Video: Signature in the Cell

One minor point: Darwin's face has been on the back of the £10 note for years - it's got nothing to do with 2009 being the 150th anniversary of OOS being published. mattghg

Nakashima:

Mr Mapou, As a result, if DNA is a meaningful code, it could only exist if it was devised by an intelligent coder. No, it could be the outcome of an evolutionary competition between coevolutionary teams. Teams that understand each other better outcompete teams with less workable code.

Well, it seems that what we have here is a little self-referential nightmare. DNA is necessary for the evolution of life and yet it cannot come to existence unless it evolves. Something is fishy in this picture. Mapou

Rob: The burden of proof is on anyone who makes a claim. The "status quo" claims that these cell structures, and the information they represent, was generated by natural law and chance. Not only has this never been demonbstrated; it has never been shown to be remotely possible. It is assumed via ideology to be the case. If we challenge the "status quo" to produce their proof, it is incumbent upon them to produce it. It is not the job of the challenger to "disprove" an assumption for which no evidence or proof is offered. Claiming some right of "status quo" to be absolved of supporting one's own claims is religioous fanaticism, not proper science. And yes, by continuing to clamor for the "status quo" scientific community to support thier assertions, and their failing to do so, and their failing to meet the argument but instead choosing to hide from the challenge through policy and law is a method of "gaining traction", because while close-minded funda-materialists will never change their view, those with less calcified vision will see the problems revealed by such refusal and misdirection. So, by all means, keep insisting that the "status quo" is not required to support its assertions. William J. Murray

Mr. Nakashima, it was a question and not my opinion, I know it's not known. lamarck

Mr Lamarck, How could our current and temporary state of ignorance be the context to understand that anything is 'necessarily' the case? Nakashima

Rob, "So the process of gene expression is intelligent?: A question much more to the point would be "So is the process of gene expression necessarily created by intelligence, given that we don't understand RNA and DNA and gene expression?" We observe no set up system where non intelligence codes and decodes. lamarck

Mapou:

Obviously, coding and decoding information requires intelligence.

So the process of gene expression is intelligent? R0b

Mr. Nakashima, could you give an example of how this could be? "No, it could be the outcome of an evolutionary competition between coevolutionary teams. Teams that understand each other better outcompete teams with less workable code." lamarck

Mr Mapou, As a result, if DNA is a meaningful code, it could only exist if it was devised by an intelligent coder. No, it could be the outcome of an evolutionary competition between coevolutionary teams. Teams that understand each other better outcompete teams with less workable code. Nakashima

R0b, you said: “But pragmatically, the onus is on the side that seeks to change the status quo.” This is how the scientific establishment would have it

Whether or not the scientific establishment would have it that way, and whether or not it's fair, that's how it is. If you don't believe me, just keep assigning the burden to the scientific community, and see if ID ever gains any traction. R0b

R0b, you said: "But pragmatically, the onus is on the side that seeks to change the status quo." This is how the scientific establishment would have it, because it makes it much easier to maintain the status quo in the face of increasing evidence to the contrary. However, it seems to me that the burden of proof lies with those who seek to contradict the obvious. Bruce David

Bruce David:

What this means to me is that if you believe that the cell did arise through some kind of unguided natural process, it is up to you to prove it.

Or else ... what? That's not bravado -- it's a sincere question. One can always argue that the burden of proof is on the other side. But pragmatically, the onus is on the side that seeks to change the status quo. If that isn't what the ID community seeks, then by all means, it should keep talking about what the scientific community should be doing, while refusing to meet the challenges leveled in the other direction. R0b

Bruce David:

By the way, the definition that both Dembski and Meyer use is not Shannon information, because it includes the notion of being specified, which means that it can be described independently of itself.

Dembski's specified complexity is the minimum Shannon self-information in a certain composite event. The definition of that composite event includes Dembski's concept of specificity. As far as I know, Dembski has never produced a closed definition of specificity, so I'll have to disagree with the claim of rigor. As far as Meyer's rigorous definition of information, there's no need to copy it here, but can you at least provide a reference?

The ONLY reason to reject that conclusion is if you reject a priori the possibility that such an engineer could have existed.

Contrary to this claim, there are people who have an a priori belief in a divine Creator, but do not consider your reasoning to be valid justification for this belief. R0b

Both Dembski and Meyer define information quite rigorously (I'm not going to repeat the definitions here. If you are really interested in understanding it, and not just in attacking something you don't understand, I suggest you read their works), and by definition, it cannot be produced by natural law, and by definition, the probability of its occurrence by chance is so small as to make that virtually impossible. If a natural law were discovered that somehow could have produced it (or increased the probability of its occurrence sufficiently), then it would no longer qualify as information (by their definitions). The information stored in the DNA of any cell satisfies their definitions. By the way, the definition that both Dembski and Meyer use is not Shannon information, because it includes the notion of being specified, which means that it can be described independently of itself. What is going on here is that Meyer and Dembski are making a rigorous argument to demonstrate what is blazingly obvious to anyone who has studied the cell in any depth at all and WHO IS NOT ALREADY COMMITTED TO A MATERIALIST POINT OF VIEW: the cell is clearly a product of engineering. You can't look at these miracles of nanotechnology and the information stored and used therein without immediately concluding that they were designed and constructed by a brilliant engineer (or engineers). The ONLY reason to reject that conclusion is if you reject a priori the possibility that such an engineer could have existed. What this means to me is that if you believe that the cell did arise through some kind of unguided natural process, it is up to you to prove it. I don't mean that you have to prove it here and now, rather I mean that the burden of proof is on those who reject the explanation that the cell was designed. In other words, until and unless a clear and compelling demonstration that the first cell arose by natural processes is produced, by far the most reasonable explanation of its existence is that it was designed and created by an intelligent agent or agents. Bruce David

IMO, any discussion about the nature and purpose of information must include the work of Claude Shannon, the father of information theory. Essentially, information requires a sender and a receiver. Both must be in agreement as to the meaning of the symbols used. For example, Egyptian hierogliphics were meaningless (contained no information) for centuries, even though it was obvious to all that they were not just random markings. Unless information can be coded and decoded according to a preset pattern and preset rules understood by both coder and decoder, it is useless. Obviously, coding and decoding information requires intelligence. As a result, if DNA is a meaningful code, it could only exist if it was devised by an intelligent coder. Mapou

"We don’t ‘know’ that the configuration of matter in the genome is the result of intelligence. The only example we have of information in a broadly similar class to this is that produced by humans. It is a big step to go from there to concluding that the genome MUST have an intelligent origin. A more reasonable step is actually to conclude that the genome is something that humans might be able to design." That is close to the ID position. ID does not say the genome "must" be designed by an intelligence. The ID position is that there is a very good possibility that the genome was designed by an intelligence. If anything it is the anti ID people who are unreasonable and absolute who say that it never happened and cannot be considered and one "must" only consider non intelligent causes. Few in the biological community doubt that humans will have the capability of designing a genome in the near future. That may not happen but now the conventional wisdom is that it will happen. jerry

"Do we know everything there is about every type of information and how to use it? No, but it is a simple idea we use all the time and much of the information contained in a genome is a unique type of information only seen in intelligent activity. It has never appeared in existence other than in life or due to intelligent origins." We don't 'know' that the configuration of matter in the genome is the result of intelligence. The only example we have of information in a broadly similar class to this is that produced by humans. It is a big step to go from there to concluding that the genome MUST have an intelligent origin. A more reasonable step is actually to conclude that the genome is something that humans might be able to design. Excession

How many times do we have to repeat this stupidity about information. Take any common definition about information and it will work. The cell has a unique form of information, FSCI. Information can be anything that refers to something. In computers we have 0's and 1's used to describe various states. The 0's and 1's are information. The various states are information. A sentence is information. A single letter is information. The order of the letters is information. A data point of anything is information. The report that the Carthaginian troops are organizing for an attack is information or that Hannibal has returned from Italy is information. The components of a rock is information. The specific molecule by molecule layout of a rock is information. The place where the rock was found and its orientation is information. In the cell DNA sequences are information and each individual nucleotide is information. The cell as mentioned above has a unique type of information, namely FSCI. It is not hard to understand and has been recognized by biology for over 40 years and serves as basis for a major subfield. Biology departments employ thousands of statisticians and experts in Bioinformatics. I suggest anyone interested read about it. To suggest that this is not a well understood concept is ludicrous. Do we know everything there is about every type of information and how to use it? No, but it is a simple idea we use all the time and much of the information contained in a genome is a unique type of information only seen in intelligent activity. It has never appeared in existence other than in life or due to intelligent origins. We are using this type of information on this blog and we never think twice about it. jerry

Bruce David: The only known source of information in the Universe is an intelligent agent Aren't these supposed only known intelligent sources of information all dependent on its pre-existence in a highly organized state? Like others, I have trouble seeing what can and cannot be described as information. Surely any chemical autocatalyst contains the information to reproduce itself, and we know that this can come about without an intelligent agent. iconofid

"Briefly, it is that in life there is a crucial element that is absent from the examples you cite: information. Lots and lots and lots of information." Again, a clear and formal definition would help us understand how to distinguish between the configuration of a biological system from, for example, the weather system on Venus. "Its ordering cannot be determined by physical law, Is this based on empirical evidence or is it still an hypothesis? "...it is so highly improbable that the probabilistic resources of the entire universe couldn’t have produced it" I think the correct way of putting that would be "have a low probability of" and not "couldn't". But this does depend on how you do the calculations, given how much we don't know about complex chemical systems it is hard to see how you can determine the probability of replicators, or anything else, forming in them. I'm guessing that Meyer is referring not to specific configurations of matter and energy but to a specific class of configurations. I want to know how to identify the boundary between this and other classes of configuration. "The only known source of information in the Universe is an intelligent agent." Again without a formal definition I can't quite agree to that. It is true that certain configurations of matter are only known to be produced by humans, and that we classify ourselves as "intelligent agents". Excession

The way I see it, exponential explosion is an impossible wall to climb. It effectively refutes all naturalistic explananations for the origin and evolution of life. Darwinian evolution is therefore dead on arrival even before it rears its stupid head. Darwinists, atheists and materialists are actors in a theatre of the absurd and the author of their play is obviously mathematically challenged. The argument that information requires an intelligent designer is just icing on the cake at this stage of the game. Mapou

iconofid: If you really want to know why Meyer singles out the origin of life from the other examples you mentioned (plate techtonics, weather, etc.), you should watch the video or read the book. He explains it quite clearly. Briefly, it is that in life there is a crucial element that is absent from the examples you cite: information. Lots and lots and lots of information. Information that is coded, arranged in hierarchical files, and which directs the cellular processes. The very nature of information (Its ordering cannot be determined by physical law, it is so highly improbable that the probablistic resources of the entire universe couldn't have produced it, and it guides or performs some function.) means that natural processes could not have produced it. The only known source of information in the Universe is an intelligent agent. Bruce David

Bruce David (on "god of the gaps"): The second version goes: “Throughout history people have attributed what they don’t understand to God, but then science has explained it, so why do you think this will be any different? Just give science a little more time and it will explain the origin of life, too.” (This was actually the version that was stated by the questioner.) The logical fallacy is the unstated assumption that the past necessarily predicts the future. Each case must be evaluated on its own merits. The fact that science has in the past explained some things that were attributed to divine action logically has no bearing whatsoever on what is the correct explanation of the phenomenon under consideration (the origin of biological information. I'm not sure if the questioner would be assuming that the past necessarily predicts the future, rather than making a less definite observation that we can, and often do, learn from experience. There's no logical fallacy involved in that observation. To put the point another way, there are many things in the universe that we haven't explained, why be selective about the origin of life on earth? In historical science, I'm sure we don't have a really detailed step by step formation of the planet and its various features, like tectonic plates, for example. So, why not argue for a role for the intelligent designers there, or is there enough natural "information" around to form a complex planet? Outside historical science, the earth's weather systems are incredibly complicated, depending on the interactions of many factors, and there are many gaps in our understanding, so why have we done away with the traditional weather controlling gods, but still want to put gods in gaps elsewhere? But there's another thing that puzzles me about Christians like Meyer. He believes that the universe was created, so, presumably this means that everything in it is, in a sense, intelligently designed. How, then, does he do design detection? The implication would seem to be that he would be detecting adjustments that weren't in the original design; points where his god needed to break his own rules. Other theists seem to opt for a god who, like Meyer's god, wants life, but who got the universe right in the first place, hence abiogenesis and chemical evolution as a natural part of it for some Christians. Either way, I can't see how Meyer's ideas can make any difference to science. The naturalists will keep on doing OOL research, and ignore him, to be honest, just as they did his many predecessors, like this guy: "No physical hypothesis founded on any indisputable fact has yet explained the origin of the primordial protoplasm, and, above all, of its marvellous properties, which render evolution possible—in heredity and in adaptability, for these properties are the cause and not the effect of evolution. For the cause of this cause we have sought in vain among the physical forces which surround us, until we are at last compelled to rest upon an independent volition, a far-seeing intelligent design." George James Allman (Paleyite botanist) 1873. Nothing new, really. Note the interesting two words at the end. iconofid

PaulN: I’m sure you can have potential information yet to be expressed without matter or energy. Akin to how you can have potential energy vs. kinetic energy. You can't have potential energy without matter, thats practically the definition of potential energy so they are not kin. I work with computer simulations and GA's so I'm quite amenable to the idea that we are simulations to another's reality. I'm still struggling to understand what Meyer information actually is though, at least beyond just being like some stuff that humans produce. Excession

I think a good analogy would be a modern video game, where you see the compiled code(information) driving and defining the physics and gameplay, instead of the other way around. Of course our goal is to eventually reach the point where to we can fully simulate reality, our make our own realities accordingly, which is quite suggestive about the human mind if you think about it. PaulN

About the "God of the Gaps" argument that was discussed at the end of the lecture: I think that there are really two (overlapping) versions of this argument. One of them is a straw man argument and the other relies on a logical fallacy. The first (straw man) version goes something like: "You don't understand how life could have originated, so you just throw up your hands and say, 'God did it'". It is a straw man argument because as Meyer (and many others have) pointed out, that simply isn't the argument. This is the version that Meyer answered at the end of the lecture. The second version goes: "Throughout history people have attributed what they don't understand to God, but then science has explained it, so why do you think this will be any different? Just give science a little more time and it will explain the origin of life, too." (This was actually the version that was stated by the questioner.) The logical fallacy is the unstated assumption that the past necessarily predicts the future. Each case must be evaluated on its own merits. The fact that science has in the past explained some things that were attributed to divine action logically has no bearing whatsoever on what is the correct explanation of the phenomenon under consideration (the origin of biological information). Bruce David

Well it necessarily couldn't be in the form matter or energy before either existed. I think Stephen Meyer is trying to say that latent information doesn't necessarily have a coherent physical/chemical/energy form before it is expressed, but does make for a coherent and meaningful product in physical reality in some way shape or form after the fact. Such is where the blank disc vs. data-rich disc analogy came from. My reasoning is that matter and energy themselves must be contingent upon orderly and meaningfully expressed information in order for the universe to exist as it does, especially all in one shot (the big bang). Therefore for the naturalist, believing that matter and energy are all that exist and define reality, it would necessarily be impossible to make sense before conceding to an additional inherent property of matter and energy known as information. PaulN

PaulN, I can buy that. Although I'm curious as to what form this information took. Whatever the answer, I probably wouldn't understand it. R0b

An expression of dormant information that preceded matter and energy to be exact. PaulN

Basically I'm referring to the big bang as a massive expression of information. PaulN