Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The Odds That End: Stephen Meyer’s Rebuttal Of The Chance Hypothesis

Categories
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

The Andes mountains opened up on both sides of us as we drove on one July afternoon along a highway that links Quito, the capital of Ecuador, with the smaller town of Ambato almost three hours further south. The setting sun shone head-on upon two volcanic giants- Tungurahua and Cotopaxi with its snow covered peak just visible through the cordillera. I had traveled along this road many times in previous years and had been repeatedly awe-struck by the sheer beauty of the surrounding land. Today fields extend as far as the eye can see, with the lights of small communities and villages illuminating the mountain slopes.

Volcanoes that periodically eject dangerous lava flows are a rich source of soil nutrients for Ecuadorian farmers. Still, in the eyes of organic chemists such as Claudia Huber and Guenter Wachtershauser there exists a more pressing reason for studying the world’s ‘lava spewers’- one that has everything to do with the unguided manufacture of prebiotic compounds (1). Huber and Wachtershauser’s 2006 Science write-up on the synthesis of amino acids using potassium cyanide and carbon monoxide mixtures was heralded as groundbreaking primarily because of the ‘multiplicity of pathways’ through which biotic components could be made using these simple volcanic compounds (1).

Others have similarly weighed in with their own thoughts on volcanic origins (2-6). In the words of one notable Russian research team “the opportunity to define the pressure and temperature limits of [volcanic] microbiological activity as well as constrain its rate of evolution in a primordial environment is an exciting one, with implications for the origin of life on earth and existence of life elsewhere in the solar system” (3).

Whether it be Darwin’s warm little pond or contemporary speculations over life-seeding environments we see in both a search for continuity from the non-living to the living- a search that was exemplified in Walt Disney’s color and sound extravaganza Fantasia almost seventy years ago. Disney popularized origin of life theories by artistically proclaiming that volcanoes exploding and comets colliding were all that were needed to get life under way. According to such a portrayal the evolution of more complex multi-cellular forms would then naturally follow (7). Disney enthusiasts will no doubt find comfort in the decade-old New York Times prescription for a life-yielding brew:

“Drop a handful of fool’s gold (the mineral iron pyrites) and a sprinkle of nickel into water, stir in a strong whiff of rotten eggs (caused by the gas hydrogen sulfide) and carbon monoxide, heat mixture near the crackle and hiss of a volcano and let simmer for an eon.” (8)

Along a similar thread, journalist Tony Fitzpatrick cavalierly asserted that “conditions favorable for hydrocarbon synthesis also could be favorable for other life ingredients and complex organic polymers, leading…eventually to all sorts of cells and diverse organisms” (9). Of course skeptics of such depictions have their own armory of scientifically-valid reasons for denying that naturalistic earth models could have given us anything more than a geothermal sludge.

Perhaps the most persuasive of these comes from philosopher Stephen Meyer who in his most recent book Signature In The Cell supplied a mathematical treatise on the synthesis of bio-molecules (10). Following in the footsteps of fellow ID advocate William Dembski, Meyer has done us all a great service by showing how the chance assembly of a 150 amino-acid protein (1 in 10exp164) pales in front of the available probabilistic resources of our universe (10exp139 is the maximum number of events that could have occurred since the big bang) (10). In other words, we are stopped dead in our tracks by a probabilistic impasse of the highest order before we have even begun assessing the geological plausibility of competing origin of life scenarios.

The scientific method commits us to finding the best explanation for the phenomena we observe. Drawing from the opinions of NIH biologist Peter Mora, Meyer shows us how the chance hypothesis- that purports to explain how life arose without recourse to design or necessity- has been found wanting particularly in light of the ever-growing picture of the complexity of the cell (10). But the debate-clincher in Meyer’s expose comes from his comprehensive summarization of the bellyaches associated with chemist Stanley Miller’s controversial spark discharge apparatus (10).

Former colleagues of Miller concede that the highly reducing conditions he used in his experiments could not have been the mainstay of prebiotic earth (4). Nevertheless they further posit that localized atmospheric conditions around volcanic plums may have been reducing after all and that these could have given rise to life-seeding compounds (4). In their assessment:

“Even if the overall atmosphere was not reducing, localized prebiotic synthesis could have been effective. Reduced gases and lightning associated with volcanic eruptions in hot spots or island arc-type systems could have been prevalent on the early Earth before extensive continents formed. In these volcanic plumes, HCN, aldehydes, and ketones may have been produced, which, after washing out of the atmosphere, could have become involved in the synthesis of organic molecules. Amino acids formed in volcanic island systems could have accumulated in tidal areas, where they could be polymerized by carbonyl sulfide, a simple volcanic gas that has been shown to form peptides under mild conditions.” (4)

Of course with so many ‘could-haves’ and ‘may-haves’ such a picture leaves us sitting on a vacuous flow of speculation rather than on a substantive bedrock of firm evidence. For seasoned biologist David Deamer the realization of implausibility, at least for a direct volcanic origin, comes from his own direct observations:

“Deamer carried with him a version of the “primordial soup”- a mixture of compounds like those a meteorite could have delivered to the early Earth, including a fatty acid, amino acids, phosphate, glycerol, and the building blocks of nucleic acids. Finding a promising-looking boiling pool on the flanks of an active volcano, he poured the mixture in and then took samples from the pool at various intervals for analysis back in the lab at UCSC. The results were strikingly negative: life did not emerge, no membranes assembled themselves, and no amino acids combined into proteins. Instead, the added chemicals quickly vanished, mostly absorbed by clay particles in the pool. Instead of supporting life, the bubbling pool had snuffed it out before it began.” (6)

Not only has Meyer’s probabilistic analysis supplied us with the odds that end the discussion for ‘chance-philes’, but contemporary extravagations over prebiotic earth have done nothing to bolster their credibility. We are left with little choice but to discard chance as a serious contender in the ‘life origins’ debate.

Literature Cited
1. Claudia Huber and Guenter Wachtersheuser (2006) a-Hydroxy and a-Amino Acids Under Possible Hadean, Volcanic Origin-of-Life Conditions, Science, Vol 314, pp. 630-632

2. A.J Teague, T.M Seward, A.P Gize, T. Hall (2005) The Organic Chemistry of Volcanoes: Case Studies at Cerro Negro, Nicaragua and Oldoinyo Lengai, Tanzania, American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2005, abstract #B23D-04

3.John Eichelberger, Alexey Kiryukhin, and Adam Simon (2009) The Magma-Hydrothermal System at Mutnovsky Volcano, Kamchatka Peninsula, Russia, Scientific Drilling, No. 7, March , 2009, pp. 54-59

4. Adam Johnson, H. James Cleaves, Jason Dworkin, Daniel Glavin, Antonio Lazcano, Jeffrey L. Bada (2008) The Miller Volcanic Spark Discharge Experiment. Science 17 October 2008: Vol. 322, p. 404

5. David Grinspoon (2009) This Volcano Loves You, Denver Museum Of Nature & Science, COMMunity Blogs, See http://community.dmns.org/blogs/planetwaves/archive/2009/03/19/this-volcano-loves-you.aspx

6.Chandra Shekhar (2006) Chemist explores the membranous origins of the first living cell, UC Santa Cruz, Currents Online, See http://currents.ucsc.edu/05-06/04-03/deamer.asp

7.Fantasia, Walt Disney Home Video, Copyright by the Walt Disney Company, 1940

8. Nicholas Wade (1999) Evidence Backs Theory Linking Origins of Life to Volcanoes, New York Times, Friday, April 11, 1997

9.Tony Fitzpatrick (2000) Life’s origins: Researchers find intriguing possibility in volcanic gases, http://record.wustl.edu/archive/2000/04-20-00/articles/origins.html

10. Stephen Meyer (2009) Signature In The Cell: DNA And The Evidence For Intelligent Design, Harper Collins Publishers, New York, pp. 215-228

Comments
StephenB:
My definition allows for apriori intent, while yours insists on it.
I am simply saying that human communication, and particularly human language, is uniquely characterized by the features I describe above (no need to repeat), in addition to more general features of communication we may identify. Those unique features of human language and communication are absent from the expression and utilization of information contained within DNA. Therefore it is misleading to liken DNA to a "language" and its expression to "a written message" reflecting "intent" if by that you mean a something analogous to human communication that utilizes these uniquely human features (as others clearly DO intend, above.) It's not that complicated.Voice Coil
December 21, 2009
December
12
Dec
21
21
2009
06:32 PM
6
06
32
PM
PDT
----Voice Coil: "So for Vivid the information in DNA is “no different than a written message,” and reflects an “intent” (an intentional state of the sender) he would like to recover." Insofar as Vivid seems to be describing a phenomenon in which the "message" reflects a plan and an end in mind, I would agree with him. The intentional state being a metaphor not for human consciousness but rather a description of a directive process informed by the end which it seeks. You agree that the code does "direct," don't you? Do you not also agree that it can't direct without some faculty, call it whatever you will, that has an end in mind. That is very close to what we humans refer to as "intent." Surely, you do not hold that the process requires no direction.StephenB
December 21, 2009
December
12
Dec
21
21
2009
06:09 PM
6
06
09
PM
PDT
----Voice Coil: “My position is that human communication crucially reflects, and is distinguished by, the expression and recovery of speaker intent, over and above sentence encoding and decoding. I originally argued, “The discernment of speaker intent by the listener is a crucial component of human langauges and symbol systems…nothing in the operation of DNA is analogous to this dimension of human communication, and for that reason (among many others) the analogy is inappropriate and misleading.” I would like to start winding this down. It’s all a matter of definitions. I define communication, including human communication, in terms of a sender—medium—receiver model. You define it in terms of conscious apriori intent. Since organisms do not have consciousness, they cannot fit what I perceive to be your rigid definition of senders or receivers of communicated information. My definition allows for apriori intent, while yours insists on it. In the same sense, your apparent perception about how information codes work, about which you have been silent, seems to defy not only any notion of design but of causality as well. I defined "information" much earlier in this thread. I would like for you to provide your definition of “information.” That would help.StephenB
December 21, 2009
December
12
Dec
21
21
2009
05:40 PM
5
05
40
PM
PDT
StephenB:
You are assuming that the analogy requires that all aspects of human communication are being applied to the code.
My position is that human communication crucially reflects, and is distinguished by, the expression and recovery of speaker intent, over and above sentence encoding and decoding. I originally argued, "The discernment of speaker intent by the listener is a crucial component of human langauges and symbol systems...nothing in the operation of DNA is analogous to this dimension of human communication, and for that reason (among many others) the analogy is inappropriate and misleading." Speaker intent is, obviously, an instance of intentionality (in Brentano's sense), and the correct discernment of of speaker intent requires an understanding of others' intentional states, or a theory of mind. Regardless of the extent to which the expression of DNA may be otherwise analogous to sentence encoding and decoding, the absence of this crucial element renders the analogy between DNA and human communication (both by means of language and gesture) a failure, and a misleading one at that. You said in response to the quoted portion of the above paragraph,
Quite the contrary.
And therefore appeared to dispute my assertion. But now you state:
It is, indeed, ridiculous to attribute intentionality to a code or an organism.
And absent intentionality, the analogy of DNA and human communication fails, as the expression and recovery of speaker intent (an intentional state) is absolutely central to human language expression (and no less to the use and comprehension of human gestures). Which is what I have been saying all along. BTW, Vivid disagrees with you. In 188 we have:
If Yockey is right DNA is no different than a written message and makes the point that it is not an analogy. As to “the discernment of speaker intent by the listener is a crucial component of human langauges and symbol systems"...Is it not evident that if something is a written message there must be intent? And can we not discern the intent of the message produced by DNA? I mean the intent of the message is to direct the molecular machinery of the cell. Can there be any clearer intent?
So for Vivid the information in DNA is "no different than a written message," and reflects an "intent" (an intentional state of the sender) he would like to recover. That is the sort of assertion I and disputing.Voice Coil
December 21, 2009
December
12
Dec
21
21
2009
03:59 PM
3
03
59
PM
PDT
----Voice Coil: “Not so, because it does not follow from the conclusion that the transcription of DNA into proteins does not entail the conveyance and recovery of speaker intent that DNA transcription was not designed.” A code is a set of instructions. The cell uses a code such that the sequence of bases on the DNA directs the construction of protein molecules and the specific sequences in a four character alphabet generate specific sequences in a twenty character alphabet. Those instructions are communicated to the organism through a medium. The code has been designed to communicate instructions to the organism and the organism has been designed to follow those instructions. To that extent, it resembles human communication because humans can communicate assembly directions to other humans and communication is a good description of what is going on. The code is running a kind of factory and it is using a communication process to coordinate every aspect of it. The cell has an information processing system; processing information is another word for communication. ----“Inasmuch as “speaker intent” A transcription mechanism that displays no intentionality at all in its operation (nor recovery of intended meanings) may nevertheless have been designed. Indeed, that may be an exquisitely functional and adaptive arrangement. Because the absence of intent and discernment of same (analogous to human communication) in the functioning DNA does not exclude design, it is not an instance of a “bad design argument.” No one, except you has said anything about “intentionality,” which is an exclusively human [or superhuman] attribute. You are assuming that the analogy requires that all aspects of human communication are being applied to the code, which is obviously not the case. It is, indeed, ridiculous to attribute intentionality to a code or an organism. Since I have not done so, this may be a good time to abandon that misguided characterization. Apparently, Searle and Grice want to say that intentionality is an issue, but, as I have indicated, they are incorrect and insofar as you continue to impose their metaphor, so are you. The word strawman comes to mind. Again, communication allows for the possibility of intentionality, but it does not require it. If it did, you would have a point; as it is, you don’t. ----“What I DO argue is that non-genetic developmental misfires, which are common, instead serve to underscore a nonsensical component of your analogy: that if the expression of DNA is like expression in human communication, then failures of that expression can be like human misunderstandings that result from misperceptions of speaker intent.” That is because you continue to misread the analogy and liken the misfire to a misunderstanding or a misperception on the part of the organism. Organisms cannot misunderstand anything and codes cannot understand what they are communicating. What we have is a sender and a receiver---period. I am not discussing the problem of language at all since that is a problem all of its own. ----“Which is ridiculous. What is ridiculous is assuming that nature can direct its own operations while having no direction. That’s a pretty good summary of your position. Obviously, you cannot even begin to defend it, which explains why we spend all our time talking about my position.StephenB
December 21, 2009
December
12
Dec
21
21
2009
02:20 PM
2
02
20
PM
PDT
Mustela Nivalis @ 210 You pointed to Dr. Schneider's computer simulation, which has no parallel to any biological scenario. And you think this is evidence for what exactly?inunison
December 21, 2009
December
12
Dec
21
21
2009
01:17 PM
1
01
17
PM
PDT
StephenB:
Your example is but one of billions of examples of nature’s design, or nature’s code, or the “speaker’s instructions,” if you will, producing a less than perfect product. Sorry, but you are still using a bad design argument.
Not so, because it does not follow from the conclusion that the transcription of DNA into proteins does not entail the conveyance and recovery of speaker intent that DNA transcription was not designed. A transcription mechanism that displays no intentionality at all in its operation (nor recovery of intended meanings) may nevertheless have been designed. Indeed, that may be an exquisitely functional and adaptive arrangement. Because the absence of intent and discernment of same (analogous to human communication) in the functioning DNA does not exclude design, it is not an instance of a "bad design argument." Further, I have not (and would not) argue that non-genetic developmental defects are inherently inconsistent with design; building organisms is complex, with many environmental and other contingent variables, and perhaps even the most optimal design is certain to misfire in some circumstances. What I DO argue is that non-genetic developmental misfires, which are common, instead serve to underscore a nonsensical component of your analogy: that if the expression of DNA is like expression in human communication, then failures of that expression can be like human misunderstandings that result from misperceptions of speaker intent. Which is ridiculous.Voice Coil
December 21, 2009
December
12
Dec
21
21
2009
12:12 PM
12
12
12
PM
PDT
---Voice Coil: "Only that it follows from your misapplied analogy that some would: that it would be sensible to say that some non-genetic developmental errors (birth defects in humans) reflect a failure of the developing organism to correctly discern the “speaker intent” behind the information contained in DNA." It does not follow that all organisms would be equally affected by a bad design, a corrupt design, or an optimum design. Indeed, a compromised or optimum design can effect different organisms in different ways and in greater or lesser degrees. Your example is but one of billions of examples of nature's design, or nature's code, or the "speaker's instructions," if you will, producing a less than perfect product. Sorry, but you are still using a bad design argument.StephenB
December 21, 2009
December
12
Dec
21
21
2009
11:19 AM
11
11
19
AM
PDT
StephenB:
I don’t doubt that it was not your intent, but it still qualifies as a bad design = no design argument.
I disagree, as my point is more subtle. I haven't successfully conveyed it to you. I'm content to leave it there.
It can also mean that the instructing element sent the wrong message, which can, among other things, be a function of bad design, corrupted design, or optimum design.
I haven't asserted that it follows from your analogy that ALL failures of expression of DNA reflect failure to discern something like "speaker intent," and resulting misconstrual of that intent. Only that it follows from your misapplied analogy that some would: that it would be sensible to say that some non-genetic developmental errors (birth defects in humans) reflect a failure of the developing organism to correctly discern the "speaker intent" behind the information contained in DNA. And that is ridiculous.
You find it ridiculous for three reasons: First, you do not yet recognize your bad design = no design argument in its present form.
Not so, as above.
Second, you do not acknowledge that human communication has both a functional component and a meaning-centered component.
Sure I do. I freely acknowledge the semantic and grammatical elements of human communication, as well as the functional/physical channels through which information is conveyed. But human communication also includes the elements that Grice identified, considerations that are at the forefront of current theorizing vis the topic (e.g. see Michael Tomasello's recent work.) Indeed, conveying and discerning speaker intent is crucial because one must necessarily recognize the agency behind human acts of communication to fully grasp what is communicated. Agency and intentionality are absent from the transcription of information in DNA, and the discernment of agency plays no role in the transcription of that information into developmental events. Hence your analogy is inappropriate (and manifestly responsible for considerable confusion).
Third, perhaps for personal reasons that I will not speculate about, you will not acknowledge the likelihood that the designer’s apriori intent can play a role.
Thank you for refraining from speculation vis personal motivations.Voice Coil
December 21, 2009
December
12
Dec
21
21
2009
10:52 AM
10
10
52
AM
PDT
Amazon Product Description: Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life presents a timely introduction to the use of information theory and coding theory in molecular biology. The genetical information system, because it is linear and digital, resembles the algorithmic language of computers. George Gamow pointed out that the application of Shannon's information theory breaks genetics and molecular biology out of the descriptive mode into the quantitative mode and Dr Yockey develops this theme, discussing how information theory and coding theory can be applied to molecular biology. He discusses how these tools for measuring the information in the sequences of the genome and the proteome are essential for our complete understanding of the nature and origin of life. The author writes for the computer competent reader who is interested in evolution and the origins of life.tgpeeler
December 21, 2009
December
12
Dec
21
21
2009
10:16 AM
10
10
16
AM
PDT
tgpeeler at 209, I pointed out to you in a previous discussion here: https://uncommondescent.com/natural-selection/is-nature-really-a-struggle-in-which-natural-selection-is-the-key-factor/#comment-340936 that Thomas Schneider ev shows how Shannon information can be generated from even very simple known evolutionary mechanisms. Your "language of some kind" qualification is a red herring -- Shannon information can be generated absent an intelligent agent.Mustela Nivalis
December 21, 2009
December
12
Dec
21
21
2009
10:08 AM
10
10
08
AM
PDT
Wow. Disappear for a couple of days and look what happens. Re vividbleau @ 180. Here's what Yockey said, on page 6 of "Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life" published in 2005. The one with the Blue and Green cover. (It's an expensive book, but well worth it. Need I say again that Yocky is an ardent proponent of evolutionary theory and drew different conclusions from his data than I do.) "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." So maybe all someone has to do to falsify my claim is show how Shannon information, since everyone seems ok with that definition, can be generated apart from a language of some kind, i.e. a set of symbols and rules. More later.tgpeeler
December 21, 2009
December
12
Dec
21
21
2009
10:02 AM
10
10
02
AM
PDT
---Voice Coil: "Not so. And not my intent." I don't doubt that it was not your intent, but it still qualifies as a bad design = no design argument. ---"It follows that DNA transcription may sometimes fail in a manner very much like the failure of human communication: misconstrual of speaker intent by the listener. Applied in the instance of non-developmental birth defects, it follows that developmental misfires (resulting in, say, a limb deficiency) may occur because the organism “misunderstood what the DNA meant” and therefore misconstrued DNA’s “speaker intent.” It can also mean that the instructing element sent the wrong message, which can, among other things, be a function of bad design, corrupted design, or optimum design. Again, I ask you to consult the FAQ. ----"I find that ridiculous, and that it underscores the inapplicability of your analogy between DNA transcription into developmental events and human communication." You find it ridiculous for three reasons: First, you do not yet recognize your bad design = no design argument in its present form. Second, you do not acknowledge that human communciation has both a functional component and a meaning-centered component. From a functional perspective, all that is required for human or non-human communication is a sender and a receiver. [Translation: Searle and Grice are wrong]. Third, perhaps for personal reasons that I will not speculate about, you will not acknowledge the likelihood that the designer's apriori intent can play a role.StephenB
December 21, 2009
December
12
Dec
21
21
2009
09:31 AM
9
09
31
AM
PDT
Vis mine at 206: "Applied in the instance of non-developmental birth defects" should read, "Applied in the instance of non-genetic, developmental birth defects."Voice Coil
December 21, 2009
December
12
Dec
21
21
2009
09:19 AM
9
09
19
AM
PDT
StephenB:
Again, that it is a bad-design = no design argument all dressed up as a bad communication = no communication argument.
Not so. And not my intent. I've applied your model (DNA "tells" the organism how to develop in a manner analogous to human communication, including the conveyance and discernment of speaker intent) to a particular case: non-genetic, developmental birth defects. You say that the successful transcription of DNA into the developmental unfolding of an individual organism is analogous to human communication, complete with the conveyance of speaker intent. It follows that DNA transcription may sometimes fail in a manner very much like the failure of human communication: misconstrual of speaker intent by the listener. Applied in the instance of non-developmental birth defects, it follows that developmental misfires (resulting in, say, a limb deficiency) may occur because the organism "misunderstood what the DNA meant" and therefore misconstrued DNA's "speaker intent." Perhaps you have no difficulty imagining that embryos can "misconstrue" or "misunderstand" what their DNA "meant to say," and therefore develop incorrectly. I find that ridiculous, and that it underscores the inapplicability of your analogy between DNA transcription into developmental events and human communication.
The discernment, so to speak, is built in. If it wasn’t, the instructions for building the proteins would not be followed.
Unless the process is not, after all, analogous to human communication. Then "discernment of intent" and similar intentional states are not required.
you have completely ignored the point about the creator wanting to reveal himself in his handiwork.
That's right.Voice Coil
December 21, 2009
December
12
Dec
21
21
2009
07:38 AM
7
07
38
AM
PDT
“Because I don’t have to know anything about the intention of the creator of the message (if there is one) to understand the message” Wow this is the ID position. I am sure further clarification will be forthcoming. I thought the ID position was the you detect that something was designed without knowing anything about the creator of the object or the creator's intentions. "Message" in this context simply means carries information in the Shannon sense of being correlated with something else. It is trivial that you can know if A is correlated with B without knowing how A was created. For example, A might cause B.Mark Frank
December 20, 2009
December
12
Dec
20
20
2009
11:10 PM
11
11
10
PM
PDT
---Voice Coil: "There is nothing analogous to speaker intent, because there is no speaker, there is no speaker intent, and there is no listener who attempts to discern speaker intent in the process of transcribing DNA into developmental events. Information theory allows for but does not require that the information code should be conscious of the message that it sends to the organism or the fact that the creator designed it. That is why one can speak of information in terms of the message the creator sends to nature in the form of a code, or the message the code sends to the organism, or the message the creator sends to humans about the existence of the code.StephenB
December 20, 2009
December
12
Dec
20
20
2009
10:21 PM
10
10
21
PM
PDT
Sorry, I mean John Searle.StephenB
December 20, 2009
December
12
Dec
20
20
2009
08:42 PM
8
08
42
PM
PDT
---Voice Coil: "By “defects in embryological development” I mean in a single individual, such as non-genetic developmental misfires (cleft palate, spina bifida, etc.) I am not saying anything about the quality of the (imaginary) “design” of a species." Again, that it is a bad-design = no design argument all dressed up as a bad communication = no communication argument. ---"If you are going to analogize the transcription of DNA to human communication by means of language, then you must allow that some failures of transcription are analogous to human misunderstandings." You seem to forget that humam communication is a derivative and less perfect type of communication than that passed on to nature from the creator. The former is completely dependent on the latter. Of course, you don't agree that the latter is a fact, but we are discussing logical and likely possibilities, not agreed upon facts. ----"Ergo, in the instance of such developmental defects, to apply your analogy, DNA may “tell” the organism “Here is what I want you to do,” but the organism misconstrues the intentions of DNA in making particular that particular utterance." Bad design = no design strikes again. ----"There is nothing analogous to speaker intent, because there is no speaker, there is no speaker intent, and there is no listener who attempts to discern speaker intent in the process of transcribing DNA into developmental events." The discernment, so to speak, is built in. If it wasn't, the instructions for building the proteins would not be followed. Besides, you are depending solely on Searles analogy which I don't agree with. He [and Grice] have not covered all the different types of human communication, especially those that mimic the creator's communication with nature. That is because, as atheists, they are looking for ways to dismiss the similarities. Also, you have completely ignored the point about the creator wanting to reveal himself in his handiwork. That, too, is communciation.StephenB
December 20, 2009
December
12
Dec
20
20
2009
08:37 PM
8
08
37
PM
PDT
In any case, Thaxton can abduct whatever he wants. But it still has to be verified by independent means. The hypothesis has to entail specific and distinguishing empirical predictions.Zachriel
December 20, 2009
December
12
Dec
20
20
2009
05:03 PM
5
05
03
PM
PDT
Zachriel: Yockey is referring to Shannon Information. vividbleau: And this is a bad thing?
Not at all. It can be a very useful model. It just means that the term "message" has a precise mathematical definition. Thaxton's abduction depends on equivocation of "message" when he says, "intelligence produces written messages, and no other cause is known." Furthermore, he is rejecting the alternative explanation a priori, the very thing he is attempting to show. Finally, it is directly contrary to Yockey's view—Yockey finds objections to the evolution of information in genomes to be without merit—so, Thaxton is clearly quote-mining.Zachriel
December 20, 2009
December
12
Dec
20
20
2009
05:01 PM
5
05
01
PM
PDT
#198 FWIW my interest in Yockey on this thread has nothing to do with his position that the origin of life is unsolvable as a scientific problem. Thanks for your reply. Vividvividbleau
December 20, 2009
December
12
Dec
20
20
2009
04:59 PM
4
04
59
PM
PDT
vividbleau: When I saw the part about the ID part that made me suspect because I knew Yockey is not an ID’st.
Yes, you did qualify your citation. The other quoted section is attributed correctly. Hubert P. Yockey, Self Organization Origin of Life Scenarios and Information Theory, Journal of Theoretical Biology, 1981. But just because Yockey expresses a view, doesn't necessarily mean the conclusion should be accepted on its face, especially when it is contrary to most other researchers in the field. That “the origin of life is unsolvable as a scientific problem," is simply not a reasonable conclusion. Yockey's proof depends on premises subject to empirical revision.Zachriel
December 20, 2009
December
12
Dec
20
20
2009
04:40 PM
4
04
40
PM
PDT
#191 "Yockey is referring to Shannon Information." And this is a bad thing? Not accurate according to Shannon Information? Contradicted by Fisher Information? Vividvividbleau
December 20, 2009
December
12
Dec
20
20
2009
04:25 PM
4
04
25
PM
PDT
StephenB:
This is just another version of the bad design = no design argument.
Not so. By "defects in embryological development" I mean in a single individual, such as non-genetic developmental misfires (cleft palate, spina bifida, etc.) I am not saying anything about the quality of the (imaginary) "design" of a species. If you are going to analogize the transcription of DNA to human communication by means of language, then you must allow that some failures of transcription are analogous to human misunderstandings. Ergo, in the instance of such developmental defects, to apply your analogy, DNA may "tell" the organism "Here is what I want you to do," but the organism misconstrues the intentions of DNA in making particular that particular utterance. Which is ridiculous - and illustrates a crucially important breakdown of the analogy between the transcription of DNA into proteins and human speakers communicating by means of language. There is nothing analogous to speaker intent, because there is no speaker, there is no speaker intent, and there is no listener who attempts to discern speaker intent in the process of transcribing DNA into developmental events.Voice Coil
December 20, 2009
December
12
Dec
20
20
2009
03:56 PM
3
03
56
PM
PDT
Zach #191 Thanks Zach. When I saw the part about the ID part that made me suspect because I knew Yockey is not an ID'st. I would not take Thaxton to task since I was the one that put the two together in order to not be quote mining LOL. I take it that this part is Yockey correct? "It is important to understand that we are not reasoning by analogy. The sequence hypothesis [that the exact order of symbols records the information] applies directly to the protein and the genetic text as well as to written language and therefore the treatment is mathematically identical." Vividvividbleau
December 20, 2009
December
12
Dec
20
20
2009
03:43 PM
3
03
43
PM
PDT
---Voice Coil @187: " This has no bearing upon Grice’s insight." Are you sure you are following this discussion. My response @184 had nothing to do with Grice, which can be found @185.StephenB
December 20, 2009
December
12
Dec
20
20
2009
03:00 PM
3
03
00
PM
PDT
----Voice Call: "It would follow from this analogy with human language that defects in embryological development may arise because the organism has misconstrued the intentions that lie behind a sequence of information contained in the DNA. A rather bizarre anthropomorphization." This is just another version of the bad design = no design argument. It doesn't work for a number of reasons. There is no reason to believe that the transformations involved reflect perfect communication or perfect design. Consult the FAQ.StephenB
December 20, 2009
December
12
Dec
20
20
2009
02:54 PM
2
02
54
PM
PDT
Yockey believes he has proven that "the origin of life is unsolvable as a scientific problem." He is right that any theory which depends on extreme improbabilities should be rejected. He is wrong that lack of clear intermediaries between chemistry and life means that a scientific solution is impossible.Zachriel
December 20, 2009
December
12
Dec
20
20
2009
01:02 PM
1
01
02
PM
PDT
vividbleau: I did a google search and got this.
We are not dealing with anything like a superficial resemblance between DNA and a written text. We are not saying DNA is like a message. Rather, DNA is a message. True design thus returns to biology. (Hubert P. Yockey, Journal of Theoretic Biology)
That's Charles Thaxton. He quote-mines and mangles Yockey's intended meaning.
Yockey: It is important to understand that we are not reasoning by analogy. The sequence hypothesis [that the exact order of symbols records the information] applies directly to the protein and the genetic text as well as to written language and therefore the treatment is mathematically identical.
Yockey is referring to Shannon Information. Yockey has also said "Introducing a requirement for an Intelligent Designer is ad hoc and invalid."Zachriel
December 20, 2009
December
12
Dec
20
20
2009
12:48 PM
12
12
48
PM
PDT
1 5 6 7 8 9 14

Leave a Reply