Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Simply Not Credible

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

This thread inspired the following observations.

The bottom line is that none of Dawkins’ computer programs have any relevance to biological evolution, because of this in WEASEL1:
Target:Text=’METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL’;
and this in WEASEL2:
WRITELN(’Type target phrase in capital letters’);
READLN(TARGET);

which allows the user to enter the “target” phrase. No search is required, because the solution has been provided in advance. These programs are just hideously inefficient means of printing out what could have been printed out when the program launched. The information for the solution was explicitly supplied by the programmer. Once this is recognized, further conversation about the relevance of the programs to biological evolution is no more illuminating than conjecture about the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.

The bottom line is that the proposed Darwinian mechanism of random errors filtered by natural selection makes no sense on its face, as an explanation for the kinds of highly sophisticated information-processing engineering we see in living systems. It is a claim that an inherently entropic process can produce unlimited neg-entropic results, from the lowest to the highest levels (the cell to the piano concerti of Rachmaninoff). The magic wand of “deep time” (which is not very deep in terms of probabilistic resources) cannot be waved to make this transparent lunacy believable.

The Darwinian mechanism as an explanation for all of life is simply not credible. Most people have enough sense to recognize this, which is why the consensus “scientists” — with all their prestige, academic credentials, and incestuous self-congratulation — are having such a hard time convincing people that they have it all figured out, when they obviously don’t.

Comments
tgpeeler:
“Can you tell us exactly what definition you’re referring to? Shannon, Kolmogorov, and even Dembski all define information in ways that don’t require language.” See above. If that doesn’t do it for you I gracefully acknowledge my inability to penetrate your intellectual space.
As there is no definition of information in the above, obviously that doesn't do it for me, and I gracefully accept your acknowledgement.R0b
September 24, 2009
September
09
Sep
24
24
2009
11:10 AM
11
11
10
AM
PDT
kairosfocus:
I cannot force you to acknowledge the facts, but I can highlight that further fact. Again: every Genetic Algorithm program, and every Evolutionary Algorithm implementing program we see was composed by a programmer, who is of coruse intelligent.
And asserting something as fact does not make it a fact. To say that every program was composed by an intelligent programmer is not the same as saying that intelligent programmers create active information. You have not applied Marks and Dembski's accounting system to the scenario, so your claim that active info is created is unfounded. And if you try to do the accounting, which I highly recommend, you'll immediately see problems in Marks and Dembski's framework. I ask you again: What is the higher-order search space?R0b
September 24, 2009
September
09
Sep
24
24
2009
10:36 AM
10
10
36
AM
PDT
Joseph [from 102] "These do not fit your defintion of fitness. Yes they do. They both talk about leaving behind genes- that is reproduction. Not only that if you actually went and read both articles they spell it out." That is not enough. Read them. Don't just will them to say what you want them to say, but READ them: “Fitness (biology): Fitness (often denoted w in population genetics models) is a central concept in evolutionary theory..." Fair enough so far. "It describes the capability of an individual of certain genotype to reproduce..." That is what it describes! The COMPATABILITY of an individual to reproduce, not the reproductive sucess of an individual! "...and usually is equal to the proportion of the individual’s genes in all the genes of the next generation." And is usually equal to BUT NOT DEFINED BY its offspring! The number of offspring an indiviual has is usually a good expression of its fitness, because the more 'fitter' a creature is the more children it usually has, but this is not how the term is defined! The article I gave you explained this distinction admirably. Did you read it?Ritchie
September 24, 2009
September
09
Sep
24
24
2009
09:30 AM
9
09
30
AM
PDT
Rob: I cannot force you to acknowledge the facts, but I can highlight that further fact. Again: every Genetic Algorithm program, and every Evolutionary Algorithm implementing program we see was composed by a programmer, who is of coruse intelligent. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
September 24, 2009
September
09
Sep
24
24
2009
05:56 AM
5
05
56
AM
PDT
djmullen: May I ask how ID accounts for the existence of the flagellum? A targeted search.Joseph
September 24, 2009
September
09
Sep
24
24
2009
04:53 AM
4
04
53
AM
PDT
djmullen:
Since the flagellum probably evolved a billion or more years ago and all the action was at the sub microscopic level, there’s probably no evidence left to prove it evolved in a way that will satisfy you.
So you are saying the theory of evolution belongs in a history class, not science. Thank you fopr admitting that. But anyway I don't require "proof". Just some science. Obviously you can't provide any.
But since evolution is very well established as a general proposition* and since we find precursors to most of the molecules in the flagellum as well as precursors to the flagellum itself (type III secretory apparatus, for instance), most of the scientific world that knows anything about the flagellum is pretty comfortable with the idea that it evolved.
Yet evolution isn't being debated. The MECHANISMS are. Thank you for proving that you don't even understand the debate. BTW the TTSS is also IC. IOW no one has a clue as to how it "evolved". But again thank you for admitting your position cannot be tested and belongs in a history class- imagined history that is.Joseph
September 24, 2009
September
09
Sep
24
24
2009
04:52 AM
4
04
52
AM
PDT
djmullen@113: May I ask how ID accounts for the existence of the flagellum? I don’t mean, “It was designed”, but how and when did it appear? Was it created denovo or was some pre-existing structure modified into a flagellum? Anybody? I wrote about it earlier but it seems like I have to do it again. ID is about detecting patterns typical to designs by intelligent agents and different from what natural processes can produce. Unlike Darwinism, it does not even attempt to produce a historical narrative. That is why lots of different views of natural history are present among the pro-ID participants at UD, ranging from acceptace of common descent to YEC. The lack of historical narrative is usually a stumbling block to Darwinists, who are willing to accept almost any unproven story as "scientific" that points to superficial similarity between body parts or proteins as evidence for emergence in small steps. It is because the historical narrative for life on Earth is the crucial point for the Darwinists, who need something to explain living nature around us without supernatural intervention. Compared to this the actual mechanism is unimportant, it is accepted even being largely untestable and has negligible evidence in the fossil record (i.e. ratio between the fossils interpreted to be transient and the amount predicted and required by Darwin is very, very small.) ID has a very different stab at natural history by showing that the increasing scientific and technological knowledge consistently increases the known complexity of living systems making them less and less probable to have emerged spontainously. That is why ID has much more solid evidence behind it, because it is undeniable that rotary engines can be a product of a designer while random processes have never been observed to produce anything like that. Now back to djmullen's question: My answer is that the flagellum was designed de-novo. In spite of similarities and the alternative function for several, but not all components the machine itself is arguably a very sophisticated subunit of the bacterium, working as part of a larger system.Alex73
September 24, 2009
September
09
Sep
24
24
2009
04:44 AM
4
04
44
AM
PDT
more to tgpeeler @ 110 If information exists in material things and their makeup, arrangement, etc., then transferring that information to RNA is a material process and transferring the RNA information to DNA (and back again) is also a material process. That simplifies matters - you don't have to bring in a mind or anything supernatural, just matter, energy and the laws of physics and chemistry.djmullen
September 24, 2009
September
09
Sep
24
24
2009
04:07 AM
4
04
07
AM
PDT
Joseph: "how can we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum “evolved” by random mutations and natural selection? Anybody?" Since the flagellum probably evolved a billion or more years ago and all the action was at the sub microscopic level, there's probably no evidence left to prove it evolved in a way that will satisfy you. But since evolution is very well established as a general proposition* and since we find precursors to most of the molecules in the flagellum as well as precursors to the flagellum itself (type III secretory apparatus, for instance), most of the scientific world that knows anything about the flagellum is pretty comfortable with the idea that it evolved. May I ask how ID accounts for the existence of the flagellum? I don't mean, "It was designed", but how and when did it appear? Was it created denovo or was some pre-existing structure modified into a flagellum? Anybody? * I realize that you and many others don't believe this. That makes it hard to carry on an intelligent conversation on evolution with your side since you automatically gainsay every point we bring up. But I'm the same way when you bring up a supernatural creator, so the two sides can only try to explain themselves to each other as best they can and hope for the best.djmullen
September 24, 2009
September
09
Sep
24
24
2009
12:41 AM
12
12
41
AM
PDT
tgpeeler @ 110: "How does “it doesn’t matter if materialism is true” line up with “the information physically embedded in the organism”? If materialism is true, then there is no information." You misunderstand "information". It exists in the world entirely independent of minds. As I said in my previous message, it is in the atoms that make up a molecule (what type of atom, the quantum states of the atom, etc), the arrangement of the atoms (hydrogen connected to carbon connected to another carbon vs carbon connected to hydrogen connected to another carbon, for example), the electric charges of various portions of the molecule, etc. If there are molecules and no minds at all, that information still exists. Minds can also know the types of atoms, their quantum states, their arrangements, etc., but this information is separate from the information embedded in the molecules and doesn't directly affect them. Symbols and language are separate bits of information inside minds. They're used to order information in the mind, but they don't directly affect the information in molecules outside those minds. It doesn't take symbols to create RNA. RNA has been observed to form naturally. ("Naturally" as in "without the benefit of a mind") The only "rules" required are the rules of physics and chemistry. Most of your questions on where RNA and DNA come from are historical questions about something that happened over three billion years ago at a sub-microscopic molecular level. Nobody has an answer to those questions, but science is at least looking for the answers. ID, to the best of my knowledge, is not. The information embedded in the physical structure of RNA (or any other molecule) comes from the atoms that attach together to make to make up the molecule, to the laws of physics that govern the attachments and to the random forces that bring the atoms together. That is how "physics creates information" and you haven't proven anything to the contrary.djmullen
September 24, 2009
September
09
Sep
24
24
2009
12:15 AM
12
12
15
AM
PDT
Moseph:
Perhaps you would be better served by asking your question in a place where people believe that evolution can indeed produce bacterial flagellum.
Evolution isn't being debated. Under ID the flagellum could have evolved- because it was part of a targeted search. The debate is about the mechanisms- undirected vs direceted; an accumulation of genetic accidents vs a targeted search.
I mean, who are you asking?
You, GIMI and any other anti-IDist who doesn't have the sack to ante up.
I understand there are several venues where scientists working in biology hang out who would be happy to talk about your questions.
So YOU can't answer the question. IOW you are just a blind follower. Got it.
Are you willing to take the debate to a location where professional biologists hang out?
Been there, done that. I was just seeing what kind of person you are. If you are here to attack without the responsibility to defend a position then there isn't any need to respond to you any further. However I reserve the right to continue to expose your strawmen, and if possible get you to understand what ID is. Hint- It isn't what you think it is.Joseph
September 23, 2009
September
09
Sep
23
23
2009
05:07 PM
5
05
07
PM
PDT
re djmullen #100 "Let me summarize my last message. When it comes to life, it doesn’t matter if materialism is true. What counts is that the information physically embedded in the organism seems to be enough to account for everything we observe about living organisms and no minds are necessary, supernatural or otherwise." Before I get started I’d like to know, as a matter of curiosity, if you actually read my last post? Please track along with me here. How does “it doesn’t matter if materialism is true” line up with “the information physically embedded in the organism”? If materialism is true, then there is no information. But there is information. Therefore it’s false. Therefore, there is something else that accounts for information. Therefore, God and minds are back on the table. “Seems to be enough” Really. What does that mean, exactly? How does it account for the fact that it’s wrong to take advantage of weaker people? How does it account for the fact that the material brain can interact with and manipulate abstractions (math) to describe the physical world? “no minds are necessary” Really. Then HOW do you account for information? Go ahead, tell me. I have a hard time believing that you believe this. On the one hand, in the post you were summarizing, you recognize that information exists apart from OUR minds. I have no problem with that. Indeed, THAT'S MY POINT. On the other hand, you completely ignore its origin. What's the deal with that? Information requires a mind because the materialist ontology cannot supply an explanation for symbols and language. ALL INFORMATION requires a MIND. Guess Who is The Only One to write in the language of life? You said: "When the first self-reproducing RNA molecule managed to copy the information in its sequence to more stable, longer lasting DNA, that was also entirely natural and didn’t depend on any mind for it to happen." Let's examine that claim a little more closely. Then I'd like for you to actually reason through my argument. Where did the reproducing RNA molecule come from? Any idea? It takes symbols and rules, remember. How did it “copy” that information? Where did that information, imbedded in the physical structure of the RNA come from? How did the RNA know how to “copy” or that it should copy? Where did the “stable, longer lasting DNA” come from? Where did the information that it contains come from? What does "entirely natural" mean? It means the laws of physics. So tell me HOW physics creates information. That’s what you are claiming. But I proved that physics can’t do that. Did you read it or think about it at all? If I were you, I'd come back to me and tell me where the first RNA came from. How it transfers information. How that mechanism "arose." Where the information came from in the first place. How the first DNA came to be. How the RNA came to be able to communicate to the DNA. You know. Stuff like that. We're just about done here, I'm thinking. And you still haven't addressed either the structure of my argument or any of the premises. Amazing. You spout the evolution “talking points” like they mean something or like they contain actual arguments or reasons to believe them. They don’t.tgpeeler
September 23, 2009
September
09
Sep
23
23
2009
02:28 PM
2
02
28
PM
PDT
kairosfocus:
Every evo simulation and every GA composed by programmers stands in the other column as empirical evidence that mind creates active info.
If I remember correctly, we've discussed this claim before. Can you remind me how you go about determining that this active info is created as opposed to "reshuffled"? What is the higher-order search space?R0b
September 23, 2009
September
09
Sep
23
23
2009
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT
TGP That's about my impression. They are notoriously rigorous. "Intellectual soldiers" is about right. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
September 23, 2009
September
09
Sep
23
23
2009
06:51 AM
6
06
51
AM
PDT
kairosfocus - I was jesting about the Jesuits. I've looked into Ph.D. programs in philosophy and the Jesuit ones are always (yes, this is an inductive conclusion! :-) the most difficult, that is, the best. If I wasn't so old and cranky and impatient I'd get one anyway but I can read faster than they can talk. :-) I have a friend who is getting a Ph.D. in philosophy at Texas A&M and the stuff he's had to take. I just couldn't sit through it.tgpeeler
September 23, 2009
September
09
Sep
23
23
2009
06:34 AM
6
06
34
AM
PDT
Joseph
how can we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum “evolved” by random mutations and natural selection? Anybody?
Perhaps you would be better served by asking your question in a place where people believe that evolution can indeed produce bacterial flagellum. I mean, who are you asking? I understand there are several venues where scientists working in biology hang out who would be happy to talk about your questions. Are you willing to take the debate to a location where professional biologists hang out? If so, I can email you the location.Moseph
September 23, 2009
September
09
Sep
23
23
2009
05:51 AM
5
05
51
AM
PDT
Kairosfocus, I'm afraid I do not see the answer to my question What’s the theoretical limit on the amount of of FSCI (functionally specific complex information) that can be generated by natural processes operating freely? On any of your links. Could you just provide the answer directly?Moseph
September 23, 2009
September
09
Sep
23
23
2009
05:48 AM
5
05
48
AM
PDT
Red Queen Hypothesis- Notice it doesn't have anything to say about random mutations. IOW Moseph was being dishonest when I asked for a testable hypothesis for his position and he provided one that doesn't support his position.Joseph
September 23, 2009
September
09
Sep
23
23
2009
05:37 AM
5
05
37
AM
PDT
how can we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum “evolved” by random mutations and natural selection? Anybody?Joseph
September 23, 2009
September
09
Sep
23
23
2009
05:31 AM
5
05
31
AM
PDT
“Fitness (biology): Fitness (often denoted w in population genetics models) is a central concept in evolutionary theory. It describes the capability of an individual of certain genotype to reproduce, and usually is equal to the proportion of the individual’s genes in all the genes of the next generation. fitness: In biology, fitness is the number of offspring of a particular organism which survive to reproductive age. In other words, fitness may be thought of as the ability of an organism to pass on its genes.”
These do not fit your defintion of fitness.
Yes they do. They both talk about leaving behind genes- that is reproduction. Not only that if you actually went and read both articles they spell it out.Joseph
September 23, 2009
September
09
Sep
23
23
2009
05:29 AM
5
05
29
AM
PDT
CannuckianYankee @ 64 As I think I said somewhere else, cumulative selection is at work in every reproducing organism that uses DNA. If you only modify (mutate) one or a few bases at a time and pass the rest through unchanged, you're utilizing cumulative selection. The other type of selection would have you modifying every DNA base every time the organism reproduces which will give you a dead organism 99.99999999999999999 % of the time. I don't think Dawkins is really cheating with Weasel. First of all, he says right up front that Weasel is just to show the enormous increase in speed between cumulative and non-cumulative selection and he does that very well. Secondly, there is a "goal" in real life selection: the organism is trying to pass on an exact copy of its DNA to its offspring and if there is a mutation, it's "hoping" that the mutation will produce offspring that reproduce at least as well as the original or better. If not, natural selection will kill off the new DNA when the organism tries to make a living with it. I think you're a little confused on mutations and DNA. Any change to a piece of DNA is, by definition, a mutation. The only time that I know of when DNA actually affects mutations is in the immune system where error correction is turned off for some parts of white blood cells so they produce cells producing as many different types of antibodies as possible. When one of the cells latches onto an invader, it is made to reproduce accurately and accurately in order to overwhelm the infection. In all other cases, mutation is something that happens to DNA. It gets hit by a cosmic ray or reproduction is disrupted by a chemical or something else "goes wrong" and the copied DNA doesn't quite match the original string. I think Darwinian evolution can account for the information processing capabilities of DNA. See my previous post to tgpeeler. The information necessary for the first life was embodied in the materials of the first living whatever, probably RNA. At some period early in the history of life, cells gradually managed to copy the information in the RNA to more stable DNA and the DNA "code" gradually evolved to our present very efficient code.djmullen
September 23, 2009
September
09
Sep
23
23
2009
04:42 AM
4
04
42
AM
PDT
Let me summarize my last message. When it comes to life, it doesn't matter if materialism is true. What counts is that the information physically embedded in the organism seems to be enough to account for everything we observe about livng organisms and no minds are necessary, supernatural or otherwise.djmullen
September 23, 2009
September
09
Sep
23
23
2009
03:17 AM
3
03
17
AM
PDT
tgpeeler in 94 & 95: Do you realize that information exists outside the human mind? If you have a molecule of RNA, that molecule embodies information in the atoms that make it, their arrangement, the bonds between the atoms, the electrical charges given off by different parts of the molecule and every thing else that goes to make up that molecule? The type of information you (and most other IDers) seem to be thinking of is the information inside the human brain. If you know the atoms that make up RNA, that is information in your brain. If you know the arrangement of the atoms in RNA, that is information in your brain. If you know the bonds between the atoms, that is more information in your brain. If you know the electrical charges of various parts of the RNA, that is more information that is in your brain. None of the information in your brain is necessary for RNA reproduction or helps the reproduction in any way. Only the information that is incorporated in the molecule helps reproduction. As you say, information and life are inseparable. And the information imbedded in living organisms is entirely natural and doesn't depend in any way on any mind for its existence. When the first self-reproducing RNA molecule managed to copy the information in its sequence to more stable, longer lasting DNA, that was also entirely natural and didn't depend on any mind for it to happen. When that information is copied out of the DNA and into RNA, the process is entirely natural and doesn't need any mind to help it. But now you can change (mutate) the DNA and those changes will change the RNA and hence the proteins and other chemicals that make up life. If you change one or two DNA base-pairs at a time, you are practicing cumulative selection and you can slowly build up complex living things that way. And if you change one or two DNA base-pairs that affect a regulatory gene, you can cause noticible changes, like increases in size, very quickly. That is what Dawkins is saying and your many quotes miss the point entirely. Put in other words, the only information that counts for life is the physical information encorporated in the organism. It is sufficient to account for everything we've observed so far and no minds are necessary for its operation. You may not believe that, but what you and I believe is of very little importance to a cell busily growing and dividing. It is operating on its own internal information and doesn't need either of us.djmullen
September 23, 2009
September
09
Sep
23
23
2009
03:05 AM
3
03
05
AM
PDT
PPPS: TGP, my Jesuit educators at Campion College in Jamaica back in the 1970's impressed this protestant boy for their logic, learning and clarity. They were notoriously rigorous, but that is not a bad thing if it is backed up by being able to communicate clearly. Their key educational trick was to use dramatic examples to clarify, and to back them up with oodles of worked exercises and associated readings etc. (That part I did not enjoy, when I was routinely finishing off homework at 10 pm, especially when we had really nasty geometry proofs -- and their favoured tool for teaching logical reasoning was old fashioned Euclidean Geometry. they were the ones who made us do the Readak speed reading and study skills course, too. [Cf my onward stuff on that here.] Fr Ryan [saw him a few years back passing through Manley Airport, retired in his 90's and concerned for the need for good development of Agriculture . . . ] also loved to teach old fashioned -- modified -- Kellogg diagrams. Hated 'em then, respect them now. He also taught me to appreciate all sorts of literatures, high brow and low brow. That stuff set me up nicely for reading Francis Schaeffer later on on my own, then deepening my knowledge of phil in the context of issues related to science and general worldview stuff. (Cf here.) Their edu intent was to create people capable of onward self-education. Tough, but it works.)kairosfocus
September 23, 2009
September
09
Sep
23
23
2009
12:48 AM
12
12
48
AM
PDT
PPS: Moseph, you already have your answer on the lower bound on FSCI; including from 25 - 29 in the UD weak argument correctives. If you want more, try the discussion here on a heuristic, quantifying model with a cutoff at 500 - 1,000 bits; in my always linked. Do, try not to further side-track the thread.kairosfocus
September 23, 2009
September
09
Sep
23
23
2009
12:30 AM
12
12
30
AM
PDT
Moseph: Pardon some frank advice: you need to read the weak argument correctives, then come back to us; instead ofg prosing distractive side=-tracks. Recall, this is a rtherad about the credibility of Weasel as a model of the power of chance variation and natural selection off differential reproductive success of sub-populaitons. It turns out Weasel is based on rewarding increments in mere proximity to a distant target, and that the relevant reward is for fundamentally non-functional phrases. If a cell were to have a non-functional random 300k base pair DNA set substituted for its normal complement, it would stop working and stop replicating. Weasel is fundamentally dis-analogous to functional cell based life, much less to proposed mechanisms of cumulative evolutionary progress by chance variation and natural selection off differential reproductive success of sub populations. That is why the apparent original Weasels are not credible, as Gil has pointed out in the original post. On active information and intelligent designs, we see this all the time, and every genetic algorithm or evolutionary algorithm presented to date is a case in point. For, we actually do observe intelligent designers -- there is no one "the" intelligent designer. Even the "missing link" level Weasel is an apt case in point. As for FSCI and its rule of thumb lower bound, you have adequate information in WAC 28. Further to these it seems to me that you are making an unconscious substitution of "supernatural" for "intelligent." This is a misreading: 1 --> The biosystems of cell-based life exhibit FSCI, on the grounds of being a Von Neumann self-replicator and using DNA of 600 k bits or more. 2 --> From this -- as, such highly contingent and functional, purposefully organised information and structures are not credible on either blind mechanical forces or blind undirected, stochastically controlled contingency, or both acting in concert -- we may infer to techne, i.e. art as the most credible source. 3 --> But if cell based life on earth is credibly a technology, the natural next question is whose? 4 --> From the empirical evidence provided by reverse engineering the technology as observed here on earth, we may only infer to someone capable of organic polymer molecular nanomachine technologies that embed digital info systems. 5 --> So, any civilisation or institution with a sufficiently advanced technology to do that is capable of creating such an entitty. 6 --> To date, we have no means of empirically verifying that such entities do or do not exist in a sufficiently close galactic neighbourhood to be relevant. 7 --> So, on reverse engineering the cell, we may only properly infer to intelligence, not to the specific identity or ontological status of said technician(s). Biological ID under current and reasonably foreseeable conditions is strictly irrelevant to issues over whether intelligences come from nature and supernature, however these may be defined. (Which is non-trivial.) 8 --> There is however a branch of design theory that may have some bearing on the first origin of cell based life in our observed cosmos. 9 --> For, our observed cosmos appears to manifest a life-friendly fine-tuning on sufficiently many parameters etc that it becomes credible that a candidate originator of the observed cosmos is an intelligence who intended to onward create life. 10 --> Such a candidate intelligence of great power and wisdom is suggestive of many descriptions of what would be legitimately termed "supernatural." [The originator of our natural world, plainly, is beyond and not unduly constrained by it. Nor is it plausible that such an entitty would be incapable of interacting with the cosmos and its components as a going concern.] 11 --> in a world of rampant a priori Lewontinain style "scientific materialism," that seems ultra vires to many. But, that has more to do with question-begging metaphysical a priorism than anything that is strictly scientific. 12 --> But, coming back to the bottomline. (i) Intelligent is not to be equated with supernatural. And, (ii) the use of design inference on best explanation across empirically anchored observations of our world, we allow the evidence to speak for itself. So, (iii) materialistic a priorism is ultra vires. GEM of TKI PS: TGP, keep the good stuff coming.kairosfocus
September 23, 2009
September
09
Sep
23
23
2009
12:22 AM
12
12
22
AM
PDT
Re: Rob #87 "Can you tell us exactly what definition you’re referring to? Shannon, Kolmogorov, and even Dembski all define information in ways that don’t require language." See above. If that doesn't do it for you I gracefully acknowledge my inability to penetrate your intellectual space. Regards,tgpeeler
September 22, 2009
September
09
Sep
22
22
2009
10:26 PM
10
10
26
PM
PDT
Re: DJ Mullen #59 "Complicated parts, like eyes, have to evolve gradually by cumulative selection. Trying to evolve them suddenly would be switching to ID-style single-step selection, which does not work. Once those complex parts have slowly evolved, a hit or two to regulatory genes can cause them to suddenly change size or number. That’s what Dawkins is talking about." No kidding. Ya think? My whole point is that even though Dawkins is talking about that he doesn't know what he is talking about. IT'S NOT THE COMPLEX PARTS THAT HAVE TO BE EXPLAINED. How often must this be said? Seriously, do you guys really not get this? That information and life are inseparable? Let me quote from the evolution side of the aisle just to prove that I'm not making this up. Sigh... First of all let me quote from a philosophy book or two to drive home, if that's even possible out here, the point that neo-Darwinian evolution relies on physics and physics alone for its explanatory power. And would it be churlish of me to mention once again for an explanation to be worth the paper it's written on that it must explain what needs explaining. Can we at least agree on that????? Naturalism: “The view, sometimes considered scientific (but an assumption rather than an argued theory) that all that there is, is spatiotemporal (a part of “nature”) and is only knowable through the methods of the sciences, is itself a metaphysics, namely metaphysical naturalism (not to be confused with natural philosophy).” This is from the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy. Second Edition. Page 563. “the twofold view that (1) everything is composed of natural entities – those studied in the sciences (on some versions, the natural sciences) – whose properties determine all the properties of things, persons included (abstracta like possibilia and mathematical objects, if they exist, being constructed of such abstract entities as the sciences allow); and (2) acceptable methods of justification and explanation are contiguous, in some sense, with those in science.” Same book. page 596. “An atheist in this sense of philosophical naturalist is somebody who believes there is nothing beyond the natural, physical world, no supernatural creative intelligence lurking behind the observable universe, no soul that outlasts the body and miracles – except in the sense of natural phenomena that we don’t yet understand.” The God Delusion, page 14. (By Richard Dawkins) Materialism: "Materialism is the naturalistic metaphysics that regards nature as consisting of matter in motion. Whatever is apparently not matter in motion is to be regarded as "mere appearances" of what is matter in motion. All explanation, therefore, in philosophy as well as in science, is to be phrased in terms of the laws now known or yet to be discovered concerning the relationships among the different kinds of matter and the laws of their motion with respect to each other." (In other words, the laws of physics.) Philosophic Inquiry. Page 338. “Materialists deny that the world includes both mental and material substances. Every substance is a material substance. Minds are fashioned somehow from the same elementary components from which rocks, trees, and stars are made.” Philosophy of Mind. Page 51. “Nowadays, materialism of one stripe or another is more often than not taken for granted: in David Lewis’s words, materialism is nonnegotiable.” Philosophy of Mind. Page 51. David Lewis is a highly regarded contemporary philosopher. He has passed on. “The story may be apocryphal, but the answer is the only one that a consistent materialist could have given; everything is to be explained in terms of what occurs in nature, according to the laws of physics.” Philosophic Inquiry, page 392. (The apocryphal story is the famous one of Napoleon and LaPlace.) “All appearances to the contrary, the only watchmaker in nature is the blind forces of physics, albeit deployed in a very special way.” The Blind Watchmaker. Page 5. (Richard Dawkins. Although how physics is deployed in a "very special way" is something only Richard knows.) “The physical stance always works in principle, because everything ultimately obeys the laws of physics.” The God Delusion, Page 181. (More Richard) Physicalism: “in the widest sense of the term, materialism applied to the question of the nature of mind. So construed, physicalism is the thesis – call it ontological physicalism – that whatever exists or occurs is ultimately constituted out of physical entities. But sometimes ‘physicalism’ is used to refer to the thesis that whatever exists or occurs can be completely described in the vocabulary of physics.” The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Second Edition. Page 706. “One way of stating the principle of physical causal closure is this: If you pick any physical event and trace out its causal ancestry or posterity, that will never take you outside the physical domain. That is, no causal chain will ever cross the boundary between the physical and the nonphysical.” Mind in a Physical World. Page 40. (Jaegwon Kim, a highly regarded - well not by me - contemporary philosopher of mind.) “So all roads branching out of physicalism may in the end seem to converge at the same point, the irreality of the mental. This should come as no surprise: we should remember that physicalism, as an overarching metaphysical doctrine about all of reality, exacts a steep price.” Mind in a Physical World. Page 119. OK. Let me spell it out again. The "isms" above, hereafter I will use the word naturalism since it's the broadest category, have a couple of common claims. They are that "nature" is all that there is. That "nature" is causally closed. That means the laws of physics govern without any pesky intervention from God, souls, minds, whatever. And they are all of a piece that the only way to knowledge is through "our" best construal of the scientific method. Now you can quibble around the edges, maybe, but this is what you sign up for if you are a neo-Darwinist. That being natural selection plus genetics as the story of life. It's the naturalist story. Now some bludgeoning on life and information. I am quoting died in the wool evolutionists here who believe in a physico-chemical explanation for life. In other words, they think Darwin got it right. “To start with, a brief introduction to modern evolution theory is given (chapter 1). A central and fundamental concept of this theory is that of “biological information,” since the material order and the purposiveness characteristic of living systems are governed completely by information, which in turn has its foundations at the level of biological macromolecules (chapter 2). The question of the origin of life is thus equivalent to the question of the origin of biological information." Information and the Origin of Life, from the introduction. By Bernd-Olaf Kuppers. “The term “biological information” requires clarification, and this is the purpose of part II. It will be shown that three dimensions of information can be distinguished: its syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic aspects.” “In contrast to this (syntactic), the semantic aspect is essential, since the elements of an organism that are governed by information have a special purpose and a meaning in the context of the maintenance of its life functions (chapter 4)." Information and the Origin of Life, From the introduction. “The structure and function of the hemoglobin molecule show that the purposiveness of living molecules pervades even the complex architecture of the molecule that possesses them.” Information and the Origin of Life. page 11. "The smallest catalytically active protein molecules of the living cell consist of at least a hundred amino acids. … This shows that already on the lowest level of complexity, that of the biological macromolecules, an almost unlimited variety of structures is possible. … It is therefore to be expected that the construction and the coordinated interplay in the cell of these molecular function-carriers is determined by a plan, that is to say, information.” Information and the Origin of Life. page 11. “In spite of our differences we all use a single chemical language, or, more precisely, as we shall see, two such languages, intimately related to each other.” Life Itself, page 39. “A protein is like a paragraph written in a twenty-letter language, the exact nature of the protein being determined by the exact order of the letters. With one trivial exception, this script never varies. Animals, plants, microorganisms and viruses all use the same set of twenty letters although, as far as we can tell, other similar letters could easily have been employed, just as other symbols could have been used to construct our own alphabet.” Life Itself. pages 44-45. (Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the structure of DNA) “You can treat the genetic code as a dictionary in which sixty-four words in one language (the sixty-four possible triplets of a four-letter alphabet) are mapped onto twenty-one words in another language (twenty amino acids plus a punctuation mark).” River Out of Eden. Page 11. (Richard Dawkins again) “Life is just bytes and bytes and bytes of digital information.” River Out of Eden. Page 19. “Indeed, the whole DNA/protein-based information technology is so sophisticated – high tech, it has been called by the chemist Graham Cairns-Smith – that you can scarcely imagine it arising by luck, without some other self-replicating system as a forerunner.” River Out of Eden. Page 150. “We have seen that DNA molecules are the centre of a spectacular information technology.” The Blind Watchmaker. Page 126. “…so that the language that is used in the nucleic acid polymers is universal.” Of Molecules and Men, page 10. (Francis Crick, again) "The existence of a genome and the genetic code divides the living organisms from nonliving matter. There is nothing in the physico-chemical world that remotely resembles reactions being determined by a sequence and codes between sequences." Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life. Page 2. (By Hubert Yockey) "The belief of mechanist-reductionists that the chemical processes in living matter do not differ in principle from those in dead matter is incorrect. There is no trace of messages determining the results of chemical reactions in inanimate matter. If genetical processes were just complicated biochemistry, the laws of mass action and thermodynamics would govern the placement of amino acids in the protein sequences." Page 5. "Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies." Page 6 "The genetic information system is the software of life and, like the symbols in a computer, it is purely symbolic and independent of its environment. Of course, the genetic message, when expressed as a sequence of symbols, is nonmaterial but must be recorded in matter or energy." Page 7. "Life is guided by information and inorganic processes are not." Page 8. The Jesuits indeed. How much plainer can it get????? So now that we understand that life and information are connected and we understand that information and language are connected and we understand that language is a set of symbols and rules then you have to explain symbols and rules with physics. But you can't. So you can't explain language, or information, or life. It's an easy system. You know, it strikes me as odd that I, a Christian, cite Dawkins, Crick, Kuppers, Kim, Yockey, and could quote Dennett, Ruse, Forrest, Coyne, Miller, Monod, Meyr, Gould, Eldridge, Dobzhansky, etal, ad nauseum and all I ever get back from "you guys" is: the Jesuits would love you. Or what is information? Come on. Don't you people read? Let's engage on this. Final offer. Regards,tgpeeler
September 22, 2009
September
09
Sep
22
22
2009
10:17 PM
10
10
17
PM
PDT
Re: Graham 58 "and why isnt a rule information ? A rule contains information about how some action will proceed, eg: the crystal will be exactly hexagonal. If the rule didnt contain this information, it wouldnt be a rule. I think the real problem here is the theological hair-splitting about what ‘information’ means, what ‘language’ means etc etc. As I say, the Jesuits would love you." Who says a rule isn't information? And what does that have to do with anything. But it's ONLY information within the context of life. Dear God in heaven what is so difficult about this to understand? Did I mince words in my definitions? Did I not make myself crystal clear? Yet in spite of that, you pick at nits rather than even try to come to grips with the argument. I doubt that the Jesuits would love me. They are far too irrational for my taste.tgpeeler
September 22, 2009
September
09
Sep
22
22
2009
09:35 PM
9
09
35
PM
PDT
Kairofocus
Show us a credible case where active information sufficient to get to a case of 1,000 bits or so worth of functionally specific complex information arose by chance + necessity without mind.
Can you show me a credible case of active information generation by your purported "intelligent designer"?
Every evo simulation and every GA composed by programmers stands in the other column as empirical evidence that mind creates active info.
Can you show me a credible case of GA creation or evo simulation by your purported "intelligent designer"?
Then, apply an inference to best explanation on the empirical evidence.
And, laughably, the flying spaghetti monster is equally probable under your inference to best explanation. Give his noodly appendage a kiss from me! Tell me Kariosfocus: What's the theoretical limit on the amount of of FSCI (functionally specific complex information) that can be generated by natural processes operating freely? I can determine it to be from your previous statements only to be a number in the range 0 to 1000. What is it please?Moseph
September 22, 2009
September
09
Sep
22
22
2009
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5 6 8

Leave a Reply