecessarily profiled in those two points. However, both predictions coming true would present massive, perhaps insurmountable challenges to evolution; and, I assume that if it didn’t “just happen on its own”, we have to look for what did it.

  77. 77
    critical rationalist says:

    @UB

    So, I’ll ask again. Are you in agreement that ID predicts a very high level of functionality in the genome [number (4) above]]? If so, what reason would you have to expect this to be the case? Please be specific.

    Note: that actually was a question, which you seem unable to answer.

    Still waiting.

  78. 78

    CR @ 61

    You are down to the remaining scraps of your argument here, CR. You tried to sell the narrative that ID proponents predict more function to be found in “junk DNA” because they believe “that some supernatural being is the designer”.

    Strike One: If I asked you right now if such predictions would require a supernatural being, you’d have to admit “no”. And even though you would follow that admission with another long-winded attempt to negate the point, the fact would remain that a prediction of significant function in “junk DNA” does not require a supernatural being. Strike one.

    Strike Two: I have asked you to provide the details of ID writers who make these predictions requiring a supreme being, but you have not provided any. Instead, you morphed into a mind reader who (shazam!) finds exactly what he is looking for. If ID writers won’t get off the physical evidence and write what *you know* they are thinking, then you’ll just assign it to them anyway and forge forward as if they had. Strike two.

    Strike Three Your last gasp in this dead argument is held together by the ridiculous notion that there just isn’t any other reason to predict function in “junk DNA” — if not for some hidden belief in a supreme being. This is perhaps the weakest argument you could make. Researchers of every stripe have been looking to “junk DNA” (as one example) as the source of regulatory functions inside the cell, or as (a second example) involved in epigenetic responses, or (yet another example) involved in maintaining chromosome structure, or involved in scaffolding, or in some other biological process. You are not unaware of this. Strike three.

    – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

    Your argument in #38 (that predictions of function in “junk DNA are “based on the belief that some supernatural being is the designer”) is typical ideologically-driven rhetoric, and has been exposed as such. I understand you have no intellectual choice but to continue on as if nothing has happened, but the facts remain. Predictions of function (even pervasive function) in “junk DNA” do not require a supernatural being, thus ID writers describing evidence do not make such predictions, meanwhile, the field of genetics continues to find function among non-coding DNA and continues to look for it — even if there may be significant disagreement on what the level and range of function will ultimately turn out to be.

  79. 79

    CR @77,

    So, I’ll ask again. Are you in agreement that ID predicts a very high level of functionality in the genome [number (4) above]]? If so, what reason would you have to expect this to be the case? Please be specific.

    Note: that actually was a question, which you seem unable to answer.

    I refer you to the content of my comment in #39, where I entered this conversation.

    While I can understand your desire to take the focus off of my correction, let me know when you are prepared to retract your statement.

  80. 80
    critical rationalist says:

    @LocalMinimum

    on (4), are you stating that junk DNA is not supportive of evolution?

    I’m saying that the current crop of ID lacks explanatory power due to artificially limiting itself to an abstract designer with no defined limitations so it does not exclude God. As such, many aspects of the biosphere simply cannot be explained by ID but can be explained by new-Darwinism. It’s a bad explantion.

    Predictions in science are based on the necessary consequences of universal theories about how the world works, in reality, not merely a number of individual experiences of human beings. ID’s designer is abstract and doesn’t “work” in any necessary way because that would exclude a supernatural designer, by definition. There are no necessary consequences to based them on.

    For example, take the order of appearance of organisms from least to most complex. New-Darwinism explains this order in that the necessary non-explantory knowege of how to build them was genuinely created over time via a process of variation and criticism. More complicated organisms could not be constructed unless the necessary knowege is present there. However, there are no limits on what the current crop of ID’s designer knows, when it knew it, etc. So, it could have created organisms in any order, including the most complex to least complex or even all at once. At best, on could say “that’s just the order the designer must have wanted”, which explains nothing.

    ID is a bad explanation because, despite being carefully designed so it’s designer not necessarily being God, the opposite must necessarily be true: ID’s designer must necesararly defined to not exclude God. Even at the expense of explantory power.

    Specially human beings are good explanation for human designed things precisely because of our human limitations.

  81. 81
    LocalMinimum says:

    CR:

    I’m saying that the current crop of ID lacks explanatory power due to artificially limiting itself to an abstract designer with no defined limitations so it does not exclude God. As such, many aspects of the biosphere simply cannot be explained by ID but can be explained by new-Darwinism.

    Just as you say, ID doesn’t really require any particular designer. From what I see it is limited to showing the necessity of intelligence through the limitations and barriers to material causal chains. It is a very large and deep field, however; many cases to consider and compare, much like when modern chemistry was overtaking alchemy in all its established wisdom.

    Can you define the limitations on new-Darwinism, that make it so much better an explanation? Because, from what I see, it’s a history of fleeing goalposts. Could you tell me where they’ll stop and stand?

  82. 82
    ET says:

    As such, many aspects of the biosphere simply cannot be explained by ID but can be explained by new-Darwinism.

    What? The only things Neo-Darwinism can explain are genetic diseases and deformities. If Neo-Darwinism could explain life’s diversity then ID would be falsified.

  83. 83
    Mung says:

    …let me know when you are prepared to retract your statement.

    Like, never.

  84. 84
    critical rationalist says:

    @UB,

    UB: …let me know when you are prepared to retract your statement.

    You mean retract your interpretation of my statement? Why would I do that?

    ID is a bad explanation because, despite being carefully designed so [its] designer [need not necessarily] be God, the opposite [is] necessarily true: ID’s designer must [be] necessarily defined to not exclude God. Even at the expense of explantory power.

    I’d even say that a prediction of very little junk in the genome isn’t even a prediction of an abstract supernatural being, as one could always retreat to the claim that said being left junk in the genome “for some good reason we cannot understand.”

    IOW, ID’s abstract designer’s lack of necessary is not a feature. It’s a significant detriment. It strips it of the ability to make predictions as necessarily consequences of the theory itself. An abstract designer with no limitations that gets what it want’s for no other reason because it chose that outcome could choose anything logically possible. So, it necessarily predicts nothing, except the absence of logically impossible things. We can more efficiently predict the absences of logically impossible things because, well, they are logically impossible.

    Yet, in this thread alone, we have ID proponents claiming ID predicts very little junk in the genome. Why?

    Take this comment from ET..

    Why design in a bunch of junk that you then have to design around to get the proper outputs and functionality?

    Given that ID’s designer has no defined limitations, why would the designer of the biosphere find it difficult to design around “a bunch of junk” like we currently would? Nor is it even clear that we would in the future. And no one will actually codify that limitation in ID the supposed scientific theory. Why not?

    Because everyone knows ID’s designer is God. Not because of what ID says, but because of what it refuses to say.

    So, my criticism is that ID proponents simultaneously claim ID says nothing about the designer, yet makes predictions that appear to require doing just that.

    What gives?

  85. 85

    You mean retract your interpretation of my statement

    Are these not your words in post 38?

    any such prediction isn’t the result of supposedly scientific theory of ID. It’s based on the belief that some supernatural being is the designer.

    Yes indeed they are, and they’ve been shot full of holes (#78), which is why you now try to avoid them.

  86. 86
    Barry Arrington says:

    Wow UB @ 78 and 85, you paddled his little behind pretty hard. Ouch.

    Or maybe it was a kickin’ sit-che-a-shun. See the debate here starting at 0:53

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOaCD_JNgkA

  87. 87
    Pindi says:

    “you paddled his little behind pretty hard”

    lol

  88. 88
    Mung says:

    Wow UB @ 78 and 85, you paddled his little behind pretty hard. Ouch.

    Well, when someone comes in and drops his drawers and bends over, what do you think he was asking for?

  89. 89
    Eugene S says:

    CR

    “artificially limiting itself to an abstract designer with no defined limitations”

    What?!

    “individual experiences of human beings”

    Animals are intelligent beings also (where intelligence is defined as the ability to make choices to reach a goal state; NB no consciousness is required for that).

    “So, it could have created organisms in any order, including the most complex to least complex or even all at once. At best, on could say “that’s just the order the designer must have wanted”, which explains nothing. ”

    What a naive way of thinking…

    I’ll ask you as a software engineer, do you always write code from scratch or do you sometimes reuse it?

    Your criticisms are superficial and do not themselves present a cogent argument against ID.

    Fundamentally, without recourse to intelligence one cannot explain decision making at all. And yet, decision making is at the heart of life, while not present anywhere else in the universe (except artifacts of known intelligent origin). Nature does not choose anything. Natural selection is a consequence of decision making, not the other way around. Because for NS to even start, you need to have a population of living organisms.

    You have no case, CR.

  90. 90
    EugeneS says:

    CD,

    “individual experiences of human beings”

    Actually, they are not individual experiences, they are generic, even if referring to just humans (leaving animals alone). Humans generally are intelligent and therefore they do things in particular routines in a goal-oriented way. This behaviour is a hallmark of intelligence. I am feeling a bit uncomfortable explaining it to a software engineer who, I am sure, knows about design patterns.

  91. 91
    critical rationalist says:

    @UB

    Let’s quote this in context, shall we?

    Except human designers make things that are purely ornamental. And our actions result in unintended side effects, generate waste products, etc. So, If human designers are the supposed model for ID, it’s unclear why ID predicts any particular level of DNA being non-“junk” as vast amounts of DNA could have no function.

    Oh, that’s right. Everyone knows ID’s designer is God and his actions do not result in unexpected side effects. etc. IOW, any such prediction isn’t the result of supposedly scientific theory of ID. It’s based on the belief that some supernatural being is the designer.

    “That’s just what a designer must have wanted”, could explain absolutely anything, which explains nothing.

    You are trying to conflate the following two ideas: (1) ID is defined in such a way that its designer necessarily is God with (2) ID is defined in such a way that its designer necessarlly must not exclude God because for the vast majority of its proponents it actually is God.

    It’s unclear why I would retract (1) when that is your straw man of what I wrote.

    To use an example, imagine I ran across a theory that was based on an abstract number with no defined limitations on its upper or lower bounds, Yet, proponents of the theory said it predicts adddng 1 to that number would equal six. That prediction woud be arbitrary because the theory is defined in such a way that you cannot say adding one to that number necessarily ends up with a specific result, let alone six.

    So why six? Everyone knows this number is actually five, and adding one to it give you that exact result. IOW, any such prediction isn’t the result of the theory self, in which the number is supposedly abstract and has no defined upper and lower bound. It’s based on the proponents belief that the number is five.

    But it’s even worse than this, in the case of ID, because even a supernatural designer could choose a process that resulted in a significant amount of junk DNA in our genomes. So, apparently, I’m more open minded about ID’s designer than ID proponent themselves.

    Again, in carefully formulating ID’s designer to be abstract and have no defined limitations, as not exclude God, the result is a theory that can make no necessary predictions, such as (3) and (4) in comment #9.

    So, I’ll ask again.

    Do you agreee that ID predicts (4) in comment #9? If so, what argument is that prediction based on?

    I won’t be holding my breath.

  92. 92
    ET says:

    So, my criticism is that ID proponents simultaneously claim ID says nothing about the designer, yet makes predictions that appear to require doing just that.

    ID is not about the designer(s). That does not prevent anyone from making assumptions about the designer(s) or trying to figure out who it was.

    ID is not about the designer(s) for the simple reason that we don’t have to know who the designer is (or the specific process used) BEFORE we can determine an object/ event/ structure is the result of intentional design.

    The predictions in 9 speak more to the design and less of the designer. We don’t see human designs that are 90% junk and we see human designs that utilize a Common Design. So the predictions are based on observations and experience.

  93. 93
    Mung says:

    critical rationalist:

    You are trying to conflate the following two ideas: (1) ID is defined in such a way that its designer necessarily is God with (2) ID is defined in such a way that its designer necessarlly must not exclude God because for the vast majority of its proponents it actually is God.

    This is false.

  94. 94
    mike1962 says:

    CR: ID is defined in such a way that its designer necessarily is God

    So what? If “God” simply means “creator of earth life” without elaboration, then what difference does it make? Is anyone trying to stuff some particular religion down your throat using ID? Are you one of those nutjobs who thinks that ID is part of some conspiracy to create a Christian theocracy in the United States?

    Grow up.

  95. 95

    Mike, it matters because it is a) scientifically inaccurate, and b) is a political tool.

    I would caution against taking the bait by people like CR. He is completely inept at dealing with the scientific evidence of design in biology (as has been demonstrated repeatedly on these pages in regards to semiosis in the cell) and therefore is massaging a socio-political argument in place of scientific debate. He is deluded by the simple-minded idea that it is anti-science and irrational to be a theist, so anytime he can get the word “God” in the conversation he believes he has scored a point against the physical evidence that he is thus far utterly incapable of addressing.

    You make many great points on this forum, but in this instance I would say simple stand back — let him flop around like a fish.

  96. 96
    critical rationalist says:

    ID is not about the designer(s). That does not prevent anyone from making assumptions about the designer(s) or trying to figure out who it was.

    Then why did the author of comment #9 claim ID makes those predictions, not himself personally?

    Again, I’m trying to take those two statements seriously, as if they are true in reality, for the purpose of criticism. Yet, when I do so, it’s unclear how both of those statements cannot be true. So, apparently, one of them is false. Which is it?

    Or does ID also propose some new theory about logic that isn’t widely known?

    The predictions in 9 speak more to the design and less of the designer. We don’t see human designs that are 90% junk and we see human designs that utilize a Common Design. So the predictions are based on observations and experience.

    Those predictions are based on a number of limitations I presented in a comment above. It was incorrect attributed to another person, so you might have missed.

    Are you saying that the designer of the biosphere has a boss he has to impress and bills to pay? Does it work for a company that has to compete with other companies and have limited resources? Does it have to worry about the size of an executable taking up more bandwidth when it is downloaded by customers and eating up storage on devices? Does it have to compete with the products in how much space and energy it consumes on a customers devices?

    None of these things follow from ID’s designer because it is abstract and has no defined limitations. As such, the explanations for why code we produce doesn’t have much junk simply isn’t applicable to ID’s designer.

    IOW, you seem to know a awful lot about a designer that we can supposedly know nothing about. Furthermore, you would never accept placing any such limitations on said designer. Right?

    If I have two apps that are equal in functionality. One app has a bunch of junk code in it. The other does not. The former takes up half of my iPad. The other only takes up 60MB. The former app does’t add new functionality because it has a bunch of old code that its developer much muddle though to make improvements. The other can add features quickly. The latter takes hours to download, the other takes minutes. Which will I buy? If I don’t buy the latter, it will not make enough money to pay its developers. The other app will make more money, etc. So, the explantion for the lack of junk in code is either some external circumstance or some limitation of the designer.

    However, ID’s designer is abstract and has no limitations. It does’t have limited congative resources, so it can iterate new features just as quickly regardless of how much junk code there is. It doesn’t have customers, shareholders, release cycles, other competing companies and products to compete with. That’s because ID is specific designed do necessarily not exclude God. As such, it’s unclear why you would assume those experiences would necesarrly continue. It’s arbitrary.

    So, unless you, or someone else, is willing to update ID to include human limitations, then those predictions simply do not follow. However, that will not happen because ID’s designer is actaullly God.

    That, in a nutshell, is what I’m not a proponent of ID. In doing so it doesn’t predict anything that is consequential. Yet ID proponents suggest that we should care. Something doesn’t add up.

    So, it’s not that ID proponents have conjectured a theory and they are trying to constantly criticize it in hope to make it closer to truth. If they did, then why these predictions? Rather, it seems they already know the truth and are changing their theories seeking a way to justify it.

    But, by all means, provide a better explantion for the growth of knowege, and I’m all ears. That won’t happen either because anything that can be explained is simply unseen and cannot be God.

    That’s a prediction. Specifically, I’m positing a specific theory about the state of affairs, in reality, which that has necessary consequences. Some other theory of ID may appear, but the majority of people here will not support it for reasons I’ve already outlined.

  97. 97
    critical rationalist says:

    Also, let’s take the argument that teaching or adopting ID over evolution is somehow an answer to the problem of eugenics. It’s unclear why this would be the case unless the ID’s designer is some kind of ultimate authority, such as God. But that can’t possibly be the case because, ID’s designer isn’t God, right?

    After all, eugenics is a process of designing organisms. And that would make us, you guessed it, the result of eugenics.

    Human beings could be the result of some process by a tinkering designer. Or the result of a compromise between some committee of designers in which none of them got what the wanted, etc. Nor does ID say anything moral character, level of competency, etc.

    Again, all I’m doing here is trying to take these two statements seriously, as if they were true in reality, for the purpose of criticism. Apparently, that’s in short supply.

    And you wonder why I’m not an ID proponent?

  98. 98
    critical rationalist says:

    Mike, it matters because it is a) scientifically inaccurate

    What specifically is scientifically inaccurate, UB? That ID doesn’t say anything about the designer or that it makes the prediction that the genome of organisms woudn’t contain much junk?

    Is there some reason you cannot answer the question? Seems to me that these two statements are mutually exclusive.

    … and b) is a political tool.

    Except, I’m not interested in politics. My question is result of trying to take your theory seriously, as if it was true in reality, for the purpose of critism. When I do so, it just doesnt add up.

    You want me to take ID seriously, as a scientific theory, don’t you? This is in contrast to being, as you put it, a political tool [link to the Wedge Strategy on Wikipedia]?

  99. 99

    What specifically is scientifically inaccurate, UB?

    Biological ID is the science of design detection in biology; detecting an act of intelligence in the origin of life on earth via physical evidence. There is no physical evidence that can discern “God” from that act of intelligence. So it is inaccurate to state otherwise.

    My question is result of trying to take your theory seriously

    No it isn’t, and no your aren’t.

    As an example, both logic and physics show that Life requires language in order to enable the semantic closure required to organize the cell, start the cell cycle, and enable evolution. If you were serious you’d address such issues, but you don’t. Instead, when you are not issuing proclamations, you manufacture pointless thought experiments that are irrelevant to the data. Want to see:

    We know that aminoacyl synthetases are the finite set of complex proteins that establish the genetic code. Their tasks in the cell is to perform a double-recognition and bind a particular amino acid to a particular tRNA adapter prior to the act of translation. We can all conceive of their significance to the system.

    They are synthesized from nucleic memory, and it stands to reason that there was once a time in earth’s history that none of the set of aaRS had ever been synthesized from that memory. Here is my question: Regardless of what anyone thinks preceded that time, at the point in earth’s history that the first ever aaRS was successfully synthesized from memory, how many of the other aaRS had to be in place?

    What say you CR?

  100. 100
  101. 101
    Mung says:

    CR easily looses focus. You have to stop going off-script UBP.

  102. 102
    Dionisio says:

    News,

    Please, help me with this English language lesson:

    In your OP the following quote is attributed to Will Province:

    “Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented.”

    Did he mean that evolution is an invention, not a natural process?

    Did I miss something in that quote?

    It seems like shooting themselves in their foot, doesn’t it?

    Or maybe he was referring to invented engines of atheism?

    Of all the invented engines of atheism, evolution is the greatest.

    Whatever. 🙂

  103. 103
    critical rationalist says:

    @UB

    Biological ID is the science of design detection in biology; detecting an act of intelligence in the origin of life on earth via physical evidence. There is no physical evidence that can discern “God” from that act of intelligence. So it is inaccurate to state otherwise.

    Again, you seem to have confused “ID being defined in such a way that it’s designer necessarily must be God” with “ID being carefully and specifically defined in such a way that necessarily must not exclude the designer from being God.

    “Everyone knows ID’s designer is God” is not a statement regarding the former, it’s a statement about the latter. I don’t plan on retracting your inteprration of what I wrote.

    In carefully leaving a hole big enough to drive their preferred designer though, ID gives up is ability to necessarlly predict anything, which has been my critism on this thread from the start.

    I’d also point out, there is no evidence that can discern an actual heliosentrc universe with a giant, highly advanced sphere around the earth that merely simulates a heliocentric universe.

    Specifically, we cannot be 100% certain that the earth is not surrounded by a giant planetarium that merely presents an elaborate simulation of a heliocentric solar system, rather than actually existing in a heliocentric solar system.

    This includes reflecting radio waves, lasers and photons back to earth as if they had bounced of a planets, comets and stars. It could capture space craft and return them with simulated telemetry, missing precisely the amount of fuel necessary for their planned journey and even return astronauts with implanted memories and fake moon rock samples. As such, you could claim what ever you like, or even nothing at all, exists beyond this planetarium.

    We accept the latter and not the former, because it is the best explantion for that evidence, not because of the evidence in some positive sense.

    There is no explanation as to why its designer would design this particular biosphere. Nor does ID explain the origin of the knowege present in organisms, by which they make copies of themselves, which is the thing that needs to be explained.

    “That’s just what the designer must have wanted” is a bad explantion.

    CR: My question is result of trying to take your theory seriously, as if it was true in reality, for the purpose of critism.

    UB: No it isn’t,

    It’s not your theory that makes the prediction that there isn’t much junk in the genomes of organisms? Then who’s theory is it, if any?

    Do you agree that ID makes prediction or not? Again, this isn’t a particularly difficult question. What gives?

    and no your aren’t.

    As an example, both logic and physics show that Life requires language in order to enable the semantic closure required to organize the cell, start the cell cycle, and enable evolution. If you were serious you’d address such issues, but you don’t.

    It’s unclear how pointing out that the aspect of life you’re referring can be defined as a possible task of a programmable constructor “ isn’t addressing such issues”.

    From this paper ..

    2.1 Information
    Replication when regarded as copying is intimately connected with informa- tion. This has inspired some information-based approaches to fundamental problems in biology, [24]. Until recently, information had no place in fun- damental physics: expressions such as “information being instantiated in a physical system” were inherently approximate, or fuzzy. But the constructor theory of information has now incorporated information within fundamental physics, [17], providing an exact, physical characterisation to those expres- sions, as follows.
    A set of attributes ? is an information variable [17] if the task of per- forming any permutation over ? (allowing for waste), and the replication task over ?, as in (1), are all possible. The attributes of an information variables are called information attributes. An information medium is a substrate some of whose attributes constitute an information variable. Information media must obey the interoperability principle [17]: the com- posite system of two information media with information variables ?1 and ?2, is an information medium with information variable ?1 × ?2. This is a physical principle: it requires there to be interactions such that information is “copiable” from one information medium to any other.
    Thus, whether or not information media exist, i.e., whether or not informa- tion can be instantiated in physical systems, depends on the laws of physics. The intuition about replication being central to information is now expressed as a physical law: laws of physics permitting information media must allow information variables – i.e., replicable sets of attributes as in (1).
    A physical system M instantiates information if it is an information medium in one of its information attributes (belonging to some information variable ?) and that the task of giving it any other attribute in ? (allowing for waste) is possible. This is an exact physical requirement: for this to be possible, certain interactions must be available in nature. It is also an intrinsic, coun- terfactual, property of M.
    A constructor C for the replication task on some information variable ? C
    is called a copier of ?.
    Of its substrates, one – the target – is changed from having the attribute N to having the attribute (X,W); the other – the source, initially having one of the attributes X in ?, to be replicated – remains unchanged (but it may change temporarily during the copy process).
    Therefore (by definition of a constructor) C and the source substrate with the attribute X constitute a constructor C[X] performing the task TX = {N ? (X,W)} on the target. The information attribute X in the source acts as a constructor, instructing C to perform the task TX on N. See the figure 2.1.
    Figure 1: Two equivalent representations of a copier C (waste W omitted). On the left, C is a constructor with two substrates (represented by lines): the source, that remains unchanged; and the target, that is changed. On the right, C and the source substrate with the attributes X constitute the constructor C[X] performing thetaskTX ={N?X}onthetarget,forallX??. The copier is a simple example of a programmable constructor.
    In general, a programmable constructor is a constructor V that has, among its input substrates, an information medium M that can have any of the attributes P in an information variable, with the property that M with any of those information attributes is itself a constructor. The information instantiated in M is an abstract constructor – an instance of “information with causal power”, [25]. V [P ] is a constructor for the task TP , P is the program for the task TP and TP is in the repertoire of V . For example, V could be the ribosome, P the sequence that, when inserted in V , would cause V to perform the task TP of constructing a particular polypeptide chain.

    Can you point out how this fundamental, physical definition is incomplete?

    Furthermore, as I’ve pointed out several time, it’s unclear how you’re actually making an inductive inference as no one has formulated a “principle of induction” that actually gives guidance as to which aspect of the future (or in this case, the distant past) will be like our (recent) past. For example, all of the trillions of experiences of designers having designed things have complex material neverious systems. Yet I’m guessing you don’t think that is a valid inductive inference. Right?

    Not to mention that your “physical theory of information” doesn’t define information, in a physical sense, as to include copying, unifying classical and quantum physics, etc. When will you address these issues?

    In fact, I would suggest you have no interest in presenting an genuine physical theory of information because that would be counterproductive to your actual goal.

    They are synthesized from nucleic memory, and it stands to reason that there was once a time in earth’s history that none of the set of aaRS had ever been synthesized from that memory. Here is my question: Regardless of what anyone thinks preceded that time, at the point in earth’s history that the first ever aaRS was successfully synthesized from memory, how many of the other aaRS had to be in place?

    I don’t know why you’ve having such difficulty here, as I’ve answered your question from the start. Nothing has changed.

    The appearance of design is being well adapted to serve a purpose. Yes, current cells are well adapted for the purpose of accurate replication. However, Neo-Darwinism doesn’t need accurate replication to get started.

    Selection emerges from the interaction between the replicators and the en- vironment with finite resources. It may lead to equilibrium, given enough time and energy. If so, the surviving replicators are near a local maximum of effectiveness at being replicated in that environment.
    Thus, the environment is passive and blind in this selection process. Since it retains its ability to cause non-specific variation and passive selection again, it qualifies as a naturally-occuring approximation to a constructor. Crucially, it is a crude approximation to a constructor: crude enough that it could have arisen by chance and requires no explanation. Its actions – variations and selection – require no design in laws of physics, as they proceed by non- specific, elementary steps. So the logic of evolution by natural selection is compatible with no-design laws of physics.
    The second point is that natural selection, to get started, does not require accurate self-reproducers with high-fidelity replicators. Indeed, the minimal requirement for natural selection is that each kind of replicator produce at least one viable offspring, on average, per lifetime – so that the different kinds of replicators last long enough to be “selected” by the environment. In challenging environments, a vehicle with many functionalities is needed to meet this requirement. But in unchallenging ones (i.e. sufficiently unchang- ing and resource-rich), the requirement is easily met by highly inaccurate self-reproducers that not only have no appearance of design, but are so inac- curate that they can have arisen spontaneously from generic resources under no-design laws – as proposed, for instance, by the current theories of the origin of life [11, 31]. For example, template replicators, such as short RNA strands [32], or similar “naked” replicators (replicating with poor copying fi- delity without a vehicle) would suffice to get natural selection started. Since they bear no design, they require no further explanation – any more than simple inorganic catalysts do.(11)

    In case it’s not clear as to how this is relevant to your question, we do not think that current day replicators represent the origin of life. Speficically, the origin goes back further with primiative replicators, and there was likely an intermediate step in which the components of the current mechanism played earlier, different roles.

    See this mini-site for details.

  104. 104
    Mung says:

    critical rationalist:

    ID being carefully and specifically defined in such a way that necessarily must not exclude the designer from being God.

    Could you post the definition of ID you are writing about?

  105. 105

    CR: What specifically is scientifically inaccurate, UB?

    UB: Biological ID is the science of design detection in biology; detecting an act of intelligence in the origin of life on earth via physical evidence. There is no physical evidence that can discern “God” from that act of intelligence. So it is inaccurate to state otherwise.

    CR: Again, you seem to have confused “ID being defined in such a way that it’s designer necessarily must be God” with “ID being carefully and specifically defined in such a way that necessarily must not exclude the designer from being God.

    I was asked a direct question and gave the factually correct answer. You, on the other hand, do not accept the factually correct answer, and cannot acknowledge it, particularly if you hope to maintain whatever is left of your argument. Nor can you show that it is not the factually correct answer to the question. So, to sum up, you asked what was scientifically inaccurate about the statement in question, I gave the factually correct answer, which you cannot acknowledge, so you responded with a sociopolitical diversion, which is irrelevant to the science.

    “Everyone knows ID’s designer is God” is not a statement regarding the former, it’s a statement about the latter.

    It’s a statement that is both inaccurate and irrelevant to the science.

    I don’t plan on retracting your inteprration of what I wrote.

    A man’s argument depends on inaccuracies and irrelevances, which he is both unable to acknowledge and unwilling to retract — am I supposed to be surprised by this?

  106. 106
    kairosfocus says:

    Mung, what about: the scientific/ empirical, logical and analytical investigation of [possible or actual] signs of design found in the natural world? Surely, such is at least potentially objective and empirically grounded towards learning key truths about our world and seeking to understand them in an integrated way suitable for a research programme and leading to a warranted body of knowledge that can be summarised and taught, learned and applied? Including, reverse engineering aspects of the natural world? KF

  107. 107
    Mung says:

    I can think of lots of fields that are carefully and specifically defined in such a way that necessarily must not exclude God.

    I’m not sure how one would even manage to define one that must necessarily exclude God.

    I wonder if CR has a problem with Newtonion Physics too.

  108. 108

    CR, your post at 103 doesn’t appear to even attempt an answer to my question, so I’ll repost it here. You’ll remember that the impetus of the question is to demonstrate that you obfuscate against the evidence of design rather that address it in earnest.

    We know that aminoacyl synthetases are the finite set of complex proteins that establish the genetic code. Their tasks in the cell is to perform a double-recognition and bind a particular amino acid to a particular tRNA adapter prior to the act of translation. We can all conceive of their significance to the system.

    They are synthesized from nucleic memory, and it stands to reason that there was once a time in earth’s history that none of the set of aaRS had ever been synthesized from that memory. Here is my question: Regardless of what anyone thinks preceded that time, at the point in earth’s history that the first ever aaRS was successfully synthesized from memory, how many of the other aaRS had to be in place?

    Again, what say you CR?

  109. 109
    kairosfocus says:

    CR:

    To Mung, I wrote:

    Mung, what about: [ID is:] the scientific/ empirical, logical and analytical investigation of [possible or actual] signs of design found in the natural world? Surely, such is at least potentially objective and empirically grounded towards learning key truths about our world and seeking to understand them in an integrated way suitable for a research programme and leading to a warranted body of knowledge that can be summarised and taught, learned and applied? Including, reverse engineering aspects of the natural world?

    You will notice that “possible or actual” contemplates that there may or may not be such signs, though in practice we can readily identify such through the functionally coherent, specific complex organisation and associated information found in, e.g. the world of life. That starts with text, code [thus, language] and algorithms with execution machinery in the living cell.

    Could you kindly explain to us how this approach can be seen by you as ideologically loaded in a sense further loaded with insinuations of impropriety?

    Rather than, say being empirically based — and, not locking out things that may on investigation that does not say load in a priori evolutionary materialism (which patently injects ideological censorship) — and open to follow the evidence?

    KF

Leave a Reply