Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

UB Schools Bob O’H

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
@52 Pater Kimbridge
You are trying REALLY hard to construct a reality that requires your god to exist.
Do I detect a hint of bitterness? It is your epistemology the one that fails-miserably. Materialism is false. Catastrophic epistemological failure. You stomping your foot WON'T change the fact. Logic is a very demanding mistress. From your post @40:
This is why I bring up such matters of basic reasoning. It seems that some people are lacking in that area.
Sure. And you are the perfect example. https://strangenotions.com/naturalisms-epistemological-nightmare/Truthfreedom
February 8, 2020
February
02
Feb
8
08
2020
04:42 PM
4
04
42
PM
PDT
@Truthfreedom #51 You are trying REALLY hard to construct a reality that requires your god to exist.Pater Kimbridge
February 8, 2020
February
02
Feb
8
08
2020
04:18 PM
4
04
18
PM
PDT
@49 Pater Kimbridge:
I do not subscribe to your “endpoint #2”
Not "mine". You don't accept the findings of natural sciences (neurophysiology?) Truthfreedom
February 8, 2020
February
02
Feb
8
08
2020
01:44 PM
1
01
44
PM
PDT
.
Sev: Which, of course, is why ID/Creationists prefer it because it smuggles in their Designer/God. UB: This is gratuitous rhetoric, Sev. It is not a legitimate response to anything. Sev: No, it’s not a response, it’s a perfectly legitimate comment on what I believe is the purpose in the minds of those insisting on the notion of purpose over function.
I have said absolutely nothing about purpose or function, Sev. You’ve avoided the question yet again. The descriptions of the aaRS are what establishes the genetic code inside the cell, Seversky, this is settled science no matter who you are. Thus, those descriptions effect all the remaining descriptions contained in the genome. Changing one, alters all the others. Period. There is nothing that is the slightest bit hard to understand about this. 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? Does the logic of that reality somehow escape you? No, of course not, you are simply playing another round of “avoid the evidence”. So again, do the sequences in the genome have to be simultaneously coordinated with the those that describe the aaRS, Sev? Yes or no. Give yourself a pep talk. Try to actually confront the evidence for a change of pace. And also (to pick up from my previous comment at #30): If these things are true, then why do you insist that acknowledging them is motivated by anything other than the fact that they are true? If they are thru, then they are true, right?Upright BiPed
February 8, 2020
February
02
Feb
8
08
2020
01:39 PM
1
01
39
PM
PDT
@Truthfreedom #48 I do not subscribe to your "endpoint #2" What have I said to make you think that I had?Pater Kimbridge
February 8, 2020
February
02
Feb
8
08
2020
01:31 PM
1
01
31
PM
PDT
@47 Pater Kimbridge
Yeah, I read that. And, like I said in #40, that’s all presuppositionalism.
No, it is not. It is that philosophical materialism is trapped in an Epistemological Nightmare. Your starting point: 1. "There is an external world." And your ending point: 2. "All I know are changes (neural patterns) inside myself". Logically contradict each other. https://strangenotions.com/naturalisms-epistemological-nightmare/ Sorry, but logic is a very demanding mistress. Materialism is a failed philosophy. Catastrophic epistemological failure.Truthfreedom
February 8, 2020
February
02
Feb
8
08
2020
01:16 PM
1
01
16
PM
PDT
@Truthfreedom #41 Yeah, I read that. And, like I said in #40, that's all presuppositionalism. Look it up if you are not familiar with it. It has been around for a long time. When the presuppositionalist applies his own logic to his own argument, it disappears in a puff of smoke.Pater Kimbridge
February 8, 2020
February
02
Feb
8
08
2020
12:30 PM
12
12
30
PM
PDT
seversky:
If it is actually the case that there are no natural processes which can account for what we observe
It is actually the case. You and yours have nothing beyond denial.
But if there is no compelling evidence for the existence of a designer...
There is overwhelming evidence for the existence of an Intelligent Designer. All you can do is deny it.ET
February 8, 2020
February
02
Feb
8
08
2020
12:28 PM
12
12
28
PM
PDT
Upright BiPed @ 30
Which, of course, is why ID/Creationists prefer it because it smuggles in their Designer/God.
This is gratuitous rhetoric, Sev. It is not a legitimate response to anything.
No, it's not a response, it's a perfectly legitimate comment on what I believe is the purpose in the minds of those insisting on the notion of purpose over function. It's also far less gratuitous then some of the comments I have read from others on these threads.
Do you think the observations I made in my post are true, or are they false?
First, I would ask others here if they would like to re-state your case in a simpler, summary form. 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. 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. 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. But if there is no compelling evidence for the existence of a designer then natural processes become the most reasonable explanation.Seversky
February 8, 2020
February
02
Feb
8
08
2020
12:16 PM
12
12
16
PM
PDT
Pw @ 17
What’s a known function of the genetic code? What’s a known function of the epigenome? What’s a known function of the ribosome? What’s a known function of every known aaRS? What’s a known function of every cellular organelle? What’s a known function of the nuclear membrane?
If you don't know what their functions are you can easily look them up on the Internet. The point we have been trying to make is that the function is simply what they do. Their function would only be a purpose if we knew of an intelligent designer who had designed them to do that. If there is no designer then all we see happening is function.Seversky
February 8, 2020
February
02
Feb
8
08
2020
11:42 AM
11
11
42
AM
PDT
Pater K:
It IS an illusion.
Perhaps to you and yours. But then again the illusion is thinking your side has any evidentiary support
That’s why it is a fallacy to attribute “purpose” to an object.
It is to you and yours. But then again your entire position is a fallacy.ET
February 8, 2020
February
02
Feb
8
08
2020
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT
@40 Pater Kimbridge
This is why I bring up such matters of basic reasoning.
Huh? Materialism is the sworn enemy of reasoning. You ground logic in some random chemical reactions and neuronal firings that you *magically* believe can become *rational*.Truthfreedom
February 8, 2020
February
02
Feb
8
08
2020
09:52 AM
9
09
52
AM
PDT
@40 Pater Kimbridge
And… why would you assume all materialists are solipsists?
I would assume that, when I post a link, DOZENS OF TIMES, people would like to click on it, read the related content and then, come back to have a fruitful discussion. https://strangenotions.com/naturalisms-epistemological-nightmare/Truthfreedom
February 8, 2020
February
02
Feb
8
08
2020
09:38 AM
9
09
38
AM
PDT
@Truthfreedom # 39 Neither Seversky nor Ed George are claiming that transportation is an intrinsic property of a canal. They instead are saying that transportation was the purpose in the minds of the designers when they designed the canal. Which is verifiable by talking to the designers or finding the documentation. And... why would you assume all materialists are solipsists? This is why I bring up such matters of basic reasoning. It seems that some people are lacking in that area. And when you confront them about it, they retreat into the rubber-and-glue world of presuppositionalism.Pater Kimbridge
February 8, 2020
February
02
Feb
8
08
2020
09:20 AM
9
09
20
AM
PDT
@38 Pater Kimbridge
The reason you don’t project “dirt moving” as a purpose onto an apple is that you don’t have that pattern in your mind.
Or it is because I am an intelligent person that understands using apples to move dirt is ridiculous and leads only to frustration and failure (are "frustration and failure" real or "illusions", Pater?)
Believing the shovel has purpose is an illusion, because the purpose only exists in your mind, it is not a property of the shovel. It is only a pattern in your mind. It is cultural experience."
Believing *mutations* are *random*, is an illusion, because *randomness* only exists in *the mind of evolutionists*, it is not a property of the *living matter*. It is only a pattern in *their* minds. It is cultural experience.
It is important to distinquish things that happen in the external world from things that only happen IN YOUR MIND.
Says the subjective idealist/ solipsist that can not be sure he has a brain. Sure. https://strangenotions.com/naturalisms-epistemological-nightmare/ You are saying Seversky and Ed George are wrong. From Seversky:
The canal was designed and built by human engineers for a specific purpose.
From Ed George:
But only for the canal can we say that it’s purpose is transportation.
Both Seversky and Ed George are under an "illusion" that you are kindly "dispelling".Truthfreedom
February 8, 2020
February
02
Feb
8
08
2020
09:02 AM
9
09
02
AM
PDT
@Truthfreedom #25 you said : "Under materialism, you can NOT project your mind onto anything. It is an (and again we have here the inane word) “illusion”." That's correct. It IS an illusion. That's why it is a fallacy to attribute "purpose" to an object. Mind-projection is not the idea that your mind somehow inhabits an object, it is instead the idea that people attribute a property to an object that it does not have, simply because their minds associate the object with some function or purpose. Believing the shovel has purpose is an illusion, because the purpose only exists in your mind, it is not a property of the shovel. It is only a pattern in your mind. It is cultural experience. The reason you don't project "dirt moving" as a purpose onto an apple is that you don't have that pattern in your mind. You don't have experience of people moving dirt with an apple. It is important to distinquish things that happen in the external world from things that only happen IN YOUR MIND.Pater Kimbridge
February 8, 2020
February
02
Feb
8
08
2020
08:14 AM
8
08
14
AM
PDT
Let me follow up with what I said @ #4:
Don’t expect much from Bob. Because of his a priori philosophical assumptions he is never going to concede that DNA or RNA functions as a code. However, the problem then for him, or any other committed materialist, is what is the purpose of DNA or RNA? For me the question is very easy to settle. I just apply the so-called duck test. If DNA or RNA looks like a code, functions like a code or can be used as a code (by humans for instance) it is a code. But that’s because I am being intellectually honest. That’s also one of the reasons I believe that materialism is false. Bob, of course, will continue to believe what he believes because he believes it.
Like the duck test I listed three reasons why it is reasonable to believe that DNA and RNA are really codes: (1) they look like codes, (2) they function like codes and (3) they can be used like a codes (by an intelligent agent, humans for instance.) Here is an example of reason #3:
For the first time, a primitive movie has been encoded in — and then played back from — DNA in living cells. Scientists funded by the National Institutes of Health say it is a major step toward a “molecular recorder” that may someday make it possible to get read-outs, for example, of the changing internal states of neurons as they develop.
https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/scientists-replay-movie-encoded-dnajohn_a_designer
February 8, 2020
February
02
Feb
8
08
2020
07:36 AM
7
07
36
AM
PDT
@34 Ed George
Both a river and a canal can function as a means of transportation. But only for the canal can we say that it’s purpose is transportation.
This line of reasoning implies that the human mind has *intrinsic* purpose or "goal-orientedness". But because materialists can NOT reconcile this reality with an impersonal "nature", they are forced to try the eliminativist route : "purpose is an (yeeees, you guessed it!) "illusion". The problem is that reality is real and eliminativism does not work. But materialism is dogmatic and they prefer to make fools of themselves instead of accepting that it is a failed philosophy.Truthfreedom
February 8, 2020
February
02
Feb
8
08
2020
07:32 AM
7
07
32
AM
PDT
Both a river and a canal can function as a means of transportation. But only for the canal can we say that it’s purpose is transportation.
Cuz you say so, really? It could easily be said that the purpose of rivers is to transport water, minerals and people from one place to another. It's part of the intelligent design of the planet.ET
February 8, 2020
February
02
Feb
8
08
2020
07:17 AM
7
07
17
AM
PDT
Both a river and a canal can function as a means of transportation. But only for the canal can we say that it’s purpose is transportation.Ed George
February 8, 2020
February
02
Feb
8
08
2020
06:51 AM
6
06
51
AM
PDT
@15 Seversky
The canal was designed and built by human engineers for a specific purpose. The river is water moving from higher to lower levels, under the force of gravity, following a course that is shaped by the topography of the land over which it flows.
"Shaped" by the topography in a certain way, due to the involved materials *intrinsic* properties (or "tendencies"). Water --> certain properties. Rocks --> certain properties. Gravity --> certain properties. The sum of the 3 above = river (and not i.e. an apple).Truthfreedom
February 8, 2020
February
02
Feb
8
08
2020
06:34 AM
6
06
34
AM
PDT
EugeneS @27: “Oh, boy.” I couldn’t have stated it better. That’s it. Simple, brief, but it says it all: Oh, boy. I second it.pw
February 8, 2020
February
02
Feb
8
08
2020
06:02 AM
6
06
02
AM
PDT
@29 EugeneS:
you should take a test tube and join the army of abiogenesis alchemists trying to produce life in a lab.
They'll move the goalposts. NaCl is now"alive", so yes, they can sintesize "life" in a lab. Or the classical materialist desperate tactic: life is an "illusion". (Or "social construct"). Lazy thinking because they can not accept reality. They have not grown up.Truthfreedom
February 8, 2020
February
02
Feb
8
08
2020
05:52 AM
5
05
52
AM
PDT
.
Which, of course, is why ID/Creationists prefer it because it smuggles in their Designer/God.
This is gratuitous rhetoric, Sev. It is not a legitimate response to anything. Do you think the observations I made in my post are true, or are they false?Upright BiPed
February 8, 2020
February
02
Feb
8
08
2020
05:43 AM
5
05
43
AM
PDT
PK @22 Your analogy is flawed. What is missing is that for this consequent it would be NECESSARY to have observations that only wood floats. Since this is of course not the case your analogy to ID is flawed. The gist of abductive reasoning is as follows: The surprising fact, C, is observed; But if A were true, C would be a matter of course, Hence, there is reason to suspect that A is true. The gist of ID: - we want to hypothesise about how life could have plausibly come about - we have complex human artifacts that are isomorphic to life (where the context of isomorphism is clearly defined) - we have absolutely no observations of not only life but anything isomorphic to complex human artifacts arising without intelligent guidance/interference/de novo creation - Consequently, we have reason to suspect that life, too, might have come about with intelligence. In other words, ID stands as a valid abductive hypothesis until such time as someone comes up with observations of life arising without intelligence (i.e. by way of naturalistic causation with specific initial conditions). So your only legitimate hope to disprove ID is abiogenesis. So I suggest that, instead of condescendingly joking using flawed logic, you should take a test tube and join the army of abiogenesis alchemists trying to produce life in a lab. But before you do so, I have bad news for you: - you are allowed only to manipulate the initial conditions of the putative non-intelligent abiogenetic synthesis of life, for as soon as you smuggle in (c) control of the synthesis, you immediately invalidate your entire experiment - every new discovery of biochemical details of how life is organised pushes abiogenesis further away from you before you even start.EugeneS
February 8, 2020
February
02
Feb
8
08
2020
05:31 AM
5
05
31
AM
PDT
Just because seversky, et al., are forced to smuggle in a blind watchmaker doesn't mean that IDists have to smuggle in an Intelligent Designer. There isn't any other viable scientific explanation for a heart pumping blood than ID. Just like there isn't any other viable scientific explanation for the genetic code than ID. And we all know how much that bothers all of the anti-ID and anti-science evos.ET
February 8, 2020
February
02
Feb
8
08
2020
05:04 AM
5
05
04
AM
PDT
Which, of course, is why ID/Creationists prefer it because it smuggles in their Designer/God.
Oh, boy.EugeneS
February 8, 2020
February
02
Feb
8
08
2020
04:54 AM
4
04
54
AM
PDT
H'mm: On Enigma:
History Enigma was invented by the German engineer Arthur Scherbius at the end of World War I.[2] The German firm Scherbius & Ritter, co-founded by Arthur Scherbius, patented ideas for a cipher machine in 1918 and began marketing the finished product under the brand name Enigma in 1923, initially targeted at commercial markets.[3] Early models were used commercially from the early 1920s, and adopted by military and government services of several countries, most notably Nazi Germany before and during World War II.[4] Several different Enigma models were produced, but the German military models, having a plugboard, were the most complex. Japanese and Italian models were also in use. With its adoption (in slightly modified form) by the German Navy in 1926 and the German Army and Air Force soon after, the name Enigma became widely known in military circles. Pre-war German military planning emphasized fast, mobile forces and tactics, later known as blitzkrieg, which depend on radio communication for command and coordination. Since adversaries would likely intercept radio signals, messages would have to be protected with secure encoding. Compact and easily portable, the Enigma machine filled that need.
Wiki, as a handy point of departure. KFkairosfocus
February 8, 2020
February
02
Feb
8
08
2020
04:23 AM
4
04
23
AM
PDT
@11 Pater Kimbridge:
If I have a shovel in my garage, and it is just leaning up against the wall, at that moment, it has no function. If I pick it up and move dirt with it, at that moment it has the function of moving dirt.
In potency, yes, it has. The moment you start moving dirt with it, you are actualizing it. Some things --> certain outcomes. You can not move dirt i.e. with an apple.
To believe otherwise is a mind-projection fallacy.
Pater Kimbridge, you are not reading well your materialist priests. Under materialism, you can NOT project your mind onto anything. It is an (and again we have here the inane word) "illusion". Good to know you imply materialism is false. Truthfreedom
February 8, 2020
February
02
Feb
8
08
2020
03:51 AM
3
03
51
AM
PDT
@23: Here’s a list of related papers that you may consult. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3293468/citedby/pw
February 7, 2020
February
02
Feb
7
07
2020
07:11 PM
7
07
11
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5