Stephen Meyer on ID’s Scientific Bona Fides

_{William Dembski

July 13, 2010

Intelligent Design}

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

Comments

Gaz and Petrushka, in fact the second law of thermodynamics is so effective at preventing Darwinian evolution from being even remotely true it is actually possible to watch the second law in "real-time" action as we watch the wall of neo-Darwinian ignorance crumble before our own eyes with the onslaught of "functional" discoveries coming forth for "junk DNA": The "Junk DNA" Paradigm Continues to Collapse as New Functions Are Discovered for Retrotransposons - July 2010 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/07/the_junk_dna_paradigm_continue036461.htmlbornagain77_{July 22, 2010
July
07
Jul
22
22
2010
02:16 PM
2
02
16
PM
PDT}

@bornagain -"Old Grandpa Gaz as a baby http://cgz.e2bn.net/e2bn/leas/.....puddle.jpg" LOL!above_{July 22, 2010
July
07
Jul
22
22
2010
01:55 PM
1
01
55
PM
PDT}

Petrushka as with kairosfocus, all I ask for is that you provide DIRECT OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE for the origination of ANY functional information whatsoever, over and above what is already present in a parent species genome, so as to justify your claim that the encyclopedias of information we see in all the genomes living around us might be explained by the "physicality" of Darwinism. For you to pretend that neo-Darwinism has "no problem" with ANY physical law in completely absurd,,, neo-Darwinism violates the second law of thermodynamics in a spectacular way" "there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems." John Ross, Chemical and Engineering News, 7 July 1980 "The laws of probability apply to open as well as closed systems." Granville Sewell - Professor Of Mathematics - University Of Texas El Paso https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/eseb-liitle-shop-of-fallacies/#comment-347999 Evolution is easily the dumbest idea ever taken seriously in science. Granville Sewell - Professor of Mathematics - University of Texas - El Paso Can “ANYTHING” Happen in an Open System? - Granville Sewell PhD. Math Excerpt: If we found evidence that DNA, auto parts, computer chips, and books entered through the Earth’s atmosphere at some time in the past, then perhaps the appearance of humans, cars, computers, and encyclopedias on a previously barren planet could be explained without postulating a violation of the second law here (it would have been violated somewhere else!). http://www.math.utep.edu/Faculty/sewell/articles/appendixd.pdf Can Anything Happen In A Open System - Granville Sewell PhD. Math - video http://www.math.utep.edu/Faculty/sewell/articles/thermo.htm Casey Luskin interviews Granville Sewell - audio http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/player/web/2010-02-17T13_17_00-08_00 Evolution's Thermodynamic Failure - Granville Sewell (Professor of Mathematics - Texas University - El Paso) http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=9128 Gaz do you have the nerve to call me "muddled" when you have repeatedly claimed the "nothing" is a "cause" of some of the things we observe happening in quantum mechanics??? Muddled??? Please Gaz let's not get personal and start slinging mud at each other and dragging your "muddled" great great great grandfather into all this: Old Grandpa Gaz as a baby http://cgz.e2bn.net/e2bn/leas/c99/schools/cgz/accounts/staff/rchambers/GeoBlogBytes%20Blog%20Resources/Iceland%20Images/Mudpuddle.jpgbornagain77_{July 22, 2010
July
07
Jul
22
22
2010
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT}

Kindly address the issue of the empirical, observational support for origin of digitally coded, functionally specific complex information by chance and or necessity, in ANY form.
I've addressed the problem of OOL many times on this thread. There's a lot of research going on. I'd rather not characterize the findings before they are found. My position on this and other threads is fairly constant, considering that some posts are better worded than others. It is my position (and I believe the position of most mainstream biologists) that most genes were discovered or invented by microbes, before the Cambrian. Most evolution since has been variations on sequences that existed billions of years ago. I have no ego attached to any conjecture on how life first arose. I don't know. You don't know. If I had to bet, I'd bet that life arises because nature is rigged for life to arise. I have no personal knowledge of how or why that is.Petrushka_{July 22, 2010
July
07
Jul
22
22
2010
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT}

Thanks for the help Kairosfocus. I really appreciate you taking the time on several occasions to explain things. You have an interesting and effective way of simplifying complex issues to help others gain a better understanding of the subject matter. You’re actually right. I don’t have an extensive background in information systems and thermodynamics, which is why it was a little difficult to follow all the arguments. I was under the obviously false assumption that talkorigins was a fair ground for discourse. I will approach its content with a little more caution from now on. I think you hit the nail on the head when you said: “Try to find just one case where as observed — no just-so stories dressed up with scientific jargon!” Time and time again I have found myself faced with alleged explanations dressed up in excessive verbiage and scientific jargon and upon further research, realized that all this was, was simply nonsense made to sound as a “sophisticated” account of an alleged explanation. I also often find out that a lot of the arguments presented are mere semantic games. This was my suspicion when I run into the talkorigins site but due to the fact that I do not have deepest of understanding in information systems, I wanted to hear other people’s opinions and especially yours. I also appreciate the quotes from The Bible you provided. :) PS. Have you had a chance to read the Mathematics of Evolution by Fred Hoyle. I just began reading it and it seems like he makes some points that are related to the information argument you provide.above_{July 22, 2010
July
07
Jul
22
22
2010
01:25 PM
1
01
25
PM
PDT}

Petrushka: Kindly address the issue of the empirical, observational support for origin of digitally coded, functionally specific complex information by chance and or necessity, in ANY form. Show us a program, a document or any other such data based entity where -- on observation -- the information of at least 1,000 bits originated by chance plus necessity without design. You also full well know that in the still warm pond, you don't even have the equivalent of Scrabble letters yet, and need to assemble them by chance plus necessity without design into a functional message and also assemble -- by chemistry, not any claimed mythical powers of biology -- a self-replicating molecular nanomachine entity that also carries out metabolism. no just-so stories please. Compared to that task, the random assembly of letters on a Scrabble game set into a sentence that makes sense is a very generously simple problem. As well you full know. Fish, or cut the bait so we can fish. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{July 22, 2010
July
07
Jul
22
22
2010
01:16 PM
1
01
16
PM
PDT}

PPPS: Onlokers, do not forget to observe the rhetorical frameshift -- old hat since Darwin used it -- from origin of the cell [the focus of Meyer's SITC BTW] to evolution of existing forms on presumed unlimited power of chance variations and so-called natural selction. Observe how o this last the issues of info genration of 10's mbits functional new info, embryological feasibility on a highly integrated organism, and empirical evidence of the gradual transitions have all been consistently ducked. No prizes for guessing why, once you know that he fossil record is now 1/4 million species deep and the many many crucially missing chain links to form the infamous tree of life are still overwhelmingly missing; especially when it comes to accounting for the origin of phylum and subphylum level body plans to explain the Cambrian layer fossils; the level where for instance you decide whether or not you have a backbone.kairosfocus_{July 22, 2010
July
07
Jul
22
22
2010
01:06 PM
1
01
06
PM
PDT}

...they sometimes fall into the same trap, but more often rely on the subtler error of preloading a fitness landscape that boils down to an optimising search within an island of function.
I was just wondering why you chose to use an analogy that seems so close to Weasel, but even simpler and less similar to evolution. Biochemistry, of course embodies its own fitness lanscape. The list of structures that are possible are hard coded into the nature of nature. The concept of whether fitness functions and fitness landscapes can be explored by evolutionary algorithms should not be the question. They obviously can be. The important question is the one raised by Douglas Axe, whether the landscapes can be traversed via incremental change. This whole discussion might be more interesting if we focused on whether the differences between existing organisms can be bridged incrementally. That seems to be the focus of mainstream science.Petrushka_{July 22, 2010
July
07
Jul
22
22
2010
12:59 PM
12
12
59
PM
PDT}

PPS: Petrushka is now simply recirculating a move the goalposts objection that has long since been adequately answered. The focus of the design research level work is currently on the implications of digitally coded functionally specific complex information. Currently, a growing series of peer reviewed papers is making plain that the way that we get significantly improved performance over a random search [it is BTW possible to get performance WORSE than random search] is through injection of active information, which can be quantified based on its impact. Another line of work is developing a set of various metrics, and has already produced a list of measures of FSC for 35 protein families. Petrushka would be better served if he would seek to correct the increasingly blatant and outrageous imposition of materialist ideology as a censoring constraint and glass ceiling [or worse] on science. The current case of a Nature Editorial trying to take down an eminent scientist because he is a man of faith [he is not either a Creationist or an ID supporter] is all too telling. Shameless!kairosfocus_{July 22, 2010
July
07
Jul
22
22
2010
12:50 PM
12
12
50
PM
PDT}

PS: Weasel of course was an utterly dishonest "demonstration" where Dawkins used weasel words to actually acknowledge its fundamentally misleading nature, even while putting it forth as an illustration of the power of chance and selection to hit a target rapidly; the key problem being that the target was preloaded and generation champions -- regardless of non-function -- were chosen for their increments in proximity tot he target. It should be withdrawn and apologised for publicly. As for "improved" successors, they sometimes fall into the same trap, but more often rely on the subtler error of preloading a fitness landscape that boils down to an optimising search within an island of function. The real problem -- as old hands like Petrushka know or should know -- is to get to isolated islands of function in vast configuration spaces that easily overwhelm the search capacity, not of our little planet but he whole observed universe. Weasel was long since deconstructed across several threads here, and there is even what could well be actual code somewhere that will abundantly demonstrate the problem. Evo Informatics Lab shows the problems in its various simulations. And, the Scrabble example is of course of comparable though far lesser complexity to the real problem of just getting the DNA information for a viable first cell right [100 - 500 k bits . . . ]. We have not touched on where the codes came from, where algorithms came from, and where co-ordinated, mutually well matched implementing machines as an irreducibly complex set for BOTH metabolism and self-replication (which is a precondition for differential success of reproducing populations) credibly came from, absent intelligence.kairosfocus_{July 22, 2010
July
07
Jul
22
22
2010
12:41 PM
12
12
41
PM
PDT}

Above, for instance, I discussed the way ANOVA works in experiment designs that compare treatments and controls in a great many fields.
Then it would seem to be the highest priority of ID researchers to demonstrate its effectiveness in some test cases where we know that some varieties have been produced in historical time by "intelligent selection" and others produced by some other form of selection, not involving humans. That is the way scientific protocols are certified, especially when the science is being used to enforce laws.Petrushka_{July 22, 2010
July
07
Jul
22
22
2010
12:41 PM
12
12
41
PM
PDT}

Onlookers: Petrushka -- as a self-confesseed old hand -- knows or should know that design detection is a routine and serious matter in any number of scientific and scientifically informed fields. Above, for instance, I discussed the way ANOVA works in experiment designs that compare treatments and controls in a great many fields. In Information Theory, we routinely distinguish signal from noise and base the absolutely central ratio signal to noise on that distinction. So, he is simply not serious. As to he notion that there is ongoing research that someday hopes -- after 80 years so far -- hopes t voila, poof provide us with empirical support for abiogenesis on chance plus necessity in whatever version on Darwin's warm littel pond full of salts and zapped by lightning or whatever, we need to understand what is driving how that research is being done and reported in too many circles. So, let me again cite Lewontin's damaging 1997 admissions, noting how today's thread on a Nature editorial attacking Francis Collins is demonstrating yet again just how on target Lewontin was: ___________ >>. . . to put a correct view of the universe into people’s heads we must first get an incorrect view out . . . the problem is to get them to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world, the demons that exist only in their imaginations, and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth [which is of course a philosophical truth and knowledge claim, so it refutes itself]. . . . To Sagan, as to all but a few other scientists, it is self-evident [yup, triumphalistic circular thinking can seem self-evident] that the practices of science [cf below on just how he wants science practiced, and ask yourself whether a priori materialist censorship is going to help with unfettered truth seeking] provide the surest method of putting us in contact with physical reality, and that, in contrast, the demon-haunted world rests on a set of beliefs and behaviors that fail every reasonable test [surely, you mean self-refuting evolutionary materialism?]. . . . It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. [“Billions and Billions of Demons,” NYRB, January 9, 1997.] >> _____________ "Science" done like that has no credibility and we should not trust it, it is ideology in the false dress of a lab coat. And, pardon a few direct words: it is high time we were direct about it, demanding accountability from those who have subverted science in the interests of worldview agendas. Including refusing to accept and address a straightforward definition that in fact is commonplace in a great many fields of science and is implicit in a lot of experimental practice. G'day GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{July 22, 2010
July
07
Jul
22
22
2010
12:26 PM
12
12
26
PM
PDT}

Get a set of Scrabble letters. Shake up the bag, and line up the little rests, putting letters one by one left to right until they were all used up. Does the result make sense as a sentence?
Your exercise sounds a lot like the Weasel demo, but minus fecundity, selection and iteration. Perhaps you could rephrase your analogy and make it have a few more of the features of evolution.Petrushka_{July 22, 2010
July
07
Jul
22
22
2010
12:20 PM
12
12
20
PM
PDT}

I'm sorry. The first link is what I am assuming is kairosfocus' blog, where he explains some of the prevalent issues in biology as they pertain to information and FSCI at: http://iose-gen.blogspot.com/2010/06/introduction-and-summary.html The second link is the objections raised by some people on talkorigin at: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/information/infotheory.htmlabove_{July 22, 2010
July
07
Jul
22
22
2010
12:16 PM
12
12
16
PM
PDT}

PS: Watch Journey in the Cell, top right this page.kairosfocus_{July 22, 2010
July
07
Jul
22
22
2010
12:10 PM
12
12
10
PM
PDT}

Above: TalkOrigins is so biased, distorted and frankly too often outright dishonest -- I last saw them trying to slander Creationists who paid a serious price for antiracist efforts as racists -- that they make Wikipedia's bias on this subject look tame. I would not give TalkOrigins the time of day, and anyone who cites it as an authoritative source is at best ill advised, at worst ill intentioned. On information systems, if you do not have the mathematical background to follow the arguments and the related ones in thermodynamics [especially statistical form] I would suggest you use a bit of common sense. Get a set of Scrabble letters. Shake up the bag, and line up the little rests, putting letters one by one left to right until they were all used up. Does the result make sense as a sentence? Why is that? (To very high confidence . . . ) ANS: The number of nonsensical possible configurations of letters at random far, far and away outnumbers the set where the letters make sense. Now, second exercise. You come upon a Scrabble set like above, but this time the opening sentences of this post are laid out, letter by letter. What is the most likely explanation for such digitally coded functionally specific complex information? A: Directed configuration, aka design. That is, when we find ourselves on an island of function isolated in a vast space of possible but overwhelmingly non-functional configurations, on abundant [and un-exceptioned] experience, the answer is design. Third exercise. Go to a PC shop. Look at the PCs and software. What is the best explanation for the origin of both, why? A: Digital, code based, algorithmic technology and he machines that make it work are again functionally complex, and specific organised entities, best explained on design. Then, examine the way DNA is transcribed by RNA, then edited and transferred to the Ribosome, then read and used to code a protein amino acid by amino acid. Observe how a tag end is sometimes used to direct the protein to where to go, snipped off before use [much like the headers used in packet switching across the Internet, or in a simple case email or snail mail addresses]. Q: What is the best explanation of this ancient digital technology? A: It all happened by accidental variation and natural selection, of course. NOT: this cme up simply because a pre-informaiton age theory was dominant, and has continued to be dominant, imposing censorship on teh very blatantly obvious best explanation. Just, don't let the ideologues at Talk Origin and elsewhere bamboozle you into accepting ideologically motivated censorship in the name of and under the false colours of science. Try to find just one case where as observed -- no just-so stories dressed up with scientific jargon! -- a complex digital code based algorithmic system originated by forces of blind chance and mechanical necessity. If they cannot show such a case on direct observation, they are blowing blue smoke and using glass mirrors to make you think you are seeing ghosts. You and I both know where digital computers and cell phone networks etc come from, why. And since you seem to be a Christian, you may find John 3:19 - 21, & 8:42 - 47 with Rom 1:19 - 32 to be interesting, though saddening, reading. Then, do a bit of praying for us and our civilisation. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{July 22, 2010
July
07
Jul
22
22
2010
12:08 PM
12
12
08
PM
PDT}

above, re: 433 - you posted 2 identical links. Can you fix this so we know what you're referring to?CannuckianYankee_{July 22, 2010
July
07
Jul
22
22
2010
11:59 AM
11
11
59
AM
PDT}

Lot's of work is being done on OOL and reverse engineering. I'd prefer not to characterize the findings before they're found.Petrushka_{July 22, 2010
July
07
Jul
22
22
2010
11:40 AM
11
11
40
AM
PDT}

In a broader sense, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection — how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose.
I'm not unaware of the claims of design detection. I simply haven't seen an example in a real-life context. I've asked, for example, whether design detection could distinguish animal varieties having a history involving human selection, from animals having a history not involving human selection. This should be a perfect test case, since we know a lot about both histories. It's also an incredibly simple test case. I'm sure such forensic methods as fingerprinting and DNA identification had to undergo similar trials before being certified for use in trials. So let's see the proponents of design detection publish a methodology that can be tested and certified.Petrushka_{July 22, 2010
July
07
Jul
22
22
2010
11:32 AM
11
11
32
AM
PDT}

Petrushka: Yup, just as Materialists are blinkered by a priori materialism, there were people who puzzled over the best explanation of planetary motion. The basic problem you have to explain is how on the gamut of the observed cosmos, we can credibly get to codes, [thus language], algorithms, executing machinery and a self-replicating molecular nanomachine entity that also metabolises, in light of the known thermodynamics and chemical kinetics of molecules and the like, i.e. chance plus necessity. The answer to such a project is pretty obvious actrually: the trends, driven by relative statistical weights of functional and non-funcitonal macrostates, are such that the overwhelming trend is to break up rather than synthesise such complex, integrated irreducibly complex organisation. (And if that were not so every can of soup in your supermarket would be teeming over with new life as soon as it cools.) Here is where I discuss why. On origin of body plan level biodiversity, on chance plus necessity, you have to explain spontaneous origin of embryologiclaly feasible, tightly functionally integrated novel forms requiring 10+ mn bases of new bioinformation. (And while we are at it, there is need to explain the diverse sources of analogous structures, in the growing embryo.) The alternativfe that absent a prior imposiion of materialism, is the obvious one. The cell embeds a digital, code based flexible program computer. We know -- KNOW by direct experience in my case -- the routine cause of that. Intelligence. And, we are already playing with nanotechnologies. Absent an a priori imposition, the obvious conclusion would have been reached long ago. The cell is as much a technology as this Eee I am using. We would be setting out on reverse engineering it together, instead of trying to correct an ideological coup that has now begun to cripple science, and which will, if unchecked, cost science its reputation and public support. (That is already happening with those who have tried to substitute cooked computer simulations for genuine science on weather systems.) Wake up and smell the coffee, mon! hate to waste good Blue Mountain brew . . . GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{July 22, 2010
July
07
Jul
22
22
2010
11:31 AM
11
11
31
AM
PDT}

@Kairosfocus I've been following a lot of your arguments pertaining to the importance of information theory in biology and the problems it creates for darwinism. After going over some of your points at: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/information/infotheory.html I did some internet searches on the subject and run into this site: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/information/infotheory.html Where certain individuals are trying to attack the arguments made by Gitt, Dembski and Spetner. I'm starting to get an understanding of the general idea behind this issue about information but I sometimes lack some backround in regards to the specifics of information theories wanted to hear your oponion about the objections made by these people on talkorigins. Are they valid?above_{July 22, 2010
July
07
Jul
22
22
2010
11:18 AM
11
11
18
AM
PDT}

PS: Onlookers, it is not very hard to see what ID qua ID is, as can be seen in the definition given here in this site and in many other places [BTW, given the blatant smear job game and the corruption of that site by ideologues, do not trust Wikipedia on this topic, ande something like True Origins is far worse], as linked from every page: _____________ >>ID Defined The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion. In a broader sense, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection — how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose. Design detection is used in a number of scientific fields, including anthropology, forensic sciences that seek to explain the cause of events such as a death or fire, cryptanalysis and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). An inference that certain biological information may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences. ID is controversial because of the implications of its evidence, rather than the significant weight of its evidence. ID proponents believe science should be conducted objectively, without regard to the implications of its findings. This is particularly necessary in origins science because of its historical (and thus very subjective) nature, and because it is a science that unavoidably impacts religion. Positive evidence of design in living systems consists of the semantic, meaningful or functional nature of biological information, the lack of any known law that can explain the sequence of symbols that carry the “messages,” and statistical and experimental evidence that tends to rule out chance as a plausible explanation. Other evidence challenges the adequacy of natural or material causes to explain both the origin and diversity of life. >> ______________ What happens -- pardon a few direct words, but we are dealing with a self-confessed "old hand" not a naive novice to simply point to the weak argument correctives -- is that not being able to address this squarely on the merits, every sort of caricature and attempt to smear through guilt by association with the already smeared is being attempted. All in defense of the imposition of a materialist ideology that subverts science and corrupts its ability to seek the truth about our world based on evidence. Please correct your misrepresentations for next time. G'day GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{July 22, 2010
July
07
Jul
22
22
2010
11:15 AM
11
11
15
AM
PDT}

You know or should know that the first gene and execution machinery problem begins in Darwin’s warm little pond or the preferred alternative du jour, out of molecular noise and common monomers.
I'm sure that lots of bright people were befuddled in the centuries between Copernicus and Newton, wondering how you could account for all the noise in what could only be perfect circular motion.Petrushka_{July 22, 2010
July
07
Jul
22
22
2010
11:06 AM
11
11
06
AM
PDT}

StephenB, Check out kairosfocus' 420. Kairosfocus appears confused about it, but the text he quotes may explain my position.Gaz_{July 22, 2010
July
07
Jul
22
22
2010
11:02 AM
11
11
02
AM
PDT}

bornagain77 (419), "Thus this is the breakdown in Gaz’s reasoning and allows Gaz to state that nothing can cause something i.e. zero can equal one, 0=1, in quantum mechanics for with Gaz there is no proper check to his philosophical bias, at least none that he will allow to challenge his atheistic worldview. Must be nice to write your very own rules of science Gaz!" You're very muddled. Nothing I've said is "atheistic", one could believe in a god and still agree with what I've said. Nor do I believe 0=1 : that is a matter of mathematics, a mere abstraction - it is not in itself a statement of how the physical world is. If you want a mathematical statement of the quantum world you need probability calculations and wavefunctions and other tools, not simple arithmetic. And even then the mathematics will only approximate what is going on at the quantum level. I'm not the one writing my own rules at all. I'll leave that to those who think that science should include supernatural explanations.Gaz_{July 22, 2010
July
07
Jul
22
22
2010
10:57 AM
10
10
57
AM
PDT}

Petrushka: You know or should know that the first gene and execution machinery problem begins in Darwin's warm little pond or the preferred alternative du jour, out of molecular noise and common monomers. (If you want to go either metabolism first or genes/RNA world first, you have to resolve the Orgel-Shapiro exchange, on observable evidence, e.g. as summarised here, cf point c.) Thereafter, your mission is to show with evidence not just so stories, how ~ 1 mn base prs mutates into 10's - 100's of millions [i.e. it is not just slice and dice but multiply genome size by 10 to 1,000 fold, innovating whole new body plans, related algorithms etc], as is discussed with respect to the Cambrian life revolution here. Until you can do so on firm observational evidence, all that you are doing is regurgitating a standard just so story backed up by the enforcers in the evolutionary materialist establishment, cf remarks you have already been pointed to, here. Playing at distractions, strawman caricatures, question begging impositions of materialism and denigratory dismissals based on the fiat of the new Magisterium only show that you are aware your case on the actual merits is weak. G'day GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{July 22, 2010
July
07
Jul
22
22
2010
10:48 AM
10
10
48
AM
PDT}

All this is a bit over my head, but I read these papers to indicate that "new" genes are assembled from bits and pieces of old genes, making their functionality considerably more likely than a purely random process. Maybe a poor analogy, but I read it as more like assembling a sentence from assorted words, rather than assembling a sentence from unconnected letters.Petrushka_{July 22, 2010
July
07
Jul
22
22
2010
10:21 AM
10
10
21
AM
PDT}

Petrushka, you make the grand claim that random processes can generate new genes (functional information)
I don't personally make that claim. I just quoted from and linked to one of many published papers making that claim. I believe I found that paper as a result of following a link provided by an ID proponent. Can you cite how the laws of chemistry or physics or chemistry have been violated in these processes? Can you cite anything from a qualified ID proponent such as Axe or Behe, that indicates these processes are physically impossible? Or even that they violate probability by requiring multiple unselected mutations? I'm not aware that any competent biochemist has argued against the common descent of vertibrates, for example.Petrushka_{July 22, 2010
July
07
Jul
22
22
2010
10:11 AM
10
10
11
AM
PDT}

Petrushka, you make the grand claim that random processes can generate new genes (functional information), yet you have provided zero evidence for this claim (nor have any of your neo-Darwinian cohorts provided any evidence. Yet just by you writing your posts you provide further concrete evidence that Intelligence can and does produce large amounts of coherent functional information. Functional information that is far above the capabilities of the material processes of the entire universe to produce coherent functional information. Yet despite the fact that greater levels of functional complexity/information, that far exceeds man's ability to produce as such in his machines, is being discovered on just about a weekly basis, and thus ever widening the gap between "physicality and choice contingency", as Abel puts it, you maintain the absolutely absurd position that the gap is getting narrow. This is sheer disconnect from reality on your part Petrushka!!!bornagain77_{July 22, 2010
July
07
Jul
22
22
2010
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT}

When a case has to rest on consistent misrepresentation of design thought and open or veiled attacks against design thinkers sustained in the teeth of correction, it is telling.
It's difficult for an outsider to understand what ID is, when its most distinguished proponents seem to disagree on such elementary concepts as the age of the earth, common descent, the efficacy of selection, the implications of the fossil record. This thread rambles for the simple reason that these issues remain unsettled in the ID community.Petrushka_{July 22, 2010
July
07
Jul
22
22
2010
09:52 AM
9
09
52
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 7 8 9 10 11 … 24 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply