UB Schools Bob O’H

_{Barry Arrington
February 7, 2020

Intelligent Design

2}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

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

As is his wont, national treasure Upright Biped took materialist Bob O’H to school:

Bob @ 63,

we can replicate the process without having to resort to adding anything immaterial”

Is that right Bob?

Okay, let us make you the Director of a research team with unlimited personnel, unlimited time, and unlimited funding. And let us say that with this extraordinary intellectual and research power, it is not long before you can control, manipulate, and bind together whatever molecules you wish, and not only can you do that, but you can also successfully predict the results of that manipulation. So, if you need a replacement for the extant ribosome, you got it. If you need a de novo tRNA, you got it. If you need an aaRS to fulfill the box on a diagram of chemical pathways, you got it. Now comes the time to “replicate the process”, so you set your team out to organize a dissipative system where your de novo DNA/RNA is manipulated by your de novo ribosome and whatever array of other helper molecules you need, to the extent that the sequence of your de novo DNA/RNA is used to successfully establish the functional re-construction of the system.

Let me ask you Bob: Will you have to coordinate the descriptions of each the de novo aaRS, with the descriptions of the other molecules in the system? That is to say – will the individual sequences within the portion of your de novo DNA/RNA that describe your de novo aaRS’s have to be simultaneously coordinated so that the remainder of the descriptions result in a successful replication? And would you also say, and agree, that without that simultaneous coordination, your system will not result in a successful replication?

If this is so, Bob, can you then stand before your intricate diagram of the system’s pathways and properties (with the great formulas of physical law at hand, and with your team’s documented intimate knowledge of every facet and dynamic interaction within the system) and point out where exactly you find the source of that coordination?

Comments

but neither have I seen a case which points irresistibly towards it
A blatantly obvious case of The true Scotsman fallacy. The give-away word here is "irresistably" for they will resist the evidence to the end.EugeneS_{February 10, 2020
February
02
Feb
10
10
2020
05:06 AM
5
05
06
AM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic - if the cars are not identical, you can make them as close to it as possible. Just get 2 cars of the same make from the factory - that should be close enough.Bob O'H_{February 10, 2020
February
02
Feb
10
10
2020
04:40 AM
4
04
40
AM
PDT}

Bob O'H
If there is some immaterial component to a working car, then it should be possible to have two cars that are materially identical, but where one can be driven, and the other not.
To conduct this experiment, you'd need to provide two cars that are materially identical. Under a materialist paradigm, that should be possible. But because of the immaterial Law of Identity and the divine structure of the cosmos it is not.Silver Asiatic_{February 10, 2020
February
02
Feb
10
10
2020
04:33 AM
4
04
33
AM
PDT}

TF, indeed, it is a matter of worldview first plausibles, i.e. a point of faith. That is why worldviews analysis on comparative difficulties (as I have linked) is pivotal, and at that level there are no defaults. Each live option alternative must address global factual adequacy, coherence [logical and dynamical] and balanced explanatory power [neither simplistic nor an ad hoc patchwork]. Evolutionary materialistic scientism first tries to lock out worldviews analysis, through scientism; that fails. Stripped of its lab coat, it is just another worldview and one that is intellectually incoherent [it undermines the credibility of mind so undercuts itself], morally bankrupt and explanatorily simplistic . Those can be backed up. KFkairosfocus_{February 10, 2020
February
02
Feb
10
10
2020
03:25 AM
3
03
25
AM
PDT}

My apologies for being away for a few days - I tend to spend weekends in the real world (putting up lights, shopping for parrot food etc.). In the original post, UB asked:
we can replicate the process without having to resort to adding anything immaterial”
And then goes on to describe a situation where a research group replicates the process using purely material means, and asks
If this is so, Bob, can you then stand before your intricate diagram of the system’s pathways and properties (with the great formulas of physical law at hand, and with your team’s documented intimate knowledge of every facet and dynamic interaction within the system) and point out where exactly you find the source of that coordination?
First, it's not clear to me how this relates to the original question. Second the coordination is in the structure of the system. Just like a car is coordinated, and also entirely material: there is no non-material essence that makes it work. If one changes the pieces of the car are put together, it won't work. The car's layout is entirely material, so there is no immaterial component to getting it to work. If there is some immaterial component to a working car, then it should be possible to have two cars that are materially identical, but where one can be driven, and the other not.Bob O'H_{February 10, 2020
February
02
Feb
10
10
2020
03:23 AM
3
03
23
AM
PDT}

@ Bob O'H:
But a default position doesn’t need to be proven – the very description of it as a default implies that it might be wrong, but that in the absence of reasons for it to be wrong, it’s a reasonable position to take. Using Occam’s razor to decide on what default positions to take makes pragmatic sense, because you eliminate factors that aren’t necessary to the position.
- So you are using Occam's Razor to 'justify' your default position (materialism). The one that, according to you, does not need to be justified. Quite a contradiction. - What "absence of reasons"? You assume an external world and via methodological naturalism conclude it is all inside your head. Something quite does not add up here. Logical contradictions are alarms ringing. Failed epistemology. https://strangenotions.com/naturalisms-epistemological-nightmare/ Oh, evolutionist materialism is so funny. Not one day without darwinist mental contortions. - So you are trying to prove that your assumption (materialism) is not a position of faith, but of reason. And, in the end, you are saying that: "no matter the proofs, materialism is true because it is what I want to believe". That has a name: "faith". And you materialists are the most ardent believers on Earth. Anything for your pagan goddess.Truthfreedom_{February 10, 2020
February
02
Feb
10
10
2020
02:41 AM
2
02
41
AM
PDT}

. Hey Mung. Your answer is only 7 words long, and its longer than Bob's, : )Upright BiPed_{February 9, 2020
February
02
Feb
9
09
2020
10:20 PM
10
10
20
PM
PDT}

. Sev at 71,
UB: I have said absolutely nothing about purpose or function, Sev. Sev: Really? Then just what are we talking about? I’m sure you could explain it if you try.
I have explained it to you, and you have clearly understood what has been explained. You already understand the question being asked, and you already know the honest answer.
Sev: Yes, I’m aware of it. So what?
You betray yourself here, Sev. You use disingenuous comments (such as faking the need for another explanation) as rhetoric to skirt and avoid physical evidence. It is a real weakness in your position, even if it doesn’t bother you to do it over and over again.
So again, do the sequences in the genome have to be simultaneously coordinated with the those that describe the aaRS, Sev? Yes or no. To do what exactly? Oh, I forget, this is not about function or purpose, is it?
Good grief Sev, can you not drop the rhetoric even for a moment? There is a side conversation on this thread about objects having intrinsic purpose. That conversation is entirely irrelevant to the issues expressed in the title post, and you know it. It has nothing to do with the simultaneous coordination of multiple sequences at the origin of the gene system. But here, once again, you cannot even speak the words. You have shown quite convincingly that you are unable to respond to strong evidence of design in biology. You are unable to respond to the fulfilled predictions, or to the literature, or even the documented history of discovery itself. Take some advice Sev: If you are going to remain transparently incapable of responding to documented facts, then perhaps you shouldn’t be carelessly disparaging the motivations of those who present those documented facts. After all, that’s where this exchange began. If you don’t think that kind of advice makes any sense for you, then I'll ask once again: At the point in time that the first ever aaRS constraint was synthesized from memory, how many of the other constraints had to be in place?Upright BiPed_{February 9, 2020
February
02
Feb
9
09
2020
09:57 PM
9
09
57
PM
PDT}

ID’ists do not reject the idea of natural causation a priori. Indeed, much of what we perceive in the natural world can be (indeed should be) explained “naturally.” What we do reject is that natural causes are the only kind of causes that must be used to explain the origin and evolution of life. For example, in his book Darwin’s Black Box, Michael Behe asks,
“Might there be an as yet undiscovered natural process that would explain biochemical complexity? No one would be foolish enough to categorically deny the possibility. Nonetheless we can say that if there is such a process, no one has a clue how it would work. Further it would go against all human experience, like postulating that a natural process might explain computers… In the face of the massive evidence we do have for biochemical design, ignoring the evidence in the name of a phantom process would be to play the role of detective who ignore the elephant.” (p. 203-204)
Basically Behe is asking, if biochemical complexity (irreducible complexity) evolved by some natural process x, how did it evolve? That is a perfectly legitimate scientific question. Notice that even though in DBB Behe was criticizing Neo-Darwinism he is not ruling out a priori some other mindless natural evolutionary process, “x”, might be able to explain IC. Behe is simply claiming that at the present there is no known natural process that can explain how irreducibly complex mechanisms and processes originated. If he and other ID’ist are categorically wrong then our critics need to provide the step-by-step-by-step empirical explanation of how they originated, not just speculation and wishful thinking. Unfortunately our regular interlocutors seem to only be able to provide the latter not the former. Behe made another point which is worth keeping in mind.
“In the abstract, it might be tempting to imagine that irreducible complexity simply requires multiple simultaneous mutations - that evolution might be far chancier than we thought, but still possible. Such an appeal to brute luck can never be refuted... Luck is metaphysical speculation; scientific explanations invoke causes.”
In other words, a strongly held metaphysical belief is not a scientific explanation.john_a_designer_{February 9, 2020
February
02
Feb
9
09
2020
09:37 PM
9
09
37
PM
PDT}

@73 John_a_designer:
Can anyone identify the logical fallacy that Bob is guilty of?
Could I use a compass to characterize it?Truthfreedom_{February 9, 2020
February
02
Feb
9
09
2020
09:12 PM
9
09
12
PM
PDT}

On Feb. 4 on the thread that spawned this one I put forth the following argument:
Premise #1: If the universe is all that exists there is no ultimate purpose and meaning to human existence. Premise #2: The universe is all that exists. Conclusion: There is no ultimate purpose and meaning to human existence. The argument of course fails because we have no way to prove premise #2 is true and if premise #2 is not true, the conclusion does not follow. Nevertheless, there are at least a couple of implications that we can derive from this so-called argument. First, even though there is no way to prove that Premise #2, “The universe is all that exists,” is true, it’s still possibly true, the same way that the claim that “pink unicorns exist” could be true, though it’s not self-evidently true. So those who claim that it is true have the burden of proof to prove it’s true. In other words, it cannot be claimed as some kind of “default position.”
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/jerry-coyne-and-the-contradictions-of-darwinian-morality/#comment-692159 However, Bob O’H responded by making the following assertion:
Without evidence to support the existence of a non-material world, there seems little reason to invoke it. Thus it is a reasonable default position, but no it doesn’t settle the issue. If you want to argue that materialists have subjective opinions, then my only response is “well, duh”. Materialists are human too.
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/jerry-coyne-and-the-contradictions-of-darwinian-morality/#comment-692211 I countered @ #51:
However, it is not self-evidently true “that the universe is all that exists” therefore atheists have no way to prove their argument. So it must be accepted on faith. Claiming that your position is the default position is logically fallacious because that’s something else that hasn’t been proven. Just believing that the universe is all that exists or simply claiming the evidence favors your position or that there is no evidence supporting the logical alternative doesn’t prove anything. It’s just your opinion.
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/jerry-coyne-and-the-contradictions-of-darwinian-morality/#comment-692270 Bob however, decided to double down #64:
But a default position doesn’t need to be proven – the very description of it as a default implies that it might be wrong, but that in the absence of reasons for it to be wrong, it’s a reasonable position to take. using Occam’s razor to decide on what default positions to take makes pragmatic sense, because you eliminate factors that aren’t necessary to the position.
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/jerry-coyne-and-the-contradictions-of-darwinian-morality/#comment-692297 Can anyone identify the logical fallacy that Bob is guilty of? Based on the reasoning of some of our other interlocutors here I think understanding the underlying fallacy is very relevant to the present discussion.john_a_designer_{February 9, 2020
February
02
Feb
9
09
2020
08:26 PM
8
08
26
PM
PDT}

... and point out where exactly you find the source of that coordination?
I can. It's right there in front of you.Mung_{February 9, 2020
February
02
Feb
9
09
2020
05:23 PM
5
05
23
PM
PDT}

Upright BiPed @ 50
I have said absolutely nothing about purpose or function, Sev.
Really? The just what are we talking about? I'm sure you could explain it if you try.
Are you actually suggesting here that after a dozen years of listening to discussions about biology and OoL, you’ve never heard (even from the scientists on your side of the argument) that changes to the genetic code would result in catastrophic failure of the system?
Yes, I'm aware of it. So what?
So again, do the sequences in the genome have to be simultaneously coordinated with the those that describe the aaRS, Sev? Yes or no.
To do what exactly? Oh, I forget, this is not about function or purpose, is it?Seversky_{February 9, 2020
February
02
Feb
9
09
2020
05:08 PM
5
05
08
PM
PDT}

Not recognising a plausible appearance of conscious design could be due to narcolepsy, catatonia or plain, old sleep. Or it might be that there is simply no object there, whether designed or not, and the appearance of design inevitably would also necessarily be imaginary. Recognising an appearance of plausible design seems a good starting-point for consciousness to come into play, doesn't it ? Especially, in the absence of any evidence that that appearance of design is a chimera.Axel_{February 9, 2020
February
02
Feb
9
09
2020
03:35 PM
3
03
35
PM
PDT}

John_a_designer, ET, Truthfreedom: Please, do not distract Seversky or Pater Kimbridge until they're done with their homework assignment @61. :)pw_{February 9, 2020
February
02
Feb
9
09
2020
12:15 PM
12
12
15
PM
PDT}

Notice that our interlocutors are not really making any kind of valid argument. Rather they are simply dismissing the logical possibility that life could be designed because that is what they believe a priori. If they don’t believe that it is possible that life could be designed then they need to logically refute that claim. In other words, they need to prove that it’s logically impossible for life to be designed. Personal incredulity and group think proves nothing. Notice all the following quotes are from men who believe that evolution is a mindless and purposeless process. (HT: BA77)
“This appearance of purposefulness is pervasive in nature…. Accounting for this apparent purposefulness is a basic problem for any system of philosophy or of science.” George Gaylord Simpson – “The Problem of Plan and Purpose in Nature” – 1947 “living organisms “appear to have been carefully and artfully designed” Richard C. Lewontin – Adaptation,” Scientific American, and Scientific American book ‘Evolution’ (September 1978) “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.” Francis Crick – What Mad Pursuit – p. 138 (1990) “Organisms appear as if they had been designed to perform in an astonishingly efficient way, and the human mind therefore finds it hard to accept that there need be no Designer to achieve this” Francis Crick – What Mad Pursuit – p. 30 “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” Richard Dawkins – The Blind Watchmaker (1996) p.1
If something appears to be designed isn’t it logically possible it really could be designed? The main argument for the design then can be stated very simply:
1. If it appears to be designed, it really could be designed. 2. Even the simplest self-replicating life forms, like Mycoplasma genitalium, appear to be designed. 3. Therefore, it really could be designed.
In other words, if it’s logically possible that something could be designed then it’s not illegitimate to consider the possibility it really might be designed. Indeed, it would be intellectually dishonest not to do so. It certainly requires more than disbelief to undermine the argument for design. From the design perspective we at UD have cited a number of things about living systems which cannot presently be explained “naturally” and are characteristic at least by analogy of design.john_a_designer_{February 9, 2020
February
02
Feb
9
09
2020
11:46 AM
11
11
46
AM
PDT}

PK, materialism is just one of a significant number of significant worldview alternatives. In such a case of W_a = {w1, w2, w3, . . . wn}, ~w1 enfolds a range of possibilities, P = W_a - w1. So, there will be no one simple term. In this case, evolutionary materialistic scientism faces decisive defeaters. It cannot account for a world, for a fine tuned world, for life with language embedded in DNA, for mind that has credibility beyond a blind computing device, for moral government. Never mind the lab coat, the wounds are mortal. KFkairosfocus_{February 9, 2020
February
02
Feb
9
09
2020
10:58 AM
10
10
58
AM
PDT}

Pater K:
So, what’s a good word for the opposite of materialist?
RealistET_{February 9, 2020
February
02
Feb
9
09
2020
10:44 AM
10
10
44
AM
PDT}

@64 Pater Kimbridge
So, what’s a good word for the opposite of materialist?
I kind of like "people who love to think for themselves and who understand that what can NOT be, can not be, because violating logic equals intellectual suicide". Or "people who hate the sheep like mentality".Truthfreedom_{February 9, 2020
February
02
Feb
9
09
2020
10:34 AM
10
10
34
AM
PDT}

@Truthfreedom So, what's a good word for the opposite of materialist? I kind of like "mystic" myself.Pater Kimbridge_{February 9, 2020
February
02
Feb
9
09
2020
10:23 AM
10
10
23
AM
PDT}

@58 correction: “ As far as it’s empirically known so far, the only way is purposeful design.” Can you point to an alternative that can be coherently explained?pw_{February 9, 2020
February
02
Feb
9
09
2020
05:23 AM
5
05
23
AM
PDT}

@57 KF
...an evolutionary materialistic ideology that is now long past discard by date.
Ideology, not science. And a failed one. "Whoever marries the spirit of this age will find himself a widower in the next." -William Ralph Inge.Truthfreedom_{February 9, 2020
February
02
Feb
9
09
2020
03:38 AM
3
03
38
AM
PDT}

Homework for Seversky: 58 Homework for Pater Kimbridge: 60 :)pw_{February 9, 2020
February
02
Feb
9
09
2020
02:49 AM
2
02
49
AM
PDT}

Pater Kimbridge, Did you respond to EugeneS @29? BTW, is @22 your best response to @19? Also, did you miss my question(s) @23? You may use the information @24 too. I provided it as a courtesy, so that you don’t have to spend time searching for it.pw_{February 9, 2020
February
02
Feb
9
09
2020
01:28 AM
1
01
28
AM
PDT}

EugeneS @29: Excellent! Thanks.pw_{February 9, 2020
February
02
Feb
9
09
2020
01:24 AM
1
01
24
AM
PDT}

Seversky @44: Not so fast, buddy. Those main functions are relatively well documented in scientific literature, at least to certain level. The question is how is the functionality achieved in each of those listed cases? That’s relatively well documented too, at least up to certain level of detail. In most cases we’re dealing with complex functionality, which is relatively well documented up to certain depth. Now the next question is what does it take to build such functional complexity? As far as it’s empirically known so far, the only wake is purposeful design. Can you offer an alternative that you can coherently explain? Please, point to it. Show it. Thanks.pw_{February 9, 2020
February
02
Feb
9
09
2020
01:09 AM
1
01
09
AM
PDT}

PS: Sir Fred Hoyle:
>>[Sir Fred Hoyle, In a talk at Caltech c 1981 (nb. this longstanding UD post):] From 1953 onward, Willy Fowler and I have always been intrigued by the remarkable relation of the 7.65 MeV energy level in the nucleus of 12 C to the 7.12 MeV level in 16 O. If you wanted to produce carbon and oxygen in roughly equal quantities by stellar nucleosynthesis, these are the two levels you would have to fix, and your fixing would have to be just where these levels are actually found to be. Another put-up job? . . . I am inclined to think so. A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has "monkeyed" with the physics as well as the chemistry and biology, and there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. [F. Hoyle, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20 (1982): 16.]>> . . . also, in the same talk at Caltech: >>The big problem in biology, as I see it, is to understand the origin of the information carried by the explicit structures of biomolecules. The issue isn't so much the rather crude fact that a protein consists of a chain of amino acids linked together in a certain way, but that the explicit ordering of the amino acids endows the chain with remarkable properties, which other orderings wouldn't give. The case of the enzymes is well known . . . If amino acids were linked at random, there would be a vast number of arrange-ments that would be useless in serving the pur-poses of a living cell. When you consider that a typical enzyme has a chain of perhaps 200 links and that there are 20 possibilities for each link,it's easy to see that the number of useless arrangements is enormous, more than the number of atoms in all the galaxies visible in the largest telescopes. [ --> 20^200 = 1.6 * 10^260] This is for one enzyme, and there are upwards of 2000 of them, mainly serving very different purposes. So how did the situation get to where we find it to be? This is, as I see it, the biological problem - the information problem . . . . I was constantly plagued by the thought that the number of ways in which even a single enzyme could be wrongly constructed was greater than the number of all the atoms in the universe. So try as I would, I couldn't convince myself that even the whole universe would be sufficient to find life by random processes - by what are called the blind forces of nature . . . . By far the simplest way to arrive at the correct sequences of amino acids in the enzymes would be by thought, not by random processes . . . . Now imagine yourself as a superintellect working through possibilities in polymer chemistry. Would you not be astonished that polymers based on the carbon atom turned out in your calculations to have the remarkable properties of the enzymes and other biomolecules? Would you not be bowled over in surprise to find that a living cell was a feasible construct? Would you not say to yourself, in whatever language supercalculating intellects use: Some supercalculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule. Of course you would, and if you were a sensible superintellect you would conclude that the carbon atom is a fix. >> . . . and again: >> I do not believe that any physicist who examined the evidence could fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the [--> nuclear synthesis] consequences they produce within stars. ["The Universe: Past and Present Reflections." Engineering and Science, November, 1981. pp. 8–12]>>
kairosfocus_{February 8, 2020
February
02
Feb
8
08
2020
07:06 PM
7
07
06
PM
PDT}

Sev, You need to face some facts, starting with your own assumptions. Monod's 1971 admission is telling. Yes, the admission headlined several times recently, from a 1971 interview that builds on his 1970 Chance and Necessity:
[T]he scientific attitude implies what I call the postulate of objectivity—that is to say, the fundamental postulate that there is no plan, that there is no intention in the universe. Now, this is basically incompatible with virtually all the religious or metaphysical systems whatever, all of which try to show that there is some sort of harmony between man and the universe and that man is a product—predictable if not indispensable—of the evolution of the universe.— Jacques Monod [Quoted in John C. Hess, ‘French Nobel Biologist Says World Based On Chance’, New York Times (15 Mar 1971), p. 6. Cited in Herbert Marcuse, Counter-Revolution and Revolt (1972), p. 66.
Further, we are all quite familiar with a decisive case, DNA. Here we have something central to life and which manifests coded algorithmic information used to create proteins. Using tRNA as position arm devices, with a standard CCA tool tip that can couple to any relevant AA. Anticodons match codons and that is how coded information controls stepwise assembly of protein chains. But that code and that algorithm are immediately language and goal directed stepwise halting process. In short, purpose is baked in and language using design is here antecedent to the origin of life. We are not done. You have been present over years when we pointed out here at UD that from the very book that launched modern design theory near on 40 years ago now, it was freely acknowledged that design of life does NOT imply designer beyond the cosmos. You have been here when I have pointed out that given Venter et al, within 100 years we likely will be able to create such a design. Already, two more codes have been added and with them other AA's. So, I reasonably expect you to cease from the strawman caricature above and explain why you resorted to such. However, we are not done. There is another level of evident design, a cosmos fine tuned for C Chem, aqueous medium cell based life. Cosmos design and building is at a whole different level, as Sir Fred Hoyle long ago acknowledged forthrightly. And, it further points to a purpose to build a world with such life in it. Not, as religious dogma, but as reasonable inference on empirical evidence. Which also exposes your already corrected attempt to conflate Biblical Creationism and Design Theory, in a misguided attempt to taint and dismiss both. Of course, you may be tempted to trot out standard dismissive fallacies such as appeal to analogy as less than demonstrative to get rid of the points. Analogy is a key part of induction, turning on inference to in common archetypes [on more or less good grounds as the case may be]. Do you really want to burn down inductive reasoning? That carries science down with it. Moreover, we are not making an analogy from DNA to digital code, we are recognising its presence as a form of machine code used to control an algorithmic process in the ribosome. That some resort to attempted dismissal on this matter simply shows that they are desperate to shore up an evolutionary materialistic ideology that is now long past discard by date. KFkairosfocus_{February 8, 2020
February
02
Feb
8
08
2020
07:04 PM
7
07
04
PM
PDT}

Alexa internet traffic ranks for related websites: EN:.......224,252 TO:.......574,147 UD:.......635,802 PT:........2,507,759 SW:......4,014,984 TSZ:....6,170,294jawa_{February 8, 2020
February
02
Feb
8
08
2020
06:37 PM
6
06
37
PM
PDT}

. Picking up from my comment at #50
First, I would ask others here if they would like to re-state your case in a simpler, summary form.
Rhetoric.
Second, I have read the extensive discussions from several years ago of your case, both here and on The Skeptical Zone, and I would recommend anyone else who’s interested to do the same.
More rhetoric, and illogical, and lazy.
Third, in answer to your question, I don’t know if they are true or false. I doubt if we know enough yet to make a determination one way or the other. What it reduces to, however, is another variant of the ‘It’s so complex, I can’t conceive of any way it could come about through natural processes, therefore design’. Which may be true. I can’t rule out design as a possibility but neither have I seen a case which points irresistibly towards it.
This is settled science, Sev. The descriptions of the aaRS establish the genetic code from memory. How the codons are to be interpreted effects all the genes that are thus encoded. Logic 101. This has been known for decades upon decades. The remainder of your comment is simply more rhetoric. It seems like, to me, that a self-imposed need for rhetoric would get old after a while.
If it is actually the case that there are no natural processes which can account for what we observe – something which are not yet in a position to say with certainty – then design is the most reasonable alternative.
It is actually the case that there are no known natural (unguided) processes that can account for what we observe, Sev. That’s the whole point. You simply refuse to acknowledge it in earnest, regardless of the predictions, experimental evidence, and documented scientific history that surrounds the fact. Your gig is to avoid and ignore it all. You merely assume something in leau of actually knowing something, then assert that assumption ahead of what we actually do know to be true. Your position is a concrete display of the ideological motivation that you constantly accuse your opponents of.
But if there is no compelling evidence for the existence of a designer then natural processes become the most reasonable explanation.
Sev, does the existence of a terrestrial fire provide evidence of a fuel, the presence of an oxidizing agent, and the proximity of a heat source? If so, is it because you have independent evidence of those things at the source of the fire, or is it because of our universal experience that those specific things are required for the rapid oxidation of a fuel source – a fire? DNA is part of a multi-referent symbol system that uses spatial-orientation to distinguish one referent from another. It is physically established as a medium by a system of discontinuous association, using a set of non-integrable constraints. The whole package requires complimentary descriptions for its operation to be measured and documented -- and on that point -- the whole system has indeed been carefully documented using the language of physics (i.e. the rate-independence of the medium, the reading of the medium without reducing degrees of freedom, the discontinuous association between medium and referent, and so on). That description has been specifically noted in the literature to match just one other phenomenon known to science, and that one other phenomenon is the use of language. So, not only was this system famously predicted as fundamental to open-ended self-replication, it was then experimentally confirmed as such, and subsequently described in the literature as the only other known instance of a language structure outside of human artifacts. And as you well know, the use of language is a universal correlate of intelligence. So you cannot legitimately say that there is no compelling evidence of intelligent action in the origin of biology – to do so is an illogical and sweeping denial of whole swaths of scientific documentation and reasoning. Moreover, to then suggest that decades of scientific documentation should be disregarded, based solely on the preference of an unsupported assumption, is completely ludicrous, not to mention non-falsifiable and therefore non-scientific. This is why I give you a hard time for your dull rhetoric, Sev. You are too smart to not know what you are doing. Now, returning to my previous question: Do the sequences in the genome have to be simultaneously coordinated with those that describe the set of aaRS? And if so, then Bob can tell us the source of that simultaneous coordination. After you answer that question, you can answer another question you’ve previously ignored: The set of aaRS are the physical constraints that establish the gene code from memory. They did not always exist. On the first day that an aaRS was successfully synthesized from memory, how many of the other constraints had to be in place?Upright BiPed_{February 8, 2020
February
02
Feb
8
08
2020
05:39 PM
5
05
39
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply