He asks, Is truth enough?: A look at the unfulfilled promise of Christian apologetics
A significant aspect of my work on intelligent design can be understood as falling under Christian apologetics, arguing that the science underlying design refutes atheism and agnosticism, and thus creates room for Christian theism. Moreover, as a professor at three seminaries, I often taught courses in apologetics, some even having that word “apologetics” in the course title. The non-apologetics courses that I taught were on the philosophy of religion, the relation between science and faith, rhetoric, logic, and critical thinking, all of which were also conducive to apologetics.
With this background, you might expect me to be an avid supporter of Christian apologetics, and so I am. But I give this talk as one who is also disappointed with the impact that apologetics has had to date and think that the discipline of apologetics needs to be expanded and upgraded if it is to fulfill its promise, which is to reclaim for Christ the life of the mind (compare 2 Corinthians 10:5).
I say Christian apologetics needs to be expanded and upgraded rather than reconceptualized or reimagined. What Christian apologists have accomplished in this and the last generation has been admirable and even crucially important. Except for a John Warwick Montgomery challenging the god-is-dead theology of the 1960s, except of a Norman Geisler articulating and defending biblical inerrancy, and except for subsequent vigorous challenges by Christian apologists against the nihilism, relativism, scientism, skepticism, materialism, and the other isms ravaging the intellectual world, where would we be? Fideism, with its intellectual bankruptcy, would rule the day.
William Dembski, “What makes arguments for God convincing — or not?” at Mind Matters News (November 28, 2021)
Dembski: Christian apologetics has, in my view, mainly been in the business of playing defense when it needs to be playing offense.
Note: This is a serialized reprint from Dembski’s site. You can read the whole essay at once there.
You may also wish to read: How informational realism subverts materialism Within informational realism, what defines things is their capacity for communicating or exchanging information with other things. In substituting information for perception, informational realism is able to preserve a common-sense realism that idealism has always struggled to preserve.
Excellent lecture. Toward the end he uses the model of business, where marketers know how to link knowledge and experience and emotion to create an enthusiastic demand.
Lately I’ve been noticing that the completely abstract and “spiritual” world of bitcoin and DAOs and NFTs has managed to infiltrate nearly all truth-tellers. Every influencer who grasps solid reality on all the other hot topics is also selling the irrational and unreal bitcoins. I find this frustrating, but it’s the way things are.
If Christians could infiltrate the crypto world, they’d have an inside handle on this mysterious influencer of the best influencers. DAO seems to have picked up some New Testament organization styles, and NFTs are like orthodox Ikons. Reconsecrate this desecrated territory.
Christian apologists need to start emphasizing the truth that atheism is bankrupt along every axis of importance. It is morally bankrupt, philosophically bankrupt, spiritually bankrupt, socially bankrupt, psychologically bankrupt, and bankrupt in ways I haven’t listed here.
I would like to applaud Dr Dembski on his honesty and clarity.
JVL, aspect. Key word. The design inference on tested reliable observational evidence is a matter of scientific and to some extent statistical investigation. Such stands on its own legs and for example the presence of large quantities of alphanumeric algorithmic code in D/RNA speaks to language, goal directed stepwise process and more well beyond plausible reach of blind chance and mechanical necessity. This is decisive, there is — on trillions of observed cases — just one plausible source for such, intelligently directed configuration. Design. For years I have seen continual attempts to evade and distract attention from this central point rather than to face its force squarely and such rhetoric is part of why I have declared intellectual independence: my conclusion will not be hobbled by distractors and evasions. KF
Would someone who continues to prop up darwinism be seen as an apologist too? I mean, it isn’t like we can see macroevolution occur…
.
Let us see if you can do it.
You were given a design inference on this website that is totally empirical and historical in nature, relying on no religious commitments whatsoever. The inference was based on the rise of quiescent genetic memory from dynamics, as well as the historical prediction of such systems as being fundamental, and also the sole demonstrable cause of such physical systems. You were unable to refute either the science or the history involved in the inference presented to you, and indeed, you generally had to concede the validity of those observations and their history in science. Despite this, your chosen rebuttal against the science and history was to dismiss it, and instead rely on the unsupported position (non-probative opinion/assumption) of individuals — without providing any empirical support for the (unguided) rise of quiescent memory from dynamics. (You attempted this maneuver with John Von Neumann, but could not find (did not provide) any supporting research; you then tried with HH Pattee and provided a non-specific one-liner that was unrelated to the research presented).
True or false?
If you choose to respond to this comment, here is what will happen: 1) you will not be able to show any religious commitments in the formation of the inference. 2) you will not be able to demonstrate falsity in the facts or history presented, 3) you will not be able to acknowledge that the design inference is valid.
Upright BiPed: Despite this, your chosen rebuttal against the science and history was to dismiss it, and instead rely on the unsupported position (non-probative opinion/assumption) of individuals — without providing any empirical support for the (unguided) rise of quiescent memory from dynamics.
It’s not my fault that one of your chosen sources does not support the conclusion you draw from his work. In fact he’s criticised Intelligent Design (which I pointed out to you) and written papers like this:
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-007-5161-3_14
And even if I couldn’t find evidence that Dr Pattee does not agree with Intelligent Design (but I did) you have zero evidence that he does. In fact, you have little to no evidence that anyone working in semiotics agrees with the design inference. If you chose to suppose the work of Dr Pattee and others like him support your view that’s just down to you and not to them.
you will not be able to show any religious commitments in the formation of the inference.
I wasn’t trying to in this case. Dr Dembski clearly feels differently.
JVL @3
What exactly is he being clear and honest about? Perhaps you mistakenly think that Dembski is saying that ID is Christian apologetics and not science. If so, read again.
JVL:
And it’s not our fault that neither you, nor anyone else, can demonstrate that nature did it! You don’t even know how to test the claim that nature did! And THAT is very telling.
Origenes: What exactly is he being clear and honest about? Perhaps you mistakenly think that Dembski is saying that ID is Christian apologetics and not science. If so, read again.
No, I didn’t think that.
ET: And it’s not our fault that neither you, nor anyone else, can demonstrate that nature did it! You don’t even know how to test the claim that nature did! And THAT is very telling.
Not the topic I was discussing with Upright BiPed.
.
JVL, you appear to be suffering from a rather nasty strain of intellectual paralysis. You want so much to dismember the design inference with science and reason, but you simply have nothing to work with. On the evidentiary front, what has to occur (in order to support your position) isn’t left vague, but is instead made perfectly clear by the science. And on the reasoning front, it is your very own logic that you forced to argue against, hence the paralysis.
So, unable to respond with science and reason, you end up posting ridiculous comments as you did in #7. You keep trying to hide behind the personal worldview of a researcher instead of the researcher’s recorded measurements. Science is not a beauty pageant, JVL (HH Pattee would be the first person to tell you that). In fact, I do not need to rebut your comments in #7; HH Pattee does that himself. He was completely upfront and explicit throughout his entire publishing career — he tells you over and over again that he has no solution to the problem of origins; he offers no conclusions. He tells you time and again that as a physicist he can only document the problem. As a careful observer, he did not (i.e. refused to) litter his papers with unsupported speculations of any kind. He states clearly in his text that he avoids subject matter that he deems as undecidable. And yet, here you are, once again wanting to appeal to exactly those conclusions and speculations that simply do not exist.
For crying out loud JVL, you are like the defense attorney who keeps calling the forensic technician back to the stand in order to drill him on “why” he thinks your client would want the victim dead. He keeps telling you that he is a lab technician and has no idea what motivates your client, but can only testify that when your client was arrested at the scene, he had fresh gunpowder residue on his hands, and that the fatal bullet was fired through the revolver he had in his possession at the time of the arrest. Yet, over and over, you keep calling him back to the stand. The wide-eyed judge, the jury, the prosecution, your own client, and the local newspaper are all wondering what the hell is wrong with you.
But we already know what is wrong with you, right? The design inference is not based on the personal worldview of the researchers involved, its based solely on the scientific measurements taken by those researchers and placed in the literature. That’s the problem you for JVL. You can go nowhere in the scientific record and refute the design inference with science and reason. As it stands, you are also fully aware that you can’t actually refute the design inference by ignoring measurement and appealing to the worldviews of researchers instead — but you have no choice. You have nothing else to carry out the deception.
So that leaves us exactly where I said we would be: You are unable to to show any religious commitments in the formulation of the design inference. You are unable to show any errors of fact or history in the design inference, and yet you are intellectually unable to acknowledge that the design inference is valid.
We are three for three.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
What is that tactic called, where someone posts a snippet from a paper that has no impact on the conversation (except in your case, it completely supports the design inference) but they do it in order to to create the appearance of having provided something of substance?
Upright BiPed: You want so much to dismember the design inference with science and reason, but you simply have nothing to work with. On the evidentiary front, what has to occur (in order to support your position) isn’t left vague, but is instead made perfectly clear by the science. And on the reasoning front, it is your very own logic that you forced to argue against, hence the paralysis.
I’m sorry that I have pointed out that one of the researchers whose work you cite in support of your views has not stated his agreement with you. Nor has anyone else in the semiotic community that I have found.
You keep trying to hide behind the personal worldview of a researcher instead of the researcher’s recorded measurements.
I trust the researchers and his interpretation of his work. I think Dr Pattee understands his work and the ramifications of his work better than me.
And I don’t think Dr Pattee has been pretty clear that he is NOT in support of intelligent design. And your cannot find any statement by him that is in support of your views.
But we already know what is wrong with you, right? The design inference is not based on the personal worldview of the researchers involved, its based solely on the scientific measurements taken by those researchers and placed in the literature.
But, again, the semiotic researchers whose work you cite do not seem to be in agreement with your conclusions. Why is that? They should understand the implications and ramifications of their work. I trust them. You choose an interpretation that is NOT supported by the professionals in the field. That is true.
As it stands, you are also fully aware that you can’t actually refute the design inference by ignoring measurement and appealing to the worldviews of researchers instead — but you have no choice. You have nothing else to carry out the deception.
How is accurately representing the views of the pertinent researchers deception? Please explain that.
What is that tactic called, where someone posts a snippet from a paper that has no impact on the conversation (except in your case, it completely supports the design inference) but they do it in order to to create the appearance of having provided something of substance?
Please find the clear, public statement of a semiotic researcher which supports the design inference.
Your personal interpretation is just that: a personal interpretation. You should just admit that.
Can you be specific about what is worthy of applause? Did he say something unexpected?
Davidl1: Can you be specific about what is worthy of applause? Did he say something unexpected?
He clearly stated what his investment in ID means to him. That is a good thing. Surely.
.
JVL,
No need to be sorry JVL, the design inference is based on the science recorded by the researchers, not on their personal worldview. You see how science works? Of course you do, but you must ignore it and double-down in order to get some lipstick on the pig. For reasons that could not possibly be more obvious, that is the only thing that matters to you.
No you don’t. Howard Pattee offers no conclusions about the origin of the system in his research. Do you not understand this? Of course you do, but again, you are forced to ignore it. And this whole “trust the researcher” canard is a deception in and of itself. Here is a guy who writes specifically about the critical requirement of removing the researcher from the measurement, and yet, in one breath you want to shove him back into the measurement against his will, and then in the next breath you want to boil him down to a “trust me” routine – as if Howard Hunt Pattee would be caught dead doing science that way. What a cluster you are. He did not write for 5 decades on this subject without achieving great clarity on the subject matter, JVL. But you are not using this “trust” thing as a comment on the clarity of the issues (or even your understanding of the texts); you are using it as a nothing but a pretense (a defense) from having to acknowledge what the man has actually wrote. You don’t like (and can’t deal with) what he has written, and so you want to pretend it is too esoteric for your meager interest to understand, and rely instead on a conclusion that he does not even pretend to offer. Both ends of this tactic are an insult to Pattee. But that doesn’t matter to you. The ends justify the means, do they not?
I can tell you from personal experience, in none of the exchanges I ever had with HH Pattee over the past decade did he ever present himself as the figure you suggest. He would never be comfortable with someone using his personal worldview as a means to avoid what he actually wrote in his research, and he sure as hell wouldn’t like a reductionist ideologue like you using “trust the scientist” as a tool. He is just exactly the opposite of that. Completely the opposite.
So we are once again exactly where I said we would be. You have absolutely no legitimate rebuttal to the science and history of the design inference. However, since you think Howard Pattee offers you a safe way out, we can surely go there. I’m game.
Howard Pattee thinks that John Von Neumann was completely correct about his “threshold of complication” (i.e. complexity) being required for autonomous description-based self-replication. Von Neumann wrote that it required the faculties of (a) construction, (b) copying, and (c) control. He also wrote that new information (d) could be added to an already-functioning symbolic description as along as the system preserved the functions of a, b, and c. In other words, above this threshold open-ended autonomous self-replication was made physically possible, but below that threshold the system could not function. For both Pattee and Von Neumann, this requirement of complexity is tied directly to the fundamental requirement of a “epistemic cut” between a description and that which is being described.
Howard Pattee writes that a single symbol is both a gratuitous and meaningless concept: “symbols do not exist in isolation, but only in coordinated groups” … “if symbols are to be rich enough for unlimited evolution, the symbols must belong to a complete coherent symbol system – which I call a language”.
Now, tell us again JVL, how you think the gene system came into being? Is there a threshold of complexity before the system will function?
Upright BiPed:No need to be sorry JVL, the design inference is based on the science recorded by the researchers, not on their personal worldview.
It’s fine with me if you want to throw out the clear academic history of Dr Pattee which I have documented.
Howard Pattee offers no conclusions about the origin of the system in his research. Do you not understand this?
But he did not give support to intelligent design. Did he?
I can tell you from personal experience, in none of the exchanges I ever had with HH Pattee over the past decade did he ever present himself as the figure you suggest. He would never be comfortable with someone using his personal worldview as a means to avoid what he actually wrote in his research, and he sure as hell wouldn’t like a reductionist ideologue like you using “trust the scientist” as a tool. He is just exactly the opposite of that. Completely the opposite.
So, you agree that he has not granted support for your interpretation of his work. That means your interpretation is just down to you. Correct?
Now, tell us again JVL, how you think the gene system came into being? Is there a threshold of complexity before the system will function?
I cannot answer that question. But I know that Dr Pattee has not endorsed the Intelligent Design paradigm. You can argue ’til you’re blue in the face that that is the correct interpretation of his work but he, himself, has not supported that interpretation. And that is true.
If you want to keep beating me over that then that is strictly your interpretation of his work. There is no evidence that he agrees with you.
You keep thinking I’m using Dr Pattee as a way out. I’m not. I’m merely pointing out what he has, publicly, said and supported. You are the one who keeps wanting to try and interpret his work in a way that supports your views. I’m just looking at what he’s actually said not what you think he’s said.
JVL @
Is there a reason for you to trust this particular researcher? Or do you trust researchers this way as a general rule?
Origenes: Is there a reason for you to trust this particular researcher? Or do you trust researchers this way as a general rule?
This is a researcher who Upright BiPed gave as someone whose work supported his views. If you want to call his work into question it’s okay by me.
I always find it odd that certain atheists claim that the Christian metaphysics of some ID workers somehow discredits their scientific results, while denying that their own metaphysical holdings obviously influence their own scientific beliefs. If belief in Christianity somehow makes ID unscientific, then surely atheist claims must render Darwinism unscientific! Not that either statement is true, but some atheists insist that the former is true and the latter is not. Strange mix of selective and misguided logic.
Fastidious:
If, by chance, you are referring to me then I think you’ll find that did not disparage anyone based on their faith unless their faith affects their scientific approach.
It seems clear that Dr Dembski has stated that his work on ID is commensurate with his faith. Which is just fine. As long as everyone accepts his work as a matter of faith.
.
This comment makes no sense.
Scientific inferences do not require the acceptance of any given person in order to be valid (hello?), they require supporting evidence and logical continuity. The design inference is no different than any other scientific inference in this regard. The supporting evidence and logic that forms the design inference are immaculate, as you know — they are the thing you are running from.
Wrong. Pattee’s work, in his own words, is to describe the fundamental physical requirements of the genetic symbol system. So which interpretation of this evidence are you talking about?
Is it the interpretation that the gene is a genuine symbol system? Nope, we both have the same interpretation of that evidence.
Is it that a language is required for open-ended self-replication? Nope, again, we have the same interpretation.
Is it that a symbol is established by a non-holonomic constraint? Nope, same interpretation.
Is it that dynamic laws cannot explain symbols or the measurement function? Nope. Same.
So if it is not these things (or dozens of others) JVL, then you have a problem, because these things are the observations in Pattee’s research that have an impact on the design inference. They are yet another confirmation of the genuine encoded symbol system enabling life on earth.
This then leaves us with the logic and reasoning of the design inference, but that cannot be a problem for you because the design inference uses the exact same logic that you are documented on these pages supporting – the presence of encoded symbolic language is a universal correlate of intelligence.
Your charade is in tatters, JVL. The only thing you can do is to double down and remain in denial.
Its right up your alley.
Richard Dawkins books:
River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life
A Devil’s Chaplain: Reflections on Hope, Lies, Science, and Love
The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design
Outgrowing God: A Beginner’s Guide
The God Delusion
Daniel Dennett books:
Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon
Darwin’s Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meaning of Life
Caught in the Pulpit: Leaving Belief Behind
Michael Ruse books:
Darwinism as Religion: What Literature Tells Us about Evolution
Atheism: What Everyone Needs to Know
PZ Myers book:
The Happy Atheist
Which is just fine. As long as everyone accepts their work as a matter of faith…
.
JVL’s logic is the same as the design inference. he just applies an ad hoc double-standard to protect his/her worldview from the science and history:
You are all so misguided (dumb). The way forward is undoubtedly to first provide a constitutional framework of freedom, with the creationist conceptual scheme.
To establish the general concept of a personal opinion, so that then people can choose a personal opinion to be a muslim, or to be a christian.
It is just so, that the creationist conceptual scheme, provides the validation for the concept of opinion (like opinion on beauty), and the concept of fact.
1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion
2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact
In the ccs (creationist conceptual scheme), choice is the mechanism of creation. It is how a creation originates.
To “choose”, means to make one of alternative futures the present. Or it can be defined as making a possible future the present, or not the present.
So you see choosing is anticipatory in regards to a future of possiblities. Choosing is spontaneous. There exists no sub-mechanisms to choosing, choosing is the fundamental mechanism at the origin.
By choice anything in the universe, any material thing, comes to be. All the planets, and stars, organisms, every single last material thing.
Words, texts, fantasies, objects in the mind, are just as well creations. They just as well came to be by choice.
Because they are creations, fantasies and texts are classified as “material” in creationism. Which word only denotes the substance of a creation.
Usually our idea of material is centered on the physical, but in newsmedia they also talk about information for stories as being material. So it is not that unusal a wordchoice, to denote texts as material.
Efficiency, and convenience requires that there is 1 single word to denote the substance of what any creation consists of, and culturally the only appropiate word for that is the word “material”. One might also call it “creationsubstance”, but I prefer the word “material”.
The substance of the creator is called “spiritual”. Again, one may just as well call it, “creatorsubstance”, but I prefer the word spiritual.
What matters more than the names of these principles, is the rules that apply to them, the logic.
For material the rules are, that it came to be by choice, and that it can only be identified with a fact.
A fact is obtained by evidence of a creation, forcing to produce a 1 to 1 corresponding model of it, in the mind.
So basically what you are doing in stating a fact is to copy a representation of a creation, to your mind.
To say, there is a camel out back, the statement presents a 1 to 1 corresponding modelin the mind, of the camel that is supposedly out back.
If the camel is not out back, then the statement of fact is inaccurate.
Objects in the mind are also creations, so one can also state as fact, that there is a picture of a camel in fantasy.
For the spiritual part of reality, the rules are that it makes choices, and that it can only be identified with a chosen opinion.
Emotions, such as love and hate, personal characteristics such cowardice and courage, the spirit, God, the soul, these terms are all in reference to the agency of a choice.
So it means, a choice is made, and by that choice, something material is created. Then we can, don’t have to, express an opinion on what, or who, it was, that made that choice turn out the way it did. For example we can choose the opinion, that love made that choice turn out the way it did.
There would be zero objective evidence for this “love”. One just feels what it was that made the choice turn out the way it did, and then expresses that feeling, choosing some subjective word to express that feeling, such as the word “love”.
The concepts of opinion and fact are much the basic tools for reasoning.
It was no coincedence that the first scientists were mainly creationists. Because creationism provides for great reasoning, separating matters of opinion, from matters of fact. Also, creationism underlies the logic used in common discourse, so that is why creationism is default.
Modern science is much focused on the logic of things being forced, cause and effect. Which is because we want technology to act in a forced way, to do what we choose it to do.
But also modern science is focused on cause and effect, because people have lost the understanding of the entire subjective part of reality, and making choices. People have become fools who really don’t know the first thing about how the universe works, creator and creation.
Noone can in right judgement be considered a knowledgeable person, if they don’t understand such basic things like making a choice, the subjective part of reality, the spiritual domain, and the objective part of reality, the material domain.
This knowledge of creationism is basically inherent in the common discourse we all use, when we talk of making choices, stating facts, and expressing personal opinions.
Upright BiPed: Your charade is in tatters, JVL. The only thing you can do is to double down and remain in denial.
What I’ve said is true: Dr Pattee and others in the semiotics community have NOT publicly agreed with you that their work supports the design inference. And, I think, they have, in fact, disagreed with your interpretation.
You can go on and on and on about your interpretation of their work but they, the researchers, have not said they support your interpretation. Maybe they do privately, but they have not said so. And you cannot show otherwise.
Mohammadnursyamsu: This knowledge of creationism is basically inherent in the common discourse we all use, when we talk of making choices, stating facts, and expressing personal opinions.
Your whole post is so odd and disjointed that I’m not even going to attempt to reply to it. It’s pretty clear you’re not even trying to deal with science or even rationality.
JVL@
Not an answer to my question. Please answer my question.
.
This is protectionists ploy.
The validity of a scientific inference is based on sound evidentiary support and consistent logic. It is not made valid by who does and does not accept it.
That is not how science (or logic) is conducted.
You cannot refute the physical evidence, and you cannot refute the logic … so with the personal burden of being unable to acknowledge the science and history as it actually is, you are now forced to take an irrational position – that science is not based on evidence, and logic not based on consistency.
Apparently for you, the ends justify the means.
Does that mean that you would expect an ID proponent to hide his “investment in ID”?
I’m asking because I’ve seen too many cases of people claiming that ID is religion disguised as science, and that ID arguments should be dismissed on that basis.
Davidl1: Does that mean that you would expect an ID proponent to hide his “investment in ID”?
I’ve been told that some do in fear of losing their jobs.
Upright BiPed: The validity of a scientific inference is based on sound evidentiary support and consistent logic. It is not made valid by who does and does not accept it.
Well, for some reason Dr Pattee and his ilk have not made the same inference as you. There must be a reason they have not done so. I think it’s because they don’t think it’s correct based on what they themselves have published.
You cannot refute the physical evidence, and you cannot refute the logic … so with the personal burden of being unable to acknowledge the science and history as it actually is, you are now forced to take an irrational position – that science is not based on evidence, and logic not based on consistency.
Not at all, I’m merely pointing out that some people whose work you cite do not seem to come to the same conclusion/inference as you.
Apparently for you, the ends justify the means.
Hardly.
Why do you keep bringing this up anyway? You know very well that the semiotics community has not come out in support of the design inference which is all I’m pointing out. What is your point?
Origenes: Not an answer to my question. Please answer my question.
Dr Pattee has had a very long and distinguished career with many, many respected, peer-reviewed papers. He is considered, by his peers, as a major player in his field. Also, since he is retired, he has no reason not to support a view considered controversial. He doesn’t seem like the type who would care if he made some people angry anyway.
So, I trust him to be honest and straight.
Regardless, my only point was that he has NOT come out in favour of the ID paradigm. That is true. And I think I’ve found evidence that he actually disagrees with it.
@JVL That you are emoting that it is weird and disjointed, and make that your argumentation, means you don’t do rationality.
The creationist conceptual scheme provides the correct logic underlying statements of opinion and statements of fact, it is proven.
JVL@
I find the depth of your trust in Pattee remarkable. You admit that you have no idea how anyone could possibly arrive at any other conclusion than that the genetic symbol system is the result of intelligent design, moreover Pattee has not explained his reasoning. And yet your trust remains in Him …
Unlike you, I think that there is a sharp divide between research and the ramifications of research.
Take Lawrence Krauss for instance, who thinks that the correct interpretation of his work is that our universe comes from nothing. Although I have no reason to doubt Krauss as a researcher, I’m also of the opinion that ‘from nothing nothing comes’, so I, unlike you, refuse to “trust” Krauss’ interpretation of his work. I take it that you on the other hand trust/accept whatever Krauss perceives as the correct interpretation of his work.
JVL said:
It doesn’t seem like you’re actually understanding UB’s point. It doesn’t matter what Pattee thinks the evidence implies. That’s irrelevant to UB’s point. His point is that it is entirely proper and rational to infer from the evidence that intelligent design was involved. It may or not be the case that ID generated the evidence, but, still, it is a rational inference given that the only other places we have ever found, or would expect to find, those kind of physical relationships and informational characteristics would be in something designed by an intelligence.
IOW, a coded blueprint containing an immense amount of functional information required to build and maintain a highly complex, functioning machine by itself is more than sufficient to rationally apply a design inference in any other situation. Why is it not sufficient in biology?
And it’s not our fault that neither you, nor anyone else, can demonstrate that nature did it! You don’t even know how to test the claim that nature did! And THAT is very telling.
JVL:
Yes, it is. No one can demonstrate how nature produced the genetic code, which is what UB is discussing. Clearly you have serious issues.
JVL:
No one cares because they cannot demonstrate that nature did it!
See, it has EVERYTHING to do with what you and UB are discussing.
Origenes: You admit that you have no idea how anyone could possibly arrive at any other conclusion than that the genetic symbol system is the result of intelligent design, moreover Pattee has not explained his reasoning.
I don’t think I ever ‘admitted’ that.
Pattee has not explained his reasoning. And yet your trust remains in Him …
I don’t think Intelligent Design is high on Dr Pattee’s attention list. And if he thinks it’s clearly bunk then he might not consider discussing it worth his time.
Regardless of all of that, he has not said his work supports ID.
I take it that you on the other hand trust/accept whatever Krauss perceives as the correct interpretation of his work.
I haven’t looked into those interpretations of his so I I can’t say. But I would assume he’d have a much greater understanding of his work than I would.
William J Murray: It doesn’t seem like you’re actually understanding UB’s point. It doesn’t matter what Pattee thinks the evidence implies. That’s irrelevant to UB’s point. His point is that it is entirely proper and rational to infer from the evidence that intelligent design was involved. It may or not be the case that ID generated the evidence, but, still, it is a rational inference given that the only other places we have ever found, or would expect to find, those kind of physical relationships and informational characteristics would be in something designed by an intelligence.
I am very much aware of Upright BiPed‘s point; you don’t have to be so condescending all the time.
All I said was that Dr Pattee, in particular, has never said his work supports ID (which is true as far as I can determine) and I think I’ve found statements by him which imply (in my opinion) that he disagrees with the design inference.
Maybe he does think his work supports ID but I couldn’t find such a statement by him. Maybe his work does support ID, I can’t say since his work is very dense and complicated. Since I cannot make that determination myself I will assume that Dr Pattee has been honest and straight in his publications none of which that I could find supports ID. And I did find one passage where he criticises some ID proponents.
a coded blueprint
DNA is not a blueprint.
William J Murray/36
Sufficient for what?
UB’s case is essentially an argument by analogy – which is not a fallacy – but the strength of such arguments depends on weighing both the similarities and differences.
I agree that ID is a possible inference from what is observed but UB is promoting it as some sort of slam-dunk proof of ID even though the leading figures in the field of biosemiotics do not go that far.
As for Pattee’s view being irrelevant to UB’s case, has Pattee ever denied it was a possible inference? If not then we are left with weighing the views of leading researchers in the field against those of a lay-person. It’s certainly possible for an enthusiastic amateur to be right and experts in the field to be wrong but do you think it’s probable?
JVL:
And he has not said his work supports blind watchmaker evolution.
The EVIDENCE says what Pattee has uncovered supports ID.
ET: No one can demonstrate how nature produced the genetic code, which is what UB is discussing.
We were discussing the work of the semiotics researcher Dr Howard Pattee and others like him and what their work may or may not imply. Upright BiPed believes Dr Pattee’s work supports ID but I could find not such statement by Dr Pattee and I think I’ve found statements by him which are contrary to the design inference. That’s it.
Perhaps Dr Pattee does think his work supports ID; I can’t find a statement by him to that effect. Maybe his work does support ID; it’s dense and complicated stuff so rather than me guessing what it implies I’ll trust Dr Pattee and many other researchers to have a good idea of where their work leads. And I have yet to find any of them that think it supports ID. Maybe they’re all just stupid about their own work but I rather doubt that is the case.
seversky:
It’s an argument based on our knowledge of cause-and-effect relationships. Science 101
ID is the ONLY inference from what is observed. There just isn’t any other possible explanation. And there isn’t even a way to test the claim that nature did it.
JVL:
Yes, I know. And no one can demonstrate that nature did it. So, clearly his work does not support blind watchmaker evolution.
It does support ID. As I have been saying there isn’t any evidence that nature did it and there isn’t even a way to test the claim that nature did. There is ONE and ONLY one known cause for what we observe- intelligent agency volition.
That you refuse to understand that says it all, really.
@Seversky There is a very high probability of experts being wrong, because of shared culture in academics. And with the conformtiy that wokeness requires, this error by culture is made all the more likely.
In any case, it is totally lazy argumentation to just trust the experts. And I think the point is, that people who argue like that, aren’t actually capable of rational argumentation.
From: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Howard-Pattee/publication/2515094_Evolving_Self-Reference_Matter_Symbols_And_Semantic_Closure/links/09e4150577eb05a2cd000000/Evolving-Self-Reference-Matter-Symbols-And-Semantic-Closure.pdf
The website and .pdf are not letting me copy-and-paste . . . for some reason. Here’s a few of a lot of very interesting statements none of which run contrary to unguided evolutionary theory.
Near the bottom of page 4 Dr Pattee discusses how he views the function of DNA.
On page 13 he discusses evolution by natural selection (which he calls a theory by the way).
Just before the references he explains how his work can be applied to evolution including self-organisation and natural selection.
Please note the title of the paper: Evolving Self-Reference.
There isn’t any scientific theory of unguided evolution. And ID is OK with evolution by means of intelligent design.
Seversky said:
What part of “a coded blueprint containing an immense amount of functional information required to build and maintain a highly complex, functioning machine” is an analogy when it comes to DNA?
William J Murray: What part of “a coded blueprint containing an immense amount of functional information required to build and maintain a highly complex, functioning machine” is an analogy when it comes to DNA?
DNA is NOT a blueprint!!
JVL said
I said “coded blueprint.”
Definitions provided by Merriam-Webster:
code = a system of signals or symbols for communication
blueprint = a detailed plan of how to do something
Is DNA a system of signals that communicate a detailed plan of how to build and maintain a functioning human body to the biological systems constructing it?
.
There needn’t be any mystery about this whatsoever. You are here to use your voice and intellect to promote and support a lie, whereas and I am here to support the truth.
I use the word “lie” cautiously, as there is a fair distinction between promoting something while knowing it is false and doing so while not knowing. In your case, you know.
The lie is that there is no valid scientific evidence of design in biology.
The inference to design in biology is made up of empirical evidence, confirmed prediction, and logical reasoning. This is no different than any other scientific inference.
As for the evidence supporting the design inference, we have walked through it piece by piece, and you have been forced in discussions here to concede the truthfulness of that evidence, as well as the predictions that came before it. This is not a particularly difficult task, given the fact that none of that evidence is even controversial. In total, the evidence behind the design inference is completely overwhelming and is readily documented from one end of biology to the other.
And as far as the reasoning used in the design inference, you have openly promoted the exact same reasoning yourself on these very pages. Anyone who has followed along our conversations (even casually) knows that I have re-posted your comments on this subject several times. And even if you had never opened your mouth, the reasoning behind the design inference is openly used by NASA, SETI, and university science departments all the way around the globe. The reasoning used in the design inference simply could not be on more stable ground than it is.
So … 1) the scientific evidence (and the documented history behind that evidence) cannot be refuted by you or anyone else on the surface of this planet. And 2) the logical reasoning is already eagerly used and accepted by scientists around the world. To demonstrate those two statements, I could start posting primary sources and simply not stop.
Yet — you say it is all invalid. That is the bald-face lie that you are here to support and defend.
You know that the things you say are not true. Yet – you say them.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
So, without any way to defend your position with actual science and reasoning, you are forced by these realities to revert to deception and fallacy in its place.
It does not go un-noticed that you now never mention the actual science and reasoning in your comments, but have instead latched on to the idea that “Howard Pattee is not an ID supporter” is now your best defense. Have you found a way to repeat it in every comment you make?
But here again, you are an intelligent person, you already know that scientific inferences are based on empirical evidence and logical consistency – not on who does and does not acknowledge the inference. The evidence remains the same either way. That is how science works; it is evidence-based. What you are suggesting in your defense, is anti-science to its very core..
It’s called a fallacy, JVL, for a reason.
You are trying to defend your lie against the design inference (universal physical evidence, documented history, and sound logical reasoning) by the comical repetition of a common fallacy.
That’s why I “keep bring it up”
William J Murray: Is DNA a system of signals that communicate a detailed plan of how to build and maintain a functioning human body to the biological systems constructing it?
No, DNA is not in anyway a detailed plan.
I expected you would be more aware of these things but you just keep repeating tropes.
JVL said:
Then how do human bodies get built? Where does the information come from?
@JVL For goodness sake. First the evolutionists want to theorize evolution by accident. Now they also want to theorize development by accident.
It is required for development that there is a representation of the finished adult form, in the DNA.
The DNA system can make a fully developed organism, but cannot make a representation of a fully developed organism? That makes no sense whatsoever.
Upright Biped: There needn’t be any mystery about this whatsoever. You are here to use your voice and intellect to promote and support a lie, whereas and I am here to support the truth.
At the moment all I am saying is that Dr Pattee (and his cohorts) have not publicly said their work supports ID. That’s it. AND THAT is a true statement. Why can’t you admit it?
The inference to design in biology is made up of empirical evidence, confirmed prediction, and logical reasoning. This is no different than any other scientific inference.
And many people, including those in the semiotic field, disagree with you. That is factual.
Yet — you say it is all invalid. That is the bald-face lie that you are here to support and defend.
Again that is incorrect. You gain nothing by demonising me.
I find your position curious. What I have posted regarding Dr Pattee is clear and factual. You could admit that but you don’t. The fact that he has not come out in support of ID. That the paper of his I referenced and linked to was pretty clearly supportive of unguided evolutionary theory. You just ignore all of that. Why is that? Is it because you might have to concede some minor point or issue? And, in your mind, does that mean there might be some kind of slippery-slope situation when you might lose the whole situation? When you might actually have to abandon ship? Is that what you’re actually afraid of?
What haven’t you addressed the points in the paper I referenced above?
Why can’t you address or accommodate views opposed to yours from an actual scientific point of view?
William J Murray: Then how do human bodies get built? Where does the information come from?
Perhaps you should spend some time learning what DNA actual is and does.
This is interesting. JVL lecturing Murray on Evolution.
Pass the popcorn.
Aside: there is no evidence that DNA has anything to do with Evolution. Genetics, yes. Evolution, no.
.
A new wave of deception.
Admit it? I told you upfront that Pattee was not an ID supporter; he is just not a reductionist.
I am not (and have never) hidden the fact that HH Pattee is not an ID supporter, but his support is irrelevant to the validity of the design inference. Science is based on evidence.
It’s really very simple JVL. His support of evolutionary theory has nothing whatsoever to do with the physical conditions required at the origin of life. It is those requirements that make open-ended evolution possible in the first place. He spent five decades making that distinction, perhaps you should.
So, there is a scientifically-valid inference to design in biology?
JVL, DNA builds proteins, ditto for RNA and does various regulatory functions, it does not account for our body plan. KF
What does?
No one knows.
One of the biggest mysteries of science.
Some suspect the code is in the cell wall of the egg.
Also no one knows what causes life. A dead cell and a live cell are essentially the same.
JVL has no idea but acts like he knows. First Atheists commandment: “I know better !”
Science can’t explain code of DNA but there are much more complex levels of organisation. The worshipers of biology are in a very pathetic and hopeless position.
Upright BiPed: It’s really very simple JVL. His support of evolutionary theory has nothing whatsoever to do with the physical conditions required at the origin of life. It is those requirements that make open-ended evolution possible in the first place. He spent five decades making that distinction, perhaps you should.
And yet, he disagrees with you. He spent five decades working with and thinking about these issues and he came to a different conclusion from you. Maybe he got it wrong at the end. Maybe he and all his cohorts got it wrong even though they’ve thought long and hard about this issue and have published many, many papers which they have all read and looked at. Maybe he and his buddies have been brainwashed by the materialists. Maybe. It’s possible.
Maybe you’ve got it wrong.
Which is more likely? Which is more probable?
From earlier in this thread:
Upright BiPed: Howard Pattee offers no conclusions about the origin of the system in his research. Do you not understand this?
But he does doesn’t he? He thinks natural processes are up to the task.
You’re dancing pretty fast but you’re changing the tune.
Dr Pattee and his semiotic buddies disagree with you. Let’s start with that truth.
I remember the anthropologist Edwina Taborsky was “accused” of supporting intelligent design theory, for a semiotics paper she did. She then denied it, and said her paper that argued for reasoned and informed decisions in the DNA system, was not intelligent design.
JVL, you seem to be using all kinds of hook and crook shortcuts, instead of using actual reasoning. Like going by the reputation of scientists, and science politics. Why don’t you just reason?
Is e=mc2 correct? Well Einstein does have a great reputation, so I suppose it is correct.
The way you make argument is ridiculous.
.
You skipped the pertinent question JVL.
Isn’t it more likely that it resides in the one area that is known to contain information? The DNA?
William J Murray:
No. No one knows what determines biological form but we know that it cannot be DNA. DNA doesn’t have a say in mRNA processing. And chaperones determine how most proteins fold. DNA doesn’t even control the assembly of proteins into functioning structures.
That said, DNA does have some control and influence over development because it is a template for very important components. If ID is right, and it is, then what determines biological form was immaterial information that is loaded into the different life forms.
The following paper was posted on UD last year: On the problem of biological form. It has been known since at least the turn of the century that DNA does not hold the information for body plans. The human genome project was the final nail in that coffin.
Dr. Michael Denton once wrote:
We do NOT know what makes an organism what it is. That is we do not know what determines biological form. That alone makes it really difficult to say one form can evolve into another, regardless of the underlying mechanisms. And it squashes the notion that you can say anything about evolutionary relationships via genetic comparisons.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329336275_Ch1_-_Control_Systems_and_Determination_of_Phenotypic_Traits_in_Metazoans_EPIGENETIC_PRINCIPLES_OF_EVOLUTION_Second_Edition_2018
If DNA controls cell type and placement, no one has a clue how.
There are molecular configurations in the cell wall that are more complex than DNA and some speculate this is where the information is for cell type and placement.
ET above has said it better than I have.
As I said it’s a mystery.
Joe Schooner @
My idea exactly. Once I asked Larry Moran:
Larry Moran’s puzzling answer:
JVL @
You have implied that the presence of encoded symbolic content is a universal inference to an intelligent source, did you not?
Suppose that Pattee thinks ID is bunk, do you think Pattee has a point?
So you would rather trust Krauss, or any other expert, WRT the interpretation of their work, than yourself? Case in point, if Krauss says that, based on his research, our universe comes from nothing then you adopt that – whether it makes sense to you or not.
Sorry, but who is Larry Moran?
Joe Schooner @74
Professor Emeritus in the Department of Biochemistry at the University of Toronto
— personal website
Thanks.
Mohammadnursyamsu: VL, you seem to be using all kinds of hook and crook shortcuts, instead of using actual reasoning. Like going by the reputation of scientists, and science politics. Why don’t you just reason?
Sometimes the reasoned approach is to NOT reinvent the wheel. Do you understand fast Fourier transforms? They are widely used in many signal processing applications. How about quantum mechanics? General relativity? Simpson’s paradox? (the answer to a question posted on a thread about how it is that death rates for vaccinated people can be higher than those for unvaccinated people.)
Is e=mc2 correct? Well Einstein does have a great reputation, so I suppose it is correct.
In that particular case I have stepped through the derivation.
Upright BiPed: You skipped the pertinent question JVL.
No comment about the paper I linked to then? Are we finished then with whether or not the semiotics community supports intelligent design?
As I have already said: you can hypothesise whatever you like. I would consider the design inference to be a hypothesis that has not been established.
Origenes: You have implied that the presence of encoded symbolic content is a universal inference to an intelligent source, did you not?
It would certainly bring up the possibility. But it’s not a slam-dunk.
Suppose that Pattee thinks ID is bunk, do you think Pattee has a point?
Yes.
So you would rather trust Krauss, or any other expert, WRT the interpretation of their work, than yourself? Case in point, if Krauss says that, based on his research, our universe comes from nothing then you adopt that – whether it makes sense to you or not.
To be honest I haven’t thought about that issue very much because I don’t really care enough. If I did I would read his arguments and then think about whether or not they make sense. Then I would look at what other physicists have to say about it. But I’m not likely to do that anytime soon.
There are a lot of well established scientific ‘truths’ that I have trouble wrapping my head around, like relativity and quantum mechanics. But they seem to work so I accept them even though I can’t see the effects in my daily life. That kind of thing happens in mathematics all the time: the logic/reasoning points to results that don’t feel right.
JVS said:
Or, you could answer my question. How do human bodies get built? Where does the information come from? Are you saying there is no “body plan” information anywhere that is being communicated by any sort of signal system anywhere to the biological systems that are constructing the body?
WJM: Or, you could answer my question. How do human bodies get built? Where does the information come from? Are you saying there is no “body plan” information anywhere that is being communicated by any sort of signal system anywhere to the biological systems that are constructing the body?
There is no blueprint. Genes are turned on and off by control genes responding to the conditions they are in. Dr Dawkins explains the general principle very well in The Greatest Show on Earth and Dr Shubin discusses many illustrative cases in his recent book Some Assembly Required.
ET said @68:
Sigh. You guys are so impatient. You’re jumping the shark.
JVL said:
Thank you for answering the question. So, if there is no blueprint anywhere, how is it that humans always produce humans, dogs always produce dogs, elephants always produce elephants, etc?
WJM: Thank you for answering the question. So, if there is no blueprint anywhere, how is it that humans always produce humans?
Because of the combination of genes and control genes they pass onto their offspring. AND the conditions in the womb . . . I should think. That’s an evo-devo question and I’m not completely sure how much difference that would make.
Of course, evolutionary theory would say that over long, long periods of time it’s possible that a new species could emerge. In other words, going back in your own genetic history it’s not humans all the way back to the emergence of life on earth.
Don’t overlook the egg, with all the structures and features of a functional cell from a very specific species, then observe how development in the womb proceeds. Here, we are at frontiers of our understanding.
JVL said:
I appreciate your direct and honest answers.
However, I think we may have some sort of communciation/understanding issue here. Let me reiterate the definitions:
code = a system of signals or symbols for communication
blueprint = a detailed plan of how to do something
I’m not asserting here that the “plan” is intelligently designed. From what you said above, there is chemically encoded information contained in the biological entities that represents “the successful building of a human body” that, through a process of chemical signals activated by conception builds a particular body. There may be some random influences or errors in the process, but that doesn’t change the fact that there is a set of instructions somewhere, or in several somewheres, that contain the information/instructions to produce a particular kind of body.
If that were not the case, I don’t see why we would expect the process to produce the same kind of body over and over and over successfully in each species. The information for the production of that body has to be somewhere, and that is not “analogous” to a blueprint; by the definition I gave, it is factually a blueprint. However it is encoded, wherever it resides, even in multiple locations; without a detailed set of instructions that represent how to build a human, no human could be built by any process. Whether or not that set of detailed instructions accumulated or evolved over time by non-intelligent processes is irrelevant; that set of instructions, or blueprint, must exist somewhere.
Repeat after me:
DNA has nothing to do with the Evolution debate. At least no one in the past 65 years has shown how it does. All the evidence points elsewhere
Micro evolution has nothing to do with the Evolution debate. At least no one in the past 65 years has shown how it does. All the evidence points elsewhere
How did Evolution happen? It’s a mystery.
DNA is extremely important. It’s the basis of genetics, an extremely Important scientific discipline. But has nothing to do with Evolution.
Darwin discovered how genetics works, not how Evolution happened. For that he should be celebrated.
The story evolutionists now push is that the DNA is more like a recipe, rather than a blueprint. They are sticking to the mechanistic chemical view of development, without higher level guidance from a blueprint.
As before, evolutionist Alfred Russel Wallace excluded the human mind from evolution.
The human mind is an information processing system. Naturally the DNA system would be an information processing system as well. And so the human mind is largely an extension of the DNA information processing system, rather than a development of it.
Could a man imagine the shape of a woman, without having seen any woman in their life?
Could a woman imagine the shape of a man, without having seen one?
My sense about it is, that the shaperecognition of sexes is partly from within, from the blueprint.
William J Murray:
Wow. That doesn’t follow. How am I impatient for pointing out facts? How am I jumping the shark for pointing out facts?
Anyone who understands DNA knows that DNA does not determine biological form. Jonathan Wells has been writing about just that for decades. Geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti wrote a book about it, almost 2 decades ago.
JVL on Howard Pattee:
And yet neither he nor anyone else has been able to demonstrate such a thing. That alone speaks volumes. But there is more: neither he nor anyone else knows how to test the claim that nature did it! So, the claim is not a scientific claim and can be dismissed out of hand.
ET asks:
Because those fact are irrelevant to the discussion I’m having with JVL. Just wait for the discussion to develop. It’s logical and conceptual in nature. Where the blueprint is stored, how it is stored, is irrelevant.
JVL @
To be clear JVL, are you saying that genes do not need guidance (body plan information), other than the laws of physics, because by their chemical composition they can (under normal circumstances) only end up in one single adult shape? Put another way, according to you, a particular set of DNA & the laws of physics combined produce one particular outcome?
—-
Joe Schooner @76 You’re welcome.
William Briggs’s new book is out today.
One prescient remark
Battles against reality are constantly fought here at UD. For example, just look at the nonsense that is spouted on this thread by some.
https://wmbriggs.com/post/38264/
WJM: I’m not asserting here that the “plan” is intelligently designed. From what you said above, there is chemically encoded information contained in the biological entities that represents “the successful building of a human body” that, through a process of chemical signals activated by conception builds a particular body. There may be some random influences or errors in the process, but that doesn’t change the fact that there is a set of instructions somewhere, or in several somewheres, that contain the information/instructions to produce a particular kind of body.
No, there is no set of instructions anywhere.
I don’t see why we would expect the process to produce the same kind of body over and over and over successfully in each species.
Because of the combination of genes and control genes.
However it is encoded, wherever it resides, even in multiple locations; without a detailed set of instructions that represent how to build a human, no human could be built by any process. Whether or not that set of detailed instructions accumulated or evolved over time by non-intelligent processes is irrelevant; that set of instructions, or blueprint, must exist somewhere.
It doesn’t exist. It’s not required.
But, if you think it must exist then have a look for it!
Origenes: To be clear JVL, are you saying that genes do not need guidance (body plan information), other than the laws of physics, because by their chemical composition they can (under normal circumstances) only end up in one single adult shape? Put another way, according to you, a particular set of DNA & the laws of physics combined produce one particular outcome?
Hmm . . . I’m inclined to say: something like that even though you’ve removed a lot of the finer details and added some qualifiers but . . . yeah, something like that.
Remember there is noise in the system which is why even identical twins are really identical. So, it’s not like a computer program which really should give the same result given the same input every time (unless some kind of randomness is part of the program of course).
Again, there is no body plan information in cells. Nothing that needs to be read or consulted to say: oh, look, it’s building muscle time or whatever.
As previously mentioned Dr Dawkins gives a pretty good introduction to the idea in his book The Greatest Show on Earth and Dr Shubin discusses some very illustrative examples from the last couple of centuries in Some Assembly Required. I particularly recommend Some Assembly Required as it’s easy to read, very up-to-date in some of the examples and makes the general case very well.
The metaphor of it being more like a recipe than a blueprint is a bit . . . incomplete but it does help make part of the process easier to understand:
Most breads and cakes have much the same basic ingredients and steps to make them. Sometimes the difference is only one ingredient or the amounts of ingredients or the method of cooking. That’s why the control genes are so important. If most living creatures have access to the same basic building blocks then the control genes determine when and how much of the basic ingredients are used. And that changes what kind of cell you get.
But, unlike a recipe, the ‘plan’ is not written down somewhere so the metaphor is not really strong.
JVL,
“Most breads and cakes have much the same basic ingredients and steps to make them. ”
They also require forms that the ingredients or steps in the recipe can’t produce.
For instance, a lemon bundt cake requires a bundt pan or there will never be a bundt cake. The concept of bundt precedes everything else.
Andrew
JVL @95
One problem with this is that sometimes the same DNA leads to radically different body plans. As Stephen L. Talbott has written:
– – – –
You speak highly of the explanation given by Shubin, according to Shubin proteins are orchestrating development:
You seem to think that this constitutes an explanation for development, but many of us would like to know where these proteins get their information from. Wouldn’t you like to know as well?
During development the same control genes convey different messages at different times. So, the same question applies: where does the information for the control genes come from?
JVL:
Complete nonsense. There has to be as William explained.
That has already been refuted.
It does exist and it is required.
Neither Dawkins nor Shubin have any idea what determines biological form. Both of them NEED it to be materialistic in nature. Too bad neither of them has any evidence to support their claims.
So why does JVL believe them? Because he is hopefully gullible.
JVL said:
and
and:
Let me see if I can break through what appears to be a semantic barrier this way:
So, I’m asking what causes the human body to be generated? Your answer would appear to be, roughly speaking, genes, control genes, and physics. By “gene” I’m assuming you mean a chemically bonded molecules that react with other molecules in a manner generated entirely by the physics/chemistry involved at each relevant juncture/level.
From your responses, you apparently hold that genes and control genes (and perhaps other biological entities present and involved) are necessary to produce the human (or any other species) body; IOW, that it would not occur otherwise.
So, let me arrange my question a different way – and, BTW, thanks for this discussion, this is fascinating to me. Very enjoyable.
Would your position be that there a particular set of objects, physio-chemically arranged by physio-chemical laws/forces in a particular way and part of a finite set of interacting, physical commodities, that are directly responsible and necessary for the successful construction of a functioning human body?
And, some of those things are, in some significant ways, different from comparable physio-chemical objects in other species?
.
You posted a quote about Howard Pattee’s support of evolutionary theory; a topic that is not even in contention. Pattee’s position is that Darwinian evolution cannot occur until an organization has symbolic control over its being at the origin of life. In contrast, the topic of this conversation is about the unique physical conditions that Pattee has documented as necessary to achieve that symbolic control. So yes, contrary to your assertion, I did make a comment: ”His support of evolutionary theory has nothing whatsoever to do with the physical conditions required at the origin of life.”
There isn’t a passage in any of Pattee’s entire published record where he suggests that Darwinian evolution gave rise to the symbol system required to achieve that control. This is not a subtle point JVL, if you open his book to page 3 of the Introduction, he tells you that language is the necessary condition of taking control; language is the necessary condition of biological evolution.
So, is there anything else you’d like me to say about it? If not, then stop suggesting that I have not responded, and stop using irrelevant topics as a strategy to avoid the actual issues at hand.
As a further example, you continue to press the idea that Howard Pattee offers some sort of substantive conclusions in his research papers as to the origin of symbolic control. In response, I have told you repeatedly that he does not do that, and I have told you why he doesn’t do it. Yet you continue to say he does. I am wondering if you actually read the paper you cited?
In that paper he states unambiguously: “ The origin of life requires understanding the origin of symbolic control and how inanimate molecules becomes a message. I cannot solve this problem, but I discuss the necessary physical conditions that would allow evolvable symbolic control of matter to exist.” Just what do you think he means by “I cannot solve this problem”, JVL? These are in fact the same comments he makes throughout his career. I believe it means that Howard Pattee does not offer any conclusions in his papers as to the origin of symbolic control. Why do I believe that? Because he says so.
Not if you continue to use it as a means to say that the design inference is invalid. That is not how science and logic work. It is a logical fallacy to do so.
Moreover, you already know it is a logical fallacy. Without any prompting, you are documented on these pages making the clear distinction between a researcher’s personal worldview and their actual science. For you, it is the science that is of importance. But now, faced with a researcher’s science that does not comport to your liking, you want to suddenly do away with that distinction.
It is ad hoc. It is a fallacy. And you know it.
In 1948, John Von Neumann gave a series of lectures where he used Alan Turing’s 1933 machine to predict the necessary logical conditions required for autonomous open-ended self-replication. The prediction required two sets of objects: a sequence of symbols and a set of encoded constraints that would establish what the symbols represented within the system. This arrangement would enable the use of machine language to specify a system of construction, copying, and control. In 1953, Francis Crick and James Watson discovered the necessary sequence structure of Von Neumann’s prediction, using an image (Image #51) produced by Rosalind Franklin. Later, working with Sydney Brenner in 1955, Crick predicted that a second set of objects (a set of 20 proteins) would be found working in the system, and it would be the job of this second set of objects to establish what the genetic symbols were to represent within the system. That second set of objects (aaRS) were discovered in 1956-58 by Paul Zamecnik and Mahlon Hoaglon, not only confirming Crick’s “adapter hypothesis”, but also Von Neumann’s prediction that the association between symbol and referent would be established by an encoded “quiescent” description. Then in 1961, Crick and Brenner demonstrated that the genetic symbol (the codon) was indeed three bases in length, and later that same year Marshall Nirenberg established the first symbolic relationship within the gene, setting off a race to decipher the entire Genetic Code, which was completed in 1966. This represents a complete confirmation of Von Neumann’s prediction, and has been widely-acknowledged. As a later extension of that confirmation, the genetic symbol system was described using the language of physics by Howard Pattee as a system of “rate-independent control of a rate-dependent process”, establishing the necessary “epistemic cut” (Von Neumann), and requiring “semiotic closure” in order to function.
The design inference is a matter of historical record.
The use of symbolic language is a universal correlate of intelligence. The design inference can be falsified by a demonstration that rate-independent symbolic language can rise from rate-dependent dynamics, thus eliminating the universal correlate. No one on earth is anywhere close to that demonstration. Indeed, as a show of just how intractable that demonstration is, it is a fact that the most prominent Origin of Life researchers in the field do not even discuss it in their research.
JVL, is there a valid scientific inference to design in biology?
** as before JVL, this is not a question about your worldview, it is a question about physical evidence and logical continuity.
What causes cell replication? And why are the two cells identical?
Including the zillions of different molecules embedded in the cell membrane as well as the zillions of molecules in the cytoplasm and nucleus. After division the two cells go merrily on their way as if nothing has happened.
But in gestation the two cells are attached to each other and then at some time it changes the cell type that is then attached in a specific way. After awhile these different cell types are intertwined with each other in extremely complicated ways. In a human there are several trillion all specifically and correctly placed.
How does it know?
Answer – no one knows and anyone who thinks they do is conning you.
Another question is why there isn’t intense research on this and a corresponding body of literature documenting what is and isn’t known.
Asauber: They also require forms that the ingredients or steps in the recipe can’t produce.
Yes, the recipe metaphor is not great. Maybe a bit better than ‘blueprint’ though.
Origenes: One problem with this is that sometimes the same DNA leads to radically different body plans. As Stephen L. Talbott has written:
Many, many life forms share similar genes and genomic sequences. But not their complete genome.
You seem to think that this constitutes an explanation for development, but many of us would like to know where these proteins get their information from. Wouldn’t you like to know as well?
The proteins ARE the information!
During development the same control genes convey different messages at different times. So, the same question applies: where does the information for the control genes come from?
No, the control genes do not convey different messages; they turn genes off and on.
ET: It does exist and it is required.
So far no one has found it. And cells have been pretty thoroughly explored now.
Too bad neither of them has any evidence to support their claims.
That is not true. As I said Dr Dawkins and Dr Shubin present a lot of evidence showing there is no hidden programming or information.
WJM: Would your position be that there a particular set of objects, physio-chemically arranged by physio-chemical laws/forces in a particular way and part of a finite set of interacting, physical commodities, that are directly responsible and necessary for the successful construction of a functioning human body?
Um . . . that makes it sound purely deterministic and I think there is a lot of noise in the system. And a lot of minor factors whose effects are not yet understood. Like I said: even ‘identical’ twins are not identical. But they are very, very close because they share the same genome. At first anyway.
And, some of those things are, in some significant ways, different from comparable physio-chemical objects in other species?
Different species have different genomes and diets and living conditions, etc, etc, etc.
Upright BiPed: You posted a quote about Howard Pattee’s support of evolutionary theory; a topic that is not even in contention. Pattee’s position is that Darwinian evolution cannot occur until an organization has symbolic control over its being at the origin of life.
I’m not sure that is correct.
I’m getting a bit busy at the moment so I shall return later (tonight or tomorrow) an attempt to address your points properly.
But I will respond to the following, again:
JVL, is there a valid scientific inference to design in biology?
I think there is a design hypothesis but I don’t think it’s been validated.
Jerry: But in gestation the two cells are attached to each other and then at some time it changes the cell type that is then attached in a specific way. After awhile these different cell types are intertwined with each other in extremely complicated ways. In a human there are several trillion all specifically and correctly placed. How does it know?
When a cell reproduces its ‘environment’ (including other cells) provide feedback which affects the control genes which affect what proteins are synthesised which affect what kind of cell is ‘made’.
Another question is why there isn’t intense research on this and a corresponding body of literature documenting what is and isn’t known.
I think there is and Dr Shubin discusses some cases in Some Assembly Required.
JVL @ 104
True, but you missed my point. I am talking about one individual organism who expresses radically different body plans at different stages of its life. This refutes your idea that a particular set of DNA is linked to one particular form. For your convenience here is Talbott again:
– – – –
Elaborate please. Explain how this makes sense.
JVL= clueless .
“Yes, the recipe metaphor is not great. Maybe a bit better than ‘blueprint’ though.”
JVL,
Yes, the recipe metaphor is not great in the sense that it fails to represent reality.
Andrew
A few notes: “Richard Lewontin once described how you can excise the developing limb bud from an amphibian embryo, shake the cells loose from each other, allow them to reaggregate into a random lump, and then replace the lump in the embryo. A normal leg develops. Somehow the form of the limb as a whole is the ruling factor, redefining the parts according to the larger pattern.”
Upright BiPed:
I am stymied by the copy of Dr Pattee’s article Evolving Self-Reference: Matter, Symbols and Semiotic Closure not allowing me to copy-and-paste chunks of text. I understand why the .pdf is locked but it’s making it very hard for me to show you parts of the text that I think support my interpretation of his work. I will try and find another more pliable copy of the paper; if you know of one please tell me.
Anyway, I still think it’s fair to propose a design inference hypothesis, which has been done. I just don’t think that hypothesis has been substantiated.
Origenes: True, but you missed my point. I am talking about one individual organism who expresses radically different body plans at different stages of its life.
I guess a caterpillar and butterfly would be a good example of what you’re talking about.
I can’t address that particular example with any insightful knowledge or answers as I haven’t read any work relating to it. It does seem a bit miraculous.
I could guess but I really don’t know. But not being able to explain a particular example doesn’t mean the general principle is wrong.
Elaborate please. Explain how this makes sense.
Okay, some genes are activated to make/build certain proteins and those proteins interact with the ‘environment’ and change the chemical balance of that environment. And that change affects other control genes and tells them to turn on or turn off other genes. In that sense the proteins are the message. Their presence alone conveys ‘information’ about what is happening in the local vicinity.
JVL @114
Indeed.
It is miraculous especially if one holds that a particular set of DNA leads to one single body form.
I disagree. One single particular example, like the caterpillar, suffices to refute the idea that a particular set of DNA leads to one single body form. However, we do not have just one ‘particular example’, as Talbott wrote:
– – – –
Proteins interact with each other and the environment. Ok. But how is that a reliable way to build a human being?
Origenes: It is miraculous especially if one holds that a particular set of DNA leads to one single body form.
I’m not sure that is exactly what I said!! Many, many species share genes and control genes but each species has a unique . . . combination within the variations between individuals.
Remember too that species are human constructs, lines of separation not dictated by nature. It’s better to think about all life forms as sitting on the same, generic sliding n-dimensional scale. There are no ‘islands of function’ as Kairosfocus is fond of asserting.
Proteins interact with each other and the environment. Ok. But how is that a reliable way to build a human being?
I don’t think it is very efficient for sure. I guess that’s why between a quarter and a third of all human pregnancies end up as spontaneous abortions or stillbirths.
JVL @
I have noticed that you prefer to keep things vague.
I take it you understand that we are not attempting to explain stillbirths, but rather building organs like the brain, which architecture Is Beyond Anything Imagined.
Origenes: I have noticed that you prefer to keep things vague.
These are complicated and involved topics and I can’t always remember precisely what I did or did not say so I equivocate.
I take it you understand that we are not attempting to explain stillbirths, but rather building organs like the brain, which architecture Is Beyond Anything Imagined.
Yes, I do understand. I was addressing your ‘reliable’ comment. And no, it is not a reliable system.
This has been a very frustrating “discussion” with someone who is either disingenuous or moronic.
JVL, in order to understand how an organism might achieve it overall form, perhaps you can start with something simple. Like, for instance, understanding exactly how a ‘simple’ protein finds its final folded form.
As the following article states, “when one calculates the number of possible topological (rotational) configurations for the amino acids in even a small (say, 100 residue) unfolded protein, random search could never find the final folded conformation of that same protein during the lifetime of the physical universe.”
And yet, since proteins are obviously not taking the lifetime of the entire universe to randomly find their final folded form.
,, then, obviously, proteins must be finding their final folded form by some ‘non-random’, i.e. non-Darwinian, method.
And in the following article, the authors found that the long standing mystery of exactly how a protein is able to find its final folded form so quickly can be easily explained if protein folding is allowed to be a “quantum affair” where the “protein could ‘jump’ from one shape to another without necessarily forming the shapes in between.”,,,.
Moreover, exactly as the preceding researchers anticipated, in the following 2015 paper entitled, “Quantum criticality in a wide range of important biomolecules” it was found that “Most of the molecules taking part actively in biochemical processes are tuned exactly to the transition point and are critical conductors,” and the researchers further commented that “finding even one (biomolecule) that is in the quantum critical state by accident is mind-bogglingly small and, to all intents and purposes, impossible.,, of the order of 10^-50 of possible small biomolecules and even less for proteins,”,,,
And as this follow up article in 2018 stated, “There is no obvious evolutionary reason why a protein should evolve toward a quantum-critical state, and there is no chance at all that the state could occur randomly.,,,”
What is so devastating to the materialistic presuppositions of Darwinian evolution with the finding of pervasive quantum coherence and/or quantum entanglement within molecular biology, is that quantum coherence and/or quantum entanglement is a non-local, beyond space and time, effect that requires a beyond space and time cause in order to explain its existence. As the following paper entitled “Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory” stated, “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,”
In short, in order to be able to explain how any organism achieves its basic overall form, it is necessary to appeal to a ‘beyond space and time’ cause.
Christians just so happen to have one.:
Origenes: This has been a very frustrating “discussion” with someone who is either disingenuous or moronic.
Thanks. I spend my time, trying honestly and sincerely answering your questions and that’s your response?
I’m not sure why I bother.
Let me ask you: is that what you think about everyone who disagrees with you? You can’t be wrong so they must be a liar or a lunatic?
Bornagain77: JVL, in order to understand how an organism might achieve it overall form, perhaps you can start with something simple. Like, for instance, understanding exactly how a ‘simple’ protein finds its final folded form.
I’d like to respond but a) it’s late where I live now and b) according to Origenes I must be an idiot or a liar so I doubt you’d really want to hear my responses.
Well, my theory is that God made people smart, Darwin made them dumb. 🙂
.
JVL, the use of language in a system of symbols was predicted to be the primary organizational requirement for autonomous open-ended self-replication. That fact alone provide us with some sense of orientation, at least to the extent that we should not be particularly surprised if we indeed find it to be the primary organizational requirement of autonomous open-ended self-replication.
However, if the use of language in a system of symbols was discovered inside the cell, and the use of language in a system of symbols is a universal correlate of intelligence, then the design inference is valid.
If we say that the nature of scientific truth is the property of being universally supported by evidence without contradiction, then we now know three things that are scientifically true.
a) The use of language in a system of symbols was predicted to be the primary organizational requirement for autonomous open-ended self-replication. b) The use of language in a system of symbols was discovered inside the cell. c) The use of language in a system of symbols is a universal correlate of intelligence.
The scientific inference to design in biology is therefore valid.
If you intend to be scientifically-minded and hold a favor for logical continuity, then the only thing you can do with that scientific fact is integrate it.
You can say “Yes it’s valid” and it indicates an unknown intelligence behind the origin of life on this planet, or you can say “Yes it’s valid” but I believe that one day we will find otherwise. But what you cannot do is say is “No, it is not valid”.
That statement is demonstrably false.
JVL:
That is because they don’t know what to look for.
That is not true. Dawkins doesn’t know jack about developmental biology. And Shubin is a paleontologist. Neither one has demonstrated any knowledge of what makes an organism what it is. And the peer-reviewed paper “On the Problem of Biological Form” means more than anything they spew.
Genetics researchers have weighed in. They know more about this than those two. There isn’t any evidence that biological form is reducible to physics and chemistry.
Summary of a frustrating discussion:
Are you saying that a particular set of genes lead to one particular body shape?
Hmm . . yeah, something like that.
There is problem with that, since millions of species express radically different body shapes during different stages of their life, for example A, B, C, D, …..
Yeah, many life forms share similar genes and genomic sequences. But not their complete genome.
No that’s not what I mean. I’m talking about one organism who expresses radically different body shapes at different stages of its life, for example …. (multiple examples)
Ah, like a caterpiller you mean? That is a good example. Yeah I have no comment. A bit miraculous.
Especially miraculous when you hold that a particular set of genes lead to one particular body shape.
Which is my point: one particular set of DNA does not lead to one particular body shape.
But a caterpillar is just one example, so it doesn’t really count.
I have provided you with other examples and in fact as I have said there are millions of species who express radically different body shapes during different stages of their life. So it really does refute your idea that a particular set of genes lead to one particular body shape.
I’m not sure that is exactly what I said!!
I think is pretty simple about the centre of command for body shape:
-When specifically start the construction site of the body?
–Where specifically are analyzed /synthetized all internal stimuli from organs that are built ? Where?
-What exactly needs that “centre of command” for body shape ? Computing power.
-Where exactly in an animal body could be found something that do computations?
Scientists “brainwashed” all the people by focusing all the attention on DNA because was the simplest code found in cell and they ignored ” the nervous system code” that is too complicated so all discussions are around DNA,4 letters ,20 a.a. . Centre of command for body shape can’t be INSIDE the cell because is a trans/supra-cell “organisation”.
WJM,
Which neatly leaves out the alphanumeric code sequence, the functional, algorithmic information. The evasiveness/ dismissiveness on this we have seen so many times is a signature of cognitive dissonance.
Those who talk like that need to look at Crick’s letter to his son on his discovery, March 19, 1953. Right from the beginning, the significance of code was recognised. And, in a Tanenbaum style layer cake info system framework, the physical layer enables the informational ones riding on it, it does not replace them.
KF
UB, yup. At this stage, we are down to the psychology of denial or evasion, driving the obvious ideologically driven selective hyperskepticism. Cognitive dissonance and associated defences. KF
Origenes, complete metamorphosis is real and shows that different body plans are possible on one genome. Worse at the intermediate stage, the first form dissolves into a soup, so the second plan can only come from what is in the cells; sort of like after fertilisation where one cell develops into the body form. We don’t understand it yet, but that’s of the gaps reasoning if you have to go there to evade the obvious import of coded, complex, algorithmically functional information in D/RNA already, decisive already. Another clue came from plugging one type of nucleus into different zygotes, BA77 may help find this, development to the point of incompatibility then death. KF
Origenes:
I’m sorry you find my replies frustrating. I am not an expert in the pertinent subjects but I am trying to honestly answer your queries as best I can. When I’m not sure or don’t want to say more than I know then I admit it. I have also consistently pointed to two easily obtainable books written for a general reader which explain the ‘no blueprint’ idea much better than I can. And, of course, those books would have references to other materials which would go into things more in depth.
I don’t know what more you want from me? I don’t have the time to learn all the complicated chemistry and biology to explain things at a deeper level but you can find that information if you wish.
ET: That is because they don’t know what to look for.
Well, perhaps you should do that then. There would definitely be a Nobel prize if you were successful.
Interestingly enough, no ID researchers seem to be looking for the stuff you claim must be there. The Discovery Institute has money and a lab but that’s not what they’re pursuing.
Upright BiPed:
I’ve really got nothing else to say. It’s clear that the semiotic community has not come out in support of the design inference. I think, in fact, they disagree with the design inference. Your argument is with them not with me.
Bornagain77: then, obviously, proteins must be finding their final folded form by some ‘non-random’, i.e. non-Darwinian, method.
Evolutionary processes are NOT random except for the mutations.
.
That’s right JVL. Absolution is the key.
It’s okay for you to carry out something you know to be false — because others are doing it too.
If what I do is false, it’s their fault.
#134 JVL
Finally, someone who actually gets evolution. It’s about time…
.
Chuck,
One of the predicted markers required to confirm the design inference was that the genetic code would be established by a “quiescent” (Von Neumann) description of its interpretive constraints.
Is the genetic code established by description?
Chuckdarwin @136
Not a spectacular insight. Here it is common knowledge that evolution is both random and nonrandom. The fuel is blind random genetic variation. To Darwin’s credit, the winnowing process, natural selection, is nonrandom. However, as scientists have recognized for more than a century, the insurmountable problem for Darwinism is that the non-randomness of natural selection only helps with the “survival” not the “arrival” of biological novelties.
No! It should be:
Mutations are about genetics not Evolution.
If you or anyone else disagrees, then present your case.
JVL, “Evolutionary processes are NOT random except for the mutations.”
Perhaps you should, as the old quip about miracles goes, “be a little more explicit here”.
Contrary to Darwinists constantly trying to distance Darwin’s theory from the concept of randomness whenever the concept randomness itself comes under scrutiny, Randomness is literally the foundational bedrock upon which the entirety of Darwinian theory rests!
Moreover, “Barely constrained randomness”, as Carl Zimmer put it via Harvard Biovisions, is also now, empirically, shown to be a (blatantly) false assumption that Darwinists have erroneously made in regards to explaining the foundation of biological life.
#138 Origenes
Perhaps not as common as you claim given the plethora of postings such as “evolution doesn’t exist” or “evolution is not science” or “evolution is a ‘just so story'” or “evolution is religion” or “evolution can’t explain ‘macroevolution,'” ad nauseum. I do, however, love the ID talking point, though. How about this one: “If the glove don’t fit, you must acquit.”
Now that Bornagain has chimed in, I realize I forgot one: evolution is pseudo-science.
As to Upright BiPed. I candidly admit that most of the time I have no idea what he or she is talking about. For example, instead of using “quiescent” why don’t you simply say “latent” or “dormant”? Instead of using “design inference” why don’t you use “nonsense.”
Chuck @ 141
Dawkins & co want you to believe that evolution is nonrandom WRT to finding biological novelties. As I have pointed out (#138) evolution is random WRT finding biological novelties. So, these ppl who you are quoting criticizing evolution are entirely correct.
.
Chuck,
1. Why not use the terms and language used by the polymath John Von Neumann? He used them for a reason – they mean something (which you avoid).
2. You didn’t answer the question. You avoided it to protect yourself from documented facts.
– – – – – – – – – – –
Chuck, aaRS proteins are the constraints that establish the genetic code. They are synthesized from genetic memory. That means there was once a time in the history of earth when the first ever aaRS protein was synthesized from memory. At that point in history, how many of the other aaRS constraints had to be in place?
CD, snide rhetoric does not answer to the only empirically warranted and resource plausible source of functionally specific, complex organisation and/or associated information [FSCO/I] beyond 500 – 1,000 bits. As a direct result, the alphanumeric coded algorithmic information in the cell points to language use and goal directed stepwise processes requiring execution machinery — the information in itself, in the sequencing of distinct bases is not dynamically active [D/mRNA serves as memory store] — thus to intelligently directed configuration. AKA, design. Rhetorical bluster and stunts do not change that. But they do point to the root problem, ideological commitment to a priori evolutionary materialism imposed on science and begging huge questions. KF
Upright BiPed: It’s okay for you to carry out something you know to be false — because others are doing it too.
I don’t think it is false, that’s why I say what I say. I take responsibility for my choices. I did not say my opinion are someone else’s responsibility. I reported what I think the semiotic researchers think and you tried to blame me for that.
Perhaps you should just get used to the idea that a lot of very intelligent people disagree with you including almost every biologist on the planet and the members of the semiotic society. Perhaps you should stop demonising people who disagree with you.
Origenes: To Darwin’s credit, the winnowing process, natural selection, is nonrandom.
Why is it that you NEVER call out fellow ID supporters when then make mistaken statements about unguided evolutionary theory? You gladly vilify those you disagree with but you NEVER correct those you generally agree with. Why is that?
Bornagain77: Contrary to Darwinists constantly trying to distance Darwin’s theory from the concept of randomness whenever the concept randomness itself comes under scrutiny, Randomness is literally the foundational bedrock upon which the entirety of Darwinian theory rests!
I was not trying to ‘distance’ Darwin’s theory from randomness. Perhaps you and Origenes could have a discussion since they understand the distinction but, for some reason, choose not to correct your mistakes.
Kairosfocus: But they do point to the root problem, ideological commitment to a priori evolutionary materialism imposed on science and begging huge questions.
You too could be accused of having an ideological commitment to an a priori notion which begs huge questions that you studiously avoid addressing. Sometimes you won’t even use certain words to describe your beliefs as if the words themselves somehow convey a touch of evil.
JVL, in case you did not realize it, empirical evidence, not rhetoric, has the final say in science.
i.e. empirical evidence now demonstrates biological life is NOT NEARLY as random in its foundational essence as Darwinian Materialists have falsely presupposed:
Bornagain77: JVL, in case you did not realize it, empirical evidence has the final say in science. i.e. empirical evidence now demonstrates biological life is NOT NEARLY as random in its foundational essence as Darwinian materialists have falsely presupposed:
Mutations are random (with respect to fitness); selection OF ANY KIND is NOT random.
If you think mutations are guided or programmed then it’s up to you to establish that hypothesis.
JVL: “Mutations are random (with respect to fitness);”
yet another false claim.
1. Darwin’s theory holds mutations to the genome to be random. The vast majority of mutations to the genome are not random but are now found to be ‘directed’.
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/asked-at-reason-magazine-how-much-science-research-is-fraudulent/#comment-734315
Since mutations to DNA are now known, in the vast majority of instance, to not be truly random, Darwinists will often respond to this (very) inconvenient falsification of a core presupposition of their theory by claiming that mutations are only held to be random with regard to fitness, i.e. to the needs of the individual, (as if that claim gets them out of the severe jam they have with this core falsification to their theory), but even their claim that mutations are only held to be random with regard to fitness, i.e. to the needs of the individual, is now known to be a false claim in and of itself.
Bornagain77: Darwin’s theory holds mutations to the genome to be random. The vast majority of mutations to the genome are not random but are now found to be ‘directed’.
Sadly, Dr James Shapiro and Dr Cornelius Hunter have yet to get acceptance of their ideas from the vast majority of working biologists. Nor have they published their ideas in peer-reviewed journals. In other words: the notion that “the vast majority of mutations to the genome are not random” is an unverified hypothesis.
The mutation rate being adaptive refers to THE RATE not the location or nature of the mutation. Of course there are adaptive mutations, that is the whole point!! And if the rate of mutations is higher then the rate of adaptive mutations will also be higher.
Also, I would ask you: why do you think one-quarter to one-third of all human gestations end up as spontaneous abortions?
Why do you think there are so many deleterious human diseases like polio, malaria, ebola, COVID, measles, mumps, rubella, strep, leprosy, etc, etc, etc? Were the mutations that brought those about directed? Were pathogens in general planned? For what purpose?
Instead of just trawling the internet for statements that support your view you really should read all the work and research that applies. That’s how science works, you don’t pick and choose which research to believe in.
So you appeal to deleterious mutations to try to prove that mutations must be random? 🙂
You do realize the fact that the overwhelming rate of deleterious mutations to beneficial mutations falsifies Darwinian evolution in and of itself do you not? Or has that little detail escaped your notice?
Bornagain77: So you appeal to deleterious mutations to try to prove that mutations must be random?
You said ‘the vast majority’ were directed. If one-quarter to one-third of human gestations end up in spontaneous abortions (probably due to deleterious mutations) then it can’t be that a ‘vast majority’ are directed UNLESS most of all those spontaneous abortions were directed. Do you think they were?
You do realize the fact that the overwhelming rate of deleterious mutations to beneficial mutations falsifies Darwinian evolution in and of itself do you not? Or has that little detail escaped your notice?
Are you, then, saying that most mutations are deleterious and therefore NOT directed? Is that what you are saying?
You’d better make up your mind: are most mutations directed or deleterious? OR are most of the deleterious ones directed I suppose. By some very nasty and awful director.
If I add your statements together you think ‘the vast majority of mutations are directed’ and are deleterious. I wonder who would be directing a vast number of deleterious mutations? That is a very good question and tells me what you think the designer behind intelligent design is like.
JVL:
Because they are correct. Why did you stop reading after the sentence you quote? In the remainder of my post I make clear that——contrary to what Dawkins want you to believe——, the nonrandomness of natural selection has no impact on what is crucial, namely finding biological novelties.
Am I being unclear here?
Hugo de Vries: “natural selection may explain the survival of the fittest, but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest”
Origenes: Because they are correct. Why did you stop reading after the sentence you quote? In the remainder of my post I make clear that——contrary to what Dawkins want you to believe——, the nonrandomness of natural selection has no impact on what is crucial, namely finding biological novelties.
I did read that and I gave you the benefit of the doubt in the phrase ‘biological novelties’, i.e. new genomes arrived at by random mutations. If that’s not what you meant then I apologise.
The arrival of biological novelties is via random mutations, their survival is based on non-random selection. You need both so, therefore, unguided evolution is not, primarily, random. Without the mutations you can’t get evolution, without selection you can’t get evolution.
Just choosing to focus on the first half and declaring the whole process is basically random is incorrect but a lot of commenters here say things like that.
Think of it like raising a child. Their genetics will dictate or at least heavily influence some aspects of their development. But their upbringing is also crucial and important. You can’t say it’s primarily nature or it’s primarily nurture. It’s both. One comes first but they both count.
AND, selection helps determine which mutations will be carried on. In some sense, selection is more important than variation. Genetic variation is chaotic, unfocused; selection is focused and unchaotic. Selection moves evolution forward.
JVLK @157
If Darwinism cannot explain “the arrival of the fittest” (biological novelties), other than by random mutations, it has failed as a theory. Dawkins has admitted that this is the case:
Origenes: If Darwinism cannot explain “the arrival of the fittest” (biological novelties), other than by random mutations, it has failed as a theory. Dawkins has admitted that this is the case:
You seem to be missing the primary paradigm. ‘Darwinism’ can explain the ‘arrival of the fittest’ (a phrase not coined by Darwin of course) via a process of selection acting upon variation.
Your quote from Dr Dawkins is taken vastly out of context. He is saying: it’s not just randomness that drives evolution, it’s selection, most importantly cumulative selection acting upon heritable variation.
You accuse me of ending my quotations early, you’ve left off a whole long, involved series of points and arguments for the power of cumulative selection based on random variation.
Again, you need both. You clearly are trying to ‘take down’ unguided evolution by insisting on emphasising only one aspect over another. But that’s not how it works and, more importantly, that’s not what unguided evolutionary theory says.
If you really want to have a scientific discussion then please present the views you disagree with completely instead of just quote-mining things that support your a priori view.
Spontaneous abortions aren’t generally due to deleterious mutations. You are just fantasizing whatever now.
JVL states, “You said ‘the vast majority’ were directed. If one-quarter to one-third of human gestations end up in spontaneous abortions (probably due to deleterious mutations) then it can’t be that a ‘vast majority’ are directed UNLESS most of all those spontaneous abortions were directed. Do you think they were?”
JVL is (purposely) confusing his (faulty) theologically based argument that God would not allow spontaneous abortions with the now empirically established fact that the vast majority of mutation are found to be directed, not random.
Notice, contrary to what JVL erroneously claimed via ‘spontaneous abortions’, that I am not claiming that God is directing the mutations to the DNA (it could very well, as Johnnyb pointed out, be ‘epigenetic programming’ directing the mutations to DNA), nor am I claiming that ALL mutations to DNA are directed, (nor am I even claiming that ‘directed’ mutations to DNA are not deleterious in and of themselves as JVL erroneously presupposed), I am merely claiming that it is now an empirically established fact that the vast majority of mutations are found to be directed, not random.
And it is that empirical finding, in and of itself, and all by its lonesome, that falsifies a primary, and core, presupposition of Darwin’s theory.
Mohammadnursyamsu: Spontaneous abortions aren’t generally due to deleterious mutations. You are just fantasizing whatever now.
What do you think they are due to then?
Bornagain77: Notice, contrary to what JVL erroneously claimed, that I am not claiming that God is directing the mutations to the DNA (it could very well, as Johnnyb pointed out, be ‘epigenetic programming’ directing the mutations to DNA), nor am I claiming that ALL mutations to DNA are directed, (nor am I even claiming that ‘directed’ mutations to DNA are ‘building information’), I am merely claiming that it is now an empirically established fact that the vast majority of mutations are directed, not random.
Who introduced or created that epigenetic programming?
Again, a vast majority of mutations are directed and most of them are deleterious. That is what you believe.
So, someone is deciding that most mutations are deleterious. That directly follows from your statements.
And what does God have to do with it? You brought it up, not me.
Whatever JVL, it seems you are just willy nilly throwing whatever you can at to the wall to see if it sticks.
i.e. you’ve got nothing but empty rhetoric, and no empirical evidence, to try to save your precious Darwinism from empirical falsification.
Yet, the empirical evidence itself could care less that your precious theory is falsified.
I am out of here.
JVL,
I see your turnabout projection attempt:
I raise you, one cat out of the bag moment that you know has been on major public record for over twenty years:
In short, you know just why there is a problem on record, but chose to try to use a rhetorical stunt of distraction. For the record, were it shown that FSCO/I can and reliably is observed to come from blind chance and/or mechanical necessity, the design inference on FSCO/I, i.e. for the world of life, would collapse. The reality is, that is not any more likely than the creation of a perpetuum mobile. And were such a machine credibly demonstrated, thermodynamics — a closely related point of view, BTW — would collapse.
In short, you resorted to empty rhetoric that ends up showing the opposite of what it set out to do.
KF
PS: This is a general audience blog, which needs to sustain a family friendly atmosphere. There is also no need for it to be perpetually dragged into distractions and worse.
PPS: While arguments can be made for incremental, limited improvements via hill climbing, the real problem is to find OoL and to bridge onward to major body plans, where the former requires ~ 100 – 1,000 k of genetic information and the latter ~10 – 100+ million bits of information by blind chance and mechanical necessity. In short, climbing a hill on an isolated island is one thing, crossing the seas at random to reach to the island without clues as to warmer/colder is entirely another. It is easy to show that the latter is well beyond the blind search capability of our solar system or observed cosmos. The only observed cosmos.
In no way is the present discussion an answer to the question of the current state of Christian apologetics.
The state of Christian apologetics, is a bunch of crap.
The first thing for apologetics, is to acknowledge the subjective part of reality, and there is just universal failure among Christans to acknowledge it.
It is certainly possible that Christians will once again support natural selection as God’s law, as they did during the holocaust. Generally every Christian I see is clamoring for objective morality, and what is more objective than natural selection? Social darwinism is poised to rule. Certainly if the holocaust had not occurred yet, all the Christians would now support social darwinism, because of their insistence on objective morality.
What is the difference still between a Christian and an atheist? They are currently both fact obsessed people, completely clueless about the subjective part of reality. Especially also the supporters of intelligent design theory are inclined to be clueless about the subjective part of reality.
There is no acknowledgement of love as being both real, and subjective. Which means that love is made objective, measurable, calculating.
People with such beliefs, it can only turn out to be a total catastrophy. The morality of ordinary people in society is getting to be a total joke because of throwing out subjective love, emotions.
As always, the solution is the creationist conceptual scheme, to validate both the subjective and objecte parts of reality, in the 2 fundamental categories of creator and creation.
1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion
2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact
.
The reasoning you give is a logical fallacy.
And most importantly … you know it’s a logical fallacy each time you repeat it.
You do?
Do you remember this double-standard fallacy?
When asked about this double-standard, you went off on a diatribe about ID folks need to name the designer!!
When I asked you ‘who is the designer’ of your ‘signal from space’ … do you remember how you answered it?
Suddenly you figured out that you could not answer that question without clearly demonstrating the double standard you put in place … but did you “take responsibility” for it?
No, instead you answered “There isn’t one”. (thud)
That’s right JVL, you were willing to say or do anything but “take responsibility” — including going into full-tilt incoherence and making a fool out of yourself.
And just to make the point crystal clear: Will you take responsibility for this fallacy now?
No, of course not. You have no intension of doing that, and never have had.
I haven’t blamed you, JVL (that doesn’t even make sense). I reminded you that — like your use of ad hoc double-standards – it is a logical fallacy to suggest the design inference is invalid because someone does not agree to it.
(JVL, the only reason you use a known logical fallacy to deny the design inference, is because you know you have to … the design inference is valid. and you know it.)
Bornagain77: Whatever JVL, it seems you are just willy nilly throwing whatever you can at to the wall to see if it sticks.
I’m surprised and dismayed that you think that being more specific about which mutations are directed and which are deleterious is such a trivial matter. I guess you just don’t care about the ramifications of your statements and beliefs. Which is weird because you always love to hold ‘materialists” feet to the fire. I guess you’re much more heat averse. So be it. I won’t beat a dead horse.
Kairosfocus: For the record, were it shown that FSCO/I can and reliably is observed to come from blind chance and/or mechanical necessity, the design inference on FSCO/I, i.e. for the world of life, would collapse.
And some people think that has been shown. So, now, are you just going to stamp your feet and insist you are right or are you going to do some science, find some data, to uphold your case?
Mohammadnursyamsu: In no way is the present discussion an answer to the question of the current state of Christian apologetics.
Funny, I don’t think anyone participating thought it was addressing that situation.
Who introduced or created that genetically modified food=unnatural / vaccine =unnatural process /some medicines that cure on one side and destroy on many other sides/technology with all sort of electromagnetic waves and unnatural kind of formating of brain /etc/etc?
.
Like this gem. You knew the moment you said this that it was patently false.
No one — anywhere at anytime — has demonstrated the rise of semiosis from dynamics.
Upright BiPed: And most importantly … you know it’s a logical fallacy each time you repeat it.
No, I’m pretty much ‘what you see is what there is’.
When asked about this double-standard, you went off on a diatribe about ID folks need to name the designer!!
The discussion was more nuanced than that and if you want to rehash the whole thing I guess I will do that. But only if you promise to not bring it up over and over and over again.
it is a logical fallacy to suggest the design inference is invalid because someone does not agree to it.
And I didn’t suggest that was my argument. YOU thought that was my argument and purpose. All I was saying was the obvious truth: the semiotic community has not supported the design hypothesis. This is true so let’s just leave it at that.
JVL, the only reason you use a known logical fallacy to deny the design inference, is because you know you have to … the design inference is valid. and you know it.
I do not agree that the design inference hypothesis is established. I accept that it is a valid hypothesis to make and to discuss and to explore. And that’s what’s happening.
I have NOT concluded the design hypothesis was invalid based on the semiotic community’s non-support of it. I merely noted that.
I do not think the design inference has been established because other plausible unguided causes have not been ruled out. And I think the other explanations are sufficient.
You may want or choose to cast me into an evil or manipulative role but it’s not true. That says more about your reaction to adversary than it does about me.
Everyone here but one is playing the other person’s game and they apparently don’t know it. If they do, then who is the fool?
JVL, what people imagine has nothing to do with facts of observation. If you had a good case it would have been trumpeted everywhere. For some years, there were attempts, every one a failure, unsurprising given the search challenge. The current evasions and distractions we see are precisely because there are no good cases. KF
PS: As for do some science, the science has been done. There are trillions of cases of FSCO/I of observed origin, all by design. The search challenge calculations have been presented many times. The best honest attempt has been as reported by Wikipedia on the infinite monkeys challenge. Here is the summary:
A factor of 1 in 10^100 of the 500 bit lower end of the threshold.
JVL, after observing the above ‘discussion’?. I can’t help but notice your attitudes to certain developments in the aforementioned discussion seem to display a certain religious fundamentalism (fundamaterialism)?.
your continued adherence to the views and personal beliefs of the practitioners within the semiotic field (rather than what the implications of the fields empirical results may be)
Reminds of someone who attends church and follows the particular views or denomination of its pastors without ever having studied the bible to draw up one’s own conclusions.
UB, correct, hence the evasive, elephant-hurling fallacy. KF
.
So you have something based on physical evidence and reason?
You have a non-intelligent source for the rise of a symbol system from dynamics?
By all means, let’s hear it.
JVL: “I guess you’re much more heat averse.”
You blowing rhetorical ‘hot air’ in the face of all contrary evidence, and refusing to be honest towards the evidence, is certainly not to be considered ‘heat’.
People tend to fill the blanks in with their imagination
Hilarious
The pro-ID guys are kicking ass here. Hats off. Not that I’m keepin score. Not my job.
Everyone dies. Get ready.
–RAM
JVL
An observation from some of your admittedly vague remarks tells me you subscribe to a sort of stereochemical view of the origination of the genetic code.
Is this correct?
Bob: JVL, after observing the above ‘discussion’?. I can’t help but notice your attitudes to certain developments in the aforementioned discussion seem to display a certain religious fundamentalism (fundamaterialism)?.
I’m not sure what I said in particular that gave you that impression.
your continued adherence to the views and personal beliefs of the practitioners within the semiotic field (rather than what the implications of the fields empirical results may be)
Reminds of someone who attends church and follows the particular views or denomination of its pastors without ever having studied the bible to draw up one’s own conclusions.
My observations of what the semiotic community has or has not said was merely my observations. I wasn’t using their statements and non-statements in support of my own views at all so I didn’t feel the need to examine their work regarding whether or not it seemed to agree with my stance.
PS Once again last night I was temporarily blocked from commenting. After trying on two different computers multiple times I gave up for the night. I apologise for the delay in responding even though it wasn’t due to anything I did.
Upright BiPed: So you have something based on physical evidence and reason?
I think so, yes. For some of the unguided evolutionary paradigm that is. Not so much the origin of life and DNA as well you know.
You have a non-intelligent source for the rise of a symbol system from dynamics? By all means, let’s hear it.
I don’t have an explanation myself. No one does as of yet. Although there is some work being done concerning some basic chemical affinities which I have only seen brief reference to and am unable, myself, to comment much on those speculations. Perhaps one of the biosemiotic researchers has some insight?
Bornagain77: You blowing rhetorical ‘hot air’ in the face of all contrary evidence, and refusing to be honest towards the evidence, is certainly not to be considered ‘heat’.
I just couldn’t resist the metaphor!
Have you decided how to rectify ‘the vast majority’ of mutations being directed and most being deleterious at the same time? I should think that would be an issue you’d very much like to deal with.
Bob: An observation from some of your admittedly vague remarks tells me you subscribe to a sort of stereochemical view of the origination of the genetic code. Is this correct?
It’s one of the possibilities I’ve heard about which, to my very amateurish view, makes sense. BUT there are competing ideas so I prefer to remain agnostic until one paradigm or another gains more evidence. It’s okay not knowing, if we had an answer to everything we wouldn’t need to do any science!
JVL, your admissions to UB amount to, you have nothing but promissory notes and admissions that you have no demonstration of what you say some claimed. In short, you have no empirical warrant for believing FSCO/I can and does arise per observatyion from blind chance and mechanical necessity. The cell contains alphanumeric code, algorithms, execution machinery, thus language, goal directed stepwise process and technology to give effect. Molecular nanotech technology that James Tour — the molecular car guy — admits is very hard to do. In short, you have no actual empirical warrant for rejecting the import of trillions of cases plus search challenge considerations that FSCO/I is reliably the product of design and therefore a signature of such intelligently directed configuration. KF
PS: Stereochemistry is a form of dynamics and has no explanation for the sequence of the code as any base can couple to any other down the chain. The code is in the sequence of side branches. And that’s before we get to the handedness problem where racemic form is the normal product of thermodynamically driven synthesis. And that wrecks the geometry of key-lock fitting.
JVL:
The only evidence for unguided evolution is with genetic diseases and deformities. No one can even present a hypothesis for unguided evolution’s alleged ability to produce any bacterial flagellum of the genetic code.
So, all you have, really, is hope.
One of the most common fallacies used by anti-ID people is the Fallacy of Omission.
There is one example of it after another on UD and especially this OP.
It’s a form of cheating. But winning is the goal at all cost no matter how absurd the idea is.
And when they do this, it is genetics not Evolution.
The DNA models are all about genetics and zero about Evolution.
Aside: if anyone wants to point to the DNA model as examples of ID, fine. They are extremely good examples of ID but when discussing them, don’t kid yourself that this is about Evolution.
The anti-ID people don’t want to discuss Evolution. They want to discuss irrelevant stuff such as Christianity or DNA. Besides using the Fallacy of Begging the Question and Fallacy of Irrelevance it’s common to use the Fallacy of Omission.
Jerry: The anti-ID people don’t want to discuss Evolution. They want to discuss irrelevant stuff such as Christianity or DNA. Besides using the Fallacy of Begging the Question and Fallacy of Irrelevance it’s common to use the Fallacy of Omission.
What about evolution did you want to talk about?
Jerry, strategic half truths have indeed been commonplace on the part of objectors to the design inference on tested, reliable sign. So, to has been misrepresentation and then we have namecalling. None of which addresses the matter substantially. KF
JVL:
Mechanisms of change required for universal common descent.
Jerry, actually this thread raises apologetics issues which is about the Christian faith and answering for the reason for that commitment. KF
No, the search space is simply too vast for such a limited search mechanism, as even Dawkins admits.
Nonsense.
We ‘ve been over this. Dawkins is mistaken. Hugo de Vries again: “natural selection may explain the survival of the fittest, but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest.”
Natural selection, a.k.a. “what survives survives”, does not in any way explain finding biological novelties.
ET: Mechanisms of change required for universal common descent.
Inheritable variation.
Origenes: No, the search space is simply too vast for such a limited mechanism, as even Dawkins admits.
That’s because nothing searched that whole space. Each ‘new’ form comes from previous forms via inheritable variation.
We ‘ve been over this. Dawkins is mistaken. Hugo de Vries again: “natural selection may explain the survival of the fittest, but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest.”
The ‘arrival’ of the fittest comes from cumulative selection acting on inheritable variation. The selection helps cull out the variations that are not as good at surviving and exploiting their environment. The fittest don’t just appear, they are created via slow, steady changes to existing forms.
JVL:
Variation to what, exactly? It can’t be to the DNA.
JVL:
Changes to what? It can’t be the DNA.
JVL, the problem is, you are blind to the implications of FSCO/I, i.e. many closely matched appropriately arranged and coupled components to yield coherent function. That imposes islands of function, as can be seen from say the thought exercise of shaking up a bucket full of correct reel parts for an ABU 6500 C reel. There are astronomically many more non functional ways to arrange the parts than functional ones and so we see islands of function deeply isolated in a sea of non function. Where, too, the parts themselves come from very complex processes, crude by comparison to protein manufacture in the cell. Similarly for alphanumeric text strings which are WLOG as there are description languages for any assembly. The dominant challenge is to get TO shorelines of function, even before we talk about rough fitness landscapes. Such starts in Darwin’s pond or the like, i.e. getting TO the first genome and micro body plan of the cell, requiring 100 – 1,000 k bits, well beyond search capacity of the observable universe. As for typical genomes (forget epigenetic info for the moment!) for body plans that is 10 – 100+ million bits. That dwarfs the first challenge, already specifying config spaces that utterly overwhelm the merely astronomical scope of resources. And this you full well know, you have been around for years. You are committing a fallacy of strategic omission, i.e. a 1/16th truth or worse. KF
ET: Changes to what? It can’t be the DNA.
Mostly the DNA although there is now evidence that epigenetic factors can also be inherited for two or three generations.
Kairosfocus: JVL, the problem is, you are blind to the implications of FSCO/I, i.e. many closely matched appropriately arranged and coupled components to yield coherent function.
I’m not ‘blind’ to the complexities of DNA and the genetic system but I think it arose via a long, long period of development instead of just popping into existence. If you compare the documented history of life on Earth it seems like there was a very, very long time when life was very simple and much less complicated than it is now. That would be consistent with a naturally developing system which had to start with very simple structures.
You don’t get ‘islands of function’ because all life forms are related to all other life forms. There is always a path from any given creature or plant to any other. So, no islands.
“It may be said that natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinizing, throughout the world, the slightest variations; rejecting those that are bad, preserving or adding up all that are good; silently and insensibly working”
Charles Darwin.(not the full quote)
JVL,
Does the above come close to your views of how evolution by natural selection proceeds?
.
JVL,
First and foremost, thank you for the straight up response at #183. An acknowledgement that there is no evidence against the design inference is not something we ever see here. I have participated on this board for an embarrassing number of years, and I have never seen it.
In my estimation, we all owe you a bit of thanks for that. Truly.
Everyone on this board, certainly myself, has argued up the wrong hill at some point or another, and at #183 you handled up on it as well as anyone could ask. I hope you can make a little room in your views for the design perspective. And as far as the contentious nature of the conversation we’ve had, I would just add that it has given me valuable perspective, and I hope it has done that for you as well.
Best regards
Bob: Does the above come close to your views of how evolution by natural selection proceeds?
I think it’s a bit too simplistic based on what we know now. Clearly some variation is conceived ‘dead in the water’, for example around one-quarter to one-third of human pregnancies spontaneously abort. Some not from bad variation but surely some would be caused by that. Then there are a lot of new borns with damaging and/or fatal birth defects, fewer now than in the past. A certain number of children die every year from accidents or diseases or ‘acts of God’ and those can’t be blamed on natural selection. Plus we now know there are other kinds of selection that affect who is profligate.
So, I think Darwin was heading in the right direction but things were more complicated than he knew or could know.
Upright BiPed: An acknowledgement that there is no evidence against the design inference is not something we ever see here. I have participated on this board for an embarrassing number of years, and I have never seen it.
That I did not acknowledge. I said I don’t know how life originated, no one does for sure. But that’s not the same as there being no evidence ‘against’ design although I prefer to think of it as being evidence that casts a lot of doubt on design. But, I admit, some of that is a matter of opinion; who knows what would have been in the head of any prehistoric designer after all. Anyway, that’s why I tend to avoid discussions about ‘bad design’.
I hope you can make a little room in your views for the design perspective. And as far as the contentious nature of the conversation we’ve had, I would just add that it has given me valuable perspective, and I hope it has done that for you as well.
I believe I have mentioned in the past that participating in conversations here has tested my views strongly which I think is a good thing. You and other commenters have really made me think about some things I had, to be honest, just accepted without question. And, in fact, I have changed my mind regarding a couple of the normal evolutionary tropes (ET is responsible for one of those changes of mind in fact).
I chose to come here because I thought it was wrong and rude to assume what ID supporters thought just as it would be rude to assume what I think. Unfortunately I have been snarky and rude a few times in the past and I apologise for those moments.
I didn’t expect to change anyone’s mind but I did want to challenge mine. I would have been happy just asking questions about ID and not defending unguided evolutionary theory but to not reply would have also been rude and certainly would have given the wrong impression.
I am no expert, that’s obvious. But I have tried to be honest in my replies.
JVL:
Wrong again. That has already been refuted, Clearly, you are just ignorant of genetics and biology.
DNA does not and cannot be the varying factor for universal common descent. It doesn’t have that kind of influence.
Natural selection is n on-random in the most trivial sense. That being not every organism has the same chance of being eliminated. But what survives can be anything along the trait spectrum of the species. It could be faster, slower or anywhere in between. Great eyesight to totally blind. Long legs to no legs.
Natural selection is really nothing more than contingent serendipity.
How life originated dictates how it subsequently evolved. If blind and mindless processes did not produce life, then they do NOT have complete dominion over evolutionary processes. An intelligently designed origin of life means that said life was so designed to adapt and evolve.
Evolution by means of intelligent design is exemplified by genetic algorithms. There aren’t any examples of evolution by means of blind and mindless processes outside of genetic diseases and deformities.
JVL:
Cumulative selection is for the willfully ignorant and extremely gullible. “Waiting for TWO Mutations” demonstrates why it is total nonsense. But we understand why you would promote it.
ET:Wrong again. That has already been refuted, Clearly, you are just ignorant of genetics and biology.
Other opinions are available.
DNA does not and cannot be the varying factor for universal common descent. It doesn’t have that kind of influence.
Well, what do you think is ‘the varying factor’ then?
Natural selection is really nothing more than contingent serendipity.
Clearly some really deleterious mutations are eliminated very quickly; before birth or soon after. Why wouldn’t a lion who could run just a bit faster be able to more easily catch a gazelle and therefore provide more food for their offspring?
How life originated dictates how it subsequently evolved. If blind and mindless processes did not produce life, then they do NOT have complete dominion over evolutionary processes.
But, if blind and mindless processes DID produce life then their influence would be paramount.
Evolution by means of intelligent design is exemplified by genetic algorithms. There aren’t any examples of evolution by means of blind and mindless processes outside of genetic diseases and deformities.
I know you dispute unguided evolutionary processes. But you could be wrong. All scientists have to admit their knowledge is provisional and subject to change.
Cumulative selection is for the willfully ignorant and extremely gullible. “Waiting for TWO Mutations” demonstrates why it is total nonsense. But we understand why you would promote it.
Let’s say you need two mutations for a beneficial trait to become manifest. (This is a severe simplification of course.) What are the chances of one of those mutations arising in one individual, the other to arise in another individual and then for those two individuals to meet and create a child with both mutations? AND, it’s possible that the two mutations had partially fixed in the local population so that there were many individuals with one of the mutations so that the probability of offspring with both was increased?
That’s how things can work in the real world.
The Fallacy of Omission is on display here or should it be the Fallacy of Assertion or the Fallacy of Assumption which is really begging the question.
No evidence is provided. Only assumptions and assertions.
But the most obvious thing is those guilty of these fallacies don’t care a whit. The really interesting thing is why they don’t care.
Jerry: No evidence is provided. Only assumptions and assertions.
ET and others insist there is some kind of ‘extra programming’ in cells which has not been identified or located. I assume you will be levelling the same criticism at them.
🙂 There is a blueprint and a command centre that read and apply that blueprint organising every cell and that is possible only with 2 ways feedback connection that inform centre of command what stage is cell and inform cell when where and what instruction to perform. It’s a wonder.
JVL:
What I said is a fact, not an opinion.
There isn’t any naturalistic mechanism capable of producing the transformations required to produce universal common descent.
Wow. Read much? And a faster lion is still a lion.
It is impossible for blind and mindless process to produce life because life is not reducible to physics and chemistry.
No one has been able to show that I am wrong. And evos will never admit the obvious.
Very small. But the chances the offspring will be a human is a given. All offspring of humans are human. All offspring of lions remain lions.
The real world refutes the notion of universal common descent via blind and mindless processes.
JVL:
It PERMEATES the cells. How many times do I have to tell you that?
Evidence? Error detection and correction. Splicing and editing. Those all require KNOWLEDGE. No one knows how blind and mindless could produce such systems. No one knows how to test the claim that they can. So we can dismiss the claim.
Everything know about error detection and correction says it requires intelligence. Everything we know about splicing and editing says it requires intelligence.
There isn’t anything, anywhere that supports the claim that blind and mindless processes didit.
LCD
It is truly a wonder. Consider the following mind-blowing story ….
.
Well, it appears that my expression of gratitude was misplaced.
For well three years you and I have had an ongoing exchange about nothing but the design inference at the origin of life. I don’t talk with you about evolutionary theory, or socio-politics, or religion, or any of it – only the design inference at the origin of life.
So when you finally acknowledged that there is no contradictory evidence against the universal correlate between intelligence and the use of language in a symbol system, I rightly thanked you for that acknowledgment. I did not think that you would immediately turn around to recant the acknowledgement by equivocating to issues outside the only topic we ever discuss … the origin of life.
I supposed I should have known better.
In any case, the facts remain the same. The use of language in a system of symbols was predicted to be the fundamental requirement of autonomous open-ended self-replication. That system of symbols was then discovered inside the living cell, which is widely documented in the history of science. Additionally, as you are abundantly aware, there is zero evidence of the rise of rate-independent symbol system from rate-dependent dynamics, and thus, the universal correlate remains universal. In fact, so difficult is the problem that mainstream OoL researchers don’t even discuss it in their research papers.
The design inference at the origin of life is valid. (and you know it)
.
JVL, wasn’t it you who recently brought up a paper by the prominent Italian biosemiotician Marcello Barbieri, poo pooing on ID? (Perhaps it was Seversky?)
This is a paper that Barbieri wrote (over a decade ago) during the big push to organize the biosemiotics community so they could make a name for themselves; on equal footing with any other biologist. As part of the program, they’d organize themselves under two key postulates, which Barbieri himself provides in Part One of the paper. The first postulate was that “life and semiosis are coextensive” and the second postulate was that symbols are purely natural things, and they’d have nothing to do with ID. Then of course, the remainder of the paper is where Barbieri would go through and support those key postulates.
I believe my reaction at the time was to have (Seversky?) go cut and paste the reasoning that Barbieri used to justify the second postulate.
Of course, I knew there was nothing to cut and paste, because there was not another single word about it in the entire rest of the paper. That’s how you do it JVL, just cut that foolishness right off at the top.
You can see Barbieri’s predicament here: 1) he’s a materialist trying to get some respect for a new paradigm that recognizes the reality of symbolic control in biology 2) he doesn’t need the blowback that ID would guarantee, which he doesn’t personally believe in anyway, but he has no logical way of dismissing it. Answer: Cut. Done.
I’ll tell you an interesting story about Barbieri and Howard Pattee from a few years ago. Barbieri is a seasoned veteran biologist who is passionate about biosemiosis. He would later go on to relaunch his rocket under his own paradigm, “Code Biology”. On the other hand, Pattee was writing about symbol systems long before any two biosemioticians had their heads above water. He says that when he began publishing, he eschewed the terms and language of the linguists and semioticians as being too vague, too ambiguous, and generally useless in trying to describe the physical nature of these systems. He was certainly right about that.
Later, Pattee is basically being drafted into the semiotics community (because his work and his descriptions hold up to scrutiny) and he finds himself on the advisory email list with all the luminaries of the biosemiosis community, headed by Marcello Barbieri. There is a point in that email list where Barbieri is questioning Pattee’s terminology. For Pattee, protein folding is part of the process of “interpretation”, where the rate-independent (energy degenerate) symbol re-enters the rate-dependent process that it controls. But for Barbieri, worried about offending biologists with Peircian terminology, he’s having none of it. He’s telling Pattee it would get nothing but “a laugh” from biologists.
So what an interesting juxtaposition. The physicist who eschews the imprecise language of the paradigm in describing the energy and time-dependent processes involved in symbolic control, is being called out for using words he defines in terms of those physical events. And this is all occurring, in part, because of the entrenched sensibilities of biologists, who dogmatically ignore the entire issue to begin with, while simultaneously forgetting that their model of gene expression requires two independent descriptions (one for the physical aspects and another for the symbolic aspects of the system) which cannot be integrated with one another.
And this is who you think gets to decide if the acknowledgement of recorded history, experimental confirmations and universal correlates, are to be allowed to take priority in science – allowed to take priority over ideologically-driven speculation of unknown objects and unseen processes?
That is directly against the ideals of science and makes no logical sense whatsoever.
– – – – – – – – – – – – –
When you acknowledge the fact that there is no evidence against the universal correlate between intelligence and the use of language in a symbol system, you are acknowledging that the design inference at the origin of life is valid. You do not have to believe the inference — you can always hold out hope that researchers will discover a way around the monumental problems – but you cannot say the inference is invalid.
And for those researchers to solve the monumental problems, they should probably stop ignoring them. It would also be nice if they informed the public (but there is no chance of that).
– – – – – – – – – – – –
Here are some of those issues that OoL research has to overcome (from previous posts):
Autonomous open-ended self-replication requires rate-independent (symbolic) control.
A symbol entails a three-way relationship between a material token (i.e. an arrangement of matter of some kind), a referent, and an interpretive constraint (a Peircean “interpretant”) to physically establish the relationship between the token and its referent. In a multi-referent system (capable of machine language) spatial/temporal variations within the tokens are used to distinguish one referent from another. Such an arrangement has the capacity to specify itself or any variation of itself, enabling open-ended potential.
This is what is physically required of the system, regardless of its origin. Any claim regarding the Origin of Life must first be an adequate claim. To be an adequate claim, it must demonstrate this particular physical system being perpetuated over time.
The system can be perpetuated over time by perpetuating the interpretive constraints in the system. This is implied because the descriptions are dependent on the constraints; until the constraints are established, the sequences of their descriptions cannot specify them. When the constraints are established and the sequences describe them, the system assumes a functional condition known as “semiotic closure”. In other words, the system must be self-referent in order to function. The way in which the constraints are perpetuated by the system is by specifying them in inheritable memory. That memory must then be placed in the daughter.
These interdependent requirements are the identifying physical characteristics of the type of system capable of open-ended replication.
Perhaps these are the things actually important to the discussion of origins.
cheers
I will post JVL’s reply here. He claims he has been banned from this thread.
Jerry, the comment is? KF
I want to read JVL’s refutation of ID. This will be a rude awakening for all of us, but censoring is no longer an option. 🙂
KF- the comment is he is banned from this thread.
He could always post comment on another thread
ET, That is his comment, not anything of substance? So far as I know from having posting privileges there is no automated in thread commenter ban. Banning, for cause, has been at site level. Thread owners can and do occasionally make manual interventions with the truly disruptive but that is laborious. This all begins to sound like a red herring led away to an ad hominem strawman set alight to cloud, confuse, poison and polarise. Any fair assessment on the merits will show that objectors to the design inference above have not had a very good case. As for the underlying apologetics issue, truth of the gospel and reason for its credibility are important. KF
Origenes I do not believe there has been any automated censorship that would block a post in this particular thread but not others, such would be site wide. I could be wrong but far more likely is a bug connected to updates and extensions, as has repeatedly happened. As for refuting the design inference all that would be needed is reliable actual observations of FSCO/I coming about by blind chance and/or mechanical necessity. There are trillions of cases by design but nil from such a source and search challenge readily explains why, it is no mystery. KF
.
good grief
If JVL is implying that I’ve done something to keep him from being able to respond, he needs to walk that back. I am a guest here, just as he/she is.
Moreover, at this late juncture, even the dust on the floor is aware that JVL cannot salvage his/her position.
F/N: I note on the OP:
Food for serious thought,
KF
Upright BiPed: If JVL is implying that I’ve done something to keep him from being able to respond, he needs to walk that back. I am a guest here, just as he/she is.
No, never. I never, ever thought or would think you would restrict anyone’s access.
Moreover, at this late juncture, even the dust on the floor is aware that JVL cannot salvage his/her position.
We can disagree on that but be assured I have never, ever thought you would limit anyone’s ability to comment on this site.
JVL, you are obviously able to comment here, could you answer on the merits? KF
Common-sense realism (local realism in physics) has been scientifically disproved. What many idealists attempt to preserve, for whatever reason, is conceptual materialism – IOW, idealists such as Bernardo Kastrup try to organize their idealist models in a way that preserves local realism, in some way, even if that realism is instantiated in abstract information and experienced as mental representations in a mental reality.
Dembski:
Unfortunately for Dembski, science has long since disproved this notion.
IMO, “realism” needs to be reworked by idealists into a subconscious “interface” commodity that is selecting and similarly translating specific sets of information into what might be called a transpersonal reality framework.
Kairosfocus: ou are obviously able to comment here
I can now, but for days and days I couldn’t. And no one, including you can explain, for sure, why. It’s all just vague hand-waving and supposition.
could you answer on the merits?
The merits of your explanation? A vague guess and hope? Do you even know what WordFence does or is for? Have you looked at their website?
You have no idea what the core site admins did or can do. Maybe my problem was just down to ‘updates’ (although no one else complained about such problems). But that doesn’t explain why it only manifested on one thread and not another.
And, bottom line, if your site updates are blocking some, but not all, commenters then maybe you need to have a chat with your site admins.
Something is wrong. You need to figure out what. And do something about it.
JVL, the general pattern has been clear for some years. The most reasonable explanation remains, that some incompatibility was at work. Which can be specific to a given machine, browser, extensions etc. And no, there was nothing above from you to fear. KF
Kairosfocus: The most reasonable explanation remains, that some incompatibility was at work. Which can be specific to a given machine, browser, extensions etc. And no, there was nothing above from you to fear.
Okay, one thing I am sure of: you are being honest and straight.
I am very sorry to hear about your family loses. It’s been a tough couple of years for everyone but you have suffered far more than most. Take care of yourself.
JVL, thanks, God bless. KF
PS: I have seen this sort of problem, sometimes, flush your computer through a thorough clean-scan that empties caches, history and the like. These days, when we open a web page there is an awful lot of memory taken up — I see things up into the 100’s of MB — that tells me a lot of scripts etc are at work behind the scenes [and opaque to us], something that leaves me distinctly uncomfortable. (I have MS Process explorer on habitually. And of course adblock, antivirus and antimalware. Also ghostery.)
Not completely opaque – most browsers allow you to open up some debugging tools which give a LOT of maybe-useful information. On windows, F12 or ctrl-shift-I usually does this. The network tab then lets you see all of the requests made (150 or so when I reloaded this page with ctrl-F5, resulting in 1.7MB of downloaded stuff), and lets you see all of the scripts etc (mostly minimised and therefore not very readable).
SH, thanks, though that would likely be pretty opaque to most users of the web. KF
This is a pretty profound failure to read nuance. One can objectively identify information, and investigate functional utility and pursue its investigation scientifically, then later to one’s own faith group discuss the meaning of those findings in a religious context without violating any scientific principles. It’s easy to ignore this fairly obvious nuance when it serves an ideological motivation, and you can employ it as a weapon, but in closing your eyes to it you’re only bending the truth about the motivations of the individuals in question… and all for what? A relatively banal and overblown ad hominem that less and less people are caring about.
I recognize that it’s difficult to translate between ideological languages, so I can understand your confusion to some degree, but if you want to have any productive discussion, or at least not sound so confused (or dishonest depending upon how charitably or uncharitably people are viewing your comments) all the time, it would be worth learning to do.