Professor: God Would Not Create the Giraffe’s Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve

_{Cornelius Hunter

December 28, 2010

Intelligent Design}

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

One thing evolutionists agree on is that their theory is also a scientific fact. It is a curious point of consensus given that, of all the many, many evolutionary claims, it is the one that is most obviously and undeniably false. It is not that evolutionists fail to prove their theory to be a fact. They most definitely have done so, many times over. But their proofs are not scientific. Read more

Comments

Robb: Do you realise the implications of your:
That syllogism is entailed by the fact that “less than” is transitive by definition. That definition is entailed by thoughts stored in our minds and text stored on many different media. Hopefully we agree that the media are material, so the only question is whether our stored thoughts supervene on our brain states or not.
Let's take one medium, paper: ink squiggles on paper carry no inherent meaning, nor do they "entail" anything. The squiggles are glyphs that are used as English or mathematical-logical etc symbols. Unless someone knows how to read them, they can tell us nothing. In short,t he meaning is not in the medium used to express it. Nor is it in the optical or thermal or chemical properties of ink and paper. It is in the code of symbols organised in meaningful messages according to rules. Just like the light dots on the PC screen you use to read this carry no inherent meaning. It is the intelligent organization of dots according to recogniaed conventional symbols that conveys meaning. But, the signals used have bandwidth and configuration space properties that allow us to infer how likely meaningful configs are by chance, esp if we use binary digits or convert to binary digits. The answer is till the same: dFSCI is not a credible product of blind chance and mechanical necessity. Now, as for the inference to brain sates, these are electrochemical events. Such events carry repetitive pulses in mV. Pules are in mV and consequences are elctrochemical. We do not measure consciousness, qualia [I am appeared to redly by what seems to be a leather-covered cricket ball], truth, meaning or validity in mV or yactomoles or the like. In short, mental operations are radically different from physical-chemical ones. So, it is not unreasonable -- save to those committed to a priori evolutionary materialism -- that they should commonly be viewed as belonging to a different order of being that can interface with the physical, through our brains, CNSes etc. (Onlookers, cf. a 101 level discussion here.) To see the reductio ad absurdum tha thapens when you do not see that, le tus go back to Crick in his the Astonishing Hypothesis, 1994:
. . . that "You", your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. As Lewis Carroll's Alice might have phrased: "You're nothing but a pack of neurons." This hypothesis is so alien to the ideas of most people today that it can truly be called astonishing.
See why Philip Johnswon in Reason in the Balance, the next year, rebutted him: Dr Crick should therefore be willing to preface his books: “I, Francis Crick, my opinions and my science, and even the thoughts expressed in this book, consist of nothing more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules.” (In short, as Prof Johnson then went on to say: “[[t]he plausibility of materialistic determinism requires that an implicit exception be made for the theorist.”) Reductio ad absurdum, yet again. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{January 5, 2011
January
01
Jan
5
05
2011
01:15 PM
1
01
15
PM
PDT}

tgpeeler #111 I am sorry but I not going to continue this. You can call it running away if you like, but I am not interested in a debate unless it is conducted on the basis of mutual respect or at least mutual politeness.markf_{January 5, 2011
January
01
Jan
5
05
2011
12:52 PM
12
12
52
PM
PDT}

tgpeeler, as a minor sidenote, an optimally efficient language has no syntax rules. Consider the language that expresses positive integers using the alphabet {0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9}. Any combination of symbols is grammatical.R0bb_{January 5, 2011
January
01
Jan
5
05
2011
12:43 PM
12
12
43
PM
PDT}

tgpeeler:
That you have no problems with materialist accounts of abstract things merely points out deficiencies in your reasoning processes. (At least you could do the intellectually consistent thing and deny the existence of all things abstract. That would at least be a place to start.)
Are you saying that abstractions cannot supervene on material phenomena? If they can, then why would such cases not be considered material accounts of abstractions?
Tell me what law or laws of physics can explain the following syllogism: All b’s are less than c’s. All a’s are less than b’s. Therefore, all a’s are less than c’s.
That syllogism is entailed by the fact that "less than" is transitive by definition. That definition is entailed by thoughts stored in our minds and text stored on many different media. Hopefully we agree that the media are material, so the only question is whether our stored thoughts supervene on our brain states or not. Of course, we cannot currently resolve the latter question scientifically, which is why philosophers still debate it. But our thoughts either supervene on something (call it X), or they are fundamental entities. So what property does X or thought have that justifies it being classified as immaterial?R0bb_{January 5, 2011
January
01
Jan
5
05
2011
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT}

markf @103 "Surely there is human information which does not use either. The game of charades specifically forbids both in transferring information about the title of a song or play. If you don’t find that convincing imagine an explorer meeting a tribe which is making its first contact with the outside world. The explorer wants to convey to the tribe that he has discovered a source of water. He leads one of tribe members by the hand to the source and shows it to them. Where is the symbol or rule in that?" This is, not to put too fine a point on it, ridiculous. Kairos has already dealt with the charades charade so I will leave that alone. As to the explorer... the explorer can't communicate AT ALL with the tribesmen unless they share some symbols (or signs - sigh, has it come to this?) in common. While it is true that he can put someone's nose in the water so what? At some point, he had to convince the recalcitrant tribesman to accompany him, did he not? He had to communicate somehow that it was his intention to show him something, did he not? And once he got the (German) tribesman to the water didn't the German think "Wasser" and the American think "water" or "H2O"? THERE IS NO THOUGHT, NO INFORMATION, WITHOUT SYMBOLS (OR SIGNS), RULES, FREE WILL, INTENTIONALITY, AND RATIONALITY. If two people are speaking a different language then they need a TRANSLATOR to convert from one language to another. In this case there can be no communication without a translator. I cannot believe you seriously think this proves your point or even illustrates your point. "I wont speak for R0bb, but I have no problem with a materialist account of intention, free will or the rules of reason. All three are long debates, but they are not specific to transferring information." I am sure you have no problem with any of those things but that is not the point. You may have no problem in believing that politicians have the good of the republic at heart, too, so what? That you have no problems with materialist accounts of abstract things merely points out deficiencies in your reasoning processes. (At least you could do the intellectually consistent thing and deny the existence of all things abstract. That would at least be a place to start.) They are not long arguments. They are very simple arguments. You say that intention, free will, and reason have nothing to do with the transfer of information as if that makes a point. So information can be transferred without first being created? Is that what you are implying? Perhaps in the unique universe you occupy you did not really intend to compose your last post and perhaps you did not exercise free will when you typed it out and perhaps you did not employ the rules of reason but please explain how you did not. Oh wait, you can't. How can this not be obvious to anyone? That one cannot take the laws that govern the behavior of physical things and explain non-physical things? What is so mysterious or difficult about this concept? You cannot explain the laws of reason in terms of the laws of physics. Sheesh. But just to make the point... Tell me what law or laws of physics can explain the following syllogism: All b's are less than c's. All a's are less than b's. Therefore, all a's are less than c's. Or this. What law or laws of physics can explain why a^2 + b^2 = c^2 in reference to right triangles? At least do me the favor of making this interesting. Happy New Year.tgpeeler_{January 5, 2011
January
01
Jan
5
05
2011
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT}

tgpeeler @ 102: Thanks for the clarification. If none of the 5 items are part of the definition of "information", then we're still left with the question of whether "messages being communicated and causing other reactions" is a sufficient definition. It certainly seems that information can be communicated, even between humans, without some of the 5 items. Markf pointed out the game of charades, which seems to involve information being communicated, and kairosfocus pointed out that no language is involved in this game. And when I see someone crying, the fact that they are upset is communicated, even though no language or intentionality is involved.
physics cannot explain symbols, or rules, or free will, or intentionality, or rationality
To support the claim that physics cannot in principle explain these things, you would have show that none of them supervene on physical state and physical laws. How do you propose to do that? There is also the question of what is entailed by "physics". The physics of a century ago couldn't explain the precession of Mercury's perihelion, but today's physics can. How do we show that something cannot possibly be explained by tomorrow's physics?R0bb_{January 5, 2011
January
01
Jan
5
05
2011
11:02 AM
11
11
02
AM
PDT}

F/n 2: Onlookers, it is quite evident that Robb has no answer to the empirically based point that digitally coded, functionally specific complex information [e.g think of the TCP/IP stuff that is necessary for sending this post across the Internet] is in our experience and analysis only credibly known to be a product of intelligent action. So, we have good reason to treat it as a sign of intelligence. That humans are secondary sources of such dFSCI -- as the cells in our bodies point to a prior source -- simply underscores that there is a primary souirce. We note that we are the only commonly observed source of complex conceptual coded verbal language, and that our intelligence is verbally expressed much as TGP sums up. That intelligence and verbal proficiency are the source we observe when we directly see dFSCI being formed, and we have no good account on physics or any other science of any but an intelligent source for such. Robb, unfortunately then wishes to dismiss what is material to the issues raised by TGP, which he has no sound answer to. Sad, and sadly revealing.kairosfocus_{January 5, 2011
January
01
Jan
5
05
2011
10:55 AM
10
10
55
AM
PDT}

F/N: As a physicist who has worked with information and communication and control systems, and speaking scientifically, physical forces -- strong and weak nuclear, electromag, and grav, do not explain codes, information, language, algorithms, data structures or programs as the spontaneous product of physical forces and chance circumstances acting on material objects and energy in space-time. Your attempt, Robb, to pretend that the emission or absorption of a photon of light is an informational transaction: source, encoder/modulator, channel, receiver, demodulator/decoder and sink -- is past ludicrous, it is word pretzel games. period.kairosfocus_{January 5, 2011
January
01
Jan
5
05
2011
10:48 AM
10
10
48
AM
PDT}

Robb: Program codes embed and entail just as much of conceptual information, once you recognise that programs implement algorithms and require data structures and conventions for their use towards targetted functions, as I have stated, and as TGP has. Object code in our observation is not the undirected, spontaneous product of time, chance and the impersonal. Once dFSCI is detected, we have every right to infer design as its most credible and only directly observed source. So, kindly stop the word pretzel games. G'day GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{January 5, 2011
January
01
Jan
5
05
2011
10:41 AM
10
10
41
AM
PDT}

kairosfocus @ 99-101: In your reply of 2000+ words, I can't find a response to the challenge in 94. You elaborate on the mechanisms for communicating the words, but the words map to conceptual definitions, not to instructions. DNA, on the other hand, carries prescriptive information -- i.e. it is in a "context in which that set of symbols is used to store and implement algorithmic instructions like the chaining of specific folding and bioactive proteins". I don't regard the sentence "I think that’s why the anti-ID crowd runs screaming from this argument" as prescriptive information. I'm sure you can argue that English words really do map to algorithmic instructions, and that "change from energy level 1 to level 2" does not count as an algorithm, and that you can somehow defend your requirement that photon emissions map to an algorithmic instructions even though your proffered definitions of information don't mention this requirement. But I'm not interested in this kind of rhetorical debate. Taking a step back, I entered this discussion to address tgpeeler's argument, not yours, much less ID as a whole. Tgpeeler is arguing from metaphysics -- he says that "physics cannot explain symbols, or rules, or free will, or intentionality, or rationality". The apparent corollary is that physics cannot explain genetic information. Note the absence of a 500-bit or 1000-bit threshold. According to tgpeeler's argument, physics cannot explain even a single bit of information. This argument is not the same as the common ID empirical argument, in which some property (e.g. CSI) is claimed to be found only in known products of design (i.e. human artifacts) and biology. To comment on the latter argument briefly, I personally don't think that IDists have succeeded in coming up with a scientific definition of such a property, but I think that they could. Once they do, they have a much bigger hurdle to get over. They need to explain why inferring that biology is designed is the best conclusion, rather than concluding that we humans can produce CSI-rich artifacts because of our own biological CSI. Dembski insists that we follow the CSI regress back to its source, but he arbitrarily stops with humans, ignoring the fact that the human brain is CSI-rich. I hope you'll pardon me if I return to the issue at hand, namely tgpeeler's argument, and henceforth ignore dFSCI and everything else that you've introduced into the discussion. In my opinion, expanding the scope of the discussion beyond a focused issue is counterproductive. If we're going to knock down the wall between IDists and their opponents, we can't do it all at once -- we have to chip away at a brick at a time.R0bb_{January 5, 2011
January
01
Jan
5
05
2011
10:27 AM
10
10
27
AM
PDT}

F/N: Distractors aside, we are no closer to a credible materialistic account of the spontaneous origin of the DNA code, and ot its use to make functional proteins, or to adapt such to new body plans. Nor have we seen a credible observed case of dFSCI originating by undirected chance + mechanical necessity. The only credible source of dFSCI on the table is design.kairosfocus_{January 5, 2011
January
01
Jan
5
05
2011
04:01 AM
4
04
01
AM
PDT}

Onlookers: MF, unfortunately, continues to be diversionary. Linguistic communication, whether in ordinary language or in codes such as in computers, is based on symbols and rules, that must be contingent, intelligently directed and purposeful. Charades is a game [with its own communication rules and imitative signs, as opposed to symbols], not a language. Materialistic "accounts" of free will, and of the rules of reason amount to their denial, and end in the absurdity of using TGP's 5 factors to try to deny their actuality. For instance, here is Crick in his The Astonishing Hypothesis, 1994:
. . . that "You", your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. As Lewis Carroll's Alice might have phrased: "You're nothing but a pack of neurons." This hypothesis is so alien to the ideas of most people today that it can truly be called astonishing.. . . that "You", your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. As Lewis Carroll's Alice might have phrased: "You're nothing but a pack of neurons." This hypothesis is so alien to the ideas of most people today that it can truly be called astonishing.
This is clearly self-referential, and it is incoherent, as it logically means that Crick's communications are driven and controlled by factors that are irrelevant to purpose, truth or logical sense. Cornell U prof of the history of biology, William Provine in the notorious 1998 Darwin Day address at the University of Tennessee, falls into the same trap:
Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent . . . . The first 4 implications are so obvious to modern naturalistic evolutionists that I will spend little time defending them. Human free will, however, is another matter. Even evolutionists have trouble swallowing that implication. I will argue that humans are locally determined systems that make choices. They have, however, no free will . . .
Including Professor Provine when he made his remarks? And, if not, then we have no reason to trust our ability to seek, learn, discover or communicate the truth. Indeed, I have posted at UD on the subject of the inescapable self-refuting incoherence and amorality of evolutionary materialism, here. Now, I have no illusions that MF has any intention of responding to anything I post, but let the record show that a corrective was put in place. For more on MF's materialist talking points agenda, cf here on, esp at 88. G'day, GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{January 5, 2011
January
01
Jan
5
05
2011
03:54 AM
3
03
54
AM
PDT}

#102 tgpeeler Welcome back - I thought maybe you had "run screaming from the argument":-) I am not sure if you ever read my last response in our little discussion #53. Just to remind you of the key points and expand a tiny bit: Symbols and rules. Surely there is human information which does not use either. The game of charades specifically forbids both in transferring information about the title of a song or play. If you don't find that convincing imagine an explorer meeting a tribe which is making its first contact with the outside world. The explorer wants to convey to the tribe that he has discovered a source of water. He leads one of tribe members by the hand to the source and shows it to them. Where is the symbol or rule in that? I wont speak for R0bb, but I have no problem with a materialist account of intention, free will or the rules of reason. All three are long debates, but they are not specific to transferring information.markf_{January 4, 2011
January
01
Jan
4
04
2011
11:28 PM
11
11
28
PM
PDT}

R0bb @ 87 “First of all, it is not clear to me which of those 5 items are required by definition and which are empirically observed to be associated with “information”. Perhaps you could clear that up. If none are required by definition, then is “messages being communicated and causing other reactions” a sufficient definition of tgpeeler’s usage of the term?” Here are the five prerequisites, as far as I can tell, for the (human) origination, communication, and reception of information. 1. symbols 2. rules (or language) 3. free will 4. intentionality or purpose 5. rules of reason I don’t think of these as “required” by definition or empirically observed. The way I would describe this list is that the items in it are logically required AND empirically observed in ALL cases of human information. What I mean by logically required is this. If there is no language, i.e. a set of symbols and rules, then there is no possible way to encode information. The symbols of the language may not be an alphabet. They may be pictograms or braille or sign language or musical notes or whatever. Everyone gets this. It’s impossible for any of us to even think apart from some language. It’s the way in which we formulate and frame our thoughts. If there is no free will then there is no ability to use the language to create the information. Free will is required as I must be able to pick and choose from among the available symbols so as to arrange them in a specific order according to the rules (vocabulary, grammar, syntax) of the language so as to create information, or a message, we could also say. If there is no intentionality or purpose (Dawkins and others deny the existence of real purpose in the universe. Therefore, his metaphysics asks us to ignore him, even as he tries mightily to convince people of the truth of his claims. I suggest that we “listen” to his metaphysics and ignore him. It’s all his thinking deserves, really.) then there is no information and no communication. We can see this with the modus tollens form of argument. If I didn’t intend to be writing this post then I wouldn’t be writing this post. But I am writing this post. Therefore, I do intend to write this post. The rules of reason, or first principles, or laws of rational thought, whatever makes sense for you, are Identity, Non-contradiction, Excluded middle, and Sufficient causality. They are foundational, that is required, for all rational thought. All communication relies upon this principle even though the communication itself may deny these laws. For example, I can say that I do not exist but this presumes that “I” refers to me, that I do in fact exist (else how could I say that I didn’t?) and that I cannot exist and not exist. So rational thought is required for the creation of information. In that sense, these prerequisites are logically necessary. In the empirical sense, you will never find human communication that does not have all five of these components. Examine every book ever written. Examine every letter ever written. Examine every speech ever made. Examine every piece of software ever written. You will ALWAYS find these five elements present. The problem that this creates for the ontological naturalist (or physicalist) is threefold. First, none of these things on my list can be explained by reference to physical laws. So we see modus tollens again. If naturalism were true, then physics could explain everything. But physics cannot explain symbols, or rules, or free will, or intentionality, or rationality. So naturalism is false. The connection between the antecedent and the consequent is a necessary one since that’s part of the definition of naturalism – the causal closure of nature. Therefore, the conclusion is certain. It’s necessarily true. It cannot be anything but true. Ontological naturalism is FALSE. The second problem is obvious. Since these things cannot be explained, they are merely denied. The third problem is equally obvious. One cannot deny the existence of information (and thus language, free will, intentionality, and rationality) without using information. The claim that “information does not exist” is ludicrous on the face of it because the statement contradicts itself. The result is this. If you subscribe to some sort of “serious” ontological naturalism (the natural, material, physical world is all there is, roughly) then you lose. Game over. You don’t have a rational or empirical leg to stand on. Come on over to the light. You will see a lot more clearly here, I promise.tgpeeler_{January 4, 2011
January
01
Jan
4
04
2011
02:43 PM
2
02
43
PM
PDT}

F/N: TGP of course explained in 45 and other places how his five elements are functionally necessary to effect symbolically coded communication of meaningful messages. Let me draw out a bit: ________________ >>1. symbols a --> Without distinct symbols, there would be confusion not communication b --> Just check out your friendly local ASCII table, or the distinct alphanumeric symbols used in English text, or the extensions used in mathematics. 2. rules (or language) c --> For symbols to function, there must be a convention in common on what hey symbolise or mean. d --> e.g. e is a particular sound, and the elongated S in mathematics means the carrying of a process of summation to a limit in a calculus context. e --> Similarly, cf the use of symbols in this post in accord with rules of text, spelling, and grammar in English. 3. free will f --> Unless there is contingency, we cannot have symbols and communication. If my keyboard has only j, I could not type text in English, I would be forced to do: jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj . . . g --> Just so, mechanical necessity of nature cannot account for contingency like that, as under the same conditions the same result will happen. A heavy, unsupported object near the earth's surface, reliably falls towards the earth's centre as the mass of the earth distorts the local space-time though what we call the force of gravity. h --> There are two main sources of contingency: chance and choice. The former produces only stochastic patterns, and in cases of sufficient complexity such will not be meaningful. E.g., keying at random: sfjwgh873reufwevb3fgu9 . . . i --> Choice contingency driven by a directing, choosing mind, can produce informative communications such as this sentence. j --> Nor is this a new observation, it is in TMLO ch 8 ever since 1984, in this specific context. Just, being inconvenient, it is ignored in the rush to snow it under with distractive objections. 4. intentionality or purpose k --> Choice must be towards purpose to communicate, or the result will not be an intelligible message. l --> In the case of algorithmic messages, that choice has to be structured in a format that a machine organised in an equally purposeful way, can receive, decode and act on. m --> Thus, the classic fetch, decode, execute algorithmic cycle of instruction execution. n --> Observe in this regard how the cell unwinds DNA, tanscribes it to RNA, then snips off introns and stitches back together extrons, forming mRNA. mRNA is pased to the cytoplasm, where ribosomes latch on to the start points, and begin to execute step by step, locking in the relevant amino acid loaded tRNA [why doesn't the unloaded tRNA compete for its rights to latch on?], then tip over the tRNA's arm, triggering the tool tip to unload the amino acid; locking it into the emerging protein chain. Then we halt on hitting a stop codon. The he detached protein folds and is put to work. o --> That is a purposeful, step by step, information code guided algorithmic process. p --> one that predates cell based life and is foundational to it. Life is the product of purposeful intelligence. 5. rules of reason q --> Without these [stability of identity, non-confusion of distinct things, recognition that alternatives are alternatives, the use of cause-effect bonds and chains], none of the above is possible >> _________________ In short, the five functional prerequisites are plainly valid. it is not a matter of definitionitis word-pretzel games.kairosfocus_{January 4, 2011
January
01
Jan
4
04
2011
01:19 AM
1
01
19
AM
PDT}

j --> In mechanical systems, conventions define how analogue inputs are encoded as digital symbols -- e.g even a keyboard is a crude form of A/D converter here [press key with "enough" force --> symbol recognised and stored]; then they are processed internally as ASCII text with markups, and on trigger signals are transmitted across the internet as switched packets with headers on various code conventions, and are received by the computer on the other end of the physical comms links, and are processed on the conventions in the relevant codes and protocols; all of which were very carefully designed and organised by engineers and programmers. k --> All of this is a commonplace, though if one wants to play at definitionitis, word pretzel rhetorical games, s/he can exploit the ignorance of the general public about the key processes of information and communication technology. l --> So, digitally coded symbolic information is common to textual linguistic contexts and to algorithmic contexts, and there is no fatal ambiguity. Indeed, to make the very objection that he has tried to make, Robb has mad to make use of that commonality of meaning, as he knows or should know. He thus contradicts his words by his deeds. m --> Hardly less significant is the second step of the reductio ad absurdum. n --> For, he studiously avoids addressing -- never mind the links and videos above -- and even tries to distract attention from the way that DNA implements a digital code, according to a table, and how this code is algorithmically expressed in a symbolic, meaningful way to chain amino acids in proteins,which then fold (perhaps with assistance) into functional folds dependent on the way the chain as a whole is composed, and on the resulting key-lock shapes, function in the cell as its workhorse molecules. o --> In other words, the DNA-> mRNA -> Ribosome + tRNA system (with supporting molecules) constitutes a digital symbolic communication system that implements algorithmic steps to produce a functional product whose functionality is critically dependent on the information. (Indeed, protein fold domains are a demonstration of islands of isolated function in a vast configuration space.) p --> We routinely observe and know just one cause of such things that manifest dFSCI (digitally coded FSCI): intelligence. We have analyses that tell us that on the gamut of our observed cosmos, blind chance + mechanical necessity (the other available causal forces) could not scan as much as 1 in 10^150 of that config space, i.e. the potential scope of blind search is effectively no search at all. q --> So, we confidently infer [inviting a real counter-example, not something of the ilk of on pretzel twisting we suggest a photon) that dFSCI in particular (and FSCI more genrally, too) is an empirically reliable sign of intelligent cause, similar to how sufficiently long -- about 20 typical words will do nicely thank you -- text in coherent English is a good example of intelligent cause. r --> On this, we have excellent reason to infer that DNA and the system of molecular machines that makes it work in the cell is a case of design in the biological world. s --> This is no vague rhetorical argument, and Robb knows that. t --> On the contrary, the above -- being anchored to specific ICTs, linguistic and biological cases -- is more than adequately clear, specific and precise that it constitutes a key -- and understood -- challenge to the materialist establishment in biology and related fields. u --> And, sufficient details have long been on the table for that to be plain, starting with the original design theory technical work, Thaxton et al in The Mystery of Life's Origin [warning, large PDF download], in 1984, which in turn responds to the trend of origin of life studies since the 1950's - 60's. v --> And, the pretzel-twisting word games and distractive examples of the ilk of snowflakes and UV photons, on the work of Dembski, Marks, Meyer, Durston, Abel, Trevors, Minnich et al do not impress us. (Even, the always linked for this commenter [click on my handle], at a far humbler level, is enough. So also, is the 101 level summary here.) _____________________ In short, the reduction to absurdity inadvertently presented by Robb above tells us the true balance of the issue on the merits. For, by direct observation and by related analysis of the implicaitons of islands of specific function in vast config spaces, we have every good reason to see that dFSCI -- digitally coded, functionally specific complex information -- is an empirically reliable sign of intelligently directed configuration, i.e of design. So also is the associated functionally specific complex organisation that makes the coded complex information work. And, the presence of TGP's five elements:
1. symbols 2. rules (or language) 3. free will 4. intentionality or purpose 5. rules of reason
. . . in the context of information networks that physically encode, transmit, receive and decode or algorithmically implement the resulting messages, is a strong sign of the intelligently designing mind at work in the origin of life and of its body plan level biodiversity. This is sufficient to trigger a major scientific revolution, and that revolution is in fact underway. Never mind what the materialistic magisterium is doing to ruthlessly defend its turf. GEM of TKI PS: Onlookers, do you see why the word-pretzel games that we have seen above force me to use such specific terms and such elaborated details in my remarks?kairosfocus_{January 4, 2011
January
01
Jan
4
04
2011
12:52 AM
12
12
52
AM
PDT}

Onlookers (and Robb): We have reached Reductio ad absurdum, a decisive point. The fatal admission against interest, however, is disguised as a challenge that thinks it is making a serious point:
Robb, 93: It’s certainly a distraction from vague rhetorical arguments. It is not a distraction from the kind of rigor required to challenge consensus science. Success in such challenges comes at a hefty price — you have to deal with details, including precise terminology. Rob, 94: Show us the symbol table whereby the words in the sentence “I think that’s why the anti-ID crowd runs screaming from this argument” are assigned to an alphabet of code elements, and the context in which that set of symbols is used to store and implement algorithmic instructions like the chaining of specific folding and bioactive proteins. If you can’t, then would you please inform markf and tgpeeler that the prototypical example of information in this discussion does not, in fact, contain information.
The above cited is of course a turnabout rhetorical attempt, and first implies by the absence of a table of photon codes, that Robb knows or should know that he has been abducting words form their context, substituting irrelevant examples, and then twisting plain meanings into pretzels, along the lines of "it depends on what the meaning of is, is." But, let us take the matter in steps: a --> Robb knows or should know that for his words to appear in this thread, they have had to be encoded in ASCII (notice the code table at the top of the Wiki article!) or UTF codes, and also rendered in a markup language according to its symbols and rules as designed on a convention so that encoding, transmission reception and decoding under the scheme summarised for instance here in Fig. A.1 in the always linked can produce effective communication. b --> He also knows or should know, that for the above codes and markups to be effective, they have had to be processed in at least three computers, the one he used to send it, the one that received and stored it at UD's ISP, and the one that the reader is using to read it. In turn, such processors work based on symbolically coded instructions and data structures used to give effect to algorithms. c --> All of these, routinely, are -- and are commonly known to be -- the product of intelligent designers. d --> Indeed, there is no significant counter-example, and that is why the twisted pretzel rhetorical attempt of suggesting that a 10.2 eV UV photon emitted by a H atom is a counter example that somehow can be force-fitted into the definitions, is so telling. e --> Now, the next step in no 94, was to twist the linguistic context of words into pretzels, to try to pretend that linguistic functionality is so utterly diverse from algorithmic functionality in import, that the word information cannot reasonably be used in common across the two. f --> But in fact, for good reason, "information" is common to the object code form of an algorithm, the ASCII coded and HTML [etc] marked up words and paragraphs in posts in this thread, AND to the other example that Robb is so eager to avoid, DNA. g --> Let us go to the UD glossary that Robb also studiously avoids, to see the first bit of why:
Information — Wikipedia, with some reorganization, is apt: “ . . that which would be communicated by a message if it were sent from a sender to a receiver capable of understanding the message . . . . In terms of data, it can be defined as a collection of facts [i.e. as represented or sensed in some format] from which conclusions may be drawn [and on which decisions and actions may be taken].”
h --> Making reference to the Fig A.1 [an adaptation of Shannon's classic diagram of 1948 also influenced by the ISO layercake information system model used for Internet transmissions], information in the relevant sense exists in a context of a source and a sink, using a sender and a receiver with a channel. For that to happen, information has to be encoded and/or modulated into forms suitable for transmission, propagation, and reception, then received, demodulated and/or decoded, and understood or algorithmically applied. For that to happen, there has to be a set of rules or conventions or protocols and symbols in common, constituting a code or more generally a language. i --> In the case of speech, If I were to read aloud Robb's remarks of 93 and 94, I would first have to interpret the glyphs on the screen, using the conventions of English text. In reading them aloud, I would use my voice box, mouth, tongue etc to modulate vibrations in the air, which would propagate across to your ear, and on hearing, you would be able to recognise and understand what I said, by your own internal mental processes. You could then write the words down, even preserving their meaning in a translation into say Japanese. [ . . . ]kairosfocus_{January 4, 2011
January
01
Jan
4
04
2011
12:51 AM
12
12
51
AM
PDT}

Robb please show me just one code being formed by purely material processes: Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life - Hubert P. Yockey, 2005 “The belief of mechanist-reductionists that the chemical processes in living matter do not differ in principle from those in dead matter is incorrect. There is no trace of messages determining the results of chemical reactions in inanimate matter. If genetical processes were just complicated biochemistry, the laws of mass action and thermodynamics would govern the placement of amino acids in the protein sequences.” Let me provide the unstated conclusion: But they don’t. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/living-things-machines-and-intelligent-design-part-two-of-a-response-to-the-smithy/#comment-353336 The DNA Code - Solid Scientific Proof Of Intelligent Design - Perry Marshall - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4060532 Codes and Axioms are always the result of mental intention, not material processes https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1PrE2Syt5SJUxeh2YBBBWrrPailC3uTFMdqPMFrzvwDY A.E. Wilder Smith, DNA, Cactus, and Von Neumann Machines - John MacArthur - audio http://www.vimeo.com/11341080 Information - The Utter Demise Of Darwinian Evolution - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4914327 "A code system is always the result of a mental process (it requires an intelligent origin or inventor). It should be emphasized that matter as such is unable to generate any code. All experiences indicate that a thinking being voluntarily exercising his own free will, cognition, and creativity, is required. ,,,there is no known law of nature and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter. Werner Gitt 1997 In The Beginning Was Information pp. 64-67, 79, 107." (The retired Dr Gitt was a director and professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology (Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt, Braunschweig), the Head of the Department of Information Technology.) "In the last ten years, at least 20 different natural information codes were discovered in life, each operating to arbitrary conventions (not determined by law or physicality). Examples include protein address codes [Ber08B], acetylation codes [Kni06], RNA codes [Fai07], metabolic codes [Bru07], cytoskeleton codes [Gim08], histone codes [Jen01], and alternative splicing codes [Bar10]. Donald E. Johnson – Programming of Life – pg.51 - 2010 Robb since you will never be able to show me chemistry 'intentionally' forming a symbolic representation of something other than itself (a code), then intelligence is the most causally adequate explanation for this coded information we find in life: Stephen C. Meyer - The Scientific Basis For Intelligent Design http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4104651/bornagain77_{January 3, 2011
January
01
Jan
3
03
2011
03:21 PM
3
03
21
PM
PDT}

The Coding Found In DNA Surpasses Mans Ability to Code - Stephen Meyer - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4050638/ Stephen Meyer - Functional Proteins And Information For Body Plan - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4050681/bornagain77_{January 3, 2011
January
01
Jan
3
03
2011
03:02 PM
3
03
02
PM
PDT}

Robb, since the information in the DNA code, which greatly surpasses man's ability to code, is not determined by chemistry where does the information come from? DNA Enigma - Chemistry Does Not Create Coded Information - Chris Ashcraft - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5542033/bornagain77_{January 3, 2011
January
01
Jan
3
03
2011
02:59 PM
2
02
59
PM
PDT}

kairosfocus:
show us the symbol table whereby photons are assigned to an alphabet of code elements, and the context in which that set of symbols is used to store and implement algorithmic instructions like the chaining of specific folding and bioactive proteins.
Show us the symbol table whereby the words in the sentence "I think that’s why the anti-ID crowd runs screaming from this argument" are assigned to an alphabet of code elements, and the context in which that set of symbols is used to store and implement algorithmic instructions like the chaining of specific folding and bioactive proteins. If you can't, then would you please inform markf and tgpeeler that the prototypical example of information in this discussion does not, in fact, contain information.R0bb_{January 3, 2011
January
01
Jan
3
03
2011
02:55 PM
2
02
55
PM
PDT}

Resort to definitionitis is a distraction
It's certainly a distraction from vague rhetorical arguments. It is not a distraction from the kind of rigor required to challenge consensus science. Success in such challenges comes at a hefty price -- you have to deal with details, including precise terminology. I recently pointed out that this recent paper from the Evo Info Lab is the latest in a long chain of papers, in which every responder was using a different definition of "information" than the respondee. Call me crazy, but I'd like to avoid that. And yet tgpeeler scoffs, "What is information? Good grief. Surely 'you' can do better than that."R0bb_{January 3, 2011
January
01
Jan
3
03
2011
02:49 PM
2
02
49
PM
PDT}

Robb: show us the symbol table whereby photons are assigned to an alphabet of code elements, and the context in which that set of symbols is used to store and implement algorithmic instructions like the chaining of specific folding and bioactive proteins. GEM of TKI PS: Actually, as recently as in the past few days, MF was challenging the idea that DNA was coded and expressed instructions.kairosfocus_{January 3, 2011
January
01
Jan
3
03
2011
02:29 PM
2
02
29
PM
PDT}

Robb, Pardon some fairly direct suggestions. have you taken the few minutes to look at the linked discussions and videos that would answer to your questions, more than adequately? Resort to definitionitis is a distraction, when we have specific, adequate examples in hand, as well as UD hosts a glossary and a set of answers to common but weak challenges. Similarly, IDEA hosts a set of primers and FAQs, and NWE has an excellent general introduction to design theory here. You know or should know the answers to your objections, so why raise them again as though they have not been long since adequately answered, more than once and by several people at UD, not to mention a considerable body of references you may easily access? But then, all of this you should by now be quite familiar with. G'day GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{January 3, 2011
January
01
Jan
3
03
2011
02:26 PM
2
02
26
PM
PDT}

kairosfocus @ 88: So you've provided quotes and definitions showing that the genetic code is a code. Did I ever dispute that?
A code is a rule for converting a piece of information (for example, a letter, word, phrase, or gesture) into another form or representation (one sign into another sign),
Why does the rule that maps photon wavelengths to energy level transitions not meet this definition?R0bb_{January 3, 2011
January
01
Jan
3
03
2011
02:26 PM
2
02
26
PM
PDT}

kairosfocus:
Even if we were to regard this as “yes I am here,” that would be one bit. Utterly irrelevant to the 1,000 bits threshold we are dealing with for inferring with high confidence to intelligently directed configuration or design.
If one photon carries one bit (and it's actually more if you consider the different possible frequencies), then all you need is 1000 photons to reach the threshold.R0bb_{January 3, 2011
January
01
Jan
3
03
2011
02:20 PM
2
02
20
PM
PDT}

F/N: onlookers, note how debate points over definitions of words that we know or should know the contextual meanings of -- or can easily check out -- are now surfacing. Let's try on codes, just for a moment: ______________ Wiki on the genetic code: >>The genetic code is the set of rules by which information encoded in genetic material (DNA or mRNA sequences) is translated into proteins (amino acid sequences) by living cells. The code defines a mapping between tri-nucleotide sequences, called codons, and amino acids. With some exceptions,[1] a triplet codon in a nucleic acid sequence specifies a single amino acid. Because the vast majority of genes are encoded with exactly the same code (see the RNA codon table), this particular code is often referred to as the canonical or standard genetic code, or simply the genetic code, though in fact there are many variant codes. For example, protein synthesis in human mitochondria relies on a genetic code that differs from the standard genetic code. >> Wiki again, on the more general topic: >> A code is a rule for converting a piece of information (for example, a letter, word, phrase, or gesture) into another form or representation (one sign into another sign), not necessarily of the same type. [DNA's code fits right in here!] In communications and information processing, encoding is the process by which information from a source is converted into symbols to be communicated. Decoding is the reverse process, converting these code symbols back into information understandable by a receiver. >> AmHDict, 2009: >> code (kd) n. 1. A systematically arranged and comprehensive collection of laws. 2. A systematic collection of regulations and rules of procedure or conduct: a traffic code. 3.a. A system of signals used to represent letters or numbers in transmitting messages. b. A system of symbols, letters, or words given certain arbitrary meanings, used for transmitting messages requiring secrecy or brevity. 4. A system of symbols and rules used to represent instructions to a computer; a computer program. 5. Genetics The genetic code. >> ___________________ Since Robb has raised these sorts of issues many times over many many months, and has been answered more than adequately, the recirculation of such distractions from the main issue begins to look like he has no serious or cogent answer on the main issue. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{January 3, 2011
January
01
Jan
3
03
2011
02:16 PM
2
02
16
PM
PDT}

kairosfocus:
The best reply to your latest distractor and strawman, is to excerpt TGP in 45 [just above what you posted in 46], as he sums up his main challenge — answered by neither you nor MF: __________________ >> To recap. It looks like we are in substantial agreement (please confirm or deny) that in order to have information in the sense that we are talking about, the following things are required. 1. symbols 2. rules (or language) 3. free will 4. intentionality or purpose 5. rules of reason
First of all, it is not clear to me which of those 5 items are required by definition and which are empirically observed to be associated with "information". Perhaps you could clear that up. If none are required by definition, then is "messages being communicated and causing other reactions" a sufficient definition of tgpeeler's usage of the term?R0bb_{January 3, 2011
January
01
Jan
3
03
2011
02:07 PM
2
02
07
PM
PDT}

Robb: Pardon. You are again going in circles with already adequately answered red herring and strawman distractor type objections. Kindly focus on the principal issue. E.g. can you account empirically for the origin of complex -- and note 1,000 bits is a useful threshold for sufficient complexity to be pretty sure, coded, symbolic, algorithmic, data-structured digital information on blind forces of chance and mechanical necessity? Do you have specific counter-examples to the claim that we routinely and only see such info -- e.g. program code, text in posts in this thread greater than about 20 words, books in libraries etc, -- being created by intelligence, using symbols, rules, and intent to create a meaningful and/or functional message? If not, on billions of successful tests we have every right to infer that digitally coded FSCI -- a relevant subset of CSI as identified by Orgel and further modelled and quantified by Dembski and by Durston, Abel Trevors et al, -- is a reliable sign of intelligently directed configuration. Such FSCI, manifestly is at the heart of the cell, in its DNA, RNA and in its protein synthesis system. So, on the sign just above, we confidently infer that the cell with its dna is an artifact of intelligent design. Do you have a serious answer on the merits, not he strawmen and the red herrings or he recirculated already answered objections? Failing that, and if you keep on that rhetorical pattern I have again had to correct, then it is telling me something, and something I wish I would not have to even begin to think about, about what those who resort to such rhetorical tactics are liable to fall into. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{January 3, 2011
January
01
Jan
3
03
2011
02:05 PM
2
02
05
PM
PDT}

kairosfocus:
Yes, deterministic laws of physics in complex situations can help give rise to complex effects, especially where chaos is involved. That is utterly immaterial to the question of he source of complex functional digitally coded information and/or similar “wiring diagram” style functional organisation of systems that achieve a definite collaborative function as a result, whether the network of a chemical refinery, or the micro-refinery of the living cell.
I never said that it was material to the question of the source of CFDCI or collaborative function or cells or anything else. For the third time, I was responding to tgpeeler's statement that we would expect classical physics to produce a simple outcome. How many more times do I need to repeat this?R0bb_{January 3, 2011
January
01
Jan
3
03
2011
01:54 PM
1
01
54
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply