Science and Freethinking

_{GilDodgen
September 23, 2011

Intelligent Design

2}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

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

Everyone has a religion, a raison d’être, and mine was once Dawkins’. I had the same disdain for people of faith that he does, only I could have put him to shame with the power and passion of my argumentation.

But something happened. As a result of my equally passionate love of science, logic, and reason, I realized that I had been conned. The creation story of my atheistic, materialistic religion suddenly made no sense.

This sent a shock wave through both my mind and my soul. Could it be that I’m not just the result of random errors filtered by natural selection? Am I just the product of the mindless, materialistic processes that “only legitimate scientists” all agree produced me? Does my life have any ultimate purpose or meaning? Am I just a meat-machine with no other purpose than to propagate my “selfish genes”?

Ever since I was a child I thought about such things, but I put my blind faith in the “scientists” who taught me that all my concerns were irrelevant, that science had explained, or would eventually explain, everything in purely materialistic terms.

But I’m a freethinker, a legitimate scientist. I follow the evidence wherever it leads. And the evidence suggests that the universe and living systems are the product of an astronomically powerful creative intelligence.

Comments

Elizabeth: UB is right. The "genetic code" is nothing else than the abstract correspondence (symbolic) between nucleotide triplets and aminoacids, a redundnat base four code for 20 "wprds" plus the stop codons. The information in DNA would be completely useless if the translation machine had not, implemented in its information, the key to the interpretation of the code, that is the key to the symbolic mapping. That key in no way is implemented in tRNAs, nor in mRNA, nor in the complex ribosome machine. The decoding information is in the 20 AARS, 20 proteins whose global compèlexity ranges in about 10000 aminoacids, and which are universally necessary to translation in all known living beings. Those proteins are extremely old, extremely complex, and we can still observe striking sequence similarities between the variants in archaea, bacteria and homo sapiens (and, I suppose, practically all living beings). They are a treasure of functional information without which no translation is possible. You say: "But the mapping itself – the “genetic code” is what it is because a specific subset of the possible total set of tRNA molecules are the only ones produced by the cell. A different subset would give a different code," What do you mean? The tRNAs are passive carriers. Each AARS recognizes the right tRNA with the correct anticodon (by the information implemented in the complex structure of the protein), and couples it to the correct aminoacid. That's the only reason why the correct aminoacid is mounted in the final protein (by the ribosome) in correspondence of the correct anticodon. Both tRNAs and the ribosome, in themselves, cannot couple the correct aminoacid to the correct codon. IOWs, they have no information about the correct code. It's the AARS that accomplish that extraordinary informational task. They do that efficiently, with great control of the final result. They have been there for billions of years, doing exactly that. If we want to understand the functional information inherent in the protein synthesis process, we have to be clear about where it is. While a lot information is necessary to maintain the information in DNA, transcribe it correctly, and to build the protein, the information about the code is written in the 20 aminoacyl tRNA transferases. That is the information we have to explain, to explain the working of the genetic code.gpuccio_{October 5, 2011
October
10
Oct
5
05
2011
10:11 PM
10
10
11
PM
PST}

It's not exactly the same thing, but consider Origami. Without even having a target, how many random folds would you have to attempt to come up with anything that would look like anything? It takes a lot of experience, but an Origami expert can imagine the shape and work backwards. Everyone tries to maximize probabilistic resources by stating that an evolutionary search has no goal. But as this example demonstrates, having a goal is everything.ScottAndrews_{October 5, 2011
October
10
Oct
5
05
2011
08:57 PM
8
08
57
PM
PST}

Petrushka, If you needed a protein that folded into a specific shape, which would you do? Test countless random proteins until one works, or start from the desired shape and work backwards? You have provided an excellent example demonstrating why intelligence surpasses random searches. It imagines results and plans to accomplish them. What's funny is that you would decrease the capability of intelligence by assuming that it had to function using random searches. You're intelligent. When you want to write something, do you begin with the idea and then select words, or do you randomly select and test words until they form an idea you might agree with?ScottAndrews_{October 5, 2011
October
10
Oct
5
05
2011
08:48 PM
8
08
48
PM
PST}

Petrushka, Number 5 is debatable, not negotiable, and is by far the most important. There has never been a detailed process of change on which to expand. Some changes are observed, others are speculated, but the actual explanation of the process is somewhat like a cloud. Within that cloud are a bunch of vaguely proposed mechanisms, none of which have been connected to the changes in any detail. The only thing everyone seems sure of is that it couldn't have been intelligent, which couldn't be less scientific. #5 does not belong on a list of even provisional certainties. There is no theory describing the process of change. It's a bit like a coroner who tells you that his subject was murdered by either a knife or a bullet or strangulation or poison or decapitation, or a combination of any or all of the above. When you ask how he knows, he explains that he heard the man must have been murdered, and that's how it usually happens. So pass on #5, but you get extra points for mentioning 150 years which gives the appearance of added weight. #6 - Well phrased, because you mention evidence supporting the claim while stopping short of making the claim itself. There is evidence to that effect, which may also be evidence supporting other conclusions. But I'm talking ID, not theology, I won't outright reject #6, but it's fuzzy and questionable. Three questions are everything: How did it get here? How does it change? Why does it change? You use the word "mysterious" with the connotation that Scooby Doo and his friends should go hunting around the abandoned carnival for it. Mystery is good, and both OOL and evolutionary theory are over their heads in it.ScottAndrews_{October 5, 2011
October
10
Oct
5
05
2011
08:03 PM
8
08
03
PM
PST}

Geological strata would fail the test because they lack specificity.
That seems to depend on who you ask. For most of recorded history inanimate objects were considered to be designed for man's comfort and amusement. It paints a bull's eye around what is and assumes that whatever is, was the goal.Petrushka_{October 5, 2011
October
10
Oct
5
05
2011
04:31 PM
4
04
31
PM
PST}

Well try this on for size: Following the big numbers arguments of Douglas Axe and others, I deny that life can be designed except by evolution. I maintain, using the logic of Douglas Axe, that it is impossible to design a protein coding sequence except by "random" variation and selection. Not just in practice, but in principle. My reason is simple. Following the argument of Douglas Axe, there is no shortcut to knowing how a protein will fold, and not enough time or resources in the universe to compute functional sequences without trying lots and selecting them. Prove me wrong.Petrushka_{October 5, 2011
October
10
Oct
5
05
2011
03:27 PM
3
03
27
PM
PST}

Yes, I agree that the mapping process is accomplished by the means you give. But the mapping itself - the "genetic code" is what it is because a specific subset of the possible total set of tRNA molecules are the only ones produced by the cell. A different subset would give a different code,Elizabeth Liddle_{October 5, 2011
October
10
Oct
5
05
2011
02:51 PM
2
02
51
PM
PST}

Dr Liddle,
And what I am saying above is that code for sets of tRNA molecules that provided a one-to-more than one mapping of codons to amino acids would tend to have selective advantage over sets that provided more-than-one to more-than-one mappings, so that is a perfectly viable Darwinian account of how such a mapping could have arisen.
I would like to be generous here. To say that a code (which produces products which were good at decoding it) would be favored over another code (which produces products which were less-good at decoding it) is not an answer to the origin or establishment of a code. If you’ll notice, in both of these two scenarios you’ve proposed, both the system and the code already exists, and the only question you’ve asked is if either of them works better than the other. There is nothing in your answer that even suggests a source of the code, as if codes are ubiquitous entities which are readily lying around. If the answers to science’s questions can be exemplified by the simplistic observation that living systems that function will exist longer than ones that don’t – then science has become a pointless enterprise. Please do not characterize your observation as a “perfectly viable Darwinian account” of how a code “could have arisen”. And if you insist on labeling it as such, then we can simply throw whatever remains of empiricism out the window.
Yes, my answer does indeed "suggest the source the code". And if you think that "the simplistic observation that living systems that function will exist longer than ones that don’t" is pointless, then you are missing a very important point! It is indeed "simplistic" - so simple that it was overlooked for a very long time. But for both Darwin and Wallace, the penny dropped. Yes, my explanation is speculative and it's about "how a code could have arisen" because it addresses the claim that it could not have arisen, except by external intelligent input. We do not know, and may never know, how it did arise, but if we can figure out how it could have arisen by Darwinian processes, than the argument that it could not have so arisen, fails.
Dr Liddle, may I ask you to please spare me the Darwinian sales pitch? Having me react to it does neither of us any good whatsoever, and it’s time-consuming, and it’s boring. Can’t we just stick to evidence and reason? Those are the observations that I am interested in, and presumably, you would be too. Trust me; when you tell me systems that work better will survive longer than those that don’t, it does not cause me to gaze off into the distance and ponder the lavish explanatory power of the Darwinian project. It does something else altogether.
Well, that's a shame, because it isn't a "sales pitch", it's the basis of the theory. If you want to argue against the theory, then you need to understand what it actually is.
In my prior post (#49), I had provided four physical entailments of recorded information. I described the observation of them as “logically coherent and demonstrable”. That description is explicitly tied to the codons being symbolic representations. You flatly stated that the system is not symbolic.
Well, it isn't, and I just explained why. A molecule is a physical object, not a symbol. A symbol can be rendered in any medium, and still be the same symbol. A molecule cannot.
I then asked you to provide (by observable evidence/reason) the support necessary for making that conclusion (in the face of contrary evidence).
I just did.
Let’s see what you’ve provided.
Well, it isn’t. It’s simply a physical system. A set of RNA molecules (tRNA) are coded DNA then RNA (probably originally just RNA). That set includes just one molecule for each triplet, although more than one for each amino acid (there being more possible triplets than amino acids). So we have a set of tRNA molecules, with different codon binding site at one end of each one, and an amino acid binding site at the other, right?
To say a code isn’t symbolic simply because it’s a physical system is no answer at all.
Of course it is. It's fundamental. If something lacks the essential attributes of a symbol, it isn't a symbol. And what we have in cells are a series of biochemical reactions. What makes DNA (or RNA) a "code" is the arbitrary mapping of codon to amino acid, but the arbitrariness neither renders it symbolic, nor evolvable by Darwinian mechanisms.
Without exception, all codes are physically instantiated; after all, we live in a material universe. A red plastic ball is a physical thing Dr Liddle, but it cannot be explained without reference to something else. In any case, it appears here that you do not intend to provide any observable evidence to support your assertion that the mapping of nucleotides-to-amino acids is not accomplished by symbolic representation. You simply plan to assert it once again as a conclusion, and apparently intend to address none of the contrary evidence provided.
I can "prove" it is not symbolic simply by drawing your attention to the fact that it is not. I can use your written name as a symbol for you. It will symbolise you whether it is written in pixels, ink, charcoal, carved in granite, or left by con trails, as long as there is someone who understands the convention by which those letter forms represent you, symbolically. But the chemicals that "understand" what a stretch of RNA "represents" are quite different. They only "understand" the code if it is "written" in nucleotides. And the reason they do so is that they are simply molecules, like the code itself, and they "read" the codon by virtue of their chemical configuration. Or do you dispute this?
So we have an arbitrary mapping (arbitrary because presumably some other set of tRNA molecules could have done as well) between codons and amino acids. I don’t call this “symbolic” because the actual physical instantiation of the alleged “symbol” is crucial.
I agree that the mapping is arbitrary. You then go on to say that the alleged symbol can be disregarded as a symbol because its “physical instantiation … is crucial”. I am having a hard time parsing what exactly that means, but you’ve gone on to offer an example regarding the word “dog”.
The word DOG can be rendered in any material and still symbolise the animal we call a dog, which can then be expressed aloud or silently, in sign language However, a codon can only be rendered in nucleotides, and can only be translated into an amino acid by a specific physical molecule.
Oh boy. You are actually making a qualitative comparison between what can be accomplished by a human being (a conscious, prolific, symbol-maker) and what can be accomplished by a system dedicated to a specific effect. Shall we discontinue thinking of the machine code in an automated fabric loom as “symbolic” simply because (in that system) it can do no more than arrange the thread patterns in a fabric? For crying out loud, Dr Liddle!
Yes, you should certainly discontinue that thought. Or else, let us redefine the word symbol so that it can include templates. But that would undermine what I understand is your own position.
Dr Liddle, if it makes any difference to your way of thinking; under the right conditions, nucleotides could be used to operate a fabric loom, and the machine code from a fabric loom could be used to produce polypeptides. And the word “dog” can be spelled out in either system. I will leave it for you to figure out what the common denominator is.
Well, not the word "symbol" as it is normally used, certainly.
But I do agree that the mapping is probably “arbitrary”. Not mysterious, however. Natural selection will favour non-ambigious mappings, and variants that code for sets of tRNA molecules that give ambiguous mappings will tend to reproduce less reliably.
So, having not made a single comment that stands supported by observation, you simply return to the Darwinian sales pitch.
This is pointless.
It's supported by reason. I spelled out my reasoning. If you choose to dismiss it as "sales pitch" then, yes, it probably is "pointless". If you reject as inadmissable all Darwinian arguments, then there aren't any arguments I can make for Darwinism! I think I will regret the tone of this post. I readily admit I personally cannot treat you as just any layperson – one with an open mind just wondering about the bigger issues of existence. Instead, you are a highly trained researcher with a specific position on these matters which you refuse to submit to scrutiny. Perhaps the unfortunate tone is simply a result of our positions. I must always lead with observable evidence because IDists are forever portrayed by your side as idiots and buffoons (if not threatening to civilization and evil among men). On the other hand, you can lead with fairy tales and broken logic for the simple reason that you are never called into question. Why don’t you do us both a favor? Take the physical entailments of recorded information as I provided them, and attack them directly. You say the system is not representational, then fine, provide some rationale that matches the observations that suggest it is. Allow me to respond to something besides the hogwash you typed out here. Substance – Dr Liddle – provide some!
Elizabeth Liddle_{October 5, 2011
October
10
Oct
5
05
2011
02:41 PM
2
02
41
PM
PST}

Let's set the goalposts somewhere and leave them fixed. The order of certainty in biology might look something like this: 1. The earth is billions of years old. 2. Life is billions of years old. 3. Microbial life preceded multi-celled life. 4. Multi-celled life changed over time, a fact evidenced by the fossil record. 5. We have a theory describing the process of change. The details have been expanded on in the last 150 years. 6. Many lines of evidence support the claim that multi-celled things are descended from a common ancestor. 7. Microbes exchange genetic material, Descent is not as clear cut. I would call these seven items non-negotiable. They are true even if a mysterious entity has occasionally intervened. If you disagree, please indicate which statement(s) you think are wrong, and why.Petrushka_{October 5, 2011
October
10
Oct
5
05
2011
02:31 PM
2
02
31
PM
PST}

I will let GP speak for himself, but I'd like to make a quick point or two.
The mapping is determined by the set of tRNA molecules. A different set would give a different mapping.
The mapping is accomplished by charged tRNA, and to become charged they require their entourage of synthetases (complex proteins which can identify individual tRNA and bind the proper amino acid to it, preparing them to physically interact in the exchange of information from input to output). This was mentioned briefly in my post at 49. GP is quite aware of the complexity of both these objects, and perhaps he will comment on them.Upright BiPed_{October 5, 2011
October
10
Oct
5
05
2011
01:44 PM
1
01
44
PM
PST}

Petrushka, I agree, if no one determined a system of coding for data and instructions and then designed and manufactured computers to process it, then computers would not be able to do it. No intervention there. That you can envision the very existence of computers processing information and posit a lack of intervention in the same sentence speaks volumes to the filters through which you view reality. And if by 'looking' you mean that 'mainstream biologists' have started from a priori, non-scientific assumptions while throwing the occasional rock at those who ask why, then yes, they are at least looking.ScottAndrews_{October 5, 2011
October
10
Oct
5
05
2011
01:40 PM
1
01
40
PM
PST}

Information processing is a physical process. If it required intervention, computers would not be able to do it. No one knows (yet) how the code originated. You don't. biologists don't. But mainstream biologists are at least looking.Petrushka_{October 5, 2011
October
10
Oct
5
05
2011
01:28 PM
1
01
28
PM
PST}

This sounds just like the previous discussion. All things "are what they are," even physical representations of symbolic codes. Holes punched in a Hollerith card aren't anything magical, they are just holes. The processes for reading them and executing their instructions are performed by physical constructs. Does that mean that the holes in the card are not symbols for something? You can reduce the representation of any symbolic code to molecules or particles. You don't deny the involvement of intelligent intervention in any other such case. What is different about this one?ScottAndrews_{October 5, 2011
October
10
Oct
5
05
2011
01:23 PM
1
01
23
PM
PST}

The mapping is determined by the set of tRNA molecules. A different set would give a different mapping. The protein assembly process is certainly accomplished by means of other enzymes. But we were talking about the "arbitrary" mapping of codons to specific amino acids, the "code", that UBP is "information" that cannot be generated by Darwinian processes. No, I don't think that the assembly process makes the thing more "symbolic". Molecules aren't symbols, they are what they are, not symbols for something else.Elizabeth Liddle_{October 5, 2011
October
10
Oct
5
05
2011
01:10 PM
1
01
10
PM
PST}

Elizabeth: The mapping is not accomplished by tRNAs, but by 20 very complex proteins, the aminoacyl tRNA synthetases. Would you agree that it is more "symbolic" that way, and above all much more difficult to explain?gpuccio_{October 5, 2011
October
10
Oct
5
05
2011
10:22 AM
10
10
22
AM
PST}

DM:
ID and creationism are both fixed on the idea that the first living thing was a cell of modern complexity
1 --> My old English teacher used to love to quot" "and joins equals." In short, there you go again, inisisting on the Creationism in a cheap tuxedo smear that has long passed sell-by date. 2 --> Next, if the living cell is comparable to a Jumbo jet, the typical component may be comparable to say an instrument on the flight deck. 3 --> And while Hoyle chose the whole jumbo for his comparison, in fact a tornado in a junkyard is just as maximally unlikely to assemble say a D' Arsonval galvanometer based flight instrument as the whole Jumbo Jet. The same complexity-specificity threshold problem meets the one as the other, cf here. 4 --> next, the criterion of living systems to be able to even conceivably evolve body plans is self replication based on stored info. That brings up the von Neumann Self Replicator. Which per observation, starts at about 100,000 bits of info worth of complexity. 5 --> You may suggest a hypothetical self replicating autocatalytic molecule as an escape, but as ES said, you need to empirically, observationally demonstrate its existence, operations and its origin in a plausible prelife medium. 6 --> Until you do so, you are doing the Darwinista switcheroo again, insisting on an agenda-serving speculation in the teeth of contrary empirical evidence, through imposing implicit materialism by a priori. As Lewontin let the cat out of the bag on. (And, FYI, denizens of the fever swamp objector sites, that is demonstrably NOT quote mining. [For your side to insist on that sort of patently false accusation in the teeth of evident facts and the use of the right of fair comment, is to be willfully misleading.] Of course, doubtless you find the terms I have used to describe, stinging. Even though they are accurate, and justified by facts. So, consider what it is like to be subjected to insistent willful false accusation, just plain vile mud slinging without any foundation -- onlookers, this includes false accusations of perversion and child abuse, etc. -- on any excuse and the holding of one's family hostage under implicit mafioso style threats. And then, do better; show the broughtupcy your mothers tried to put into you, at the very least.) 7 --> That evidence, as close as the organisation and info in posts in this thread, with billions of cases in point with no credible counter-cases, is that FSCO/I is produced by design. 8 --> And as for the "of modern complexity part," cf. here (scroll down to Fig I.9 and caption) -- detour due to lost info, Blogger has an annoying post end clip-off bug -- on what happened when investigators recently tried to find simpler cells of low genome size. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{October 5, 2011
October
10
Oct
5
05
2011
09:46 AM
9
09
46
AM
PST}

Petrushka, "So point out the violation of physics or chemistry required by Shapiro’s description of the processes in evolution." Where does a violation of physics or chemistry come into the picture? Do design and implementation violate physics or chemistry? Does anyone know of anything that does? It's irrelevant. To ask whether something violates physics or chemistry is a meaningless litmus test, since nothing we know of or can describe does. To use it to screen out deliberate interference while allowing for some other process is arbitrary. It reflects only your personal preference. I'm all for preferences, but we need to be honest about them. There's nothing wrong if your objection to ID boils down to "I don't like it." But we can't start from our preferences and work backward trying to justify them.ScottAndrews_{October 5, 2011
October
10
Oct
5
05
2011
08:25 AM
8
08
25
AM
PST}

What I meant was to say that we can establish if something has been a result of purposeful design and check our calculations by means of independently available data.
I'm not sure what you mean by that. If I were saying something along those lines I would mean that we can check the validity of natural selection by observing artificial selection and quantifying the likelihood of non-detrimental genetic changes. Things like selective breeding, or like the Lenski experiment, or the Russian experiment with tame foxes. We can, for example, count the genetic differences between two related species, not the time elapsed between divergence, and compare the inferred rate of change with observed rates of change. That is precisely what evolutionary biologists have been trying to do since Darwin. But now we are accumulating sequence data and will increasingly be able to apply actual numbers.Petrushka_{October 5, 2011
October
10
Oct
5
05
2011
08:14 AM
8
08
14
AM
PST}

KF, Cheers!Eugene S_{October 5, 2011
October
10
Oct
5
05
2011
08:07 AM
8
08
07
AM
PST}

3.3.1.2.10 Petrushka Sorry, I may have been unclear. What I meant was to say that we can establish if something has been a result of purposeful design and check our calculations by means of independently available data. Say we know for certain that Mr Petrushka wrote this post 3.3.1.2.10 (e.g. we observed that happenning), we then go and estimate the specified complexity of that post and correctly come to the conclusion that the post has been written by an intelligent agent.Eugene S_{October 5, 2011
October
10
Oct
5
05
2011
07:40 AM
7
07
40
AM
PST}

3.3.1.1.1 DMullenix, "ID and creationism are both fixed on the idea that the first living thing was a cell of modern complexity." I don't think that's true. All ID says is that life is characterised by irreducible complexity, whereby for a given function you need collective and increadibly fine-tuned corredinated input from a set of components. Whenever any component is not present or malfunctional, no "composite" function exists. Now, climbing from the side of Mt Improbable by means of preadaptation does not help for the same reasons of info complexity. Preadaptation can do only so much. "But all you need is to form one polymer that self-reproduces that way and you’re off." Well, give an example of such a polymer then. The chance for a smallest thing able to self-replicate to have emerged by itself is below what is operationally possible in our universe. If you choose to believe in such a possibility, it is up to you, but you don't have the right to call it credible science. The information processing layer acting over the physical layer in complex systems is reliably the result of intelligent agency. Until such times as OOL'ers demonstrate spontaneous emergence of "simple" self-replicating polymers, this remains an unsubstantiated claim.Eugene S_{October 5, 2011
October
10
Oct
5
05
2011
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PST}

Dr Bot: Plainly, you need to look at the current post here [to remind yourself of what the fossil record ACTUALLY shows -- as opposed to headlines and museum exhibits or textbook oversimplifications . . . ], and you should compare this here, on the underlying problem in protein space. Both reflecting the commonly observed implications of imposing specific functional constraints on a complex collection of components. Notice, Gould's classic remark on the trade secret of paleontology, and its roots in Darwin, and his 2002 update. Sorry, you know this, or should know it, long since. And, plainly, the cited examples are biological. In fact, what is happening here is the usual brazen Darwinista switcheroo; assuming the default in the teeth of evidence, and demanding absoluter proof to the contrary or they will assert that their preferred idea is so. Nope, it is those who want to claim the equivalent of a perpetual motion machine of the second kind, who need to show their substantiation. EMPIRICALLY. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{October 5, 2011
October
10
Oct
5
05
2011
07:24 AM
7
07
24
AM
PST}

Petrushka sez (9.1.1.1.2):
Mice an humans are mammals, and mammals are separated from each other mostly by changes in regulatory networks.
That is the propaganda, however there isn't any evidence to support that claim.Joseph_{October 5, 2011
October
10
Oct
5
05
2011
06:25 AM
6
06
25
AM
PST}

Functionally specific sequences are indeed rare in config spaces, and may be clustered in isolated islands of function. The constraints required for function in a complex context guarantee that.
Care to provide any evidence that all observed biology is not occupying a single continent of function? Forget other examples because we are not talking about non-biology, provide evidence that relates specifically to the functional entities being discusses.DrBot_{October 5, 2011
October
10
Oct
5
05
2011
06:12 AM
6
06
12
AM
PST}

Dmullenix, This is self-contradictory.
Science’s best guess is that a molecule simple enough to assemble through chance was self reproducing.
A 'best guess' with no specifics and based on no observation is not science. It is a guess made by people who are scientists. Do you see the difference?
So what is the ID scenario? Start with describing the Intelligent Designer, in detail. Please don’t forget to tell us how He came to exist. Then describe the first living thing He made, then tell us the pathways that incrementally lead to modern life and while you’re at it, explain why exactly those pathways were selected and not some others.
Somehow it persists. Perhaps we need a single link that we can post into comments whenever it comes up. In order to criticize ID you must understand the very concept. It's a bit like discussing Citizen Kane with someone who thinks it's a video game. How can they offer relevant criticism? Even still, there is plenty of peer-reviewed research in progress examining how designers might create the simplest components of life. It's quite detailed and should put this irrelevant question to rest. I've been discussing it on the Science and Freethinking thread. I'm not starting over.ScottAndrews_{October 5, 2011
October
10
Oct
5
05
2011
05:57 AM
5
05
57
AM
PST}

Functionally specific sequences are indeed rare in config spaces, and may be clustered in isolated islands of function. The constraints required for function in a complex context guarantee that. It is evo mat refusal to acknowledge patent, easily observed facts like this [cf my post earlier this morning, zoom in on the text generation examples], that tells me we are not dealing with a reasonable view but ideology and indoctrination based on question-begging a prioris.kairosfocus_{October 5, 2011
October
10
Oct
5
05
2011
05:43 AM
5
05
43
AM
PST}

ES (& P): This update may help.kairosfocus_{October 5, 2011
October
10
Oct
5
05
2011
05:39 AM
5
05
39
AM
PST}

Yet another rhetorical red herring led away to a handy strawman soaked in ad hominems and waiting to be burned, poisoning and polarising the atmosphere. Kindly, read the weak argument correctives page in the resources tab top this and every UD page, as the context of understanding and applying the definition of ID. If you are having worldview level issues [phil not sci], this page in the IOSE deals with that, and this one with the onward sociocultural significance. Those resources are only a few clicks and some hours of reading and viewing away.kairosfocus_{October 5, 2011
October
10
Oct
5
05
2011
05:34 AM
5
05
34
AM
PST}

Evidence for Intelligent Design in Biology TextbooksJoseph_{October 5, 2011
October
10
Oct
5
05
2011
05:34 AM
5
05
34
AM
PST}

Positive evidence [for an Intelligent Designer] has not only been found but has been presented. And all you can do is choke on it.”
So choke me.
You are choked out. You want the evidence? Read a biology textbook. It is all in there. “1- ID is not anti-evolution”
All of Dembski’s and Behe’s “proofs” depend on evolution not working.
That is false. Your ignoarnce, while amusing, is not a refutation. ID argues against blind and undirected processes only- and that is only in certain circumstances as ID does not say design explains everything. “2- No one has ever observed blind and undirected processes producing CSI”
Apolipoprotein AI.
No evidence taht it arose via blind and undirected processes. Try again. “the EF considers both chance and necessity operating together.”
The only time I ever saw Dembski attempt that, he failed miserably.
The EF is how science operates- that is according to Newton himself. And I doubt you witnessed Dembski failing. The fact is that the EF can only measure random OR lawful. You can’t even put a combination into it. According to Dembski, you can. ya see even a rolling of the dice you have the law of gravity acting on those dice.
The EF goes like this: Input item to be tested. . Is it random? Then it’s not ID so Exit . Is it lawful? Then it’s not ID so Exit If you get this far, it’s ID
So you do think your ignorance means something. Strange. The EF goes like this: Start with an object/ event/ structure 1- Is it do to law/ regularity/ necessity? 2- Is it due to chance? (which also includes laws/ regularities/ necessities) 3- Does it have a specification? If there isn't any specification then we do not infer design even though the first two have been eliminated. “Again ID is not anti-evolution and your position still doesn’t have any positive evidence”
You keep saying that, but if evolution is true, every ID “proof” falls flat on its face. The whole ID argument can be stated, “Evolution can’t do it, so ID.”
Behe testified, under oath, that ID is not anti-evolution. ID is antidarwinian evolution. Here are more references for you to choke on: blockquote> Intelligent Design is NOT Creationism (MAY 2000)
Scott refers to me as an intelligent design "creationist," even though I clearly write in my book Darwin's Black Box (which Scott cites) that I am not a creationist and have no reason to doubt common descent. In fact, my own views fit quite comfortably with the 40% of scientists that Scott acknowledges think "evolution occurred, but was guided by God."- Dr Michael Behe
Dr Behe has repeatedly confirmed he is OK with common ancestry. And he has repeatedly made it clear that ID is an argument against materialistic evolution (see below), ie necessity and chance. Then we have: What is Intelligent Design and What is it Challenging?- a short video featuring Stephen C. Meyer on Intelligent Design. He also makes it clear that ID is not anti-evolution. Next Dembski and Wells weigh in:
The theory of intelligent design (ID) neither requires nor excludes speciation- even speciation by Darwinian mechanisms. ID is sometimes confused with a static view of species, as though species were designed to be immutable. This is a conceptual possibility within ID, but it is not the only possibility. ID precludes neither significant variation within species nor the evolution of new species from earlier forms. Rather, it maintains that there are strict limits to the amount and quality of variations that material mechanisms such as natural selection and random genetic change can alone produce. At the same time, it holds that intelligence is fully capable of supplementing such mechanisms, interacting and influencing the material world, and thereby guiding it into certain physical states to the exclusion of others. To effect such guidance, intelligence must bring novel information to expression inside living forms. Exactly how this happens remains for now an open question, to be answered on the basis of scientific evidence. The point to note, however, is that intelligence can itself be a source of biological novelties that lead to macroevolutionary changes. In this way intelligent design is compatible with speciation. page 109 of "The Design of Life"
and
And that brings us to a true either-or. If the choice between common design and common ancestry is a false either-or, the choice between intelligent design and materialistic evolution is a true either-or. Materialistic evolution does not only embrace common ancestry; it also rejects any real design in the evolutionary process. Intelligent design, by contrast, contends that biological design is real and empirically detectable regardless of whether it occurs within an evolutionary process or in discrete independent stages. The verdict is not yet in, and proponents of intelligent design themselves hold differing views on the extent of the evolutionary interconnectedness of organisms, with some even accepting universal common ancestry (ie Darwin’s great tree of life). Common ancestry in combination with common design can explain the similar features that arise in biology. The real question is whether common ancestry apart from common design- in other words, materialistic evolution- can do so. The evidence of biology increasingly demonstrates that it cannot.- Ibid page 142
“Except that is NOT what Behe said”
I read his book.
Obviously you didn't understand it. He explains ID is not anti-evolution just anti darwinism.Joseph_{October 5, 2011
October
10
Oct
5
05
2011
05:32 AM
5
05
32
AM
PST}

Prev 1 … 8 9 10 11 12 … 23 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply