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

Onlookers: Re MF: Later you jump to the “information” in DNA. This is something completely different. There are no intentions or beliefs associated with it. Notice, how -- despite repeated correction and abundant evidence, at this late stage, MF cannot acknowledge that DNA's coded information is just that: coded, prescriptive information that tells the cell how to build proteins step by step. [As the linked shows, even wiki knows better.] Hence the resort to ever so revealing scare quotes. Let us excerpt wiki:
Protein synthesis is the process in which cells build proteins. The term is sometimes used to refer only to protein translation but more often it refers to a multi-step process, beginning with amino acid synthesis and transcription of nuclear DNA into messenger RNA, which is then used as input to translation . . . . For synthesis of protein, a succession of tRNA molecules charged with appropriate amino acids have to be brought together with an mRNA molecule and matched up by base-pairing through their anti-codons with each of its successive codons [NB: how desperately wiki avoids explicitly saying: step by step procedure based on the coded genetic information in the mRNA, which is often a product of editing out of introns and assembly into the message string]. The amino acids then have to be linked together to extend the growing protein chain, and the tRNAs, relieved of their burdens, have to be released. This whole complex of processes is carried out by a giant multimolecular machine, the ribosome, formed of two main chains of RNA, called ribosomal RNA (rRNA), and more than 50 different proteins. This molecular juggernaut latches onto the end of an mRNA molecule and then trundles along it [i.e. this is a step by step process], capturing loaded tRNA molecules and stitching together the amino acids they carry to form a new protein chain.
[One may see diagrams and a video animation of the process that makes it plain what is going on, here.] One of the rhetorical "advantages" of ignoring correctives, is that one may proceed at full steam on manifest error. This is sad. It has been repeatedly pointed out that DNA expresses a digitally coded, string data structure, with prescriptive, step by step assembly information for the creation of the workhorse molecules of the living cell in its ribosomes. This is information, it is meaningful, it is structured according to rules of meaning and the purpose of creating a functional molecule through prescriptive, step by step instructions. Moreover, its informational substance is not based on the mechanical laws of physics [which would preclude the high contingency required for symbol choice in a meaningful code] or chance [as, to reach deeply isolated islands of function in vast config spaces is maximally implausible by chance, on the gamut of the observed cosmos]. By inference to best explanation, then, the most credible cause of the information would be design. This is underscored by the fact that we routinely observe just this same class of information being created -- and, by his previous admission MF has worked in the relevant computer industry -- this is by intelligent, purposeful, knowledgeable design. Carried out by designers. So, let us compare with the five rules TGP has put forth:
1. symbols - yes, 3-letter codons 2. rules (or language) -- yes, the DNA codon code 3. free will & 4. intentionality or purpose -- yes, without freedom to choose alternatives, one cannot construct such a system 5. rules of reason -- design requires intelligent rationality
Thus, the objections above are distractive and strawmannish. They tell us that the real issues do not lie in the evidence or what its best explanation on our experience is. Not at all. Lewontin has aptly told us what it is, back in 1997, in his infamous NYRB article:
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. [[From: “Billions and Billions of Demons,” NYRB, January 9, 1997.]
There is a name for this: question-begging, leading on to ideologised closed mindedness. Closed mindedness that then -- sadly, tellingly and inexcusably -- ignores cogent correction and resorts to distractive and distorting strawman rhetorical tactics as the just above so sadly demonstrates. Surely, we can do better than this, much better. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{January 1, 2011
January
01
Jan
1
01
2011
01:04 AM
1
01
04
AM
PDT}

#46 Robb I just read this and realise it says more or less the same as I am saying. The use of the word information in the context of DNA is highly specialised and quite different from the word as used in the context of human to human communication. Incidentally snowflakes, crystals, and weather patterns can all contain information in yet another sense. Snowflakes contain information about the conditions in the upper atmosphere, crystals about the conditions under which they were formed, weather patterns about the likely temperature tomorrow. These different meanings of the word "information" matter.markf_{January 1, 2011
January
01
Jan
1
01
2011
01:03 AM
1
01
03
AM
PDT}

#45 tgpeeler To take your list of 5 things "required for information": 1. symbols 2. rules (or language) 3. free will 4. intentionality or purpose 5. rules of reason First an important but subtle point. I was talking about what is required for the act of transferring information between two humans. This is not the same as what is required for information in some abstract sense. This strikes me as almost meaningless question. I realise I made a mistake when I included conventions about written English in my initial list. It is highly convenient. But humans can and do transfer information without the use of any language, symbols or rules. Consider the game of charades where the information is the name of play, book or film and the rules require that information be given without the use of any language, symbols or rules. So I disagree with 1 and 2. I certainly accept that transferring information in Grice's non-natural sense require someone to have an intention. Free will is very long and complex debate. However, if by having free will you mean the ability to make choices then I accept that it is required because having an intention requires making a choice. Rules of reason is another long running philosophical debate. To be honest I don't really know what you mean in this context. I can hardly deny that" Things, including words, must be what they are and mean what they mean " but that's just a tautology. The key requirement for transferring information is the intention to create a belief in another person. As I have a materialist theory of mind this is no big philosophical problem. Later you jump to the "information" in DNA. This is something completely different. There are no intentions or beliefs associated with it. As I said the word "information" has many shades of meaning and this is very different shade. In fact I would say the use of the word information in DNA is nothing but a rather dubious analogy with the word in the human context.markf_{January 1, 2011
January
01
Jan
1
01
2011
12:12 AM
12
12
12
AM
PDT}

Robb: A snowflake does not encode functionally specific, informational messages. Break it and you still have tiny ice crystals, just not so pretty and symmetrical. No message or function is lost. Its regularity is due to the forces and atom alignments of the somewhat polar H2O molecule. The diversity and complexity are due to random, micro scale atmospheric factors and the specific history of a given flake; e.g. the general shape type depends on temperature of formation. Weather systems, similarly do not encode messages on symbols arranged according to structural and meaningful rules. N body problems display great complexity of behaviour indeed, but that has nothing to do with storing functionally specific complex information on rules that specify symbols, alphabets, meaningful symbol strings, and implementing machinery. Why do you keep on diverting to such long-since corrected irrelevancies, as though they were counter-examples to the nature of meaningful, symbolic coded information such as seen in text strings in posts here, or in DNA strings that code for specifically functional proteins that have to go though a code-based chaining, then fold under internal or chaperoning forces, agglomerate and maybe have activating additions? And, the functionality of the protein molecule depends on its overall structure, based on the specific sequence of its amino acids. And, of course, the specific context it fits into in the cell. A snowbank is just a pile of snow crystals, and a snowball is just a ball of such crystals, with some regellation under pressure to make things stick together through partial melting and refreezing. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{December 31, 2010
December
12
Dec
31
31
2010
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PDT}

RObb @ 46 "Classical physics needn’t produce such obviously simply results. Consider a snowflake, or an n-body system, or a weather system." Duh. What do I need to do, write a dissertation on this? Of course classical physics can explain snowflakes, crystals, and weather patterns. But, uh, er, um, all of those things have one thing in common, NO INFORMATION. In any case this is irrelevant. How about you just falsify my claim by providing ONE example of information created solely by a physical law or an algorithm based upon a physical law? You can't do it because you need SYMBOLS, RULES, FREE WILL, PURPOSE, RATIONALITY, AND MIND in order to produce information. What is so hard about this? Really. Go read Bernd Olaf Kuppers book "Information and the Origin of Life" for one, and then come back and tell me life and information IN THIS SENSE are not virtually the same. Or read Hubert Yockey's "Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life." Or read Dawkins or Crick or Monod or anybody writing about biology and you can't escape INFORMATION in the sense of messages being communicated and causing other reactions. While you're at it, call Johns Hopkins and all the other universities that have BioInformatics programs. From wiki "Bioinformatics now entails the creation and advancement of databases, algorithms, computational and statistical techniques and theory to solve formal and practical problems arising from the management and analysis of biological data." They need to know right now that there is no information involved with biology. Seriously. Call now.tgpeeler_{December 31, 2010
December
12
Dec
31
31
2010
02:34 PM
2
02
34
PM
PDT}

Rob: From the outset with Orgel, Polanyi and others, the issue of functionally specific, complex information as the relevant subset of complex, specified information, has always been on the table in the context of the information in the DNA etc of the cell. here is NWE, in its helpful article on Intelligent Design:
Cosmologist Fred Hoyle used the term “intelligent design" in 1982, writing that unless a person is “deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing measure of order must be the outcome of intelligent design.”[2] Soon afterward, chemist Charles B. Thaxton was impressed by chemist and philosopher Michael Polanyi’s argument that the information in DNA could not be reduced to physics and chemistry . . . . In 1984, Thaxton joined with materials scientist Walter L. Bradley and geochemist Roger L. Olsen to publish The Mystery of Life’s Origin, which criticized “chemical evolution,” the idea that unguided natural processes produced the first living cells abiotically, from non-living materials. The authors distinguished between order (such as found in crystals), complexity (such as found in random mixtures of molecules), and “specified complexity” (the information-rich complexity in biological molecules such as DNA). Relying on the uniformitarian principle “that the kinds of causes we observe producing certain effects today can be counted on to have produced similar effects in the past,” the authors argued, “What is needed is to identify in the present an abiotic cause of specified complexity.” Thaxton, Bradley, and Olsen concluded: “We have observational evidence in the present that intelligent investigators can (and do) build contrivances to channel energy down nonrandom chemical pathways to bring about some complex chemical synthesis, even gene building. May not the principle of uniformity then be used in a broader frame of consideration to suggest that DNA had an intelligent cause at the beginning?” . . . . Geologist and philosopher of science Stephen C. Meyer uses this “inference to the best explanation” approach to supplement the Explanatory Filter. According to Meyer, the subunits of DNA are like a four-letter alphabet carrying information “just like meaningful English sentences or functional lines of code in computer software.” This information cannot be reduced to the laws of chemistry and physics. In 2003, Meyer wrote: “The information contained in an English sentence or computer software does not derive from the chemistry of the ink or the physics of magnetism, but from a source extrinsic to physics and chemistry altogether. Indeed, in both cases, the message transcends the properties of the medium. The information in DNA also transcends the properties of its material medium.” So biological information is not due to natural laws or regularities.[28] Since a typical gene contains hundreds of such subunits, and organisms contain hundreds of genes, the information carried in an organism’s DNA is extremely complex. Furthermore, a living cell needs not just any DNA, but DNA that encodes functional proteins. To be functional, a protein must have a very specific sequence, so the information in DNA is not only contingent and complex, but also specified.
In short, when Dembski et al speak of specified complexity, the informational context they primarily have in mind is not just the storage capacity in bits and/or the average capacity per symbol bearing in mind redundancy and divergence in frequencies of symbols from an alphabet, but the specification on function with a particular eye to DNA. Also, it is highly noteworthy that you do not speak at all of Abel, Trevors et al, who have done a quantification of functional sequence complexity, contrasting FSC to OSC [orderly] and RSC [random]. When therefore, you cherry-pick the name Durston from the circle around Abel et al, and neatly omit that his quantification with the principals of FSC was premised on the functionality of the relevant information, that is sadly telling, utterly telling. The relevant biofunction of the protein families is precisely pivoted on the meaningful content of the underlying DNA strings in question [and on how much they can vary without undue loss of function], which have been translated into proteins. So, the information measures of the 35 protein families are based on meaningful, coded information giving rise to in vivo function. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{December 31, 2010
December
12
Dec
31
31
2010
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT}

Joseph: Hence, functionally specific, complex information. That function is usually premised on data structures and algorithms, i.e. programs expressing prescriptive and descriptive information, or linguistic information, i.e. symbolic clusters of glyphs in words and sentences. DNA and RNA contain symbolic, digitally coded information in string data structures, and in the Ribosome, these control the step by step expression of proteins. Note, the anticodon end of the tRNA is OPPOSITE the tool-tip end that holds the appropriate amino acid to be chained. Then, on self folding or being chaperoned, possibly agglomerating and having an activating complex added proteins function in life based on the resulting final structure, driven by the stringed information content. Folding falls into distinct, isolated islands of function, the fold domains. Now, when we speak of this sort of meaningful and/or functional information, in every case where we see it being made, it is the product of intent and knowledge, backed up by skill. And, the isolation of islands of function joined to the complexity which means the space of possible configs is vast, means that the only reasonable source of such entities is design. For, the search resources of our observed cosmos cannot sample as much as 1 in 10^^150th part of the config space of just 1,000 bits of info storage capacity. So, the far more complex systems of cells that exhibit metabolic processes on proteins, and self-replication, point strongly to intentional configuration on knowledge and skill. That is, design. (And, when objectors to such an inference are called upon to show cases where undirected chance + necessity have spontaneously produced such information-rich functional organisation, they have been uniformly unable to do so. So, they have to address the fact that there is but one known source of the class of information and organisation involved, and it is intelligence.) GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{December 31, 2010
December
12
Dec
31
31
2010
12:38 PM
12
12
38
PM
PDT}

Joseph:
The word information in this theory is used in a special mathematical sense that must not be confused with its ordinary usage. In particular, information must not be confused with meaning.- Warren Weaver, one of Shannon’s collaborators
Why is what Weaver said so difficult to understand?
Who is having difficulty understanding it? What's difficult to understand is why you repeatedly quote this, when the definitions of information proferred by Dembski, Marks, Meyer, and Durston do not entail meaning, or even syntax.R0bb_{December 31, 2010
December
12
Dec
31
31
2010
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT}

On "information" in the Shannon sense:
The word information in this theory is used in a special mathematical sense that must not be confused with its ordinary usage. In particular, information must not be confused with meaning.- Warren Weaver, one of Shannon's collaborators
Why is what Weaver said so difficult to understand? Kolmogorov complexity deals with, well, complexity. From wikipedia:
Algorithmic information theory principally studies complexity measures on strings (or other data structures).
Nothing about meaning, content, functionality, prescription. IOW nothing that Information Technology cares deeply about, namely information. Not only Information Technology but the whole world depends on Information Technology type of information. And both Creationists and IDists make it clear, painfully clear, that when we are discussing "information" we are discussing that type of information.Joseph_{December 31, 2010
December
12
Dec
31
31
2010
11:07 AM
11
11
07
AM
PDT}

I hope that markf and tgpeeler don't mind me intruding. tgpeeler:
information (in this sense)
In this sense is the key caveat. You're talking about information in the sense of inter-human communication. Later you say:
It’s also true that everyone on the planet that has thought about this in any serious way or has done any research into origin of life studies realizes that life and information are, if not synonymous, are at a minimum inextricably linked.
But is it true that OOL researchers consider life to be inextricably linked with "information in this sense"?
If I were being driven by an algorithm of some type based upon physical law then what you would see is something like this: jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj (classical) or this: hgieoahjvahijjoivo (quantum).
Classical physics needn't produce such obviously simply results. Consider a snowflake, or an n-body system, or a weather system.R0bb_{December 31, 2010
December
12
Dec
31
31
2010
10:09 AM
10
10
09
AM
PDT}

markf, thanks for your reply. Let me add some comments. "(1) You have an intention for me to believe something about you." I agree with this and to further abstract what I am getting at, we could merely say that the generation of information (in this sense) requires intention, or purpose. "(2) You are going to achieve this by getting me to recognise that intention (i.e. Grice’s non-natural meaning)" If I may reword here I would say I am going to (try to) achieve this by means of the content of my message. To further abstract, we could say that I am trying to cause a change (in you) by means of my message. In this case, then, information is "that which causes, or at least intends to cause, an instruction or intent to be carried out." "(3) I recognise this intention because of certain conventions that have developed about the use of written English." I think you would agree that the conventions of English, written or otherwise, boil down to a set of symbols, an alphabet, and a set of rules that govern the manipulation of those symbols into certain arrangements that have meaning. I think you would also agree that the manipulation of symbols in accordance with the rules requires the exercise of free will. To wit, I am not forced by any outside agency such as the laws of physics to type what I am typing at this moment. If I were being driven by an algorithm of some type based upon physical law then what you would see is something like this: jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj (classical) or this: hgieoahjvahijjoivo (quantum). "(4) It is true that you think that’s why the anti-ID crowd runs screaming from this argument (otherwise this would not be information but misinformation)." A quibble here about terms if I may. It's true that I think that the anti-ID crowd runs screaming but that doesn't make it really true, that they do. (That could be endlessly debated although my experience is that it is true. But it's not necessarily true. There could be exceptions, like now, apparently.) And in any case, true or not, information, a message, is still being intentionally communicated. I submit there is one more requirement for information and that is rationality - the rules of rational thought or first principles, if you will. Things, including words, must be what they are and mean what they mean else rational thought is impossible. 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 And I would add one more as I reflect upon numbers 1-5 above and that is "mind." Something must create the symbols, agree on the conventions, and exercise free will, intentionality, and the (one hopes, right) rules of reason. It appears to me that it is logically impossible for atoms to somehow organize themselves according to some set of immaterial rules in order to communicate an immaterial message. Thus the necessity for what we typically name "mind." If I understand your position, it is that all of these things may ultimately be explained by reference to eons of time and the outworking of physical laws and constants. If my understanding is correct, then your task now becomes to explain 1-5 plus mind in terms of these laws and randomness. It's easy to see where I am headed with this. If information in the human realm is something that expresses a message in order to achieve a certain end (bring about a change of mind or a specific action, say) then biological information, in this sense is undeniably the same. Instructions in DNA result in the creation of certain proteins and not others so that the organism can live. It's also true that everyone on the planet that has thought about this in any serious way or has done any research into origin of life studies realizes that life and information are, if not synonymous, are at a minimum inextricably linked. Given that, and given that everyone also recognizes that the information technology found in microscopic cells that can reproduce itself, interact with its environment, and process energy is orders and orders of magnitude more complex than anything human engineers have been able to build gives us prima facie reason to consider intelligence as the source of this information. In fact, to my unschooled mind, the meager case I have presented in these short paragraphs seems to me to be enough to place the burden of proving otherwise squarely on the shoulders of those who deny the role of intelligence (mind) in biology.tgpeeler_{December 31, 2010
December
12
Dec
31
31
2010
08:39 AM
8
08
39
AM
PDT}

#43 tgpeeler OK. There is an awful lot happening but I will concentrate on what I think is important to you. Let's take just one sentence: I think that’s why the anti-ID crowd runs screaming from this argument. You are providing some information to me about what you think. Essential components of this include: (1) You have an intention for me to believe something about you. (2) You are going to achieve this by getting me to recognise that intention (i.e. Grice's non-natural meaning) (3) I recognise this intention because of certain conventions that have developed about the use of written English. (4) It is true that you think that’s why the anti-ID crowd runs screaming from this argument (otherwise this would not be information but misinformation).markf_{December 30, 2010
December
12
Dec
30
30
2010
01:29 PM
1
01
29
PM
PDT}

MF, taking you at your word... The kind of information I am talking about is the kind that we are exchanging right now. I'd like for you to tell me what is happening and how it is happening. When you do that, certain other things will become clear. And if they don't, I'll help. There is no need to unduly complicate this. It's very, very simple. I think that's why the anti-ID crowd runs screaming from this argument. They KNOW how it will turn out for them so they delay, distract, and deny obvious truths. What is information? Good grief. Surely "you" can do better than that. Staying on target... What factors must exist in order for information to be generated by human beings? And to start the ball rolling I'm throwing in the first and obvious factor, human beings. But there's more, much more...tgpeeler_{December 30, 2010
December
12
Dec
30
30
2010
08:18 AM
8
08
18
AM
PDT}

F/N 1: Onlookers, cf details and video simulation here, with the discussion of what it means that life is based on cells with metabolism and von Neumann type self-replication, both using an algorithmic, stored coded data based system. F/N 2: For useful definitions of key terms cf the UD glossary and compare concrete examples. For instance, here is the definition of information:
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 [added nb: symbols are conventional -- as opposed to causally determined -- representations of meaningful objects or concepts, e.g. the letters of the alphabet that represent basically sounds used in language, Chinese style ideograms represent concepts, as do numerals like 1, 2, 3 . . . ] or sensed in some format] from which conclusions may be drawn [and on which decisions and actions may be taken].”
That is, the best way to break the fever of definition-based objections on steroids -- a particularly virulent form of selective hyperskepticism: in effect words are so vague and foggy we don't know what we mean, so we can redefine or obfuscate in a squid-ink fog of confusion to our heart's content then run away behind that cover -- is to realise that definitions rest in the end on clustered examples with recognisable characteristics, and we see above how the cell instantiates a digital code and stored information based algorithmic information processing system.kairosfocus_{December 30, 2010
December
12
Dec
30
30
2010
05:34 AM
5
05
34
AM
PDT}

Onlookers: MF, in his linked, starts out by conflating and confusing sign-signified though causal connexion, with symbol-signified through definitional convention:
This makes a point which runs through much of the discussion. Words such as “information”, “symbol”, “code” and “meaning” are bandied about as though their use was obvious and unambiguous. In fact the ordinary English usage of these words varies greatly according to the context. And it is no help defining one of these in terms of one of the others (for example, information is data that means something, a symbol is a sign with meaning, a code is a set of symbols) – that just shifts the ambiguity. I don’t say that DNA is not a code – I just want to pin down what “code” means in this context.
AUG in mRNA does not cause -- per mechanical necessity -- Methionine to be added to an amino acid chain. Instead, when it is in teh P-site of a ribosome, the tRNA with the anticodon that matches AUG, is so set up that on its tool tip end, methionine AA is held. This is then tipped over to the AA chain, and the Ribosome advances one unit of three on the mRNA. In short we are looking at an algorithm, where contingent possibilities have been organised and sequenced to achieve a remote goal, manufacture of proteins for use in the cells. In turn the AA residue chain as a whole is required to drive folding, where folds are isolated in AA chain space. Folding and functional groups are required for proteins to work. In short AUG is a chemical glyph, which symbolises Methionine, per a system of rules for such assignment. And, the actual functional results of proteins in action are remote from the action of tRNA taxi service and addition to an AA chain. Algorithm, data structure and rule-based symbols, not mere cause-effect bonds. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{December 30, 2010
December
12
Dec
30
30
2010
05:04 AM
5
05
04
AM
PDT}

#39 tgpeeler I promise you I am interested in the truth. However, the main arguments have been repeated on this forum thousands of times. I admit my little exchange with Joseph was more just a bit of fun with the nature of the logic of the design hypothesis. To be more precise, what are the prerequisites for human information? The obvious first prerequisite is humans. I will try to be serious about this - but you are not going to like it and it is going to repeat old ground. To begin - there are many different shades of meaning to the word information. See here for a discussion about just one aspect of this I had a year or two ago about this. Can you be more explicit? Happy New Yearmarkf_{December 29, 2010
December
12
Dec
29
29
2010
11:25 PM
11
11
25
PM
PDT}

I just read through this thread and it seems clear to me, as a disinterested (in this case) onlooker that our friend markf isn't much interested in coming to grips with the truth about reality. I don't see rational argument. Instead I see misreading, misunderstanding, mischaracterization, misstatement, and diversion. All unintentional, I'm sure. It is probably way past time for this to be said, but I have seen it time and again for years in the countless conversations I and others have had with the (take your pick, they're all of a piece) darwinists, atheists, naturalists, secular humanists, materialists, physicalists, blah blah blah, and that is while they claim to be all about reason and evidence, the sorry fact of the matter is that they are all about a priori philosophical commitments (see Lewontin) that collapse into incoherence as soon as the first ray of light of reason falls upon them. To illustrate this, let me ask a question of markf. How do you account for the existence of information created by human beings? To be more precise, what are the prerequisites for human information? The obvious first prerequisite is humans. I’ll leave the rest to you. We'll soon see who is wedded to reason and evidence and who is not. Happy New Year to all.tgpeeler_{December 29, 2010
December
12
Dec
29
29
2010
02:33 PM
2
02
33
PM
PDT}

see also Darwinism, Design and Public Education page 92: 1. High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design. 2. Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity. 3. Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity. 4. Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.Joseph_{December 29, 2010
December
12
Dec
29
29
2010
09:57 AM
9
09
57
AM
PDT}

markf:
(1) Life appears designed (2) We have eliminated known alternatives to design Therefore design. Or is there a step 3
1- Living organisms exist 2- One of the basic qustions science asks is how did X (in this case living organisms) come to be the way they are 3- So we ask and try to figure out if living organisms can be accounted for via nature, operating freely, ie blind, undirected (chemical) processes-> can living oganisms be reduced to matter, energy, chance ad necessity 4- If not then we ask is there a specification present?-> Biological function is a specification 5- So we have something that exists and cannot be reduced to matter, energy, chance and necessity. Also by way of all our observations and experiences what we are investigating (in this case livng organisms) contain features that, in any other scenario, would point to agency involvement.Joseph_{December 29, 2010
December
12
Dec
29
29
2010
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT}

Scheesman: “the amazing design benefits allowed by the creation of a blind spot” molch: "and what are those amazing design benefits again?" SCheesman: "If you are able to make your argument of imperfection without actually being able to demonstrate any actual detriment, why cannot I make an argument for perfection without having to enumerate any actual benefits?" I didn't make an argument. You did. I asked you to support it. You didn't. I usually only argue points that I can support.molch_{December 29, 2010
December
12
Dec
29
29
2010
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PDT}

MF: This is without excuse:
(1) Life appears designed (2) We have eliminated known alternatives to design Therefore design. Or is there a step 3?
You know, or should know the explanatory filter, as say is discussed in the linked just above, or in teh UD correctives top right. You specifically know tha t your step 1 comes up because the item in question looks a reasonable candidate. You have strawmannised the explanatory filter process in your dismissive step 2:
a: we know that contingent things that have beginnings are caused, which includes everything within the physical cosmos, including life. b: Such causes may reasonably and on a vast body of empirical evidence be clustered as chance and/or necessity and/or art, ever since at least Plato in The Laws Bk X. Cf Monod's Chance and necessity for instance. c: each factor has demonstrable empirical traces, e.g. necessity yields low contingency on set initial conditions, chance leads to statistical distributions, and intent reflects things like complex functional organisation and associated information. d: In examining, the first step is to identify low contingency as lawlike necessity, e.g dropped heavy objects fall under gravity. e: chance and art lead to high contingency. Under chance a dropped die will tumble to rest from 1 to 6 more or less at random, if it is not loaded. f: a die can be intentionally set to read a given value by being loaded or just pt to read that value. A set of 200 dice all reading 6 will instantly be seen as so set by design, etc, or if we have a code and the dice read a message in that code etc. g: where we have seen that necessity and chance are not credible sources on experience, we also see that FSCI (1,000 or more bits of functionally specific, complex information) is in general experience a product of intelligent configuration. The internet etc stand in witness. h: so FSCI is a reliable sign of design.
Can you provide a valid counter example? Obviously not, or you would have, long since. So, you know or should know that this is a well warranted inductive conclusion. In that context, strawman rhetorical games with words like just now to Joseph -- and for some time in this thread -- do not look good for your case on the merits, at all. You need to step up to the plate and give a solid shot, or stand exposed as resorting to distraction, distortion, and evasion. G'day sir. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{December 29, 2010
December
12
Dec
29
29
2010
08:58 AM
8
08
58
AM
PDT}

Heinrich, That is a very honest statement. Too bad people keep saying "evolution is a fact." http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/06/AR2009020602743.htmlCollin_{December 29, 2010
December
12
Dec
29
29
2010
08:53 AM
8
08
53
AM
PDT}

Onlookers (and Joseph): Observe how MF again -- sadly, tellingly -- ignores a relevant discussion on the way the EF works, cf what is now 12 above, as well as previous information over months or years. We also can observe how he has been twisting Joseph's words into pretzels over Jospeph's protests, skipping over specifically corrective points hinged to the way the design detecting explanatory filter works. Cf here for instance for an accessible primer, not to mention the remarks in the always linked here, and of course in the UD weak argument correctives top right on this and every page at this blog. Notice, too how as a result of the tangential questions above, the thread is being side-tracked by the game of tangent after tangent leading away from the substantial issue, which we may see in the OP: >> 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. >> Cf discussion on the evolutionary materialists' misuse of the term "fact" here. No prizes for guessing why so often we see this pattern. [Check out the Wiki excerpt in the just linked!!!] GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{December 29, 2010
December
12
Dec
29
29
2010
08:34 AM
8
08
34
AM
PDT}

F/N: Wiki survey art Quick snips: >>The visual system is the part of the central nervous system which enables organisms to process visual detail, as well as enabling several non-image forming photoresponse functions. It interprets information from visible light to build a representation of the surrounding world. The visual system accomplishes a number of complex tasks, including the reception of light and the formation of monocular representations; the construction of a binocular perception from a pair of two dimensional projections; the identification and categorization of visual objects; assessing distances to and between objects; and guiding body movements in relation to visual objects . . . . The retina consists of a large number of photoreceptor cells which contain particular protein molecules called opsins. In humans, two types of opsins are involved in conscious vision: rod opsins and cone opsins. (A third type, melanopsin in some of the retinal ganglion cells (RGC), part of the body clock mechanism, is probably not involved in conscious vision, as these RGC do not project to the lateral geniculate nucleus (LGN) but to the pretectal olivary nucleus (PON).[5]) An opsin absorbs a photon (a particle of light) and transmits a signal to the cell through a signal transduction pathway, resulting in hyperpolarization of the photoreceptor. (For more information, see Photoreceptor cell). Rods and cones differ in function. Rods are found primarily in the periphery of the retina and are used to see at low levels of light. Cones are found primarily in the center (or fovea) of the retina.[citation needed] There are three types of cones that differ in the wavelengths of light they absorb; they are usually called short or blue, middle or green, and long or red. Cones are used primarily to distinguish color and other features of the visual world at normal levels of light.[citation needed] In the retina, the photoreceptors synapse directly onto bipolar cells, which in turn synapse onto ganglion cells of the outermost layer, which will then conduct action potentials to the brain. A significant amount of visual processing arises from the patterns of communication between neurons in the retina. About 130 million photoreceptors absorb light, yet roughly 1.2 million axons of ganglion cells transmit information from the retina to the brain. The processing in the retina includes the formation of center-surround receptive fields of bipolar and ganglion cells in the retina, as well as convergence and divergence from photoreceptor to bipolar cell. In addition, other neurons in the retina, particularly horizontal and amacrine cells, transmit information laterally (from a neuron in one layer to an adjacent neuron in the same layer), resulting in more complex receptive fields that can be either indifferent to color and sensitive to motion or sensitive to color and indifferent to motion . . . . The visual cortex is the largest system in the human brain and is responsible for processing the visual image. It lies at the rear of the brain (highlighted in the image), above the cerebellum. The region that receives information directly from the LGN is called the primary visual cortex, (also called V1 and striate cortex). Visual information then flows through a cortical hierarchy. These areas include V2, V3, V4 and area V5/MT (the exact connectivity depends on the species of the animal). These secondary visual areas (collectively termed the extrastriate visual cortex) process a wide variety of visual primitives. Neurons in V1 and V2 respond selectively to bars of specific orientations, or combinations of bars. These are believed to support edge and corner detection. Similarly, basic information about color and motion is processed here . . . >> Pardon, but that complex wired functional organisation screams design to all but the willfully blind. And the quantum of FSCI involved in "the largest system in the human brain" underscores that, on the already repeatedly given analysis of islands of function in large config spaces. We know that complex networked organised functional systems of nodes and arcs and interfaces (reducible to equivalent coded data structures) can be made by intelligent designers, per -- almost routine -- direct observation of such systems being designed and made, ranging from PCs to petrochemical plants and automobiles. What observational evidence do we have that shows such being formed by blind chance plus mechanical necessity without programming or other intelligent origin? After many months or even years of asking this or similar questions of MF and others of like ilk we still get this answer on the actual issue: chirp, chirp chirp . . . (Then, we see no end of distractors, strawmen [e.g here, the question is why a blind spot or a "reverse" wired eye, not wait a bit where did that complex functional organisation come from, on observational evidence . . . ] and snide dismissals . . . ) No prizes for guessing why. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{December 29, 2010
December
12
Dec
29
29
2010
07:46 AM
7
07
46
AM
PDT}

Joseph #27 Nope. I take it you ave reading comprehension issues. If life appears designed we have every right to check out that possibility. And to do that FIRST we have to eliminate alternatives. OK. So let me try again. Perhaps you can help with my reading problems. All I can work out from your sentence is that I should have rephrased it this way: (1) Life appears designed (2) We have eliminated known alternatives to design Therefore design. Or is there a step 3?markf_{December 29, 2010
December
12
Dec
29
29
2010
07:15 AM
7
07
15
AM
PDT}

Joseph the eye is a sensor with a preprocessing capacity. Something has to write the visual processing software to make sense of the nerve pulse data. Even, if it is written as a collection of neural network connexions, it is still "software." Something has to set it up and get it to function. And, visual processing software is not going to be simple to do! GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{December 29, 2010
December
12
Dec
29
29
2010
07:13 AM
7
07
13
AM
PDT}

“Evidence”(?) for the evolution of the vision system Andrea Bottaro said the following over at the panda’s thumb:
Eyes are formed via long and complex developmental genetic networks/cascades, which we are only beginning to understand, and of which Pax6/eyeless (the gene in question, in mammals and Drosophila, respectively) merely constitutes one of the initial elements.
IOW the only evidence for the evolution of the vision system is that we have observed varying degrees of complexity in living organisms, from simple light sensitive spots on unicellular organisms to the vision system of more complex metazoans, and we “know” that the first population(s) of living organisms didn’t have either. Therefore the vision system “evolved”. Isn’t evolutionary “science” great! I say the above because if Dr Bottaro is correct then we really have no idea whether or not the vision system could have evolved from a population or populations that did not have one.Joseph_{December 29, 2010
December
12
Dec
29
29
2010
06:00 AM
6
06
00
AM
PDT}

What good is half an eye/ vision system? If you understand how things work then it is obvious that it isn't any good at all. Well perhaps as good as half a bridge. Ya see half a bridge isn't any good for people needing to get to the other side. It is useless as a bridge- well because it isn't a bridge yet. That brings us back to the eye/ vision system. If it takes a complete eye/ vision system for functionality then less than that isn't of any help. And yes one can have a complete vision system that is faulty and that may be better than no vision system at all. But that isn't the point. The point is until you get that complete system you have nuthin' but parts. Parts that do not function as a vision system. The strawman enters at this junction- 50% of vision is better than 49%. Perhaps, but that isn't the issue. Enter another strawman- we see organisms with a simpler vision system than we have. True, but each of those simpler systems is complete in its own right. The point being is that in order to respond to evolutionary issues evolutionists are forced to erect strawman after strawman. Then they tear those down and act all proud of themselves. Strange...Joseph_{December 29, 2010
December
12
Dec
29
29
2010
05:58 AM
5
05
58
AM
PDT}

markf:
The cephalopods seem to manage OK.
So do we. That blind spot only appears in very specific circumstances and it doesn't seem to bother any athletes. I bet a cephalopod couldn't hit a 95 mph fastball. markf:
Because evolutionary theory only requires that an organism be good enough to survive in its environment.
Yet evolutionary theory cannot explain the arrival of the fittest beyond saying "it just happened". markf:
This is only a problem for ID (if you believe the designer to be omnipotent and in favour of the organism’s long and productive life).
Wrong again- ya see no one sai that the dsign had to be perfect and even if it started out that way that it had to remain so- thermodynamics and all...Joseph_{December 29, 2010
December
12
Dec
29
29
2010
05:55 AM
5
05
55
AM
PDT}

No, that does not follow from what I said. Part of testing for intentional design is eliminating alternatives- parsimony- as in the minimum required to account for X. So demonstrating blind, undirected processes can account for X there isn’t any requirement for a designer/ agency involvement. If none can be found AND there is some specification (yes even “it looks designed” will be OK), then we infer design. 1 step to falsify the inference and 2 steps to make the inference. markf:
OK – I will modify what I deduce from your statements. I believe you are saying that (a) life appears to be designed (b) therefore it is designed unless we can identify a non-designed explanation Is that fair? Nope. I take it you ave reading comprehension issues. If life appears designed we have every right to check out that possibility. And to do that FIRST we have to eliminate alternatives. IOW markf yourpositin is given the first chances to "prove" itself. Strange ho it fails at very turn...
Joseph_{December 29, 2010
December
12
Dec
29
29
2010
05:40 AM
5
05
40
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply