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

Dr Rec, Either it is an inherent physical property, or it is a given/acquired property unrelated to its physical make-up. Now that we understand it is NOT an inherent physical property, we can argue what is causally adequate to explain the observed association. You may now wish to explain, just as GP asked you to do.Upright BiPed_{September 28, 2011
September
09
Sep
28
28
2011
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT}

DrRec: It is humans who have assigned the symbols A,C,G,T,U and the amino acids. What do you mean? The genetic code has been decoded by humans, not created by them. It took difficult research to understant which codond corresponded to which aminoacid. You seem to think that the code consists in assigning names. That is completely wrong. The code consists in the symbolic correspondence of codons to aminoacids, of objects to other objects that have nothing in common. That has not been created by humans, as I hope even you will understand. For instance, the following codons: CGU, CGC, CGA, CGG correspond symbolically to Arginine in the code. They are recognized by the translation system as a command to mount Arginine. But they have no special biochemical relationship with Arginine. It is of no relevance if we call the codon CGU or Andrew, and the aminoacid Arginin or Mary. Names are of no importance. The symbolic code is in the corrispondence of the codon made of those three nucleotides (CGU) to a specific aminoacid (Arginine) in the stored information and in the translation system, although there is no law of chemistry that connects those three nucleotides to that aminoacid. I cannot really be more clear that that. If you want to understand, understand. Otherwise, it's your choice.gpuccio_{September 28, 2011
September
09
Sep
28
28
2011
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PDT}

I'm merely pointing out the obvious, that if you don't look for regularities you don't find them. The approach to investigation taken several hundred years ago has been fruitful. What would you substitute for "unseen" to characterize an entity that has no attributes? ID supported have no agreement on whether intervention is continuous, sporadic, or just once time at creation. And more importantly, no interest in reaching agreement. This is not a fruitful approach. With a few exceptions, ID research consists of reading the results of mainstream science and finding unanswered questions. To the extent that these questions will ever be answered, they will be answered by mainstream scientists looking for regularities. It has been that way for centuries, even when the overwhelming percentage of scientists were theists.Petrushka_{September 28, 2011
September
09
Sep
28
28
2011
09:36 AM
9
09
36
AM
PDT}

And lets play a game with this--is this object designed? How could you tell? http://www.godunov.com/bucky/buckyball-3.gifDrREC_{September 28, 2011
September
09
Sep
28
28
2011
09:28 AM
9
09
28
AM
PDT}

Crystals self organize. Membranes, colloids and other surfaces, too. Self organization is observed. Design is inferred by analogy to human activities.DrREC_{September 28, 2011
September
09
Sep
28
28
2011
09:22 AM
9
09
22
AM
PDT}

Why does that prove it is a non-physical process? Non-inherent physical property does not equate with meta- or non-physical.DrREC_{September 28, 2011
September
09
Sep
28
28
2011
09:20 AM
9
09
20
AM
PDT}

Petrushka,
But in the last 400 years of science, which has been the more fruitful assumption: that regularities exist in nature that can be discovered, or that things that are not known are best explained by the intervention of unseen entities?
Take out the irrelevant word "unseen" and the answer is that neither is a good assumption. Regularities do exist in nature that can be discovered, and some things are best explained by the intervention of entities. If we assume either one then we're likely to be wrong.ScottAndrews_{September 28, 2011
September
09
Sep
28
28
2011
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT}

So you suggest that if (anywhere in the cosmos) cytosine is found attached to thymine and then to adenine, then that means leucine should be added to a nearby protein? You see this as an inherent physical property of those three chemicals.Upright BiPed_{September 28, 2011
September
09
Sep
28
28
2011
09:11 AM
9
09
11
AM
PDT}

Petrushka, It is a different kettle of fish. The question is whether or not spontaneous self-organisation is operationally possible. Over the last 400 years there has been no evidence that would provide any grounds for the hypothesis of genuine self-organisation of matter without intelligent interference. Which is a more honest answer: that we can use/extrapolate "chance/necessity" without any grounds to explain life's complexity, or that even though we can't establish the particular mechanisms of intelligent agency we still can reliably detect it?Eugene S_{September 28, 2011
September
09
Sep
28
28
2011
09:03 AM
9
09
03
AM
PDT}

The physical makeup of a protein determines how it functions. The physical makeup is translated by physical/chemical recognition and pairing of an tRNA and a mRNA template, which in turn is made by nucleotide/DNA pairing. It is humans who have assigned the symbols A,C,G,T,U and the amino acids. We could arbitrarily change what we call them (and do-W and Trp and (2S)-2-amino-3-(1H-indol-3-yl)propanoic acid meaning the same thing). But tryptophan is a physical entity, one object. The moon is the moon, no matter what you name it.DrREC_{September 28, 2011
September
09
Sep
28
28
2011
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PDT}

Just a general note: For several days I've been unable to load long pages here. They just died without completing. I'm sure many a tear has been shed over my absence. Just now I notice that long threads are broken up into pages. that seems to be a new feature, and it makes long thread load much faster. Unfortunately there's still the problem that new posts don't necessarily go at the end of the discussion, so you have to read through everything.Petrushka_{September 28, 2011
September
09
Sep
28
28
2011
08:55 AM
8
08
55
AM
PDT}

Dr Bot, the components of the (information) system must have physical substrates in order to have a physical effect - that is (after all) what is actually observed; a system of physical representations, coordinated to physical protocols, leading to physical effects - with each of them remaining discrete. (It's the same physical dynamic as in any other example of recorded information). But the physical makeup of the substrate does not determine the information contained within the system, nor the system itself.Upright BiPed_{September 28, 2011
September
09
Sep
28
28
2011
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PDT}

The genetic code is not a law of chemistry. It is a symbolic coresponcence between codons of nucleotides and aminoacids. No laws of chemistry connect the two things. And as noted as recently as the Koonin book, no one knows how the cod originated. But in the last 400 years of science, which has been the more fruitful assumption: that regularities exist in nature that can be discovered, or that things that are not known are best explained by the intervention of unseen entities?Petrushka_{September 28, 2011
September
09
Sep
28
28
2011
08:47 AM
8
08
47
AM
PDT}

If the process isn't physical, what is it? Why can it be recapitulated in a test tube, using physical components alone? All the processes you describe (mRNA synthesis, translation, tRNA charging) rely on complimenting shapes and chemistries.DrREC_{September 28, 2011
September
09
Sep
28
28
2011
08:35 AM
8
08
35
AM
PDT}

I'll rephrase this to be more accurate. The physical process of translation is the connection. Take away the translation, and there is no connection whatsoever. And it's because there is no connection that the symbols are arbitrary. Just like "3" means xxx and "4" means xxxx - it's only because we say they do. We could use "III" and "IV" or "6" and "7" instead. There is no law that can assign a symbolic code to a physical entity or process.ScottAndrews_{September 28, 2011
September
09
Sep
28
28
2011
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PDT}

Moreover, the dispute between IDists and neo-Darwinists has, thus far, not focused on transcendent quantum information so much, if at all, but has instead focused on ‘classical information’ which is information that is encoded onto a material substrate;,
“LIFE’S CONSERVATION LAW: Why Darwinian Evolution Cannot Create Biological Information” - Dembski, Marks http://evoinfo.org/publications/lifes-conservation-law/
Yet, though the dispute between neo-Darwinists and IDist has been over ‘classical information, classical information is shown to be a subset of transcendent quantum information by the following method:
This following research provides solid falsification for Rolf Landauer’s contention that information encoded in a computer is merely physical (“Information is physical!” – Rolf Landauer) (merely ‘emergent’ from a material basis) since he believed it always required energy to erase it; Quantum knowledge cools computers: New understanding of entropy – June 2011 Excerpt: No heat, even a cooling effect; In the case of perfect classical knowledge of a computer memory (zero entropy), deletion of the data requires in theory no energy at all. The researchers prove that “more than complete knowledge” from quantum entanglement with the memory (negative entropy) leads to deletion of the data being accompanied by removal of heat from the computer and its release as usable energy. This is the physical meaning of negative entropy. Renner emphasizes, however, “This doesn’t mean that we can develop a perpetual motion machine.” The data can only be deleted once, so there is no possibility to continue to generate energy. The process also destroys the entanglement, and it would take an input of energy to reset the system to its starting state. The equations are consistent with what’s known as the second law of thermodynamics: the idea that the entropy of the universe can never decrease. Vedral says “We’re working on the edge of the second law. If you go any further, you will break it.” http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110601134300.htm
And transcendent quantum information is shown, empirically, to be ‘conserved’ here:
Quantum no-hiding theorem experimentally confirmed for first time – March 2011 Excerpt: In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed. http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-quantum-no-hiding-theorem-experimentally.html
I would like to reiterate just how ‘spooky’, to use Einstein’s word, it is to find something that blatantly defies our concepts of time and space, on a massive scale, within our bodies;
Light and Quantum Entanglement Reflect Some Characteristics Of God – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4102182
Further note:
Three subsets of sequence complexity and their relevance to biopolymeric information – Abel, Trevors Excerpt: Shannon information theory measures the relative degrees of RSC and OSC. Shannon information theory cannot measure FSC (Functional Sequence Complexity). FSC is invariably associated with all forms of complex biofunction, including biochemical pathways, cycles, positive and negative feedback regulation, and homeostatic metabolism. The algorithmic programming of FSC, not merely its aperiodicity, accounts for biological organization. No empirical evidence exists of either RSC of OSC ever having produced a single instance of sophisticated biological organization. Organization invariably manifests FSC rather than successive random events (RSC) or low-informational self-ordering phenomena (OSC).,,, Testable hypotheses about FSC What testable empirical hypotheses can we make about FSC that might allow us to identify when FSC exists? In any of the following null hypotheses [137], demonstrating a single exception would allow falsification. We invite assistance in the falsification of any of the following null hypotheses: Null hypothesis #1 Stochastic ensembles of physical units cannot program algorithmic/cybernetic function. Null hypothesis #2 Dynamically-ordered sequences of individual physical units (physicality patterned by natural law causation) cannot program algorithmic/cybernetic function. Null hypothesis #3 Statistically weighted means (e.g., increased availability of certain units in the polymerization environment) giving rise to patterned (compressible) sequences of units cannot program algorithmic/cybernetic function. Null hypothesis #4 Computationally successful configurable switches cannot be set by chance, necessity, or any combination of the two, even over large periods of time. We repeat that a single incident of nontrivial algorithmic programming success achieved without selection for fitness at the decision-node programming level would falsify any of these null hypotheses. This renders each of these hypotheses scientifically testable. We offer the prediction that none of these four hypotheses will be falsified. http://www.tbiomed.com/content/2/1/29
verse and music:
John 1:1-3 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. Brooke Fraser – Lord of Lords(Legendado Português) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkF3iVjOZ1I
Perhaps DrBot would like to tell us where the materialistic basis of information resides that is orchestrating the development of this human in a womb??
Fearfully and Wonderfully Made - Glimpses At Human Development In The Womb - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4249713 Jeremiah 1:5 Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart;,,
=============
Award-Winning Documentary - "Shocking!" - "180" Movie http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7y2KsU_dhwI
bornagain77_{September 28, 2011
September
09
Sep
28
28
2011
08:21 AM
8
08
21
AM
PDT}

HouseStreetRoom: Thanks for the support. And yes, I am an MD. It's specially difficult to discuss constructively with those who have not an understanding of the basics of biology, and yet believe that they know how things are. I try to stick to biological and scientific arguments, because that's where the ID points are best understood and proved. But to discuss biology, it is necessary to understand the basics. I have met other dariwnist supoorters who refuses to admit the obvious, that the genetic code is a code, a simple truth that has been well known to biologists since when the genetic code was discovered (that's why it was called a code!). But, usually, they based their positions on vague phylosophical and semantic reasons. DrBot seems to base his arguments only on his personal non understanding of biology. I am afraid that there is nothing to do in those cases. However, thank you again for your note.gpuccio_{September 28, 2011
September
09
Sep
28
28
2011
08:19 AM
8
08
19
AM
PDT}

Pardon gpuccio if I respond to this comment by DrBot:
Show me some evidence that there is nothing physical that relates codons of nucleotides and aminoacids!
I suppose DrBot says he wants to see evidence for something 'non-material' in the cell? Here is a clip of a talk in which Alain Aspect talks about the failure of ‘local realism’, or the failure of materialism, to explain reality since quantum entanglement/information is now conclusively shown to be ‘non-local’ (i.e. instantaneous, as well as completely transcendent of any space-time (material) constraints):
Quantum Entanglement – The Failure Of Local Realism – Materialism – Alain Aspect – video http://www.metacafe.com/w/4744145
This falsification for local realism (materialism), discussed by Aspect in the preceding video, was recently greatly strengthened:
Physicists close two loopholes while violating local realism – November 2010 Excerpt: The latest test in quantum mechanics provides even stronger support than before for the view that nature violates local realism and is thus in contradiction with a classical worldview. http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-physicists-loopholes-violating-local-realism.html Quantum Measurements: Common Sense Is Not Enough, Physicists Show – July 2009 Excerpt: scientists have now proven comprehensively in an experiment for the first time that the experimentally observed phenomena cannot be described by non-contextual models with hidden variables. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090722142824.htm
Quantum entanglement is shown to be related to ‘functional information’ by the following evidence;
Quantum Entanglement and Information Excerpt: A pair of quantum systems in an entangled state can be used as a quantum information channel to perform computational and cryptographic tasks that are impossible for classical systems. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-entangle/
And yet Quantum Entanglement/Information, which falsified ‘local realism (reductive materialism), is found to be intertwined in the molecular basis life on a massive scale:
Quantum Information/Entanglement In DNA & Protein Folding – short video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5936605/
And indeed the ‘quantum computation’ accomplished by the non-local quantum entanglement/information within DNA is very impressive:
Quantum Dots Spotlight DNA-Repair Proteins in Motion – March 2010 Excerpt: “How this system works is an important unanswered question in this field,” he said. “It has to be able to identify very small mistakes in a 3-dimensional morass of gene strands. It’s akin to spotting potholes on every street all over the country and getting them fixed before the next rush hour.” Dr. Bennett Van Houten – of note: A bacterium has about 40 team members on its pothole crew. That allows its entire genome to be scanned for errors in 20 minutes, the typical doubling time.,, These smart machines can apparently also interact with other damage control teams if they cannot fix the problem on the spot. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100311123522.htm
Anton Zeilinger, a leading researcher in Quantum mechanics, relates how quantum entanglement is related to quantum teleportation in this following video;
Quantum Entanglement and Teleportation – Anton Zeilinger – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5705317/
And quantum teleporation has shown that atoms, which are suppose to be the basis from which functional information ‘emerges’, in the neo-Darwinian framework, are now shown to be, in fact, reducible to the transcendent functional quantum information that the atoms are suppose to be the basis of!
Ions have been teleported successfully for the first time by two independent research groups Excerpt: In fact, copying isn’t quite the right word for it. In order to reproduce the quantum state of one atom in a second atom, the original has to be destroyed. This is unavoidable – it is enforced by the laws of quantum mechanics, which stipulate that you can’t ‘clone’ a quantum state. In principle, however, the ‘copy’ can be indistinguishable from the original (that was destroyed),,, http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/Issues/2004/October/beammeup.asp Atom takes a quantum leap – 2009 Excerpt: Ytterbium ions have been ‘teleported’ over a distance of a metre.,,, “What you’re moving is information, not the actual atoms,” says Chris Monroe, from the Joint Quantum Institute at the University of Maryland in College Park and an author of the paper. But as two particles of the same type differ only in their quantum states, the transfer of quantum information is equivalent to moving the first particle to the location of the second. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2171769/posts
How can quantum information/entanglement ‘emerge’ from any material basis of atoms when atoms are now shown to reduce to a transcendent basis of quantum information in the first place? i.e. It is IMPOSSIBLE for the ’cause’ of transcendent functional quantum information to reside within material particles!!!bornagain77_{September 28, 2011
September
09
Sep
28
28
2011
08:09 AM
8
08
09
AM
PDT}

DrBot: Show me some evidence that there is nothing physical that relates codons of nucleotides and aminoacids! I have already done that. I have explained you how translation works. Please review the subject. As you seem to think that there is a connection, please explain what it is.gpuccio_{September 28, 2011
September
09
Sep
28
28
2011
07:57 AM
7
07
57
AM
PDT}

So gene sequences exist independently of chemistry!
Dr Bot, if gene sequences were not independent of the physical properties of the carrier, then there would be no way they could function as representations leading to an effect, in other word, no symbols = no information. Additionally, if gene sequences were determined by the chemistry of their carrier, then there would be no way to input that information into the output sequence of the system (amino acids), in other words, no transfer of information = no constraint = no output. Instead of telling a practicing medical doctor they need to “go back to school” just because you fail to fully understand and appreciate a topic, perhaps you should bone up on the issues for yourself. Just saying…Upright BiPed_{September 28, 2011
September
09
Sep
28
28
2011
07:52 AM
7
07
52
AM
PDT}

DrBot, There is obviously a physical connection, otherwise one could not be translated to the other by physical processes. But the connection is arbitrary, not dependent on any law. The word "broccoli" explicitly refers to a certain vegetable, but there's no law that says so. People speaking other languages may use other words. We could collectively decide to switch the meanings of "broccoli" and "sofa," and then we would sit on broccoli and eat sofas. Laws cannot explain symbolic meaning.ScottAndrews_{September 28, 2011
September
09
Sep
28
28
2011
07:30 AM
7
07
30
AM
PDT}

DrBot, It's not about what argument you can insert or where. It's about why you insert it.ScottAndrews_{September 28, 2011
September
09
Sep
28
28
2011
07:18 AM
7
07
18
AM
PDT}

You’re comparing an untested hypothesis to E=MC2, and ID to goddidit. So far your arguments have been logical, if faulty. Why are you now reverting to rhetoric?
ID - a designer of unknown powers did things that made it happen. This argument can be inserted anywhere.DrBot_{September 28, 2011
September
09
Sep
28
28
2011
07:11 AM
7
07
11
AM
PDT}

Everything that a computer does depends on physical hardware - chemistry, and physics. All information that the observed designers (humans) encode into the memory is in the form of electrical signals within physical hardware. You cannot change the way information in memory maps to pixels on the screen without making some material change to the system - the laws of physics connect the memory state to the display state.
The genetic code is not a law of chemistry. It is a symbolic coresponcence between codons of nucleotides and aminoacids. No laws of chemistry connect the two things.
Show me some evidence that there is nothing physical that relates codons of nucleotides and aminoacids!DrBot_{September 28, 2011
September
09
Sep
28
28
2011
07:08 AM
7
07
08
AM
PDT}

Just echoing a word of support. It's clear to anyone reading these exchanges that you've actually bothered to learn chemistry and biology, and know the science rather thoroughly (if I recall you're an MD!). This is why statements from Dr. Bot like "go back to school" are so deliciously ironic. Not only are the people making them usually completely clueless when it comes to science (i.e. devoid of scientific training), but they are usually positivists or empiricists philosophically and thus confuse their metaphysics for some kind of real scientific knowledge. They attach themselves as parasites to Darwinism (not being actual biologists) and use it as a pretense to belittle those who believe differently (see Dr. Bot here). This is kind of a rant, because I see it so often in modern people. If you're religious for example, you must be irrational and hate 'Science!'. I'm learning electrochemistry in conjunction with the operation of fuel cell engines. I'm also studying nuclear energetics/physics with respect to reactor theory. Clearly what I'm thinking about Dr. Bot, it how "goddidit," and not E=Mc^2. It'd be funny if it weren't so sad. Thanks for your posts gpuccio.HouseStreetRoom_{September 28, 2011
September
09
Sep
28
28
2011
06:58 AM
6
06
58
AM
PDT}

DrBot, We are talking about scientific explanations. You cannot legitimately compare e=mc^2 to GodDitIt. Wishful thinking is no science. If you like, God Did It so that e=mc^2 and it is beautisfully done! But the evolution argument lacks this beauty which once it was thought to have. Its facade has succumbed to the ravages of time.Eugene S_{September 28, 2011
September
09
Sep
28
28
2011
06:58 AM
6
06
58
AM
PDT}

DrBot, Now the wheels have come off. You're comparing an untested hypothesis to E=MC2, and ID to goddidit. So far your arguments have been logical, if faulty. Why are you now reverting to rhetoric?ScottAndrews_{September 28, 2011
September
09
Sep
28
28
2011
06:55 AM
6
06
55
AM
PDT}

dmullenix,
“We’re sorry for stating that evolution has to search through 1.6^60 combinations to find one that works. To do that would require changing all 100 base pairs at once and evolution obviously doesn’t do that. It actually changes one or two bases at once meaning it searches four or sixteen places that are very very near the known good position the parental organism occupies.”
The search does become simpler if you start from an existing functional DNA pattern and a parent organism 'occupying a good position.' It's like looking for a hidden treasure buried somewhere in the solar system. Step 1 - stand next to the buried treasure. Step 2 - search in the surrounding area. Step 2 sounds a whole lot simpler if it you don't account for step 1.ScottAndrews_{September 28, 2011
September
09
Sep
28
28
2011
06:48 AM
6
06
48
AM
PDT}

The complexity argument cannot be so easily dismissed as mere misunderstanding. One of few sensible critics of ID is Stuart Kauffman. He advocates for antichaos and holistic coevolution of everything. Correct me if I am wrong, but he has not been able to convincingly demonstrate so far how on earth spontaneous self-organisation is possible. True, he modelled evolution using Boolean networks and showed that structure could emerge from chaos. But what kind of structure? What kind of information is associated with this structure? Functional/Prescriptive information? I don't think so. He already starts off at a point where his Boolean cell models are able to communicate. There are probabilistic measures of how much information you can reliably get as a spontaneous bonus. This is marginal and is not enough to explain the complexity levels of existing life. On a particular point, in order for mutations to kick off, you already have to have an horrendously complex system.Eugene S_{September 28, 2011
September
09
Sep
28
28
2011
06:32 AM
6
06
32
AM
PDT}

DrBot: I am afraid your "arguments" have fallen below any acceptable level. A pity, I thought you were quite reasonable, in the beginning. Well, I will leave you to explain, if you want, how the laws of electromagnetism completely explain the existence of Windows 7. Good luck, and have a good time.gpuccio_{September 28, 2011
September
09
Sep
28
28
2011
05:59 AM
5
05
59
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 16 17 18 19 20 … 23 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply