Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Science’s Blind Spot

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

A friend of mine likes to invest in stocks. He understands computer companies so he trades only those stocks. This limitation makes for a simple and straightforward investing strategy. Evolutionists also limit themselves. They investigate only those phenomena that are the result of strictly natural causes. This limitation makes for a simple and straightforward research strategy, though it does create a blind spot.  Read more

Comments
Disputing macroevolution(in the materialistic darwinian sense) is simply saying that the current model propounded is incapable of producing the effects we see in the diversity of life. That’s what it means.
OK, so what's your take on the incremental change in mammalian jawbones, leading to the bones of the middle ear?Petrushka
August 27, 2010
August
08
Aug
27
27
2010
05:40 AM
5
05
40
AM
PDT
“Disputing macroevolution is like disputing the orbit of Pluto because no one has seen a complete revolution.” Disputing macroevolution(in the materialistic darwinian sense) is simply saying that the current model propounded is incapable of producing the effects we see in the diversity of life. That’s what it means. -“ Mainstream physicists pretty much agree that the net energy content of the universe is zero (and that means the net mass is also effectively zero). Try Googling “net energy of universe”. First, that is just a guess. Second that merely signifies an extreme degree of balance and order not that nothing exists (as peter atkins so irrationaly claimed once). If that’s not where you were going with it simply ignore this comment. -“ At some point one might be justified in invoking supernatural creation, but the big bang is not necessarily that point.” That is an acceptable opinion by not a lot of people seem to share that with you. Even atheists when they realized what the big bang signified went immediately on the defensive and tried to ignore its implications ever since in faith of their promissory materialism. @alex -“ Almost all that I know is actually faith.” You see alex, this is the point that not a single positivist, not a single materialist, not a single atheist is willing to accept. Their beliefs – just like everyone else’s – is too based on faith. I would argue that they require tons more faith than a Theist of course but I think it’s best not to go there. Once they bring themselves to acknowledge what is blatantly obvious to every else, then I think it would be a good time to start a constructive dialogue.above
August 26, 2010
August
08
Aug
26
26
2010
04:07 PM
4
04
07
PM
PDT
In the same species, we can find variants of one gene. It’s called polymorphism. Those variants are usually perfectly functional, and their fucntion is always the same as the function of the more common form of the gene.
Or they might not be perfectly functional; variations may cause disease. Or one variant may work quite well in one organism and be detrimental in another. You cannot grade the variants without observing them in the whole organism.Petrushka
August 25, 2010
August
08
Aug
25
25
2010
02:50 PM
2
02
50
PM
PDT
Petrushka: As it often happens, I don't understand what you mean. You wrote: "There are scarcely any genes that affects only one function". And I have given a few examples of enzymes with a very well defined function in the very well defined methabolic way called glycolysis. What do you mean with your discourse about "variants"? The same gene can have variants in different species, but they usually retain the same function trhough more or less different primary sequences. I have argued repeatedly that this is due mostly to random variation and negative selection. In the same species, we can find variants of one gene. It's called polymorphism. Those variants are usually perfectly functional, and their fucntion is always the same as the function of the more common form of the gene. Other times, variant are less functional or non functional. The name for those cases is mendelian genetic diseases. So, what you mean with your mention of variants remains a mystery for me. Would you like to elucidate?gpuccio
August 25, 2010
August
08
Aug
25
25
2010
02:15 PM
2
02
15
PM
PDT
Shall I continue?
Just looking at your first example I see many articles discussing the effects of variants. The point of my comment was that variants have unpredictable effects on the entire organism. The problem gets tougher when you consider regulatory DNA, which accounts for most of the differences between species. Are you really asserting that variants don't exist, or that when the variants are studied in detail, they won't form a hierarchy nested by descent?Petrushka
August 25, 2010
August
08
Aug
25
25
2010
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PDT
But even in our observable world, particles can come into existence momentarily. Our universe could be such a moment in eternity. Far out, Tommy Chong I don’t bring these things up because I think they are necessarily correct, but because they illustrate how much we don’t know. IOW, it should be perfectly acceptable to dispute macroevolution :-)tribune7
August 25, 2010
August
08
Aug
25
25
2010
07:06 AM
7
07
06
AM
PDT
I suppose what science does best is not proving or disproving specific events, but investigating whether they fall into the category of regular phenomena. Petrushka, put me down as a vote for this.tribune7
August 24, 2010
August
08
Aug
24
24
2010
06:37 PM
6
06
37
PM
PDT
...but if the witnesses of the phenomenon are proven reliable then their reports are as good as any (true) article in, say, the Nature.
The motto of scientists regarding each other's testimony is trust but verify. Even Newton apparently cleaned up some of his observational data in later years. I understand his earliest observations had a normal range of errors, but there was no routine mathematical way of dealing with them. Much of science, including the hardest sciences have to cope with observational errors. Not much survives without replication and verification.Petrushka
August 24, 2010
August
08
Aug
24
24
2010
05:54 PM
5
05
54
PM
PDT
Petrushka, I almost agree with you, although you slightly miss the point I was making earlier. What I want to say is that a scientific papers are written first hand accounts of observed phenomena. Apart from trivial things we can reproduce ourselves, you and me accept them if we think that there is good reason to believe the authors. The authors themselves also do the same with the vast majority of other papers, by the way. Our knowledge is in fact 99% well-organized beliefs of what we read or were told. Whether the observations are repeatable (like apples falling from trees) or non-repeatable (like gamma ray bursts or unusual supernovae) does not matter. They also may fall into a pattern (i.e. confirming a hypothesis) or not fall into a pattern (disproving a likely theory). This is the reason why I think e.g. that although the observation of someone being alive after he was brutally executed cannot be repeated in the labs, but if the witnesses of the phenomenon are proven reliable then their reports are as good as any (true) article in, say, the Nature. There is nothing that would render it inferior in any ways to other scientific papers.Alex73
August 24, 2010
August
08
Aug
24
24
2010
04:04 PM
4
04
04
PM
PDT
Petrushka: There is no escaping the fact that science needs theorists, too.gpuccio
August 24, 2010
August
08
Aug
24
24
2010
04:03 PM
4
04
03
PM
PDT
Petrushka: That would have to be a fictional object, since biological obhects are intertwined in immensly complex networks. There are scarcely any genes that affects only one function. Not true, as usual. From Uniprot: P19367 Hexokinase-1: Catalytic activity: ATP + D-hexose = ADP + D-hexose 6-phosphate. P08237 6-phosphofructokinase, muscle type Catalytic activity: ATP + D-fructose 6-phosphate = ADP + D-fructose 1,6-bisphosphate. P30613 Pyruvate kinase isozymes R/L Catalytic activity: ATP + pyruvate = ADP + phosphoenolpyruvate. These are just three very important enzymes implied in glycolysis, each with a specific catalytic activity. Shall I continue?gpuccio
August 24, 2010
August
08
Aug
24
24
2010
04:02 PM
4
04
02
PM
PDT
It is this tree or that brook that is studied by science, not some abstraction, and then, and only then, is it generalized to apply to other trees and brooks.
There are always fueds in science between the data collectors and the theorists. There is no escaping the fact that science needs data, and that the personalities of data collectors and theorists are sometimes at odds.Petrushka
August 24, 2010
August
08
Aug
24
24
2010
01:31 PM
1
01
31
PM
PDT
Petrushka,
I suppose what science does best is not proving or disproving specific events, but investigating whether they fall into the category of regular phenomena.
It seems to me that science tries exactly to prove or disprove specific events. Every event is specific. It may happen again and again, but it is always specific. It is this tree or that brook that is studied by men practicing a methodology generally agreed upon and called science, not some abstraction of a tree or brook, and then, and only then, is it generalized to apply to other trees and brooks.Clive Hayden
August 24, 2010
August
08
Aug
24
24
2010
01:24 PM
1
01
24
PM
PDT
The problem comes, as I noted earlier, when one attempts to use science as the final authority of truth or denies the existence of non-reproducible events because they can’t be addressed by natural science.
I suppose what science does best is not proving or disproving specific events, but investigating whether they fall into the category of regular phenomena. What science tends to do over time is expand the realm of consistency.Petrushka
August 24, 2010
August
08
Aug
24
24
2010
01:04 PM
1
01
04
PM
PDT
Nothing of importance in science depends on irreproducible results. Except the creation of new energy :-) And life from non-life too, I suppose. Anyway you raise a good point in that science in pursuing its mission of finding consistencies in nature so these consistencies may used to solve material problems should quite appropriately limits itself to reproducible events. The problem comes, as I noted earlier, when one attempts to use science as the final authority of truth or denies the existence of non-reproducible events because they can't be addressed by natural science.tribune7
August 24, 2010
August
08
Aug
24
24
2010
12:14 PM
12
12
14
PM
PDT
Petrushka,
But even in our observable world, particles can come into existence momentarily. Our universe could be such a moment in eternity. I don’t bring these things up because I think they are necessarily correct, but because they illustrate how much we don’t know. I find claims by people who do know to be rather amusing.
I find using a description of un-knowledge as knowledge, and therefore as a rule against other propositions, as rather amusing.Clive Hayden
August 24, 2010
August
08
Aug
24
24
2010
11:38 AM
11
11
38
AM
PDT
JM: I'd love to see your cookie recipe with 87 bits of functionally specific info: at 7 ASCII bits per letter, that is about 13 letters. COOKIE takes up 6 already! Gkairosfocus
August 24, 2010
August
08
Aug
24
24
2010
11:32 AM
11
11
32
AM
PDT
Alex73: Excellent observation. If we did not build confidence in a body of knowledge and reports, science would be impossible. And, science is inseparable from other serious methods of inquiry. Gkairosfocus
August 24, 2010
August
08
Aug
24
24
2010
11:25 AM
11
11
25
AM
PDT
if the modus operandi of science can rely on evidence that can be gathered 99% of the time by listening to reliable witnesses and cross checking them, I do not see why the same thing is not good enough with other, often one-off events in the past? But that is not the modus operandi of science, which is why hoaxes and errors eventually get exposed. Nothing of importance in science depends on irreproducible results. Else our energy problems would have been solved years ago by cold fusion. Everything of importance must be supported by multiple lines of evidence -- consilience -- as well as independent verification of data.Petrushka
August 24, 2010
August
08
Aug
24
24
2010
10:52 AM
10
10
52
AM
PDT
It is a bit late, but a few posts earlier Petrushka mentioned that evidence to supernatural events is reduced to witness accounts. A long while ago I had to realize that the wast majority of my scientific knowledge is actually believing eyewitness accounts written down in a publication of some sort. If I have the capacity, then I so some cross checking, like if there is an obvious contradiction with something I had previously believed to be true, but that is it. With other words, it is unlikely, that I will ever inspect the molecular structure of the flagellum, measure the spectrum of supernovae or create a protein from scratch. I could go on, but I also think that only a handful of scientists exists who indeed have taken the flagellum apart, crystallized the proteins, measured their structure using x-rays and based on evidence built the 3D molecular models. The rest of us just believe them. Even if 'in principle' we could replicate the same stuff, in practice we cannot. We do not have the equipment and the funding and the knowledge etc to become an eyewitness ourselves. Almost all that I know is actually faith. Now here is the point: if the modus operandi of science can rely on evidence that can be gathered 99% of the time by listening to reliable witnesses and cross checking them, I do not see why the same thing is not good enough with other, often one-off events in the past?Alex73
August 24, 2010
August
08
Aug
24
24
2010
10:04 AM
10
10
04
AM
PDT
The concept is that any single object or system performing a specific function...
That would have to be a fictional object, since biological obhects are intertwined in immensly complex networks. There are scarcely any genes that affects only one function. If there were, medicine would be much simpler, since we could find the gene or genes responsible for cancer, etc.Petrushka
August 24, 2010
August
08
Aug
24
24
2010
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT
note that the random variance only changed one letter, and actually didn’t even add any FSCI to the string at all; but it did change the meaning of the entire string.
That's a reasonable statement, and in fact it accounts for most of the differences between species. What do you make of the gradual changes of shape in the jawbones of mammals leading to the bones of the middle ear?Petrushka
August 24, 2010
August
08
Aug
24
24
2010
09:05 AM
9
09
05
AM
PDT
Jurassicmac: Oops, I forgot to paste the link to my second post. Here it is: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/intelligent-design-and-the-demarcation-problem/#comment-362171 The link to the Durston paper is in it, but I copy here just the same: “Measuring the functional sequence complexity of proteins” http://www.tbiomed.com/content/4/1/47gpuccio
August 24, 2010
August
08
Aug
24
24
2010
08:35 AM
8
08
35
AM
PDT
jurrassicmac:: 1) The bits of FSCI regard one object (or one system) and one function. FSCI is the number of functional information necessary to achieve one specific function. So, FSCI is not simply additive, as I have shown in my previous anser for you. The concept is that any single object or system performing a specific function which results from at least a certain number of Fits (functional bits) of information (and 1000 is really an upper level threshold: IMO, 150 bits is a much more appropriate threshold for all biological contexts) is an object (or system) exhibiting FSCI. All such objects, as far as we know, are products of design, and have never a non designed origin. The only exception is exactly the set of objects about which we discuss: biological objects, like genomes and proteomes. 2) FSCI is quantifiable, especially in its digital form (dFSCI). I have discussed many times in detail the role of dFSCI in ID theory, and how it can be measured- Here is a recent link to a post of mine about the ID inference: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/intelligent-design-and-the-demarcation-problem/#comment-362111 And this is anopther one from the same thread about its measurement. Please read them, if you are interested, and especially the linked paper by Durston et al. Then we can discuss any detail you like. 3) See the previous point. For instance, according to the Durston paper, Ribobomal protein S12 has 312 Fits of functional information, P53 DNA domain 525 Fits, Paramyx RNA Pol 1886 Fits. You can find the results for 35 protein families in the Durston paper. According to my threshold for biological systems, 150 bits (which, believe me, is very very reasonable, and still highly generous), almost all of them exhibit FSCI.gpuccio
August 24, 2010
August
08
Aug
24
24
2010
08:30 AM
8
08
30
AM
PDT
"in DNA", at the end there.William J. Murray
August 24, 2010
August
08
Aug
24
24
2010
07:59 AM
7
07
59
AM
PDT
jurrassicmac: 1. If you begin with a thing that already has, let's say, 1000 bits of FSCI, then unguided variants of say 20 bits of information that generate a novel function are not creating 1000 bits of novel function; the process created 20 bits of FSCI. For example, if a random error happened to change the sentence: "I have to eat my oatmeal cookies." to "I hate to eat my oatmeal cookies.", note that the random variance only changed one letter, and actually didn't even add any FSCI to the string at all; but it did change the meaning of the entire string. The question isn't if random processes can change the "v" to a "t" and in some lucky cases generate a string with a fully functional alternate meaning, but rather if the random (unguided) processes are capable of generating a functioning string of over 1000 FSCI in the first place. Generally speaking, though, random variations don't add function; they usually detract from function. Take any 10 word sentence and start randomly changing letters without any target and see how long it takes to lose all coherent meaning, and then how long it takes to gain any coherent meaning back. 2. The faq I and others have repeatedly directed you to on this page - the "weak arguments" faq - has a clear definition of FSCI. 3. Every post on this blog represents well over 1000 bits of FSCI. If every potential letter in every space (including numbers, spaces and punctuation) were added up (let's say 50 possibilities in each space), then you can see that FSCI adds up rather quickly. What differentiates FSCI from other kinds of information; it serves a specific function, which is why "it serves a function" is FSCI here, and "0*y@lGy.2-8 %vn["qq7" doesn't. I imagine that in this post I've probably exceeded the total brute computing capacity of the entire known universe if all I had to rely on was the product of unguided forces. The only phenomena we know regularly generates such strings of coded, complex, functionally specified information is what we rightfully call "intelligence", and we find exactly the same kind of coded, complex, functionally specified strings of information DNA.William J. Murray
August 24, 2010
August
08
Aug
24
24
2010
07:55 AM
7
07
55
AM
PDT
gpuccio, thanks for the reply. It still didn't really answer my base question, but the blame is on me for not asking clearly. The statement that sparks my question was from William J. Murray:
That quantifiable “similarity” is currently called functionally specified complex information, and the quantity necessary for a scientific finding of “similarity to what human ID produces” is 1000 bits.
In this he states that FCSI is both quantifiable, and that 1,000 bits of it is similar to what human ID produces, (scientifically demonstrated, no less) with the implication that natural forces cannot plausibly create more than 1,000 bits of FCSI. Later he reinforces this by saying:
What is at issue is whether or not [random processes] can add over 1000 bits of functionally specified complex information.
...by which I'm guessing his answer is: "No, random processes cannot plausibly add over 1,000 bits of FCSI." So, my questions (to anyone) are: 1. Is it that natural processes [by which I mean undirected, like mutations] cannot plausibly create more than 1,000 bits of FCSI at all, or, at one time. This is a phenomenally important distinction. 2. A large part of the issue here is with the statement that FCSI is quantifiable. For that to be the case, it has to be precisely definable. Can you explain in your own words the scientific definition of FCSI, or point me to a place that that defines it clearly? 3. About the quantifiability itself. What are some real world examples of things with a measured amount of FCSI? Perhaps a cookie recipe that has something like 87 bits of FCSI, or a gene that has 6,784 bits of FCSI.jurassicmac
August 24, 2010
August
08
Aug
24
24
2010
07:23 AM
7
07
23
AM
PDT
Somewhere along the line energy would have to come into existence and natural law prohibits it from doing so.
The laws of thermodynamics are derived form observation and experiment. But even in our observable world, particles can come into existence momentarily. Our universe could be such a moment in eternity. I don't bring these things up because I think they are necessarily correct, but because they illustrate how much we don't know. I find claims by people who do know to be rather amusing.Petrushka
August 24, 2010
August
08
Aug
24
24
2010
07:06 AM
7
07
06
AM
PDT
I noted that the big bang is not entirely outside the scope of science, and may be a natural process in the ordinary sense of the word — part of the regular order of existence. But The Big Bang is not exactly the same as the addition of energy. Somewhere along the line energy would have to come into existence and natural law prohibits it from doing so.tribune7
August 23, 2010
August
08
Aug
23
23
2010
09:01 PM
9
09
01
PM
PDT
Regarding the ones presumed not to have been you can’t point to the macroevolutionary event
Macroevolution is not an event, it certainly isn't perceptibly different from microevolution, and it isn't a cause. The inability to predict the products of evolution is no more mysterious than the inability to predict the weather a year in advance. Of course weather was once attributed to the whims of gods, just as some now attribute evolution to the whims of designers. I didn't say that any net increase in energy is created by events such as the big bang. That is what is implied by the net energy of the universe being zero. I noted that the big bang is not entirely outside the scope of science, and may be a natural process in the ordinary sense of the word -- part of the regular order of existence.Petrushka
August 23, 2010
August
08
Aug
23
23
2010
04:41 PM
4
04
41
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply