Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Wolf-Ekkehard Loennig Falsifies Darwinism

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Wolf-Ekkehard Loennig, who studied mutations for 25 years as a research scientist at the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research in Koln, Germany, is now retired but still writes often on the topic of Darwinism and Intelligent Design. He is one of those old-school scientists who believes evidence matters even when it comes to questions of biological origins.

Charles Darwin famously offered the following suggestion as to how his theory could be falsified:
“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Dr. Loennig has repeatedly offered examples which defy a gradualist explanation, for example, listen to this
interview where he discusses carnivorous plants, whose complicated traps were clearly useless until almost perfect. (I have written on this topic myself, here. )

But Darwin offered other suggestions as to how his theory could be falsified, one of which was as follows: “If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.” Loennig has recently written an article which falsifies Darwinism on this criterion also, Plant Galls and Evolution.

The new paper is typical of Loennig’s writings, with abundance of details and references. As you listen to his Podcast on carnivorous plants, or read his new article on Plant Galls, I suggest the following exercise: try to imagine hypothetical species which would falsify Darwin, using his own criteria, in a more spectacular way.

If you want to see more of Loennig’s works, including his writings on the long-neck giraffe, go here .

Comments
Does the entire medical community not consist of intelligent agents? If so, then they could just “specify objects among alternatives and record that specification” on a flash drive and have a cure for cancer. So, why don’t we have a cure for cancer, or other diseases?
So is it your argument that since the medical community doesn’t yet know a cure for cancer, therefore B can be the source of A after all?
Because cancer will only be cured when the requisite knowledge of what transformations of matter will kill cancer cells, without killing the patient, is actually present independent of anyone’s belief, intent or “choice”.
So the formulas put themselves on the paper. You need to take a day off CR.Upright BiPed
September 19, 2017
September
09
Sep
19
19
2017
06:41 PM
6
06
41
PM
PDT
Sure they can. But, per my comment above, “specifying objects among alternatives” isn’t sufficient to have a working specification.
ugh. does it go downhill from here?Upright BiPed
September 19, 2017
September
09
Sep
19
19
2017
06:20 PM
6
06
20
PM
PDT
CR, you are trying the twist-about, hyperskepticism trick again. Absent responsible, rational freedom there is no basis for a discussion.
Neo-Darwinism doesn't need to have discussions or "responsible, rational freedom" to create non-explanatory knowledge.
Your inability to ground such on brains as computational substrate is also noted — something you tried to put into play above to cast doubts on inductive reasoning.
The idea that knowledge needs to be grounded is a specific philosophical view, as I've pointed out several times before. That's justificationism, which is impossible. As such, your demand is unreasonable and irrational.
Moreover, you are unable to explain to us how you confidently get up on a morning and eat your cereal without accepting that the world is a significantly intelligible, ordered system where we may rely on observed patterns and in fact must do so to survive. You are in self-referential absurdity here. KF
Again, suggesting you are confused about how knowledge grows is not the same as suggesting there is no knowledge. Apparently, you're up to your old "trick" trying to conflate these two Ideas. It's as if you're holding knowledge (including moral knowledge) hostage unless we accept your theological and philosophical assumptions. In presenting this false dilemma, you're actually promoting nihilism, etc.critical rationalist
September 19, 2017
September
09
Sep
19
19
2017
05:39 PM
5
05
39
PM
PDT
CR: What aspect of information did I not account for? Please be specific.
UB: Answer: The physical and organizational requirements for information to become embedded in a medium and persist there. Your “answer” is not a property or aspect of information that was supposedly not accounted for. It is a repetition of the original question. We’re not going to make any progress unless we agree on what information *is*, in a physical sense, which I’ve already pointed out before. So, apparently, you object to my answer, but cannot elaborate on why. I would again suggest that you explicitly present your argument as to why this indicates design, which will likely clarify your objection.
Repeatedly insisting that physical law permits symbols to exist is uninteresting…
You’d have a point, if that were merely the case. But, it’s not. Constructor theory is about what is possible, impossible and why. Do you always make a habit of just leaving things out? We want to know not just that specific transformations are possible, but specifically why they are possible, so we can explain when they do happen and we can bring those transformations about ourselves. In constructor theory, this takes the form of principles (laws about laws). For example, is the principle of the conservation of energy “not interesting”? Furthermore, “That’s just what some designer must have wanted” isn’t interesting unless you want to merely justify something. But justification is impossible, and therefore not even interesting in that sense either.
and making a claim that an assumed replicator needn’t replicate with fidelity is not evidence.
Again, is this really your strategy? It’s not just “fidelity” in some vague sense. Current cells replicate with high fidelity. And they do so because they are well adapted for that purpose. I’ve only indicated this repeatedly, and it’s in both the referenced papers. (Just like I’ve repeatedly corrected you on the fact that it’s not my theory, yet you kept representing it as if it were.) Are you saying that is no gradient in which we can classify fidelity? Surely, there would be a higher fidelity of replication because there are errors in current replication. If it were perfect, then there would be no variation to be selected. And the percentage of replication errors do vary based on a number of factors. Furthermore, where is your “evidence’ that there are designers other than human beings? Where are they now? Where is the evidence of their residences, tools, waste products, technology, etc. Nor could we have designed ourselves. So, it seems to me that you are actually arguing not about the probably of designers, which according to ID is so low that they would need a designer themselves, but that design is possible under some conditions.critical rationalist
September 19, 2017
September
09
Sep
19
19
2017
05:28 PM
5
05
28
PM
PDT
Intelligent agents can specify objects from among alternatives, and record those specifications in a material medium.
Sure they can. But, per my comment above, “specifying objects among alternatives” isn’t sufficient to have a working specification. Does the entire medical community not consist of intelligent agents? If so, then they could just “specify objects among alternatives and record that specification” on a flash drive and have a cure for cancer. So, why don’t we have a cure for cancer, or other diseases? Because cancer will only be cured when the requisite knowledge of what transformations of matter will kill cancer cells, without killing the patient, is actually present, independent of anyone’s belief, intent or “choice”. I cannot “choose” for the bits on some flash drive to play a causal role in killing cancer cells. That’s simply magical, irrational, uncritical thinking. I don’t see why this is so difficult to comprehend. Does ID’s designer’s will magically has this result? This assumption is notably absent in the supposedly scientific theory of ID, so what gives?
Neo-Darwinian evolution requires that capacity in order to exist, and therefore cannot be the source of that capacity.
Why would Neo-Darwinism require a capacity to create knowledge that designers do not actually use to create knowledge?
Intelligent agents can also use their foresight to organize these specifications into a system that produces functional effects, which again, Neo-Darwinian evolution cannot do. From previous writing:
I can “specify” and “arrange” things all day long and still not create knowledge by virtual of mere specification, with the exception of the knowledge of which specifications do or do not not solve the problem at hand. For example, if you only possess the plans for a car and boat, you cannot somehow choose a third option, such as building a helicopter. You can choose, intend and specify things all day long, but that in and of itself won’t cause the result of flight. It’s only when the requisite knowledge of what transformations of matter are present that you’ll end up with a a helicopter. At best, you can choose to build a car or a boat. And that would be based on your preferences and your limitations. You might need to travel somewhere, but you cannot get there on foot because you have to cross a body of water and cannot swim far or fast enough. Or you might enjoy being on the water, but cannot say above water for long periods of time due to fatigue and the fact that you would turn into a “prune”, etc.. Of you might like water skiing, but cannot pull yourself with your mind, etc. So, your preferences may result in you “choosing” to employ some knowledge you already possess that will actually result in a boat, but that isn’t the kind of choice your implying. If I follow the instructions to build a boat from raw materials, I’m not designing a boat anymore than organisms “design” copies of themselves when they follow the list of instructions in their genomes. People (Intelligent agents) can conceive of problems and conjecture explanatory theories about how the world works, specifically targeted to solve them. They are universal explainers. Furthermore, they can conceive of tests designed to find errors in those theirs and discard them when found. Neo-Darwinism cannot. However, both people and Neo-Darwinism can create non-explanatory knowledge via variation controlled by some form of criticism. This is the equivalent of useful rules of thumb that are often based on very wrong assumptions about reality, or barely anything at all. Furthermore, explanatory knowledge has reach that non-explanatory knowledge does not. Why does the genome of organisms consist of what are useful rules of thumb with limited reach? What’s odd is that, on one hand, you assume that people are special role in the creation of knowledge. Yet, on the other hand, you assume that we are not universal explainers, in that there is some boundary in which reason and problem solving cannot exceed. Namely, that we cannot know anything about the designer. It’s rather irrational given that this supposed bubble in which intelligent agents can explain things depends on what exists outside that boundary, which mades the inside of that bubble inexplicable as well. At best, on could say that “Zeus rules here as well as there”. In addition, constructor theory represents the ultimate generalization of both the work of John Von Neumann and Alan Turing. Von Neumann introduced the idea of a universal constructor. And the universality of quantum computation, which is the basis for why Artificial General Intelligence is possible, is based on Turing’s universal Turing machines. So, yes, please expand on both of these things. For example, constructor theory includes the development of an algebra for describing constructions of the type that Von Neumann conceived of. And that algebra is used to describe what combinations are possible and impossible tasks, and why.critical rationalist
September 19, 2017
September
09
Sep
19
19
2017
05:28 PM
5
05
28
PM
PDT
EricMH @145 -- that seems to be the case. Same with 'Pope'Jerry Coyne at "whyevolutionistrue". If you post something in disagreement with him don't expect to see your post, unless he chooses to use it in mockery and ridicule.DonJohnsonDD682
September 18, 2017
September
09
Sep
18
18
2017
02:09 PM
2
02
09
PM
PDT
@Don, there might be an inverse relationship between number of insults and ability to answer your questions.EricMH
September 18, 2017
September
09
Sep
18
18
2017
12:04 PM
12
12
04
PM
PDT
Since this thread is still active, another contribution. I can feel a certain empathy towards rvb8 and his activity here. Several years back, and for several years I was, I guess, a troll over at the NCSE blog site beginning as one of NCSEs first commenters. My rational was to counter what I saw as a very influential strangle hold on science education, particularly in the life sciences. I strove to make my contributions civil and addressed many of the articles I found, in particular, over at ENV, the Discovery Institutes web site. The pushback was fierce -- fully loaded with insults, but seldom containing any substantive counter arguments. Aside from the insults, were typical responses such as rvb8 at 14 above: "I don’t have to for several reasons. I can’t answer your questions as well as the 98% or so of evolutionary biologists who can; ask them, there answers will be full." To put this in the context of the back and forth at the NCSE comments, let me copy here some of that exchange: __________________________________________ From me to NCSE: “… tiny quantum fluctuations in the very early universe became the seeds from which galaxies, stars, and ultimately human life emerged” ... Stephen Hawking “In the Beginning God created the heavens and the Earth” ... Genesis 1:1 * * * * Our world view, ultimately comes down to a choice between the two quotes listed above, or a variant of either. So I would ask you to ponder over these statements on ‘origins’ and then conclude which of the two is the more rational. If your choice is the former, I would ask you to consider the following, and provide definitive answers (i.e. provide the mountain of evidence): We don’t know how the laws of nature evolved, we don’t know how the 240+ physical and natural constants evolved, We don’t know how the first cell evolved we don’t know how the DNA code evolved, we don’t know how replication evolved, we don’t know how RNA polymerase evolved, we don’t know how transcription evolved, we don’t know how genes evolved, we don’t know how translation evolved, we don’t know how hemoglobin evolved, we don’t know how the electron transport chain evolved, we don’t know how ATPase evolved, we don’t know how eukaryotes evolved, we don’t know how multicellular organisms evolved, we don’t know how the vision cascade evolved, we don’t know how visual pattern recognition evolved, we don’t know how hearing evolved, we don’t know how audio pattern recognition evolved, we don’t know how the kidney evolved, we don’t know how the liver evolved, we don’t know how the circularity system evolved, we don’t know how mammals evolved, we don’t know how male/female anatomical sexuality evolved, we don’t know how bio sonar evolved, we don’t know how the hummingbird tongue evolved, we don’t know how the whale evolved, we don’t know how photosynthesis evolved, we don’t know how the butterfly evolved, we don’t know how turtles evolved, we don’t know how consciousness evolved, we don’t know how biological information (i.e. DNA) evolved, We don’t know how the various machines within the cell evolved, we don’t know how altruism evolved, we don’t know how bees evolved, we don’t know how all of the body organs, including skin co-evolved to their present form, we don’t know how human intellect evolved (i.e. music, art, literature etc.) … and more I’m sure. So we have a mountain of questions … do we have a mountain of evidence? Now some of the push back: ... here are the responses to posting this same list over at NCSE: Notice the complete and detailed scientific analysis of (at least one) my list. Notice also that the article author, Glenn Branch, has no comment either … they never do, it’s their view that folks like you and I are surfs far below their own exalted status, and not worthy of breathing the same air … reference the current dustup of Pope Jerry Coyne over Dr. William Dembski’s appearance at the University of Chicago. ———————————- CdnMacAthiest – Don, since you’re presently away but generally out of touch, here’s the latest score in this reality match: AYFP: 174 posts, 1 SLofA upvote = 0.57% approval, was 1%. CMA: 866 posts, 1093 SLofA upvotes = 126.2% approval, was 84%. That’s a ratio of 221 to 1 – enough said, eh…. ???? Since you’re used to wallowing in crap, you won’t mind if I fart in your general direction…. }:-b Robert Dekko – Nobody is going to answer you, YearningForAttention, because you aren’t important enough to waste the time typing…. on that note… CdnMacAthiest – Don whined: The insults, ridicule & mocking proliferates here at NCSE, with little actual content. Mac: That is because faithist nutbags like Robert, Bill, Gary & you Don, invite those responses by your ongoing antics, acrobatics & gymnastics in the face of demonstrated reality, as uncovered by the successes of sanity, rationality, inquiry, logic, reason & science. Don said: So I propose we tackle this “Mountain of Evidence” & proceed to mine it for the treasures it supposedly contains. Mac: It is clearly obvious from your ingrained IDiocy that you have no clue how to define or recognise evidence, never mind do a scientific critique of it. Don spins rapidly: So lets begin this mining of the “Mountain of Evidence” beginning with the following questions concerning the precious evidence contained therein: We don’t know how the laws of nature evolved, etc. etc. etc. Mac: When you assert that ‘we don’t know’, you are obviously talking about your little clique of reality-denying, poorly-educated, unqualified, indoctrinated IDiots. In the scientific community, there are “mountains of evidence” for each of the items you so stupidly claim are just vague assumptions. While not every detail is known so far, the basics are quite well understood – even if your gang of daft gits are far too blinded & massively biased to find, study, absorb or accept all the mutually-supporting data. On the other hand, what facts, evidence, processes & explanatory theories can you propose to explain ID? Where is your “extraordinary evidence for your extraordinary claims”? I’ll have to wait forever before you find any reality in the little pile of unrefined dross in your religious sandbox (echoes of the desert where your superstitious mythtakes were confected) Note: Pseudoscience crapology from a few DI, ICR & AIG ‘Fellows’ (well removed from the scientific method & academia by adhering to religious presuppositions) don’t count on this Science Education forum. In fact, because their academic qualifications are undermined & negated by their inherently biased faithism, they are just laymen in this forum, so have no standing – especially since most of their ‘experts’ aren’t qualified in relevant fields, haven’t done real research or produced peer reviewed papers that have not been trashed by actual experts, never mind being accepted in any courts of law…. Your ‘incredulity due to willing ignorance’ isn’t a valid premiss for your assertions, so go away & try harder to conjure up something relevant, interesting or challenging for those of us who see right through your delusional my-god-did-it-by-magic tactics…. Mac. CueBall – I third this. Robert Dekko – I second this. Robert Dekko – As I said, Don, only a fool seeks to hide his God in the gaps between understanding… especially in this modern world. So, you’re a God of the Gaps man? Hm, what a foolish outlook. Cueball – “God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance that’s getting smaller and smaller as time goes on.” – Neil deGrasse Tyson (talking about god of the gaps) Robert Dekko – I just noticed something terribly funny about the creationist camp; One side, we’ll call this side “Gary”, says that nobody understands his model, it’s so complex that our meager, unscientific minds can’t comprehend it. Yet, in the other camp, we’ll call this group “Robert “Miami Vice” Crofut” (affiliated with “Ray-Ken Comfort Banana Ham”), say that models can’t predict anything and one can only observe facts happen. Cueball – Hahaha, that’s so true! ______________________________________ One would think that NCSE and its followers would have taken up my challenge with this list, and singled out maybe just one of the items and blow me out of the water. Didn't happen, and especially notable for its absence was any response from the principles at NCSE. I must say in defense of rvb8 -- he has generally been quite civil in his contrarian remarks, as is true for most of the contributors here. This is good. As I show above, the same can't be said over at NCSE, which claims to be a champion of education.DonJohnsonDD682
September 18, 2017
September
09
Sep
18
18
2017
09:56 AM
9
09
56
AM
PDT
Bob O'H: As to my answer to your #1: After enumerating your musings, you wrote:
Some or all of these may be utterly wrong, of course.
I don't think I misunderstood this statement. As to your response to my response to your #2: You wrote:
If the plant can gall or do nothing, then doing nothing might be a better strategy, or a worse strategy (e.g. if it meant the galler would just eat all of the plant instead).
It could be "better," or it could be "worse." IOW, evolutionary theory can make no predictions. As to your #3: "3. the selection pressures against galling are not large enough for resistance to evolve" First I wrote:
Number 3 requires us to believe that the plants will be more reproductively ‘successful’ if they must also produce the gall products, since “selection pressure” is all about “fitness,” which is itself measured by “reproductive success.”
You responded:
I’m sorry, you’ve utterly missed the point. This is basic population genetics: if the cost of galling is small enough, the dynamics of invasion of a resistance allele will be dominated by drift, so will take longer to become established. This might be enough to slow it down sufficient.
Well, as usual, evolutionary theory tells us it's RM+NS, unless, of course, it's not. Then it's "drift." There are no "predictions" from evolutionary theory; only "postdictions." That's why it's 'unfalsifiable,' and basically, useless. From the OP: “If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.” Your #3 is basically an admission that "galling" involves only the "good" of the insect, not the plant; thus confirming Lonnig's point. You're simply saying here that the "harm" done to the plant is minimal; but, this harm is not zero. And so all the harm is on the side of the plant, and all of the "good" is on the side of the insect. Let's say you've perfectly described the situation. Nevertheless, this does nothing to refute Lonnig's contention that this example is, per Darwin's quote, sufficient to refute his theory. As to your #4: 4. there is an arms race with the galler slightly ahead You said:
I’m glad to see that you agree with me that Lönnig is wrong, but I’m not sure I see how it’s a truism, especially the part about the gallers being slightly ahead. I can’t see how I’m 0 for 4 when we both actually agree on the final point!
Well, obviously the insect is dictating to the plant, and not the other way around. So, yes, the "galler is slightly ahead." A truism. An observation. A starting point. It doesn't represent in any way a refutation of Lonnig's position. We'll make you 0 for 3, OK? :)PaV
September 17, 2017
September
09
Sep
17
17
2017
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT
CR: So then why don’t you start out by explaining how intelligent agents design things, then point out how Neo-Darwinism doesn’t fit that explanation. Please be specific.
Intelligent agents can specify objects from among alternatives, and record those specifications in a material medium. Neo-Darwinian evolution requires that capacity in order to exist, and therefore cannot be the source of that capacity. Intelligent agents can also use their foresight to organize these specifications into a system that produces functional effects, which again, Neo-Darwinian evolution cannot do. From previous writing:
Following a long history of intuitions about the nature of symbols, mathematics, and language, pioneers like John Von Neumann and Alan Turing (as well as their intellectual predecessors) took the conceptual steps necessary to organize a high-capacity representational process in the outside physical world (outside of the mind). By an act of foresight, they imparted meaningful relationships to a conceptual material system, contributing to that system an organizational arrangement that is not derived from its physical properties. They accomplished this by first conceiving the logical principles by which the system could function, and their conceptions would then serve (as Polanyi argued more than forty years ago)(6) to harness the laws of nature in order to achieve a functional effect.
I can be more specific if you like, and tell you what attributes such a system must have, and how those attributes must be organized in order to achieve that function. That information has been in the scientific literature for about half a century.
What aspect of information did I not account for? Please be specific.
Answer: The physical and organizational requirements for information to become embedded in a medium and persist there.
Did you completely read #114? [relevant quote from paper on the constructor theory of life]
A highly accurate replicator would exhibit the appearance of design. That is, it would be well adapted to the purpose of highly accurate replication. Your argument is how can something being well adapted to serve the purpose of highly accurate replication be the explanation for highly accurate replication? However, highly inaccurately replicators would not exhibit the appearance of design. In unchallenging environments, primitive replicators are sufficient to get natural selection started. They are not well adapted for the purpose of replication.
It’s unclear how this is an example of “not having engaged” that criticism. In fact, you’ve completely ignored just that. I don’t buy for a minute that it went over your head. You’re smarter than that. So, apparently, you just don’t find it interesting?
Repeatedly insisting that physical law permits symbols to exist is uninteresting, and making a claim that an assumed replicator needn’t replicate with fidelity is not evidence. How does your system specify one thing from another, and how did it achieve semantic closure?Upright BiPed
September 17, 2017
September
09
Sep
17
17
2017
12:02 PM
12
12
02
PM
PDT
CR, you are trying the twist-about, hyperskepticism trick again. Absent responsible, rational freedom there is no basis for a discussion. Your inability to ground such on brains as computational substrate is also noted -- something you tried to put into play above to cast doubts on inductive reasoning. Moreover, you are unable to explain to us how you confidently get up on a morning and eat your cereal without accepting that the world is a significantly intelligible, ordered system where we may rely on observed patterns and in fact must do so to survive. You are in self-referential absurdity here. KFkairosfocus
September 17, 2017
September
09
Sep
17
17
2017
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT
@KF @UB Again, what you haven't shown is that the growth of knowledge requires "responsible, rational freedom", whatever that means. Furthermore, being information, theories would would need to already exist in some substrate so they can be copied onto the substrate of our brains. Specifically, before anyone could choose from a set of theories based on observations, those theories would have to be transmitted (copied) from our environment into our brains so we could select one. However, that would require the contents of our theories to actually be out there, in the first place, in some material substrate. Equations are not carved on mountains. Nor do observations come with "tags" with theories embedded in them, from which we could copy into our brains. The actual contents of our theories come from creatively mutating, mixing and combining existing theories we already had when we made those observations. And those existing theories didn't come from observations, either, etc. The contents of theories are tested by observations, not derived from them. Despite all of this, apparently, the contents of theories can be derived from observations because "that's just what God must have wanted"? This would be the same in regards to designers. Namely, before a designer could copy the knowledge of what transformations of raw materials will result in a copy of an organism, it would need to be preset somewhere out there in some storage medium - either in the designer's brain or by having possession of it in some storage medium, such as a flash drive, etc. A reversible computation is performed that makes the copy into the genome of an organism. IOW, it seems to me that, based on what is physically necessary for information, the designer would need to possess that same information in some physical form so it would know what transformations the storage medium of the genome should undergo. So, in regards to the knowledge found in the genome of organisms, a designer put it there", just pushes the problem up a level without actually improvising it. How did it come by that knowledge? Etc. Or did it just spontaneous appear in organisms when the designer created them? (Which would be a a more efficient explanation.)critical rationalist
September 17, 2017
September
09
Sep
17
17
2017
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PDT
I’ve asked you several times to clarify key physical aspects of your “physical theory of information”. You refuse to respond to the question.
You seem to have confused refusing to respond with responding in a way you find acceptable due to some undisclosed criticism. And, again, it's not "my" theory. Apparently, reading comprehension isn't one of your strong suits? What gives? Again, what's missing? What aspect of information did I not account for? Please be specific.
Challenging me to define the words that you used in making your claim is not a response, it’s a deception.
I've already provided a definition of information. Yet, you still seem to have some objection that you will not clarify. In fact, the theory itself is a definition of information. And it defines it by indicating what laws of physics are necessary for information to be embedded in a storage medium. So, again, apparently you think this theory is lacking in some sense, which you will not disclose.What is this aspect? Please be specific. Or did I get the question wrong?
If you, as the champion of the theory, cannot take from the theory what is physically required for information to be embedded in a medium, then tell me why I, as a critic, should think that your theory has any real connection to what is already known and documented about those material conditions?
You seem to have confused having a more fundamental theory of information with failing to connect with what is known and documented about those conditions. Furthermore, what is absent from the papers on your site is that symbioses somehow implies ID. In fact, the opposite was clearly stated instead. So, again, it seems that you've assumed there is something else in addition to the documented material conditions which you haven't argued for. IOW, a more fundamental statement is that knowledge is information that plays a casual role in being retained when embedded in a storage medium. The paper on information specifically references symbols and why they are possible.
1 Introduction In some respects, information is a qualitatively different sort of entity from all others in terms of which the physical sciences describe the world. It is not, for instance, a function only of tensor fields on spacetime (as general relativity requires all physical quantities to be), nor is it a quantum-mechanical observable. But in other respects, information does resemble some entities that appear in laws of physics: the theory of computation, and statistical mechanics, seem to refer directly to it without regard to the specific media in which it is instantiated, just as conservation laws do for the electromagnetic four-current or the energy-momentum tensor. We call that the substrate-independence of information. Information can also be moved from one type of medium to another while retaining all its properties qua information. We call this its interoperability property; it is what makes human capabilities such as language and science possible, as well as biological adaptations that use symbolic codes, such as the genetic code.
The subject of interoperability is covered in detail later in the paper. IOW, the paper describes what laws of physics make symbols possible. Do you have specific criticism of this? Is there some aspect of symbols you do not think are accounted for by this more fundamental theory? Are you saying there can not be a more fundamental theory? What is your objection?
You want criticism? Okay … If A requires B for A to exist, then A cannot be the source of B? You haven’t even engaged that criticism, much less answered it.
Did you completely read #114?
[relevant quote from paper on the constructor theory of life] A highly accurate replicator would exhibit the appearance of design. That is, it would be well adapted to the purpose of highly accurate replication. Your argument is how can something being well adapted to serve the purpose of highly accurate replication be the explanation for highly accurate replication? However, highly inaccurately replicators would not exhibit the appearance of design. In unchallenging environments, primitive replicators are sufficient to get natural selection started. They are not well adapted for the purpose of replication.
It's unclear how this is an example of "not having engaged" that criticism. In fact, you've completely ignored just that. I don't buy for a minute that it went over your head. You're smarter than that. So, apparently, you just don't find it interesting?critical rationalist
September 17, 2017
September
09
Sep
17
17
2017
10:21 AM
10
10
21
AM
PDT
CR:
So then why don’t you start out by explaining how intelligent agents design things, then point out how Neo-Darwinism doesn’t fit that explanation.
Been there, done that. See comment 86. And then again I doubt you will understand it.ET
September 17, 2017
September
09
Sep
17
17
2017
09:43 AM
9
09
43
AM
PDT
@ET
And the only way that could happen is via Intelligent Design.
It is? So then why don't you start out by explaining how intelligent agents design things, then point out how Neo-Darwinism doesn't fit that explanation. Please be specific. Oh, that's right. ID will never present an explanation because anything that can be explained is merely something unseen and everyone know's ID's designer is God, who is inexplicable by definition. Nor is mere choice sufficient, as I've argued above. I won't be holding by breath.critical rationalist
September 17, 2017
September
09
Sep
17
17
2017
09:30 AM
9
09
30
AM
PDT
critical rationalist- Yours doesn't have a mechanism of getting beyond populations of prokaryotes and that is given starting populations of prokaryotes. And that means yours cannot explain the existence of plants. That also means the following is pure BS:
Why would such an advanced designer, who has no defined limitations, intentionally choose to design the vast majority of organisms in precisely such as way that would lead us to a false conclusion that evolution was true?
Evolution by means of blind, mindless processes, can only explain genetic disease and deformities. So yes ID is the better explanation for life's diversity.ET
September 17, 2017
September
09
Sep
17
17
2017
09:11 AM
9
09
11
AM
PDT
“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”
The thing is, observations are themselves theory laden. So, it could be that the theory behind those observations could be false. Or it could be the theory that the conditions under which those observations were made would result in accurate results is false as well. So, you have to ask, are the observations mistaken or is the theory it supposedly falsified. For example, during the OPERA experiment in Switzerland, neutrinos were detected in a way that indicated they were traveling faster than the speed of light. Did this immediately falsify Einstein's theory that nothing travels faster than C? No, it did not. This is because we did not have a theory that explained why neutrinos were traveling faster than the speed of light in the OPERA experiment, but not others. IOW, before Einstein's theory was overthrown, a new theory is needed to explain the same phenomena at least as well, in addition to the additional phenomena of the unique OPERA observations, and we didn't have one. Eventually, it was discovered the theory that the experiment was set up in such as way that observations would be accurate was false, rather than the theory that nothing travels faster than the speed of light in real space. The referenced interview didn't indicate any such attempt was made to address this possibility in the case of carnivorous plants. In fact, the guest was talking about a response from one of his teachers, which was likely decades ago. Apparently, nothing has changed since then? (Also, what's up with the "amazing, marvelous, complicated, superlative, etc." descriptions of plants?) I for one can think of alternative users for mechanisms that quickly close on a insect could also be useful during pollination, to prevent pollen from being lost. And it could be that plants started capturing both the pollen and insects themselves. Those that could utilize both the pollen and the insect would have an advantage. Of course, this is a conjectured idea, which should be subject to criticism. At least one study indicates the ability to digest insects in Pitcher plans was repurposed from an earlier use as a response to herbivores eating their leaves. As another example, when the sun was obscured by the clouds, we didn't think this was an observation of the sun not having risen due to our theories of optics, geometry, etc. This was the case before we could even take flight about the clouds. And the same goes for our theories of fossilization, etc., in the case of evolution. We do not expect every transitional fossil to be found. So, it's unclear how the case of carnivorous plants is actually a falsification of Neo-Darwinism. For example, this could be a case where we will discover some new way to vary an organism's genome, such as HGT, which is compatible with Neo-Darwinism. What about ID? Can it better explain the same observations, including this supposed exception in the case of carnivorous plants? It has none. At best, it can only say there is an exception in this case because, "that's just what some designer must have wanted", which explains nothing. Why would such an advanced designer, who has no defined limitations, intentionally choose to design the vast majority of organisms in precisely such as way that would lead us to a false conclusion that evolution was true? What is blindsided by the fact that this would occur?critical rationalist
September 17, 2017
September
09
Sep
17
17
2017
08:50 AM
8
08
50
AM
PDT
critical rationalist:
I’m ducking and dodging?
Yes. Obviously. How does your theory explicitly exclude G-d?Mung
September 16, 2017
September
09
Sep
16
16
2017
07:13 PM
7
07
13
PM
PDT
CR: I referenced an entire paper which presents a physical theory of information, which includes programable constructors. UB: CR, to say that something is “programmable” implies that something has become specified in a medium. From your theory, what are the material conditions that enable something to be specified in a medium? CR: Notice how UB didn’t actually present any criticism of what I wrote.
I’ve asked you several times to clarify key physical aspects of your “physical theory of information”. You refuse to respond to the question. Challenging me to define the words that you used in making your claim is not a response, it’s a deception. If you, as the champion of the theory, cannot take from the theory what is physically required for information to be embedded in a medium, then tell me why I, as a critic, should think that your theory has any real connection to what is already known and documented about those material conditions? What more can I do than ask for the clarification. But after a half dozen or so attempts, is there any reason for me to ask again? You want criticism? Okay … If A requires B for A to exist, then A cannot be the source of B? You haven't even engaged that criticism, much less answered it. Have you abandoned your claim that Darwinian evolution is the source of the genetic translation apparatus?Upright BiPed
September 16, 2017
September
09
Sep
16
16
2017
06:18 PM
6
06
18
PM
PDT
Kairosfocus Your choice of terms "responsible rational freedom" is spot on, because each of those terms refer to items that are irreducible to matter: (1) Responsibility is irreducible, because if parts constitute/determine it, then the parts are 'responsible' and not the whole. (2) Rationality is irreducible, because if blind parts constitute rationality, then there is no rationality. (3) Freedom, by definition, cannot be determined by something other than itself. Freedom is unity.Origenes
September 16, 2017
September
09
Sep
16
16
2017
04:52 PM
4
04
52
PM
PDT
> And why is your theory not defined specifically so as to not exclude God? Five posts later and still no answer.Mung
September 16, 2017
September
09
Sep
16
16
2017
04:47 PM
4
04
47
PM
PDT
Cr, without responsible rational freedom, there is no basis for reasoned discussion, persuasion and thought. In short you are reduced to making meaningless mouth noises. So mock on, you don't even see you are mocking your own self in a spiral of self-referential absurdity, even as you pose on the rhetoric of skepticism and demands that we prove to you. Your fundamental incoherence refutes your case. Game over. KFkairosfocus
September 16, 2017
September
09
Sep
16
16
2017
03:09 PM
3
03
09
PM
PDT
CR: Some designer that “just was” complete with “responsible rational freedom”, already present, doesn’t serve an explanatory purpose. ... You’ve merely pushed the problem up a level without improving it.
It does serve an explanatory purpose. The metaphysical claim here is that consciousness is irreducible and foundational to reality (*). The concept is firmly based in Aquinas' "First Cause". The first cause is indivisible because there are no things that constitute the first cause. The first cause is therefor a unity. There is no "before" the first cause. A context of spacetime can only be explained by the first cause, not the other way around. Nothing determines the first cause, except the first cause, therefore, the first cause is free. Note that, by definition, freedom cannot be determined by something other than itself. (*) Note that we have to start somewhere, no explanation can start from nothing — ex nihilo nihil fit (from nothing comes nothing). Naturalism starts with physical laws, spacetime, matter and energy.Origenes
September 16, 2017
September
09
Sep
16
16
2017
02:24 PM
2
02
24
PM
PDT
This is because one could more efficiently state that human beings “just appeared” complete with “responsible rational freedom”, already present.
And the only way that could happen is via Intelligent Design. And saying something was the product of ID says quite a bit. For one it eliminates classes of causes and for another it tells us how to conduct our investigation.ET
September 16, 2017
September
09
Sep
16
16
2017
02:05 PM
2
02
05
PM
PDT
@KF I'm ducking and dodging?
Before you go further you need to ground responsible rational freedom on the material computational substrate of brain tissue. The correct answer is, you cannot.
Your whole argument is based on the epistemological idea that "responsible rational freedom" is how knowledge grows. When faced with observations we somehow choose the right inference. And without that, there can be no knowledge. First, we cannot apply a principle of induction if one doesn't exist. But, by all means, feel free to formulate one that someone who exhibits "responsible rational freedom" could use in practice. If you did, you'd be famous in philosophical circles and possibility even win a Nobel price! So, what are you waiting for? Second, if it was true, in reality, that choice was the factor, would that not have concrete ramifications in regards to what we know today? Wouldn't that result in our ability to solve problems we face today and in the future, such as having already cured cancer? Why haven't we, if that were actually the case. Again, it seems that either I don't understand what you mean by " responsible rational freedom" or you are not taking your own theory seriously as an explanation for the growth of knowledge. Apparently, "responsible rational freedom" allows us to create knowledge, except when it doesn't.
This means, mindedness is a first premise that transcends the materialistic worldview.
Some designer that "just was" complete with "responsible rational freedom", already present, doesn't serve an explanatory purpose. This is because one could more efficiently state that human beings "just appeared" complete with "responsible rational freedom", already present. You've merely pushed the problem up a level without improving it.
In this context, there is no reason to reject the first plausible that we live in an orderly world in which patterns of order are evident to the insightful mind, however provisionally. This is something you need from the moment you get out of bed of a morning and set out for the showers and breakfast. So, drop the hyperskeptical games, please. KF
Saying you're confused about how knowledge grows is not the same as saying there is no knowledge. Then again, I've only clarified that dozens of times. And I'm the one that needs to drop the hyperskeptical games?critical rationalist
September 16, 2017
September
09
Sep
16
16
2017
01:30 PM
1
01
30
PM
PDT
CR, more ducking, dodging and tangents. Before you go further you need to ground responsible rational freedom on the material computational substrate of brain tissue. The correct answer is, you cannot. This means, mindedness is a first premise that transcends the materialistic worldview. In this context, there is no reason to reject the first plausible that we live in an orderly world in which patterns of order are evident to the insightful mind, however provisionally. This is something you need from the moment you get out of bed of a morning and set out for the showers and breakfast: why do you have faith that what is in your box of cereal has not mysteriously transmuted itself into poison overnight? Or, your body wash? So, drop the hyperskeptical games, please. KFkairosfocus
September 16, 2017
September
09
Sep
16
16
2017
12:59 PM
12
12
59
PM
PDT
@KF
Whether analogue or digital or a mix, material computational substrates are no higher than their programs, functional organisation, and whatever impacts noise may have. They simply cannot be the basis for the rational responsible freedom required to have a discussion much less undertake inductive inferences. KF
More tangents? To make an inductive inference, we would need a principle of induction that provides guidance as to which of those trillions of observations would continue. And, AFAIK, no one has actually managed to do so, in practice. So, apparently we can add making "inductive inferences" to the list of things that "responsible freedom" somehow magically makes possible, yet doesn't. Again, if it did, then why don't we have a cure for cancer yet? Apparently, I don't understand what role "responsible freedom" plays or you don't even take your own theory seriously.critical rationalist
September 16, 2017
September
09
Sep
16
16
2017
12:50 PM
12
12
50
PM
PDT
UB: CR, to say that something is “programmable” implies that something has become specified in a medium. From your theory, what are the material conditions that enable something to be specified in a medium?
Notice how UB didn't actually present any criticism of what I wrote. And it's not "my" theory, either. Repeating the question is not criticism. And we're not taking about "something". We're taking about information. To present the criticism that "aspect X" of information is missing from "my" theory would actually required defining it, which UB has continued to avoid. For example, to say something is programmable implies a specification can be copied in a medium. Surely, that's part of what's necessary for information to be embedded in a storage medium, right? And the same information can be programmed into a classical and quantum constructor. Strangely, UB's "theory" doesn't say anything about that. Does that mean he thinks quantum computers cannot hold information? Is it some completely different kind of information? Apparently, there is a special non-physical version of information, along with separate classical and quantum versions of information? I'm really quite confused, which is why I keep asking UB if he has actually presented a theory of information in the first place. UB, why don't you start out by defining information, then point out what part of "my" theory doesn't include that aspect. Please be specific. Of course, I've already asked that, when I wrote.
Is this is some kind of argument from irreducible complexity? Are you arguing there must be some prior “establisher”? Are you referring to the circular problem of distinguishability in other physical theories of information, like Shannons? I really don’t know what your point is. Why don’t you spell it out for us?
Yet he ignored that too.critical rationalist
September 16, 2017
September
09
Sep
16
16
2017
12:30 PM
12
12
30
PM
PDT
Cr, ducking and dodging. Whether analogue or digital or a mix, material computational substrates are no higher than their programs, functional organisation, and whatever impacts noise may have. They simply cannot be the basis for the rational responsible freedom required to have a discussion much less undertake inductive inferences. KFkairosfocus
September 16, 2017
September
09
Sep
16
16
2017
12:25 PM
12
12
25
PM
PDT
@EugeneS
Too many too complex questions to tackle at once. I suggest you focus on just explaining how the first ever pair instruction-processor appeared on earth.
They are not merely "topics". I'm trying to the claims here seriously, for the purpose of criticism, as if they were true and that all observations should conform to them. That's how we, as Feynman would say, avoid "fooling ourselves".critical rationalist
September 16, 2017
September
09
Sep
16
16
2017
12:04 PM
12
12
04
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5 8

Leave a Reply