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
LoL! @ Jerad! You have absolutely NOTHING- No hypotheses, no theory,no model, no research- NOTHING. You wouldn't even know how to conduct an investigation. So please spare us from your obnoxious blatherings.Joe
December 2, 2014
December
12
Dec
2
02
2014
02:30 AM
2
02
30
AM
PDT
Pachyaena Please enlighten us on which observational science we are in denial about? Please do tell?Andre
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
11:42 PM
11
11
42
PM
PDT
Joe, do you thoroughly understand the alleged intelligent design-creation of life itself, humans and all other species that have ever existed, the formation and geological history of this planet, and the formation and history of everything else in/about the universe, including time, light, gravity, etc., and allegedly immaterial and/or supernatural designer-creator-god(s), information, consciousness, souls, etc.? Do you thoroughly understand how, when, where, why, and by whom or what intelligent design-creation was/is accomplished?Pachyaena
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
11:16 PM
11
11
16
PM
PDT
REC said: "So ID now claims to demonstrate we can infer either a human or an alien with skills in Victorian English and human sentiments (re: humor, love, loyalty, vengeance…) wrote the plays of William Shakespeare? What an accomplishment….. So proud….." Yeah, and pretty soon they'll be able to demonstrate we can infer that either humans or aliens designed the TV show 'The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills'. ID is making huge strides forward.Pachyaena
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
11:03 PM
11
11
03
PM
PDT
Andre said: "I totally get the name calling, belittling, character assassination, after all you have a faith to maintain…. But what I don’t get is the denial of the observational science, It is as if you’ll deny that which you preach for as the only truth measurement because it opposes your faith." You IDers really have something against mirrors, don't you?Pachyaena
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
10:55 PM
10
10
55
PM
PDT
DNA_Jock So please I respectfully request that take your time in reading the papers I've provided and to make yourself familiar with the what is being said before you accuse me. So far you've tried to discredit what I've been saying with little silly arguments about concepts you clearly did not fully comprehend an example is your ignorant rant about how well the cells were growing during stationary phase...... I will remind you that they do not "grow" during this phase, they just attempt to survive. And the death and growth rate match each other equally. http://mmbr.asm.org/content/57/2/383.full.pdfAndre
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
09:29 PM
9
09
29
PM
PDT
DNA_Jock I totally get the name calling, belittling, character assassination, after all you have a faith to maintain.... But what I don't get is the denial of the observational science, It is as if you'll deny that which you preach for as the only truth measurement because it opposes your faith.
gup1 cells have a median survival in stationary phase of about 7.4 days, whereas the wild-type strain has a median survival of about 11.8 days. It seems that you did not actually read the paper. Or, if you read it, you didn’t understand it.
When the cells are in stasis they live longer who is arguing about that? What is stasis?
Eukaryotic cell proliferation is controlled by specific growth factors and the availability of essential nutrients. If either of these signals is lacking, cells may enter into a specialized nondividing resting state, known as stationary phase or G(0). The entry into such resting states is typically accompanied by a dramatic decrease in the overall growth rate and an increased resistance to a variety of environmental stresses. Since most cells spend most of their life in these quiescent states, it is important that we develop a full understanding of the biology of the stationary phase/G(0) cell. This knowledge would provide important insights into the control of two of the most fundamental aspects of eukaryotic cell biology: cell proliferation and long-term cell survival. This review will discuss some recent advances in our understanding of the stationary phase of growth in the budding yeast, Saccharomyces cerevisiae.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12457705 But when we put pressure on the cell by introducing acetic acid to the Gup1 mutant strain it is dead in 180 minutes while the wild strain is still going strong with 60% of the population still alive. You have the link for this and here is another..... http://www.intechopen.com/books/cell-metabolism-cell-homeostasis-and-stress-response/stress-and-cell-death-in-yeast-induced-by-acetic-acid I will say this again, PCD is vital to organisms, when it stops working the organism dies. It is a fundamental biological process no matter how much you try and trivialize this. I have already told you that we buried a very dear friend's child he was just under 3 years old and that his PCD pathways where dysregulated. When an infection took hold it took 4 days for non-infected to death. RIP LK, you are in our thoughts every day little giant!Andre
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
09:00 PM
9
09
00
PM
PDT
So ID now claims to demonstrate we can infer either a human or an alien with skills in Victorian English and human sentiments (re: humor, love, loyalty, vengeance...) wrote the plays of William Shakespeare? What an accomplishment..... So proud.....REC
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
07:45 PM
7
07
45
PM
PDT
From Barry Arrington's OP:
Now assume that you are trying to determine whether a design inference is appropriate with respect to Hamlet.
Hilarious! What is the question scholars have been arguing about? How could the son of a glove maker move from rural Warwickshire and end up as the World-famous playwright. Nobody is asking whether the plays were written by a human being.
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.”
Conclude, maybe. On the other hand, as nobody can give a coherent definition of "CSI" nor give an explanation of what "intelligent design" entails, such statements are not explanations at all.
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.
So parochial! Homo erectus individuals were chipping arrow heads possibly 400 thousand years ago.
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.
Ah but! Many scholars reject that Shakespeare, the glove maker's son from rural Warwickshire did write those plays.
Here’s the question: Is our design inference invalid if Shakespeare turns out to have been an alien?
No. The design inference is irrelevant and pointless. The plays exist and someone wrote them. Most likely a human being, most likely a lad from rural Warwickshire.Alicia Renard
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
04:30 PM
4
04
30
PM
PDT
Andre the scholar:
Lastly necrosis is not an instant evaporation of a cell, it takes a little time….. Hope this helps…..
You do realize that they measured viability via c.f.u., so they are measuring the time to commitment to necrosis, NOT time to cell death. Or do I need to explain what c.f.u. are? 7.4 days is a long time for a yeast cell. Oh dear indeed.DNA_Jock
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
02:57 PM
2
02
57
PM
PDT
Sebestyen: Yes, that’s why I said “an actual building”. The problem is knowing what that means in terms of evidence. For example, the original post proposed a simulacrum of a person. Sebestyen: It doesn’t necessarily has to resemble a human building, but I’m pretty sure if they’d find an actual building on mars they’d be able to identify it as such. If Martians resemble Earthlings, then sure. Otherwise, maybe not. http://www.livescience.com/9762-clever-octopus-builds-mobile-home.htmlZachriel
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
02:51 PM
2
02
51
PM
PDT
Oh Andre, "It is better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than to open it and remove all doubt. " Figure 3 shows the sensitivity of the two strains to acetic acid - which is toxic to yeast. You originally linked to figure 1 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3444424/figure/F1/ which is the figure that shows the "chronological life span". But the insert in Figure 1 shows that the growth rates of the two strains are completely indistinguishable. Also, any chump who has actually read the paper would know that "chronological" does not mean "arranged in order" in this context. As the authors put it:
Aging in yeast can be studied assessing either replicative or chronological lifespan. Replicative lifespan is defined as the number of daughter cells a single yeast mother cell produces before senescence; chronological lifespan is defined by the length of time cells can survive in a non-dividing, quiescence-like state
gup1 cells have a median survival in stationary phase of about 7.4 days, whereas the wild-type strain has a median survival of about 11.8 days. It seems that you did not actually read the paper. Or, if you read it, you didn't understand it. FYI, I am fairly confident that there is no difference between the strains in replicative lifespan. In case your memory is giving you trouble, your claim was "No PCD means there is no cell, they are unable to function without it", yet gup1 cells grow just as well as wild-type.DNA_Jock
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
02:44 PM
2
02
44
PM
PDT
#69
And when will you have more?
Don’t know but we already have more than unguided/ blind watchmaker evolution.
So you don't know.
What research issues are being investigated?
Don’t know but we already have more than unguided/ blind watchmaker evolution.
And this from someone who has an investigative mind? Noted.
When are you going to investigate? What are you going to investigate?
When are you going to stop being so gullible? When are you going to link to this alleged theory of evolution so we can all read what it actually says?
Your non-answers and feigned ignorance are noted. You know Joe, at some point, it would be good for you to show some expertise instead of just continually trying to shout down the oppostition. It would help to explain why, for example, the fossil record appears the way it does.
There isn’t any way knowing the designer would help us with that. Knowing how the design was implemented would help, but knowing the designer would give us nothing but that.
So, even given knowledge of the designer would not add greatly to ID's explanatory ability. Noted.
And no, I don’t listed to “ID the Future”. And I strongly disagree with anyone who says that most mutations are harmful or that evolution cannot proceed via intelligent design.
So you disagree with The Discovery Institute. So do I.
Umm, seeing that unguided evolution can’t even get beyond populations of prokaryotes given starting populations of prokaryotes, it cannot explain the fossil record.
Or, perhaps, you just don't understand the academic research. So, Joe, you don't follow or agree with The Discovery Institute. You don't actually have an investigative attitude regarding ID issues of when or how. You don't seem to have any kind of question at all about your own assumptions or beliefs. But, when it comes down to it, you are reluctant to express those beliefs on this forum for everyone to examine. What do you think the intelligent designer did? When? How? Why not state clearly and unambiguously what you believe?Jerad
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
02:34 PM
2
02
34
PM
PDT
DNA_Jock Lastly necrosis is not an instant evaporation of a cell, it takes a little time..... Hope this helps..... http://www.agscientific.com/cellular-process/necrosis-necroptosis.htmlAndre
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
02:02 PM
2
02
02
PM
PDT
DNA_Jock PCD is a fundamental biological process http://events.embo.org/12-cell-death/ Not to be confused with fundamentalism...... Fundamental = a central or primary rule or principle on which something is based. Fundamentalism = A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views Are you confused again?Andre
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
01:55 PM
1
01
55
PM
PDT
DNA_Jock http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22617017 RESULTS:In the present work we used two known apoptosis inducing conditions, chronological aging and acetic acid, to assess several apoptotic markers in gup1? mutant strain. We found that this mutant presents a significantly reduced chronological lifespan as compared to Wt and it is also highly sensitive to acetic acid treatment. In addition, it presents extremely high levels of ROS. They must be liars for Jesus then.... Do you know what significantly reduced chronological lifespan means? I'll help you chump.... Significant = sufficiently great Reduced = less desirable condition Chronological = arranged in order Lifespan = average time for an organism to survive. You can piece together what it means or do you need help? And they die from Necrosis in no time at all http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3444424/figure/F3/Andre
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
01:22 PM
1
01
22
PM
PDT
Andre, previously:
No PCD means there is no cell, they are unable to function without it
The moment you break PCD or change it the organism self destructs. [emphasis added]
and now:
And then after 12 hours necrosis kick in and the entire gup1 mutated strain dies out.
Say what? The figure that you linked to shows that gup1 cells have a median survival in stationary phase of about 7.4 days, whereas the wild-type strain has a median survival of about 11.8 days. There's no detectable difference between the strains after three days (that's 72 hours, Andre). And there's no grow defect whatsoever in exponential phase. As I suspected all along, you have no clue what you're talking about. "PCD essential to all life" LMAODNA_Jock
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
10:57 AM
10
10
57
AM
PDT
DNA-Jock And then after 12 hours necrosis kick in and the entire gup1 mutated strain dies out. Necrosis kills the entire batch, but the wild strain keeps on living for how much longer? I am not wrong...... PCD is essential to biological systems it fails the organism dies.Andre
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
10:25 AM
10
10
25
AM
PDT
Jerad:
And when will you have more?
Don't know but we already have more than unguided/ blind watchmaker evolution.
What research issues are being investigated?
Don't know but we already have more than unguided/ blind watchmaker evolution.
When are you going to investigate? What are you going to investigate?
When are you going to stop being so gullible? When are you going to link to this alleged theory of evolution so we can all read what it actually says?
It would help to explain why, for example, the fossil record appears the way it does.
There isn't any way knowing the designer would help us with that. Knowing how the design was implemented would help, but knowing the designer would give us nothing but that. And no, I don't listed to "ID the Future". And I strongly disagree with anyone who says that most mutations are harmful or that evolution cannot proceed via intelligent design.
Better explanation of the fossil record.
Umm, seeing that unguided evolution can't even get beyond populations of prokaryotes given starting populations of prokaryotes, it cannot explain the fossil record.Joe
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
09:18 AM
9
09
18
AM
PDT
sock puppet:
You regularly contradict yourself and other IDers, and you can’t keep your claims straight for even 5 minutes.
Yes, we all know that you can spew false accusations with the best of the spewers. Do you really think that means something? As for rude, look in the mirror you hypocrite. And you are a very good manure salesperson.Joe
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
09:06 AM
9
09
06
AM
PDT
Andre @ 64
I answered all your questions patiently. And I told you I’m not responding until you answer mine. You so short on memory?
What, do you mean this question:
"How did unguided processes create a guided process to prevent unguided processes from happening?"
Eerrrr, I answered it (@512) "You mean like an ice-dam?" So there's nothing wrong with my memory. Yours, OTOH, seems rather selective. You did reply:
Seriously? WE have been speaking about it for 3 days 512 responses and you play dumb? KF what do we call this Debating tactic? Me no speaka da english?
Very eloquent. You might want to think about formulating your question better... Regarding PCD, I don't really expect you to admit that you were wrong, but until you do, I will issue reminders of your GSW to the foot every time I see you bring the subject up.
Well Tulha’s Figure 1 has a very useful little inset, which shows the growth curves for the wild-type and the gup1 strains: over the course of 0.5 days in exponential phase, both strains increase ten-fold, and their rates of growth are indistinguishable.
It's fun.DNA_Jock
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
07:54 AM
7
07
54
AM
PDT
You seem to have missed the point. The face on Mars purportedly looked like a stone monument with a human-like face.
Yes, that's why I said "an actual building". A small mountain that looks like a face on a low quality fotograph isn't an actual building.
We would probably only recognize the object as a building if it resembled human buildings. So let’s assume it is something that strongly resembles a human building.
It doesn't necessarily has to resemble a human building, but I'm pretty sure if they'd find an actual building on mars they'd be able to identify it as such.
The very first thing rational humans would think is where are the inhabitants? What are they like?
No doubt about that, but now you're missing the point. What you describe above is what follows the identification of a designed (built) stucture and not what is a precondition to identify that structure as designed.
As for whether it was designed, again, it depends on its resemblance to known human artifacts. If cosmonauts discovered a Mickey Ds on Mars, then yeah, they would think someone built it.
As I said above, it doesn't have to resemble anything human-like. I'm more than certain the NASA scientists are capable to distinguish a built structure from a natural one. SebestyenSebestyen
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PDT
Sebestyen: Let’s assume an actual building and not something like the “face on mars”. You seem to have missed the point. The face on Mars purportedly looked like a stone monument with a human-like face. We would probably only recognize the object as a building if it resembled human buildings. So let's assume it is something that strongly resembles a human building. Sebestyen: do you really think it is of any importance who the designer is or what its motivations are in order to decide if something was designed or came into existence by physical/chemical processes? The very first thing rational humans would think is where are the inhabitants? What are they like? As for whether it was designed, again, it depends on its resemblance to known human artifacts. If cosmonauts discovered a Mickey Ds on Mars, then yeah, they would think someone built it. http://www.davidreneke.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Maccas.jpg The very first thing rational humans would think is where are the inhabitants? What are they like? How much for a Big Mac?Zachriel
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
06:53 AM
6
06
53
AM
PDT
DNA_Jock I answered all your questions patiently. And I told you I'm not responding until you answer mine. You so short on memory?Andre
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
06:48 AM
6
06
48
AM
PDT
Pachyaena 61 Who do you think is the best salesman for ID?Silver Asiatic
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
06:46 AM
6
06
46
AM
PDT
Not necessarily. Only specifics could tell us whether is was really a building or something else. The more it resembled a human structure, the more likely we are to conclude design, but also the more likely we are to conclude human-like design.
Let's assume an actual building and not something like the "face on mars". Regardless, do you really think it is of any importance who the designer is or what its motivations are in order to decide if something was designed or came into existence by physical/chemical processes? SebestyenSebestyen
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
06:43 AM
6
06
43
AM
PDT
Joe, you are the worst salesman for ID. You regularly contradict yourself and other IDers, and you can't keep your claims straight for even 5 minutes. You are crude, ignorant, and belligerent just for the sake of being crude, ignorant, and belligerent. You remind me of an irritating dog that barks and growls for no good reason. Get some anger management and a life.Pachyaena
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
06:26 AM
6
06
26
AM
PDT
Barry Arrington: you seem to be saying that a design inference is invalid unless someone actually observes the designer designing Evidence can be indirect. We're saying a design inference is inherently weak if you refuse to consider the causal connection to the designer. In your example, you have evidence of a human-like entity which is subject to investigation. Sebestyen: And I would argue that if “Curiosity” would find a small building on Mars, nobody of those who oppose ID would doubt that it was “intelligently designed” regardless if we know anything about the designer or its motives. It would just be obvious to anyone with a sane mind. Not necessarily. Only specifics could tell us whether is was really a building or something else. The more it resembled a human structure, the more likely we are to conclude design, but also the more likely we are to conclude human-like design. Sebestyen: It would certainly spark a lot of discussion about the nature of the designer, ... Not just discussion, but hypotheses and research directed towards confirming or falsifying those hypotheses. http://science.nasa.gov/media/medialibrary/2001/08/28/ast24may_1_resources/pio_med.gifZachriel
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
06:17 AM
6
06
17
AM
PDT
#57
The preliminary conclusion is that the unverse and living organisms are intelligently designed.
And when will you have more? What research issues are being investigated? When are you going to investigate? What are you going to investigate?
It helps explain why we see the various ‘records’ that we have:
How would knowing who the designer was do that?
I thought I already answered that. Sigh. It would help to explain why, for example, the fossil record appears the way it does.
Not based on what I hear from the Discovery Institute. Casely Luskin is quite adamant about that. He says most mutations destroy information and are detrimental to function.
Reference please.
Listen to the recent edition of ID the Future released on the 20th of November. This is actually a reissue of a part of a two (or three) part interview that Casey did a year or two ago. I listen to ID the Future all the time, don't you?
And yet they have no idea regarding anything evolution. Heck they don’t even know what makes an organism what it is. Unguided/ blind watchmaker evolution is totally useless and no one is doing any unguided/ blind watchmaker research.
So, what's your better explanation then? Better explanation of the fossil record. Of the bio-geographic distribution of species. Of shared morphologies. For example: what was the point of all those trilobites? They're all extinct now so, why were they necessary? Why do you think the designer needed to bring them into existence if they were just going to die off? That sounds like a good question to investigate.Jerad
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
06:15 AM
6
06
15
AM
PDT
Andre @ 31
That is rich coming from you, double standards much Keith? Lets have an open, honest and duscussion about PCD……
Well, Andre, I've been trying to have a discussion with you about PCD, but you keep running away. see the following threads: hekS-suggests... (288 - 554) darwinian-debating-device-18... (@ 65 - 80) heks-continues-... (10 - 160)
Well Tulha’s Figure 1 has a very useful little inset, which shows the growth curves for the wild-type and the gup1 strains: over the course of 0.5 days in exponential phase, both strains increase ten-fold, and their rates of growth are indistinguishable.
All the while accusing me of "Lies, obtrusiveness, denial" and dishonesty, Not very "honorable".DNA_Jock
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
06:00 AM
6
06
00
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5 6

Leave a Reply