Science’s Blind Spot

_{Cornelius Hunter

August 20, 2010

Intelligent Design}

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

BA: Common descent is at present not a priority issue for me, and I really keep an open mind about it. But still I think that it is the best explanation for some of the facts we have. I appreciate the many references you give. Some of them I don't see well how pertinent they are to the CD issue. For example, I agree that the various codes have been designe more or less contemporarily, and that I suppose took place at OOL. OOL os OOLO, and I don't believe it was gradual, nor do I believe that life came form something else before it (well, obviously inorganic matter was used :) ). My take about OOL is that it was designed more of less as we know it know, with prokaryotes more or less as modern prokaryotes as the first life which likely appeared. But again, I keep an open mind about that. Amd I look for any new empirical clue we may find. Another point I want to make is that, even if I accept CD, I absolutely don't believe that ythe transitions were gradual. In the beginning I thought that it was possible, and that the design implementation after all could in some way resemble, at least in the time modality, the scenario which darwinists describe as due to RV+NS. But I con't believe that any more, and the only reason why I have changed my mind are the facts. In that sense, as I have already said, I believe in a form of ID "a la Gould". So, I do believe that all major ytransitions, especially that form prokaryotes to eukaryotes, and then the two explosions (Ediacara and Cambrian), and even the singular appearances of new species, must have been rather sudden. But with "sudden", I am not really sure what I mean: if one million years, or one year, ot one day. That remains to be seen. So, what is the true difference between a CD scenario and a non CD scenario? I am not really sure. Cesrtainly, not the causal mechanism. That is design. That design is the origin of any new dFSCI that appears in the course of time, there can be no doubt. So, what is called "the tree of life", is IMO the product of design, of common design. But, at the same time, I believe that design happpens in a context. That is rather obvious, IMO. The designer does not design "out of thin air", so to say. He designs starting from what has already been designed. That's one reason why, as you too probably believe, design is "poli-constrained". The examples of design we observe in human artifacts are often of that kind, especially when they reflect the "evolution" of some idea or pattern. Think of the various implementation of a mtoter car model, or of a software, for instance. I absolutely agree that "common design" is an important, probably the most important factor to explain what we observe. But at the same time, I think that some facts are better explained if we accept also a continuity "of the hardware", so to speak. In particular, the sequences of proteins which are the same in different species, but with variations in primary sequences, sometimes small, sometimes very big, which do not effect folding and function, can be explained well as the result of neutral mutations in time, while the function is preserved by negative selection. But that presupposes a physical continuity of the molecule through different species. I can agree with you that those differences are often non consistent with simple time models, and that darwinists are superficial and often arrogant in making bold deductions from them. And I agree that some of those differences can be due to functional constraints in different species, and so be attributed only to Common Design. I know well all these arguments and, as I have said, I really keep an open mind, and believe that the issue has to be solved exclusively on empirical grounds. Again, for me it has absolutely no ideological value, neither in one sense not in the other. But still, with what we know at present, I believe in a physical continuity between species, even if certainly not gradual, and maybe not universal. And, anyway, designed.gpuccio_{August 21, 2010
August
08
Aug
21
21
2010
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PDT}

gpuccio, I think a forceful argument can be made against the proposition of "Intelligently Designed Common Descent" by remembering the hierarchal pattern in which information is encoded into a genome. It is a "top down" design not a bottom up design. Splicing Together the Case for Design, Part 2 (of 2) - Fazale Rana - June 2010 Excerpt: Remarkably, the genetic code appears to be highly optimized, further indicating design. Equally astounding is the fact that other codes, such as the histone binding code, transcription factor binding code, the splicing code, and the RNA secondary structure code, overlap the genetic code. Each of these codes plays a special role in gene expression, but they also must work together in a coherent integrated fashion. The existence of multiple overlapping codes also implies the work of a Creator. It would take superior reasoning power to structure the system in such a way that it can simultaneously harbor codes working in conjunction instead of interfering with each other. As I have written elsewhere, the genetic code is in fact optimized to harbor overlapping codes, further evincing the work of a Mind. http://www.reasons.org/splicing-together-case-design-part-2-2 ,,,,And seeing as genomes are indeed severely polyconstrained,,,, Poly-Functional Complexity equals Poly-Constrained Complexity http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AYmaSrBPNEmGZGM4ejY3d3pfMjdoZmd2emZncQ DNA - Evolution Vs. Polyfuctionality - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4614519 ,,,,It seems to me that it would be just as easy, if not much easier, for the Intelligent Designer to create each 'kind of species' de novo, than it would be for Him to figure out how to get from point a to point b, in a gradual teleological manner, in what appears to us to be a fantastically impossible path to accomplish in a incremental fashion as is inherently implied with the common descent model. notes: When we consider the remote past, before the origin of the actual species Homo sapiens, we are faced with a fragmentary and disconnected fossil record. Despite the excited and optimistic claims that have been made by some paleontologists, no fossil hominid species can be established as our direct ancestor. Richard Lewontin - Harvard Zoologist http://www.discovery.org/a/9961 Evolution of the Genus Homo - Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences - Tattersall, Schwartz, May 2009 Excerpt: "Definition of the genus Homo is almost as fraught as the definition of Homo sapiens. We look at the evidence for “early Homo,” finding little morphological basis for extending our genus to any of the 2.5–1.6-myr-old fossil forms assigned to “early Homo” or Homo habilis/rudolfensis." http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.earth.031208.100202 Man is indeed as unique, as different from all other animals, as had been traditionally claimed by theologians and philosophers. Evolutionist Ernst Mayr http://www.y-origins.com/index.php?p=home_more4 “Something extraordinary, if totally fortuitous, happened with the birth of our species….Homo sapiens is as distinctive an entity as exists on the face of the Earth, and should be dignified as such instead of being adulterated with every reasonably large-brained hominid fossil that happened to come along.” Anthropologist Ian Tattersall (curator at the American Museum of Natural History) "Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life," New Scientist (January 21, 2009) Excerpt: Even among higher organisms, “the problem was that different genes told contradictory evolutionary stories,”,,,“despite the amount of data and breadth of taxa analyzed, relationships among most [animal] phyla remained unresolved.” ,,,,Carl Woese, a pioneer of evolutionary molecular systematics, observed that these problems extend well beyond the base of the tree of life: “Phylogenetic incongruities [conflicts] can be seen everywhere in the universal tree, from its root to the major branchings within and among the various taxa to the makeup of the primary groupings themselves.”,,, “We’ve just annihilated the (Darwin's) tree of life.” http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/05/a_primer_on_the_tree_of_life_p_1.html#morebornagain77_{August 21, 2010
August
08
Aug
21
21
2010
08:25 AM
8
08
25
AM
PDT}

Peepul:
I have some more questions about ID. Thanks to everybody who replied to my previous questions. Does ID accept the phylogenetic tree and common descent? If not, why not? (let’s leave aside HGT at the base of the tree – I accept that this occurs) At what level does design occur? Is every species designed? Or does design stop at higher level taxa and another process take over to generate diversity below that? Is design still occurring today? If not, when did it stop? thanks very much
My answers: 1)ID is not directly implied in the problem of common descent, because it works fine both in a scenario of common descent and in other scenarios which avoid that notion. That is what we can say about the theory. The people in the ID field are more or less divided about that point. I have stated many times that I do accept common descent. Do does, explicitly, Behe. And many others here. But I am aware that many others don't accept it, including maybe Dembski. Anyway, the reasons why individuals do not accept common descent have nothing to do with the ID theory in a strict sense (even if I can agree that, in a wider sense, the problem has to be addressed to better define future expansions of ID). 2) Regarding the level at which design happens, opinions vary. My personal view is that design can (and must) be invoked any time we can prove that new dFSCI emerges. In practice, I do believe that each new species is designed, and so each new protein domain. Behe has tried to determine the edge of unguided evolution empirically in his book, and I agree with his points. I think that probably the lowest divisions (such as races) can be the fruit of simple diversity generated especially by sexual remix of alleles. Anyway, as the definition of species is rather flexible, I would remain flexible about the exact demarcation of what is certainly due to design, and what could be the product of unguided variation. Above the level of species, however, I have no doubt that design is the only possible explanation. But again, this is my personal opinion, not necessarily shared by all in ID. 3) About the question if design is still occurring today, I think there is only one possible asnwer: we really don't know. But maybe that, in time, we will discover.gpuccio_{August 21, 2010
August
08
Aug
21
21
2010
07:27 AM
7
07
27
AM
PDT}

JM, @ 24:
after something is determined to most likely be the product of design, then we can start to identify the precise identities and agents mechanisms involved in its origin. But in this example, we already know a little bit about both of those, because we have similar designed artifacts that we can directly compare it too.
Very well said. Now let's follow up. 1 --> Do we know something about routinely and reliably observed cases and causes of digital codes and algorithms? 2 --> Do we know something about routinely and reliably observed cases and causes of machinery that uses codes expressed as signals, and then executes algorithms given expression in those codes? 3 --> Do we know something about routinely and reliably observed cases and causes of digitally coded, functionally specific complex information? 4 --> Do we know something about routinely and reliably observed cases and causes of organised, functionally specific complex machinery and in particular nanomachines? _______________ What, then should we think -- on known and reliable causal patterns -- of the crashed spaceship in our own bodies? As Denton said 25 years ago now: _________________ >> To grasp the reality of life as it has been revealed by molecular biology, we must magnify a cell a thousand million times until it is twenty kilometers in diameter [[so each atom in it would be “the size of a tennis ball”] and resembles a giant airship large enough to cover a great city like London or New York. What we would then see would be an object of unparalleled complexity and adaptive design. On the surface of the cell we would see millions of openings, like the port holes of a vast space ship, opening and closing to allow a continual stream of materials to flow in and out. If we were to enter one of these openings we would find ourselves in a world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity. We would see endless highly organized corridors and conduits branching in every direction away from the perimeter of the cell, some leading to the central memory bank in the nucleus and others to assembly plants and processing units. The nucleus itself would be a vast spherical chamber more than a kilometer in diameter, resembling a geodesic dome inside of which we would see, all neatly stacked together in ordered arrays, the miles of coiled chains of the DNA molecules. A huge range of products and raw materials would shuttle along all the manifold conduits in a highly ordered fashion to and from all the various assembly plants in the outer regions of the cell. We would wonder at the level of control implicit in the movement of so many objects down so many seemingly endless conduits, all in perfect unison. We would see all around us, in every direction we looked, all sorts of robot-like machines . . . . We would see that nearly every feature of our own advanced machines had its analogue in the cell: artificial languages and their decoding systems, memory banks for information storage and retrieval, elegant control systems regulating the automated assembly of components, error fail-safe and proof-reading devices used for quality control, assembly processes involving the principle of prefabrication and modular construction . . . . However, it would be a factory which would have one capacity not equaled in any of our own most advanced machines, for it would be capable of replicating its entire structure within a matter of a few hours . . . . Unlike our own pseudo-automated assembly plants, where external controls are being continually applied, the cell's manufacturing capability is entirely self-regulated . . . . [[Denton, Michael, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Adler, 1986, pp. 327 – 331. This work is a classic that is still well worth reading.] >> _____________________ In the face of that, do you understand why we are not simply accepting the dictates of he a priori materialist scientific establishment? And why, onward we have an agenda to reverse engineer the technologies of life? GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{August 21, 2010
August
08
Aug
21
21
2010
06:43 AM
6
06
43
AM
PDT}

PS: Looks like it may be useful to excerpt Plato in The Laws, as we are nmeeting him on the way back: __________________ >>Ath. [[The avant garde philosophers, teachers and artists c. 400 BC] say that the greatest and fairest things are the work of nature and of chance, the lesser of art [[ i.e. techne], which, receiving from nature the greater and primeval creations, moulds and fashions all those lesser works which are generally termed artificial . . . They say that fire and water, and earth and air [[i.e the classical "material" elements of the cosmos], all exist by nature [phusis, standing in for necessity] and chance, and none of them by art, and that as to the bodies which come next in order-earth, and sun, and moon, and stars-they have been created by means of these absolutely inanimate existences. The elements are severally moved by chance and some inherent force according to certain affinities among them-of hot with cold, or of dry with moist, or of soft with hard, and according to all the other accidental admixtures of opposites which have been formed by necessity. After this fashion and in this manner the whole heaven has been created, and all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only . . . . Ath. Then, by Heaven, we have discovered the source of this vain opinion of all those physical investigators; and I would have you examine their arguments with the utmost care, for their impiety is a very serious matter; they not only make a bad and mistaken use of argument, but they lead away the minds of others: that is my opinion of them. Cle. You are right; but I should like to know how this happens. Ath. I fear that the argument may seem singular. Cle. Do not hesitate, Stranger; I see that you are afraid of such a discussion carrying you beyond the limits of legislation. But if there be no other way of showing our agreement in the belief that there are Gods, of whom the law is said now to approve, let us take this way, my good sir. Ath. Then I suppose that I must repeat the singular argument of those who manufacture the soul according to their own impious notions; they affirm that which is the first cause of the generation and destruction of all things, to be not first, but last, and that which is last to be first, and hence they have fallen into error about the true nature of the Gods. Cle. Still I do not understand you. Ath. Nearly all of them, my friends, seem to be ignorant of the nature and power of the soul [[ = psuche], especially in what relates to her origin: they do not know that she is among the first of things, and before all bodies, and is the chief author of their changes and transpositions. And if this is true, and if the soul is older than the body, must not the things which are of the soul's kindred be of necessity prior to those which appertain to the body? Cle. Certainly. Ath. Then thought and attention and mind and art and law will be prior to that which is hard and soft and heavy and light; and the great and primitive works and actions will be works of art; they will be the first, and after them will come nature and works of nature, which however is a wrong term for men to apply to them; these will follow, and will be under the government of art and mind. Cle. But why is the word "nature" wrong? Ath. Because those who use the term mean to say that nature is the first creative power; but if the soul turn out to be the primeval element, and not fire or air, then in the truest sense and beyond other things the soul may be said to exist by nature; and this would be true if you proved that the soul is older than the body, but not otherwise. [[ . . . .] Ath. . . . when one thing changes another, and that another, of such will there be any primary changing element? How can a thing which is moved by another ever be the beginning of change? Impossible. But when the self-moved changes other, and that again other, and thus thousands upon tens of thousands of bodies are set in motion, must not the beginning of all this motion be the change of the self-moving principle? . . . . self-motion being the origin of all motions, and the first which arises among things at rest as well as among things in motion, is the eldest and mightiest principle of change, and that which is changed by another and yet moves other is second. [[ . . . .] Ath. If we were to see this power existing in any earthy, watery, or fiery substance, simple or compound-how should we describe it? Cle. You mean to ask whether we should call such a self-moving power life? Ath. I do. Cle. Certainly we should. Ath. And when we see soul in anything, must we not do the same-must we not admit that this is life? [[ . . . . ] Cle. You mean to say that the essence which is defined as the self-moved is the same with that which has the name soul? Ath. Yes; and if this is true, do we still maintain that there is anything wanting in the proof that the soul is the first origin and moving power of all that is, or has become, or will be, and their contraries, when she has been clearly shown to be the source of change and motion in all things? Cle. Certainly not; the soul as being the source of motion, has been most satisfactorily shown to be the oldest of all things. Ath. And is not that motion which is produced in another, by reason of another, but never has any self-moving power at all, being in truth the change of an inanimate body, to be reckoned second, or by any lower number which you may prefer? Cle. Exactly. Ath. Then we are right, and speak the most perfect and absolute truth, when we say that the soul is prior to the body, and that the body is second and comes afterwards, and is born to obey the soul, which is the ruler? [[ . . . . ] Ath. If, my friend, we say that the whole path and movement of heaven, and of all that is therein, is by nature akin to the movement and revolution and calculation of mind, and proceeds by kindred laws, then, as is plain, we must say that the best soul takes care of the world and guides it along the good path. [[The Laws, BkX. Plato here explicitly sets up an inference to design (by a good soul) from the intelligible order of the cosmos.] >> ___________________ As long as we can distinguish unintelligent material causal factors such as chance and necessity from intelligent, artificial ones, we are good to go on scientific investigation of all three causal patterns. (Onlookers, observe how the process outlined, and as was previously linked, has as usual been distracted form not addressed.)kairosfocus_{August 21, 2010
August
08
Aug
21
21
2010
06:27 AM
6
06
27
AM
PDT}

JM @ 10:
you are using a non-standard definition of natural. Human beings are ~~natural~~ [INTELLIGENT] agents – ~~they are not supernatural.~~ [--> How do you know that? --> And it is distractive from the issue: nature (= chance + necessity) vs art, --> cf. your friendly local supermarket shelf on natural vs artificial ingredients, all duly scientifically tested and attested] We know that Mount Rushmore was crafted by intelligent workers, yet if someone made the claim that the origin of Mount Rushmore was supernatural in nature, or that it was built by a supernatural agent, we could rightly tell them: “No, we have a natural explanation: It was built by humans.” [--> distractive equivocation: natural vs supernatural is not the only relevant contrast, WJM was right to point to nature vs art. --> Tell ATBC to go back to the drawing board on this latest talking point. (Onlookers cf here, where Mt Rushmore vs Old Man of the Mountain is the first example, of course there was no willingness to acknowledge that.)]
By marking up like that, I am emphasising how distractive and distorting talking points loaded with ad hominem innuendos [as in "theocrats"] are being used to deflect an otherwise very obvious point. One that has been on the table since Plato in the Laws, Bk X. We routinely explain observed causal patterns by necessity, chance AND art [Techne]. Worse yet, we routinely identify observable effects that act as signs pointing to causal patterns of necessity, chance and art. Including in many scientific contexts. And we do not call a sign defective if in its absence we are not inferring to what it does not indicate. That digitally coded, funcitonally specific, complex informaiton is a reliable sing of directed contingency as causal process, does not mean that in absence of dFSCI we may not use otehr signs. Similarly, that as a result we may know of a designt hat does not show dFSCI does not mean that that design is undetectable and dFSCI has no calue as a sign. On the contrary, Mt Rushmore is precisely a case where the function of close resemblance to Geo Washington leads to the possibility of observing the image and transforming it into a nodes and arcs 3-d pattern with sufficient specificity that we can see that this statue exhibits FSCI, though it is not inherently digitally coded. On that FSCI we can infer that the figure is designed, as there is no reasonable combination of natural forces of erosion etc that would give rise to it; precisely as opposed to something like the Old Man of the Mountain. (Vaguely face-like figures are very different from the specificity of the Mt Rushmore sculpture.] GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{August 21, 2010
August
08
Aug
21
21
2010
06:11 AM
6
06
11
AM
PDT}

Peepul in response to your question, Dembski and Marks write: "LIFE’S CONSERVATION LAW: Why Darwinian Evolution Cannot Create Biological Information": Excerpt: Though not denying Darwinian evolution or even limiting its role in the history of life, the Law of Conservation of Information shows that Darwinian evolution is inherently teleological. Moreover, it shows that this teleology can be measured in precise information-theoretic terms. http://evoinfo.org/publications/lifes-conservation-law/ William Dembski Is Interviewed By Casey Luskin About Conservation Of Information - Audio http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/player/web/2009-10-15T13_14_01-07_00 Dr. Dembski has emphasized that the Law of Conservation of Information (LCI) is clearly differentiated from the common definition of Theistic Evolution since mainstream Theistic evolutionists, such as Ken Miller and Francis Collins, hold that the Design/Information found in life is not separable from the purely material processes of the universe, whereas Dembski and Marks are clearly saying the Design/Information found in life is detectable, can be separated from the material processes we see in the universe, and "can be measured in precise information-theoretic terms". In other words, the Dembski-Marks paper shows in order for gradual evolution to actually be true it cannot be random Darwinian evolution and that a 'Intelligent Designer' will have to somehow provide the additional functional information needed to make gradual evolution of increased functional complexity possible. Thus now the theoretical underpinnings, of random functional information generation by material processes, are completely removed from Darwinian ideology. Yet even though God could very well have created life gradually, did God use gradual processes to create life on Earth? I don't think so. There are many solid lines of evidence pointing to the fact that the principle of Genetic Entropy (loss of functional information) is the true principle for all biological adaptations and that no gradual 'material processes' are involved in the "evolution" a lifeform, to greater heights of functional complexity, once God has created a Parent Kind/Species. The main problem for evolution is that no one has ever seen purely material processes generate functional information. The Capabilities of Chaos and Complexity: David L. Abel - Null Hypothesis For Information Generation - 2009 To focus the scientific community’s attention on its own tendencies toward overzealous metaphysical imagination bordering on “wish-fulfillment,” we propose the following readily falsifiable null hypothesis, and invite rigorous experimental attempts to falsify it: "Physicodynamics cannot spontaneously traverse The Cybernetic Cut: physicodynamics alone cannot organize itself into formally functional systems requiring algorithmic optimization, computational halting, and circuit integration." A single exception of non trivial, unaided spontaneous optimization of formal function by truly natural process would falsify this null hypothesis. http://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/1/247/pdf Can We Falsify Any Of The Following Null Hypothesis (For Information Generation) 1) Mathematical Logic 2) Algorithmic Optimization 3) Cybernetic Programming 4) Computational Halting 5) Integrated Circuits 6) Organization (e.g. homeostatic optimization far from equilibrium) 7) Material Symbol Systems (e.g. genetics) 8) Any Goal Oriented bona fide system 9) Language 10) Formal function of any kind 11) Utilitarian work After much reading, research, and debate with evolutionists, I find the principle of Genetic Entropy (loss of functional information) to be the true principle for all 'beneficial' biological adaptations which directly contradicts unguided neo-Darwinian evolution. As well, unlike Darwinian evolution which can claim no primary principles in science to rest its claim on for the generation of functional information, Genetic Entropy can rest its foundation in science directly on the twin pillars of the Second Law of Thermodynamics and on the Law of Conservation Of Information(LCI; Dembski,Marks)(Null Hypothesis;Abel). The first phase of Genetic Entropy, any life-form will go through, holds all sub-speciation adaptations away from a parent species, which increase fitness/survivability to a new environment for the sub-species, will always come at a cost of the functional information that is already present in the parent species genome. This is, for the vast majority of times, measurable as loss of genetic diversity in genomes. This phase of Genetic Entropy is verified, in one line of evidence, by the fact all population genetics' studies show a consistent loss of genetic diversity from a parent species for all sub-species that have adapted away (Maciej Giertych). This fact is also well testified to by plant and animal breeders who know there are strict limits to the amount of variability you can expect when breeding for any particular genetic trait. The second line of evidence, this primary phase of the principle of Genetic Entropy is being rigorously obeyed, is found in the fact the 'Fitness Test' against a parent species of bacteria has never been violated by any sub-species of a parent bacteria. For a broad outline of the 'Fitness test', required to be passed to show a violation of the principle of Genetic Entropy, please see the following video and articles: Is Antibiotic Resistance evidence for evolution? - 'The Fitness Test' - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3995248 Testing the Biological Fitness of Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria - 2008 http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/darwin-at-drugstore Thank Goodness the NCSE Is Wrong: Fitness Costs Are Important to Evolutionary Microbiology Excerpt: it (an antibiotic resistant bacterium) reproduces slower than it did before it was changed. This effect is widely recognized, and is called the fitness cost of antibiotic resistance. It is the existence of these costs and other examples of the limits of evolution that call into question the neo-Darwinian story of macroevolution. List Of Degraded Molecular Abilities Of Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria: http://www.trueorigin.org/bacteria01.asp This 'fitness test' fairly conclusively demonstrates 'optimal information' was originally encoded within a parent bacteria/bacterium by God, and has not been added to by any 'teleological' methods in the beneficial adaptations of the sub-species of bacteria. Thus the inference to Genetic Entropy, i.e. that God has not specifically moved within nature in a teleological manner, to gradually increase the functional information of a genome, still holds as true for the principle of Genetic Entropy. It seems readily apparent to me that to conclusively demonstrate God has moved within nature, in a teleological manner, to provide the sub-species bacteria with additional functional information over the 'optimal' genome of its parent species, then the fitness test must be passed by the sub-species against the parent species. If the fitness test is shown to be passed then the new molecular function, which provides the more robust survivability for the sub-species, must be calculated to its additional Functional Information Bits (Fits) it has gained in the beneficial adaptation, and then be found to be greater than 140 Fits. 140 Fits is what has now been generously set by Kirk Durston as the maximum limit of Functional Information which can reasonably be expected to be generated by the natural processes of the universe over the entire age of the universe (The actual limit is most likely to be around 40 Fits)(Of note: I have not seen any evidence to suggest that purely material processes can exceed the much more constrained '2 protein-protein binding site limit', for functional information/complexity generation, found by Michael Behe in his book "The Edge Of Evolution"). This fitness test, and calculation, must be done to rigorously establish materialistic processes did not generate the functional information (Fits), and to rigorously establish that teleological processes were indeed involved in the increase of Functional Complexity of the beneficially adapted sub-species. The second and final phase of Genetic Entropy, outlined by John Sanford in his book Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome, is when 'slightly detrimental' mutations, which are far below the power of natural selection to remove from a genome, slowly build up in a species/kind over long periods of time and lead to Genetic Meltdown. The first effect to be obviously noticed, for the Genetic Entropy principle, is the loss of potential for morphological variability of individual sub-species of a kind. This loss of potential for morphological variability first takes place for the extended lineages of sub-species within a kind, and increases with time, and then gradually works in to the more ancient lineages of the kind, as the 'mutational load' of slightly detrimental mutations slowly builds up over time. This following paper, though of evolutionary bent, offers a classic example of the effects of Genetic Entropy over deep time of millions of years: A Cambrian Peak in Morphological Variation Within Trilobite Species; Webster Excerpt: The distribution of polymorphic traits in cladistic character-taxon matrices reveals that the frequency and extent of morphological variation in 982 trilobite species are greatest early in the evolution of the group: Stratigraphically old and/or phylogenetically basal taxa are significantly more variable than younger and/or more derived taxa. The final effect of Genetic Entropy is when the entire spectrum of the species of a kind slowly start to succumb to 'Genetic Meltdown', and to go extinct in the fossil record. The occurs because the mutational load, of the slowly accumulating 'slightly detrimental mutations' in the genomes, becomes too great for each individual species of the kind to bear. From repeated radiations from ancient lineages in the fossil record, and from current adaptive radiation studies which show strong favor for ancient lineages radiating, the ancient lineages of a kind appear to have the most 'robust genomes' and are thus most resistant to Genetic Meltdown. All this consistent evidence makes perfect sense from the Genetic Entropy standpoint, in that Genetic Entropy holds God created each parent kind with a optimal genome for all future sub-speciation events. My overwhelming intuition, from all the evidence I've seen so far, and from Theology, is this; Once God creates a parent kind, the parent kind is encoded with optimal information for the specific purpose to which God has created the kind to exist, and God has chosen, in His infinite wisdom, to strictly limit the extent to which He will act within nature to 'evolve' the sub-species of the parent kind to greater heights of functional complexity. Thus the Biblically compatible principle of Genetic Entropy is found to be in harmony with the second law of thermodynamics and with the strict limit found for material processes ever generating any meaningful amount of functional information on their own (LCI: Dembski - Marks)(Abel; Null Hypothesis). As a side light to this, it should be clearly pointed out that we know, for 100% certainty, that Intelligence can generate functional information i.e. irreducible complexity. We generate a large amount of functional information, which is well beyond the reach of the random processes of the universe, every time we write a single page of a letter (+700 Fits average). The true question we should be asking is this, "Can totally natural processes ever generate functional information?", especially since totally natural processes have never been observed generating any functional information whatsoever from scratch (Kirk Durston). This following short video lays out the completely legitimate scientific basis for inferring Intelligent Design from what we presently observe: Stephen Meyer: What is the origin of the digital information found in DNA? - short video http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/08/stephen_meyer_on_intelligent_d037271.htmlbornagain77_{August 21, 2010
August
08
Aug
21
21
2010
05:51 AM
5
05
51
AM
PDT}

Peepul, ID does not rebut directed evolution, it rebuts accidentalism -- that random genomic changes fixed by natural selection adequately and definitively accounts for all biodiversity. There are prominent IDist who doubt common descent (Dembski) and prominent IDist who accept it (Behe). ID does not insist that every species is designed. It demands, though, to accept life to be.tribune7_{August 21, 2010
August
08
Aug
21
21
2010
05:40 AM
5
05
40
AM
PDT}

I have some more questions about ID. Thanks to everybody who replied to my previous questions. Does ID accept the phylogenetic tree and common descent? If not, why not? (let's leave aside HGT at the base of the tree - I accept that this occurs) At what level does design occur? Is every species designed? Or does design stop at higher level taxa and another process take over to generate diversity below that? Is design still occurring today? If not, when did it stop? thanks very muchPeepul_{August 21, 2010
August
08
Aug
21
21
2010
05:31 AM
5
05
31
AM
PDT}

jurrasicmac - There is no objective, quantifiable criteria for saying “this is definitely not designed.” And nobody here is saying otherwise.tribune7_{August 21, 2010
August
08
Aug
21
21
2010
05:03 AM
5
05
03
AM
PDT}

Concerning the question of detectability of the supernatural (non-natural): To answer this question with respect to ID we have to speculate about the mechanism the intelligent designer used: If the designer would add whole sequences of base pares for example that would be a violation of the law of conversation of mass and thus a miracle. (Miracle being a violation of the laws of nature.) As such it would in principle be detectable. If the designer would just choose the next mutation in a favorable position than overall the mutations would still look random. Thus the influence would be undetectable. You would get a hint though if that happens often and is not compensated by directing other mutations because the likelihood of getting the needed mutations randomly within the available time would be smaller than that of directed mutations.second opinion_{August 21, 2010
August
08
Aug
21
21
2010
01:25 AM
1
01
25
AM
PDT}

William J Murray:
Since you agree that there could be an “obvious” case of ID (in the alien artifact example), could you explain how one marks the difference from “obviously designed by human-like intelligence because of similarities to human design” and “the similarities not apparent enough to warrant such a finding or any design-related research”?
I'll start with this one first. My answer may surprise you: There is probably nothing that doesn't warrant some design-related research. Do all the research you like. Publish all the papers you like. Apply for as many grants as you like. Tell you what, apply for a research grant and I'll personally chip in $50 bucks.
Where does the obviousness end, and “no warrant for such conclusion” begin? Is it scientific? Quantifiable? Nothing but intuition? Where do we draw the line, and how?
This is a variation of the first question. I already mentioned that I don't think there's anything with no warrant for further investigation. I honestly don't think there is a definite line between "obviously" designed and "not designed". And that's the problem, it's a gradient. There is no objective, quantifiable criteria for saying "this is definitely not designed." On one end you have an iPhone with the identity of both the designer and manufacturer inscribed on the back, and on the other end of the scale you have roundish pebbles in a stream bed. There's not a scale of a quantifiable design attribute where you could ascribe, say, a '0' to the pebble and a '105,654' to the iPhone. There's no way we could say with absolute certainty that the pebbles weren't designed; someone could have carved them all by hand and placed them in the stream. There's no way to know. But, no one thinks it irrational to provisionally consider them not designed, because of one simple fact: We know of a plausible, unguided process that produces smooth pebbles: erosion. We know of no plausible, unguided processes that make iPhones. We do know of a plausible (nay, confirmed) unguided process that produces biodiversity: Natural selection acting on heritable variation via differential reproductive success. (call it 'micro-evolution' for now if it makes you comfortable)
Is there a scientific, rigorous methodology for establishing if something is “analogous” to a structure “we know could be designed”, or is it just intuition?
The first scientific discipline I think of when I hear the term 'design detection' is archaeology. Take arrowheads, for example. I once found I rock that looked to me like it very well could be an arrowhead, and I showed to an archaeologist who specialized in them. He showed me all the reasons it was just a rock. But he also brought out a genuine arrowhead and showed me all the features of the real deal, how the shape allowed it to fit into the end of a stick, the direction that the rock was flaked off, etc. He also showed me a more eroded one, that to my untrained eye, didn't look much different from the rock I'd found. Though the flake marks were gone, the overall shape was nearly identical to the first one he showed me. To him, he could see that it was 'analogous' to the one that had the clear indications of design. All that to say, not being an archaeologist, I don't know exactly what the specific methodology for identifying manmade pottery, tools, carvings, etc, from the surrounding area is, but I'd wager that it's more than just 'intuition'. He definitely had 1: Plausible mechanism, and 2: Plausible agent. Which brings us to:
Also, how does one determine the “plausibility” of an “agent”?
I would define 'plausible' as something along the lines of: "What most rational, unbiased observers agree is likely, and is objectively verifiable in some way, at least in principle if not in practice." By this definition, a human agent is plausible to the max; someone is by definition irrational if they don't accept the existence of humans. The existence of humans is also objectively verifiable. But there is also the matter of the limitations of the agency. Humans are not a plausible candidate for being the creators of the moon, for two reasons: temporality and capability. Humans are known to not have existed when the moon originated, and it is fairly certain that they are incapable at present, let alone in the past, of constructing a moon. However, there is a plausible candidate for the origin of the moon: Mathematical models show that the collision of a Mars-sized planetary body with the earth could have knocked enough debris into orbit around the earth to later form the moon. Humans are also not plausible candidates for the origin of DNA, for the same two reasons. An alien intelligence is somewhat plausible, because there are intelligent organisms on at least one planet, and there are many, perhaps countless trillions of planets, so it's not unreasonable to think that they could have originated on their planets the same way we did on ours. (either by creation, or evolution.) If they existed, they would be verifiable, in principle. As a Christian, the existence of God is perfectly 'plausible' to me, but in the scientific sense, He doesn't fit the bill for being a plausible agent, because I think we can all admit that His existence is not objectively verifiable to everyone. (If it were, there would be as little debate over His existence as there would be over the existence of Humans.) more to follow.jurassicmac_{August 20, 2010
August
08
Aug
20
20
2010
09:47 PM
9
09
47
PM
PDT}

MathGrrl -- The issue isn’t a preconceived commitment to methodological naturalism but that methodological naturalism is a required assumption in order for hypotheses to be testable. And that is fine as far as it goes. The problem starts when it becomes assumed that what can't be tested is insignificant or, perhaps, can't exist. Then you have an inversion of priorities in the pursuit of truth and perversion of priorities in how one should live. (Natural) science is a very good thing, but all it can do is seek to define consistencies in nature. It can do nothing more. If it should seek to go beyond that it at best becomes a parody of what it claims to be i.e. objective study of material matters will on day explain how the universe was created, I have faith or at worst twistedly destructive.tribune7_{August 20, 2010
August
08
Aug
20
20
2010
07:35 PM
7
07
35
PM
PDT}

jurrassicmac: I'm still waiting for some answers to the following questions: Is your answer that you cannot give me an example of a real-word, supernatural thing that science cannot investigate? Since you agree that there could be an “obvious” case of ID (in the alien artifact example), could you explain how one marks the difference from “obviously designed by human-like intelligence because of similarities to human design” and “the similarities not apparent enough to warrant such a finding or any design-related research”? Where does the obviousness end, and “no warrant for such conclusion” begin? Is it scientific? Quantifiable? Nothing but intuition? Where do we draw the line, and how? And in regards to your #36: Is there a scientific, rigorous methodology for establishing if something is “analogous” to a structure “we know could be designed”, or is it just intuition? Also, how does one determine the “plausibility” of an “agent”? MathGrrl: You have not answered the following question: Just to be clear: even if we found what was obviously a derelict spaceship of some sort, with wiring, glass screens, girders, hatches, what looked like processed metal and plastic, dials, buttons, levers, etc.; with no bones or pictures or other direct evidence of the nature of the inhabitants, and nothing else of interest on the planet, it would be impossible to reach a conclusion that the thing was intelligently designed?William J. Murray_{August 20, 2010
August
08
Aug
20
20
2010
07:16 PM
7
07
16
PM
PDT}

If anyone could come up with a way to objectively define and test non-natural phenomena, the scientific method could be used to investigate them.
If anyone could come up with a way to objectively define natural phenomena, the scientific method could be used to investigate them. But they can't. So science continues to investigate supernatural phenomena and label it "natural" due to the lone fact that they can investigate it, and not because there is any scientific methodology which can distinguish the natural from the non-natural.Mung_{August 20, 2010
August
08
Aug
20
20
2010
07:07 PM
7
07
07
PM
PDT}

The virgin birth, walking on water, parting of the sea, resurrection, water into wine, healing blindness with spit and mud, multiplying the bread and fish, etc.
You believe the witnesses or you don't. There's nothing to investigate. I understand there have been lots of attempts to find historical evidence for some of them, but basically you believe or not.Petrushka_{August 20, 2010
August
08
Aug
20
20
2010
06:39 PM
6
06
39
PM
PDT}

Clive Hayden
I have no idea what you mean by “disjoint set”. If you mean that humans are of the same set as wind, rain and corrosion, and therefore of the same “kind” as “nature”, I would, of course, disagree.
I think that what she means by 'not a disjoint set' is that if you take 'artificial' as meaning 'caused by natural intelligence' it still falls into the 'natural' category as far as explanations go. Imagine that you and a friend are staying overnight in a spooky house, when you both hear an eerie wailing noise from above. Your friend is convinced that it's the ghost of the previous owner who was murdered in the room above, but you, being a little more rational and less superstitious, bet your friend $20 that there is probably a 'natural' explanation for the sound. You go upstairs to investigate, and it turns out that the wailing sound is coming from a hobo in the attic. Your friend says: "Ha! You were wrong, it wasn't natural after all! It wasn't the wind or the rain or anything like that; it was the doings of an intelligent agency. It wasn't natural; it was artificial. Pay up!" "Wait a minute," You say, "That's not what I meant by 'has a natural explanation,' and you know it. If the intelligence is coming from a well known and verifiable source, it's still a natural cause in that sense. And, even if we hadn't stuck around long enough to actually see the hobo, he still would have made a more plausible, and therefore much better explanation that a ghost, which may exist, but which we have no confirmation of." So in this sense Clive, humans, raccoons, robots and other verifiable intelligent agents certainly are in the same set as wind, rain, and corrosion, when dividing things between Natural(blind laws, physical intelligent beings) and the Supernatural(non-physical or non-verifiable intelligent beings).jurassicmac_{August 20, 2010
August
08
Aug
20
20
2010
04:42 PM
4
04
42
PM
PDT}

MathGrrl,
Distinguishing between natural and artificial, where artificial refers to the action of a human, must, to be useful, recognize that artificial effects, using this definition, are a subset of natural effects, not a disjoint set.
I have no idea what you mean by "disjoint set". If you mean that humans are of the same set as wind, rain and corrosion, and therefore of the same "kind" as "nature", I would, of course, disagree. Unless you apply a mind to nature at large, and therefore artifice, there are no "set" similarities except that they are both made up of physical stuff. Is that what you mean? Since both exist in a place we call nature, that there is no distinguishing between the two? I would suggest, since you like to read C. S. Lewis, that you read this essay The Empty Universe, to clarify the difference that is being made between humans and nature.Clive Hayden_{August 20, 2010
August
08
Aug
20
20
2010
02:49 PM
2
02
49
PM
PDT}

jurrassicmac: I mean a real-world example of a supernatural thing that science cannot investigate. I believe your answer is that you cannot give me such an example, correct?William J. Murray_{August 20, 2010
August
08
Aug
20
20
2010
02:37 PM
2
02
37
PM
PDT}

Petrushka,
It might be interest first for someone to offer up an instance of a phenomenon known to be supernatural.
The virgin birth, walking on water, parting of the sea, resurrection, water into wine, healing blindness with spit and mud, multiplying the bread and fish, etc.Clive Hayden_{August 20, 2010
August
08
Aug
20
20
2010
02:35 PM
2
02
35
PM
PDT}

William J. Murray: "Can you offer up an example of a supernatural phenomena that cannot be pursued by science, and why it cannot?" Sorry about not getting to this sooner, I've been bouncing back between this and other work. I must admit, I'm not quite sure I understand what you're asking. Do you mean a real world example of a supernatural phenomena, or a hypothetical one? If you mean real world examples, I'm not sure I could list any verified supernatural events, or 'miracles', because if they were verified, (by which I mean they could be tested and repeated) they wouldn't be considered supernatural for long. So if you mean, "could we pursue things we think are supernatural by science," then yes we could. If someone claimed to be psychic, or to have telekenesis, then yes, we could test those claims empirically. But if the events were one-time-only events, I don't suppose we could test them scientifically, or at least not very thoroughly. The resurrection comes to mind. I'm not sure of a way to prove or disprove that claim in anything other than an historical sense, although, if we had access to a time machine we could, in principle, test it. but as it stands, we couldn't test it to the degree that it would yield conclusive results, because one-time-only events (especially that one) don't leave much physical evidence. If the origin of the first organism were supernatural, and naturalistic evolution proceeded from there, science could not demonstrate one way or the other that that was or was not the case. But of course, that doesn't mean it would be rational to assume it was; absence of a current explanation does not mean it was supernatural by default; that's a God-of-the-gaps fallacy. The correct thing to do would be to keep using methodological naturalism as the exploratory paradigm, and keep looking for evidence. If you mean hypothetical examples like, "Do pixies could temporarily alter gravity in certain spots?" I'm not sure we could scientifically investigate that much either. Our results would be terribly inconsistent, and that being the case, we would not be able to rule out equipment error, or confirmation bias, or many other little things like that.jurassicmac_{August 20, 2010
August
08
Aug
20
20
2010
02:06 PM
2
02
06
PM
PDT}

jurrassicmac said: "A structure either has to have a plausible agent, or be analogous to a structure we know could be designed, to say for sure whether it is designed." ID doesn't make any "for sure" claims; it only pursues a finding of "best explanation". Is there a scientific, rigorous methodology for establishing if something is "analogous" to a strucure "we know could be designed", or is it just intuition? Also, how does one determine the "plausibility" of an "agent"?William J. Murray_{August 20, 2010
August
08
Aug
20
20
2010
01:50 PM
1
01
50
PM
PDT}

MathGrrl, I'd add that you either have to know something about the designer, or the object in question has to be analogous to something else that we already know is designed to say for sure that it was designed with certainty. If we were to find a teapot in a place that we were absolutely sure that humans had never been before, we could safely say that it probably was designed without necessarily having to identify the designer not because we have a magic design detecting ray-gun, but because we know that things like teapots can be, and are designed. But you're right, we do have to know something about the designer. Being that teapots are made by biological intelligences on one planet, it's not unsound to speculate that biological intelligences on other planets could have arisen in the same way as which we did (whichever way that is) and are also capable of making teapots. A structure either has to have a plausible agent, or be analogous to a structure we know could be designed, to say for sure whether it is designed. Without one of those two things, saying 'it looks designed' doesn't cut it, no matter how much it 'looks designed'.jurassicmac_{August 20, 2010
August
08
Aug
20
20
2010
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT}

jurrassicmac (and others, if you wish): I see I didn't pose an earlier question correctly, which might be why you didn't answer it. Let me correct my question: Since you agree that there could be an "obvious" case of ID (in the alien artifact example), could you explain how one marks the difference from “obviously designed by human-like intelligence because of similarities to human design” and “not apparent enough to warrant such a finding or any design-related research”? Where does the obviousness end, and “no warrant for such conclusion” begin? Is it scientific? Quantifiable? Nothing but intuition? Where do we draw the line, and how?William J. Murray_{August 20, 2010
August
08
Aug
20
20
2010
01:41 PM
1
01
41
PM
PDT}

jurassicmac@30 and perhaps mathgirl You conjecture of adding one bit at a time, until wa laa Beethoven, is the whole neo-Darwinian framework in a nutshell,, yet when tested for this hypothesis for building functional complexity one bit at a time we find that there are severe limits to "beneficial" mutations. What does the recent hard evidence say about novel protein-protein binding site generation? "The likelihood of developing two binding sites in a protein complex would be the square of of the probability of developing one: a double CCC (chloroquine complexity cluster), 10^20 times 10^20, which is 10^40. There have likely been fewer than 10^40 cells in the entire world in the past 4 billion years, so the odds are against a single event of this variety (just 2 binding sites being generated by accident) in the history of life. It is biologically unreasonable." Michael J. Behe PhD. (from page 146 of his book "Edge of Evolution") Nature Paper,, Finds Darwinian Processes Lacking - Michael Behe - Oct. 2009 Excerpt: Now, thanks to the work of Bridgham et al (2009), even such apparently minor switches in structure and function (of a protein to its supposed ancestral form) are shown to be quite problematic. It seems Darwinian processes can’t manage to do even as much as I had thought. (which was 1 in 10^40 for just 2 binding sites) http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/10/nature_paper_finally_reaches_t.html The Sheer Lack Of Evidence For Macro Evolution - William Lane Craig - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4023134 jurassicmac, one of the reasons, among many, that material processes will never generate function complexity/information in life is because of what is termed polyfuctional constraint: Here is a brief outline of the problem: Poly-Functional Complexity equals Poly-Constrained Complexity The primary problem that poly-functional complexity presents for neo-Darwinism is this: To put it plainly, the finding of a severely poly-functional/polyconstrained genome by the ENCODE study has put the odds, of what was already astronomically impossible, to what can only be termed fantastically astronomically impossible. To illustrate the monumental brick wall any evolutionary scenario (no matter what “fitness landscape”) must face when I say genomes are poly-constrained to random mutations by poly-functionality, I will use a puzzle: If we were to actually get a proper “beneficial mutation’ in a polyfunctional genome of say 500 interdependent genes, then instead of the infamous “Methinks it is like a weasel” single element of functional information that Darwinists pretend they are facing in any evolutionary search, with their falsified genetic reductionism scenario I might add, we would actually be encountering something more akin to this illustration found on page 141 of Genetic Entropy by Dr. Sanford. S A T O R A R E P O T E N E T O P E R A R O T A S Which is translated ; THE SOWER NAMED AREPO HOLDS THE WORKING OF THE WHEELS. This ancient puzzle, which dates back to 79 AD, reads the same four different ways, Thus, If we change (mutate) any letter we may get a new meaning for a single reading read any one way, as in Dawkins weasel program, but we will consistently destroy the other 3 readings of the message with the new mutation. This is what is meant when it is said a poly-functional genome is poly-constrained to any random mutations. The puzzle I listed is only poly-functional to 4 elements/25 letters of interdependent complexity, the minimum genome is poly-constrained to approximately 500 elements (genes) at minimum approximation of polyfunctionality. For Darwinist to continue to believe in random mutations to generate the staggering level of complexity we find in life is absurd in the highest order! Notes: Simplest Microbes More Complex than Thought - Dec. 2009 Excerpt: PhysOrg reported that a species of Mycoplasma,, “The bacteria appeared to be assembled in a far more complex way than had been thought.” Many molecules were found to have multiple functions: for instance, some enzymes could catalyze unrelated reactions, and some proteins were involved in multiple protein complexes." http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev200912.htm#20091229a First-Ever Blueprint of 'Minimal Cell' Is More Complex Than Expected - Nov. 2009 Excerpt: A network of research groups,, approached the bacterium at three different levels. One team of scientists described M. pneumoniae's transcriptome, identifying all the RNA molecules, or transcripts, produced from its DNA, under various environmental conditions. Another defined all the metabolic reactions that occurred in it, collectively known as its metabolome, under the same conditions. A third team identified every multi-protein complex the bacterium produced, thus characterising its proteome organisation. "At all three levels, we found M. pneumoniae was more complex than we expected," http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091126173027.htm Scientists Map All Mammalian Gene Interactions – August 2010 Excerpt: Mammals, including humans, have roughly 20,000 different genes.,,, They found a network of more than 7 million interactions encompassing essentially every one of the genes in the mammalian genome. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100809142044.htm There is much much more that could be said against neo-Darwinism building information one bit at a time but this should give you a better understanding of what material processes are truly up against. As a side note; every time you write a post of over 500 functional bits you have in fact generated more functional information that can be reasonably be expected by the random processes of the entire universe over the entire history of the universe: Book Review - Meyer, Stephen C. Signature in the Cell. New York: HarperCollins, 2009. Excerpt: As early as the 1960s, those who approached the problem of the origin of life from the standpoint of information theory and combinatorics observed that something was terribly amiss. Even if you grant the most generous assumptions: that every elementary particle in the observable universe is a chemical laboratory randomly splicing amino acids into proteins every Planck time for the entire history of the universe, there is a vanishingly small probability that even a single functionally folded protein of 150 amino acids would have been created. Now of course, elementary particles aren't chemical laboratories, nor does peptide synthesis take place where most of the baryonic mass of the universe resides: in stars or interstellar and intergalactic clouds. If you look at the chemistry, it gets even worse—almost indescribably so: the precursor molecules of many of these macromolecular structures cannot form under the same prebiotic conditions—they must be catalysed by enzymes created only by preexisting living cells, and the reactions required to assemble them into the molecules of biology will only go when mediated by other enzymes, assembled in the cell by precisely specified information in the genome. So, it comes down to this: Where did that information come from? The simplest known free living organism (although you may quibble about this, given that it's a parasite) has a genome of 582,970 base pairs, or about one megabit (assuming two bits of information for each nucleotide, of which there are four possibilities). Now, if you go back to the universe of elementary particle Planck time chemical labs and work the numbers, you find that in the finite time our universe has existed, you could have produced about 500 bits of structured, functional information by random search. Yet here we have a minimal information string which is (if you understand combinatorics) so indescribably improbable to have originated by chance that adjectives fail. http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/reading_list/indices/book_726.htmlbornagain77_{August 20, 2010
August
08
Aug
20
20
2010
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT}

jurrassicmac & MathGrrl: You can find the information you ask about FSCI in the link on this page titled: Frequently Raised But Weak Arguments Against Intelligent Design MathGrrl: I thank you for your answer that there would be no way to determine if the object in question was designed. Just to be clear: even if we found what was obviously a derelict spaceship of some sort, with wiring, glass screens, girders, hatches, what looked like processed metal and plastic, dials, buttons, levers, etc.; with no bones or pictures or other direct evidence of the nature of the inhabitants, and nothing else of interest on the planet, it would be impossible to reach a conclusion that the thing was intelligently designed? Also, I have not argued about any omnipotent designer. jurrassicmac asked: "At that point, have natural process added more than 1000 bits of information?" "Information" isn't at issue. Random processes can add considerable "information" to all sorts of physical phenomena. What is at issue is whether or not it can add over 1000 bits of functionally specified complex information. jurrassicmac & MathGrrl: Neither of you have answered my question, which I now ask for the third time: Can you offer up an example of a supernatural phenomena that cannot be pursued by science, and why it cannot?William J. Murray_{August 20, 2010
August
08
Aug
20
20
2010
01:28 PM
1
01
28
PM
PDT}

William J. Murray:
So, there is no way to ever scientifically determine that an object found on another otherwise uninterestin, desolate, empty planet is the object of alien intelligent design? Like a crashed, alien, “unmanned”, automated cargoship that has been there for thousands of years? We’d be completely unable to distinguish it as an artifact of intelligence?
Jurrasicmac answered this quite well in his post #24. Without knowing anything at all about the designing agent, even in principle, makes it quite literally impossible to determine if an artifact is designed. In the extreme, an omnipotent designer could create anything in any way.MathGrrl_{August 20, 2010
August
08
Aug
20
20
2010
01:10 PM
1
01
10
PM
PDT}

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." Quantifiable, eh? Ok, so what if a random mutation causes a gene that is 1200 'bits' to become duplicated? Has a natural process created new FCSI in excess of 1000 bits? My guess is that you'll say "no", as this has been observed and isn't really controversial. So let's say that in this new gene a point mutation occurs that changes only 1 'bit' of 'information'. Specifically, let's simplify things and imagine that this gene results in an olfactory receptor, and this single point mutation allows this this new gene to enable the sense a slightly different smell, resulting in a very slight advantage of the host organism. My guess is that you'll say we've only added one 'bit' so far. So, hypothetically, let's imagine that this process keeps happening down through the centuries, being duplicated, one bit being changed in the new gene, and so on, until we're a couple of million generations down the road and we have 1200 new genes, each only 1 or 2 or 3 'bits' different from the one it was duplicated from. At that point, have natural process added more than 1000 bits of information? Why or why not?jurassicmac_{August 20, 2010
August
08
Aug
20
20
2010
12:45 PM
12
12
45
PM
PDT}

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.
Could you please provide a reference to a mathematical description of "functionally specified complex information" and some examples of how it is calculated for real world biological systems?MathGrrl_{August 20, 2010
August
08
Aug
20
20
2010
12:29 PM
12
12
29
PM
PDT}

William J. Murray: "Let me ask you: since we know the universe to have “began” about 15 billion years ago, and since before that point no time, space, or “nature” existed (as we know it), doesn’t that make the “first cause” of the universe necessarily “supernatural” by definition, whether it was an intelligent designer or not?" I accept that the universe began about 15 billion years ago and I believe that it was likely directly caused by God, (though it could have been that He just caused the event that led to the big bang, or whatever.) So, like you, I believe that the universe was 'designed' in the broadest sense, and that with God being omniscient, everything that then happens in the universe was 'intended' in some sense of the word. Those are my beliefs; I'm not hesitant to say who I think the 'Designer' is, but then, I'm not the one claiming ID "does not posit anything “supernatural”." In my post to which you were referring to, I wasn't talking about the origin of the universe, I was just pointing out the absurdity of claiming that the 'Designer' isn't supernatural, because either he is, or he was designed himself, or he came about in some sort of evolutionary process within the universe. Where you and I seem to part ways is where that design took place. Every piece of evidence we've gathered over the past one hundred and fifty years is perfectly consistent with the hypothesis that all life evolved from a common ancestor via natural processes. Divine 'tinkering' doesn't look to be necessary as an explanation. Yes, there are some points where we are still working out the details, but that has always been the case and will be for quite a while. Earlier you used the phrase "quantifiably distinct from those produced by “nature” in reference to design detection. That's the reason why the scientific community hasn't taken ID seriously yet; there is in fact nothing to 'quantify'. I hear all day long phrases like 'Complex specified information,' or 'functional information.' but the problem is, without a way to quantify and measure those things, the terms are completely meaningless. Can you tell me how much CSI is in an apple? Or how about whether there is more CSI in a snowflake or a protein? It would be like me asking you to describe how much 'yutsplatagh' is in a gene. I'm all for ID establishing itself as a scientific discipline. It just has to do things like 'present testable hypotheses' and 'test those hypotheses against quantifiable evidence' and things like that; y'know, science stuff.jurassicmac_{August 20, 2010
August
08
Aug
20
20
2010
12:28 PM
12
12
28
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply