Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

What if Shakespeare Were an Alien?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

William Shakespeare is widely regarded as the world’s greatest playwright, towering head and shoulders over all who came before and all who came after.  Maybe Shakespeare was so good because he wasn’t a human at all but a member of a hyper-intelligent alien race who happened to be visiting earth in the late 1500’s.  If you subscribe to Cromwell’s rule, you cannot dismiss this hypothesis out of hand.  It is not logically impossible.  Therefore, Cromwell’s rule suggests that we should assign some probability to the possibility even if it is one in a hundred billion.  Otherwise, like the “green cheese” example in the Wikipedia article, we would not be convinced even if we were to find the schematics to Shakespeare’s spaceship in a dusty old attic in Statford-upon-Avon.

Now assume that you are trying to determine whether a design inference is appropriate with respect to Hamlet.  You conclude that Hamlet is rich in complex specified information and infer that the best explanation for the provenance of the play is “intelligent design.”  Many times here at UD our materialist friends have argued that we can infer design only if we know the designer was human.  For example, we are often told that if we were to argue that an arrowhead is designed, we could do so only on the basis of our knowledge that Indians were humans who designed things like ourselves.

Now, since it is not logically impossible, assume for the sake of argument that Shakespeare was an alien.  If that were the case, Hamlet was not written by a human.

Here’s the question:  Is our design inference invalid if Shakespeare turns out to have been an alien?

Comments
DNA Jock- It is very telling that you cannot say how unguided evolution produced PCD. You don't have a model. You don't have a testable hypothesis. All you have is nothing, actually.Joe
December 3, 2014
December
12
Dec
3
03
2014
04:44 AM
4
04
44
AM
PDT
Zachriel: If the neighbor is a clone, which is very likely, then the genome persists. It can be easily modeled.
How can the suicide members outperform the non-suicide members of a group? The non-suicide members seem to profit without having to pay. So how can they ever lose the fitness battle?Box
December 3, 2014
December
12
Dec
3
03
2014
04:41 AM
4
04
41
AM
PDT
Box: How does the selection works? Suppose some member of a group develops suicide tendencies and dies, which turns out to be of help for the other members of the group. If the neighbor is a clone, which is very likely, then the genome persists. It can be easily modeled.Zachriel
December 3, 2014
December
12
Dec
3
03
2014
04:36 AM
4
04
36
AM
PDT
Zachriel: They answer the conundrum, and provide evidence to support the answer, in the very article you cite. When they die, they help their sisters. This means it is a selectable evolutionary benefit.
How does the selection work? Suppose some member of a group develops suicide tendencies and dies, which turns out to be of help for the other members of the group. Okay. But how is this suicide trait selectable? There may as well be a darwinian just so story, but I cannot come up with one at the moment.Box
December 3, 2014
December
12
Dec
3
03
2014
04:31 AM
4
04
31
AM
PDT
Zachriel, It's fairly obvious that Andre does not actually read the papers he cites. If he does read them, he certainly does not understand them. If he understood Tulha 2012, he would never have cited it as an example of PCD being essential to yeast: it is a perfect counter-example, far better than the counter-example I had in mind. Oh well.DNA_Jock
December 3, 2014
December
12
Dec
3
03
2014
04:18 AM
4
04
18
AM
PDT
Andre writes:
Death is essential to life!
I think you might be on to something here. Of course, I think that Darwin (and all biologists) would agree with you. Differential survival and all, y’know. It’s only really a problem for people who demand a literal interpretation of Genesis. Heh. Andre writes:
So these researchers are being liars when they say;
On the other hand, the survival curve (Figure ?(Figure1)1) showed that gup1[increment] mutant cells died considerably sooner than Wt.
No Andre. It’s just that you don’t understand them. See my post 128. We’ve established that gup1-deleted haploids have a reduced tolerance to acetic acid and a reduced ability to maintain viability in stationary phase, but grow just as quickly as wild-type. You are asserting that these facts are consistent with your claims that
No PCD means there is no cell, they are unable to function without it due to the vast amount of tasks PCD have in cells.
it is not underrated function it is the only reason a cell can operate, PCD is involved in health and disease aspects of the cell. It is what makes cells work! It’s no Garbage man it is the CEO……
PCD can not evolve or even change, any type of change to it is lethal to the organism.
The moment you break PCD or change it the organism self destructs
PCD is tampered with the cells go BOOM! Game over sweetie pie!
You really are quite the poster boy for confirmation bias (9:00 - 9:30): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZeWPScnolo And Dunning-Kruger… It’s rather sad. :(DNA_Jock
December 3, 2014
December
12
Dec
3
03
2014
04:12 AM
4
04
12
AM
PDT
Zachriel is so confused- as if Zach's cite offers up information as to how unguided evolution produced PCD. Unguided evolution can't even muster a testable hypothesis for it.Joe
December 3, 2014
December
12
Dec
3
03
2014
03:54 AM
3
03
54
AM
PDT
Andre: Conundrum = a confusing and difficult problem or question They answer the conundrum, and provide evidence to support the answer, in the very article you cite. When they die, they help their sisters. This means it is a selectable evolutionary benefit. We pointed this out to you previously, but it didn't stick for some reason. See Durand, Rashidi & Michod, How an Organism Dies Affects the Fitness of Its Neighbors, American Naturalist 2011.Zachriel
December 3, 2014
December
12
Dec
3
03
2014
03:48 AM
3
03
48
AM
PDT
DNA_Jock
Suicide is an evolutionary conundrum. Single-celled organisms regularly kill themselves in reaction to stresses they might have survived, but it’s not obvious why natural selection permits such volatile behavior.
http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/dying-generously Conundrum = a confusing and difficult problem or question So PCD is an evolutionary conundrum........ And now you can use your last accusation on me..... Doing the Gish.... go right ahead!Andre
December 2, 2014
December
12
Dec
2
02
2014
10:21 PM
10
10
21
PM
PDT
DNA_Jock Death is essential to life! http://thesis.library.caltech.edu/2356/1/Chapter1.pdfAndre
December 2, 2014
December
12
Dec
2
02
2014
10:21 PM
10
10
21
PM
PDT
DNA_Jock
Programmed cell death (PCD) occurs widely in species from every kingdom of life. It has been shown to be an integral aspect of development in multicellular organisms, and it is an essential component of the immune response to infectious agents. An analysis of the phylogenetic origin of PCD now shows that it evolved independently several times, and it is fundamental to basic cellular physiology. Undoubtedly, PCD pervades all life at every scale of analysis. These considerations provide a backdrop for understanding the complexity of intertwined, but independent, cell death programs that operate within the immune system. In particular, the contributions of apoptosis, autophagy, and necrosis in the resolution of an immune response are considered.
http://hedricklab.ucsd.edu/documents/HedrickChenAlves-ImmunolRev.pdf It evolved independently......... Please show us how and make us lose the argument! Please!Andre
December 2, 2014
December
12
Dec
2
02
2014
10:19 PM
10
10
19
PM
PDT
DNA_Jock This one in July 2014
The life cycle of cereal seeds can be divided into two phases, development and germination, separated by a quiescent period. Seed development and germination require the growth and differentiation of new tissues, but also the ordered disappearance of cells, which takes place by a process of programmed cell death (PCD). For this reason, cereal seeds have become excellent model systems for the study of developmental PCD in plants. At early stages of seed development, maternal tissues such as the nucellus, the pericarp, and the nucellar projections undergo a progressive degeneration by PCD, which allows the remobilization of their cellular contents for nourishing new filial tissues such as the embryo and the endosperm. At a later stage, during seed maturation, the endosperm undergoes PCD, but these cells remain intact in the mature grain and their contents will not be remobilized until germination. Thus, the only tissues that remain alive when seed development is completed are the embryo axis, the scutellum and the aleurone layer. In germinating seeds, both the scutellum and the aleurone layer play essential roles in producing the hydrolytic enzymes for the mobilization of the storage compounds of the starchy endosperm, which serve to support early seedling growth. Once this function is completed, scutellum and aleurone cells undergo PCD; their contents being used to support the growth of the germinated embryo. PCD occurs with tightly controlled spatial-temporal patterns allowing coordinated fluxes of nutrients between the different seed tissues. In this review, we will summarize the current knowledge of the tissues undergoing PCD in developing and germinating cereal seeds, focussing on the biochemical features of the process. The effect of hormones and redox regulation on PCD control will be discussed.
http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fpls.2014.00366/fullAndre
December 2, 2014
December
12
Dec
2
02
2014
10:16 PM
10
10
16
PM
PDT
DNA_Jock This paper released just the other day!
•Programmed cell death (PCD) is an integral part of plant life. •Numerous PCD instances occur during regular plant development. •Developmental PCD is tightly linked with cellular differentiation. •Successful vegetative and reproductive development depends on precise PCD control. Programmed cell death (PCD) is a fundamental process of life. During the evolution of multicellular organisms, the actively controlled demise of cells has been recruited to fulfil a multitude of functions in development, differentiation, tissue homeostasis, and immune systems. In this review we discuss some of the multiple cases of PCD that occur as integral parts of plant development in a remarkable variety of cell types, tissues, and organs. Although research in the last decade has discovered a number of PCD regulators, mediators, and executers, we are still only beginning to understand the mechanistic complexity that tightly controls preparation, initiation, and execution of PCD as a process that is indispensable for successful vegetative and reproductive development of plants.
http://www.cell.com/trends/plant-science/abstract/S1360-1385(14)00251-9 Please show us how this is unguided? Please?Andre
December 2, 2014
December
12
Dec
2
02
2014
10:14 PM
10
10
14
PM
PDT
DNA_Jock So these researchers are being liars when they say;
On the other hand, the survival curve (Figure ?(Figure1)1) showed that gup1[increment] mutant cells died considerably sooner than Wt.
Whatever does died considerably sooner mean? considerably = by a notably large amount or to a notably large extent; greatly. sooner = sooner - comparatives of `soon' or `early'; "Come a little sooner, if you can"; "came earlier than I expected" So by a notably large amount they died earlier than expected. You are of course correct I should be allot more cordial, excellent advice, that I shall take to heart, but if pointing out my character flaws is the best antidote you have then I'm in an even better place than I thought. Will I retract my stance on PCD? No I won't because the literature supports me not you! PCD is a fundamental biological process essential for life! Now all you have to do is show how unguided processes built a highly regulated, evolutionary conserved mechanism that is fundamental to biological processes and is essential to life. Good luck!Andre
December 2, 2014
December
12
Dec
2
02
2014
08:39 PM
8
08
39
PM
PDT
This link may help clarify the issue of human origins: Mankind's Forbidden Historysergmendes
December 2, 2014
December
12
Dec
2
02
2014
05:04 PM
5
05
04
PM
PDT
Zachriel:
Actually, the claim is that there is no scientific evidence of X. If you have evidence of X, one place to start is by carefully defining X, and deducing its entailments.
And we are waiting but you have failed to provide any of what you mentioned for unguided/ blind watchmaker evolution. OTOH we have provided the entailments for ID.Joe
December 2, 2014
December
12
Dec
2
02
2014
03:55 PM
3
03
55
PM
PDT
Pachy:
Scientific evidence, reliable tests, productive research avenues, open and honest explanations, definitions, discussions, etc., are needed to support those claims.
Show us how your position does it. We know you can't but it will be fun watching you try.Joe
December 2, 2014
December
12
Dec
2
02
2014
03:53 PM
3
03
53
PM
PDT
Pachyaena 129 I haven't seen anybody make a claim about Wanda the Witch so I think you're exaggerating. As for demanding evidence, I'm open to the various claims from evolutionary science (mainly, that the diversity and function of earth's entire biosphere was developed by mutations and selection), but I see very little support for those claims. A number of scientists are backing away from Darwinian theory -- some accept ID as an alternative view, others don't. Let's not forget that a majority of Christians, Jews and Muslims (among other religions) recognize the evidence of design in nature, and have done so for thousands of years -- so it's not like this is a minor concept. I read comments from promoters of evolution every day and I continue to grow less convinced of those claims. You have the opportunity to make a convincing case while you're here. Personally, I'd suggest that tactic rather than attacking ID.Silver Asiatic
December 2, 2014
December
12
Dec
2
02
2014
11:15 AM
11
11
15
AM
PDT
Silver Asiatic, "intelligent design" (AKA creation) of the universe (including life, etc.) by "the intelligent designer" (AKA the supernatural Abrahamic god) are claims, not evidence. Scientific evidence, reliable tests, productive research avenues, open and honest explanations, definitions, discussions, etc., are needed to support those claims. If I were to claim that the universe (including life, etc.) was/is intelligently designed (AKA created) by the supernatural intelligent designer Wanda The Witch and Her Band of Merry Witchlings using their Magic Spells and Pixie Dust neither you nor legitimate scientists would accept bald assertions, evasive diversions, refusal to answer relevant questions, endless insults, malicious false accusations, sanctimonious sermons, sciency sounding gibberish, comparisons to fishing reels and other human designed-produced things, demands to prove me wrong, drumbeat repetitive dishonesty, refuted methods, irrelevant or bogus probabilities/improbabilities, quote mines, appeals to authority, no scientific research, and no scientific evidence as any or the only support for my claims. You and legitimate scientists would want and expect a helluva lot better support from me than that, and rightfully so. It's right to want and expect a helluva lot better support than that from you IDers for your claims.Pachyaena
December 2, 2014
December
12
Dec
2
02
2014
10:59 AM
10
10
59
AM
PDT
Also Andre,
A significantly reduced lifespan means just that DNA_Jock.
No, it doesn't. As I already explained to you (a week ago and again in post 94 above) , a "significantly reduced chronological lifespan" means that, in stationary phase, the cells lose viability in ~7days rather than ~11. Depending on nitrogen availability and carbon source, yeast in the wild would sporulate, and thus avoid this problem.DNA_Jock
December 2, 2014
December
12
Dec
2
02
2014
10:52 AM
10
10
52
AM
PDT
Wow, that took longer than it should have. Andre:
The cells are not healthy and any type of stress or pressure will kill the organism because PCD is incapable of repairing any of the cells.
Well, certain types of stress, but yes, that's about the size of it. Now would be a good time to retract your claims that:
No PCD means there is no cell, they are unable to function without it due to the vast amount of tasks PCD have in cells.
it is not underrated function it is the only reason a cell can operate, PCD is involved in health and disease aspects of the cell. It is what makes cells work! It’s no Garbage man it is the CEO……
PCD can not evolve or even change, any type of change to it is lethal to the organism.
The moment you break PCD or change it the organism self destructs.
PCD is tampered with the cells go BOOM! Game over sweetie pie!
You might want to ease up a tad on the condescension too.DNA_Jock
December 2, 2014
December
12
Dec
2
02
2014
10:35 AM
10
10
35
AM
PDT
DNA_Jock One last try...... The authors of the paper are cautious, they don't agree with your assessment that the cells grow normally.... this is what they say;
The growth curve (Figure ?(Figure11 insert) showed an apparent similar growth rate for both strains during exponential phase, as well as an almost coincident transition to diauxic and stationary phases. On the other hand, the survival curve (Figure ?(Figure1)1) showed that gup1[increment] mutant cells died considerably sooner than Wt. After day 3 the survival rate of gup1[increment] mutant started to decrease, reaching 50% around day 7, and in day 11 we observed that only a small number of gup1[increment] mutant cells stayed alive. Conversely, Wt strain begins to die around day 8, reaches 50% survival at day 12 and on day 19 the culture was practically dead.
It seems apparent that their growth rate are the same, but here is the truth. The cells are not healthy and any type of stress or pressure will kill the organism because PCD is incapable of repairing any of the cells.
Gup1p, an O-acyltransferase, is required for several cellular processes that are related to apoptosis development, namely, rafts integrity and stability, lipid metabolism including GPI anchor correct remodeling, proper mitochondrial and vacuole function, and actin dynamics
So dysregulated PCD only means one thing death to the organism. And here again I want to to draw your attention that PCD is a fundamental biological process its dysregulation means death. http://www.cell.com/cell/abstract/S0092-8674%2811%2901283-9?cc=y http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10561374 http://www.pnas.org/content/107/20/9035.full.pdf A significantly reduced lifespan means just that DNA_Jock. No PCD and the organisms die from necrosis an irreversible process.Andre
December 2, 2014
December
12
Dec
2
02
2014
09:32 AM
9
09
32
AM
PDT
Silver Asiatic: Ok, you do not accept that there is any evidence of the existence of a designer. Zachriel: No scientific evidence. Silver Asiatic: Do you accept that there is other evidence? Zachriel: We accept the possibility of other evidence ... If you'd like to discuss this further, I invite you to do so, but your brief answers make it seem as if you don't like my questions so I won't pursue it.
The difference is that scientists don’t hide either their ignorance or their results.
Scientists admit their ignorance, sometimes, yes. Biologists don't claim to be experts in astronomy (unless they are credentialed in that field also). I think you should accept that ID research is limited to its claim and not to areas of study that go beyond it.
Actually, the claim is that there is no scientific evidence of X. If you have evidence of X, one place to start is by carefully defining X, and deducing its entailments.
For ID, X is design. I think design has been defined fairly well enough. Dawkins, for example, understands what it is. In fact, I'll have to assume that all ID-opponents know what design is also. Otherwise, how could they claim that there is no evidence for it?Silver Asiatic
December 2, 2014
December
12
Dec
2
02
2014
08:22 AM
8
08
22
AM
PDT
Joe #118
Yes, Jerad, I have a reputation for not answering irrelevant spewage from cowards. Why don’t you lead by example? And if ID the future answers your questions then that proves you are just being childish by asking other people. I have already told you what work and research I would be doing. OTOH you don’t have a clue when it comes to blind watchmaker/ unguided evolution.
I didn't say the podcast answers my questions. I said I found it interesting. I'm also interested in what you think. I like to get as big a picture as is possible. Follow all the data.
Ask the designer(s) and stop being such a child. Who said the designer(s) created all the trilobites?
I can't seem to find a designer to ask. Where do you think the trilobites came from if not from the designer(s)? You said I was a bad investigator but when I ask questions so I can consider as much of the data/information/opinions as possible you accuse me of being a child.Jerad
December 2, 2014
December
12
Dec
2
02
2014
07:56 AM
7
07
56
AM
PDT
Silver Asiatic: Do you accept that there is other evidence? We accept the possibility of other evidence, but ID purports to have scientific validity. Silver Asiatic: It’s a project within science like … evolution. Evolution can refer to the observed phenomenon, or to the theory that explains the phenomenon. Silver Asiatic: You can’t show evolutionary findings on origin of life because evolutionary theory is limited to living organisms. The difference is that scientists don't hide either their ignorance or their results. Scientists are working very hard to close the gap, both by pushing back to the beginnings of life, and by trying to determine the conditions necessary for its origin. This research still is in its infancy, but has already yielded some interesting findings. Silver Asiatic: That’s fine, but the ID argument doesn’t become something else, just as evolution does not become a theory of planetary movement. It’s limited to biology, ID is limited to evidence of design. But theories of planetary motion overlap other fields, including ballistics, while evolution overlaps geology, paleontology, even planetary science. Silver Asiatic: Is the case for evolution weakened because you can’t show abiogenesis? It's certainly an important question, however, the evidence supporting evolution is very strong and the evidence spans everything from rocks to molecules. Silver Asiatic: You affirm that “X does not exist”. Now you want to know the qualities of X. Actually, the claim is that there is no scientific evidence of X. If you have evidence of X, one place to start is by carefully defining X, and deducing its entailments.Zachriel
December 2, 2014
December
12
Dec
2
02
2014
07:51 AM
7
07
51
AM
PDT
Pachyaena: he was asking questions that pertain to the alleged field that allegedly studies ‘the designer’. Joe: Then ask those people. Exactly. ID studies evidence of design.Silver Asiatic
December 2, 2014
December
12
Dec
2
02
2014
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PDT
You propose a hypothesis, then deduce the entailments.
And we are waiting but you never deliver. Why is it that proponents of the leading paradigm refuse to lead by example?Joe
December 2, 2014
December
12
Dec
2
02
2014
07:38 AM
7
07
38
AM
PDT
he was asking questions that pertain to the alleged field that allegedly studies ‘the designer’.
Then ask those people. What is wrong with you?Joe
December 2, 2014
December
12
Dec
2
02
2014
07:37 AM
7
07
37
AM
PDT
Pachyaena 116 If you're affirming that "X does not exist", then does it make sense to then ask "what are the qualities of X"? You need to accept that "X exists" first before you can discuss the qualities of X.Silver Asiatic
December 2, 2014
December
12
Dec
2
02
2014
07:36 AM
7
07
36
AM
PDT
Yes, Jerad, I have a reputation for not answering irrelevant spewage from cowards. Why don't you lead by example? And if ID the future answers your questions then that proves you are just being childish by asking other people. I have already told you what work and research I would be doing. OTOH you don't have a clue when it comes to blind watchmaker/ unguided evolution.
why do you think the designer created all those trilobites if they were just going to eventually go extinct?
Ask the designer(s) and stop being such a child. Who said the designer(s) created all the trilobites?Joe
December 2, 2014
December
12
Dec
2
02
2014
07:36 AM
7
07
36
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 6

Leave a Reply