Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Oldies but baddies — AF repeats NCSE’s eight challenges to ID (from ten years ago)

Categories
ID Foundations
science education
Selective Hyperskepticism
specified complexity
worldview
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In a recent thread by Dr Sewell, AF raised again the Shallit-Elsberry list of eight challenges to design theory from a decade ago:

14 Alan FoxApril 15, 2013 at 12:56 am Unlike Profesor Hunt, Barry and Eric think design detection is well established. How about having a go at this list then. It’s been published for quite a while now.

I responded a few hours later:

______________

>>* 16 kairosfocus April 15, 2013 at 2:13 am

AF:

I note on points re your list of eight challenges.

This gets tiresomely repetitive, in a pattern of refusal to be answerable to adequate evidence, on the part of too many objectors to design theory:

>>1 Publish a mathematically rigorous definition of CSI>>

It has long since been shown, objections and censorship games notwithstanding, that reasonable quantitative metrics for FSCO/I and so for CSI, can be built and have been built. Indeed Durston et al have used such to provide a published list of values for 15 protein families.

>> 2 Provide real evidence for CSI claims >>

Blatant, all around you. But, a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.

Just to pick an example {–> from the list}, a phone number is obviously functionally specific (ever had a wrong number call?) and — within a reasonable context [though not beyond the 500 bit threshold] complex.

>> 3 Apply CSI to identify human agency where it is currently not known >>

FSCO/I is routinely intuitively used to identify artifacts of unknown cause, as IIRC, WmAD has pointed out regarding a room in the Smithsonian full of artifacts of unknown purpose but identified to be credibly human.

>> 4 Distinguish between chance and design in archaeoastronomy >>

The pattern of Nazca lines or the like, fit within the nodes-arcs pattern and collectively exhibit FSCO/I similar to other complex drawings. The 500 bit threshold is easily passed. If you want to contrast odds of a marker wandering randomly in a random walk, the difference will be trivial.

In short this is a refusal to use simple common sense and good will.

>> 5 Apply CSI to archaeology >>

Just shown, this is a case or repeating much the same objection in much the same context as though drumbeat repetition is capable of establishing a claim by erasing the underlying fallacies. Being wrong over and over and over again, even in the usual anti-design echo chambers, does not convert long since corrected fallacy into cogent reasoning.

>> 6 Provide a more detailed account of CSI in biology
Produce a workbook of examples using the explanatory filter, applied to a progressive series of biological phenomena, including allelic substitution of a point mutation. >>

There are book-length cogent treatments of CSI as applied to biology [try Meyer’s SITC for starts {{ –> . . . I know, I know, this was published 2009, six years after the “challenge,” but AF is raising it in 2013, TEN years after the challenge}}], and that is not enough for the objectors, there will never be enough details.

Similarly, the objection starts within an island of existing function and demands a CSI based explanation of a phenomenon known to be well within the threshold of complexity. This is a strawman tactic.

>> 7 Use CSI to classify the complexity of animal communication As mentioned in Elsberry and Shallit (2003: 9), many birds exhibit complex songs. >>

What?

Is there any doubt that bird or whale songs or bee dances for that matter are long enough and complex enough to be FSCI? That they function in communication? That we did not directly observe the origin of the capacities for such but have reason to see that they are grounded in CSI in the genome and related regulatory information expressed in embryological development that wires the relevant nerve pathways?

So, are you demanding a direct observation of the origin of such, which we do not have access to and cannot reasonably expect, when we do have access to the fact that we have indications of FSCO/I and so raise the question as to what FSCO/I is a known reliable, strongly tested sign of as best causal explanation?

>> 8 Animal cognition
Apply CSI to resolve issues in animal cognition and language use by non-human animals. >>

Capacity for language, of course, is biologically rooted, genetically stamped and embryologically expressed. So it fits into the same set of issues addressed under 7 just now.

Repetitive use of fallacies does not suddenly convert them into sound arguments.

Nor, can one reasonably demand solutions to any number of known unresolved scientific problems as a condition of accepting something that is already well enough warranted on reasonable application of inductive principles. That is, it is well established on billions of test cases without significant exception, that FSCO/I is a reliable sign of design as cause.
____________

To suddenly demand that design thinkers must solve any number of unsolved scientific questions or the evidence already in hand will be rejected, is a sign of selective hyeprskepticism and a red herring tactic led away to a strawman misrepresentation, not a case of serious and cogent reasoning. >>

=========

(*And yes, AF, I am modifying French-style quote marks to account for the effect of the Less Than sign in an HTML-sensitive context. No need to go down that little convenient side-track again twice within a few days. Especially, as someone by your own testimony apparently living in a Francophone area.)

NB: BA77’s comment at 17 is worth a look also. Let’s clip in modified French style, that he may clip and run that readeth:

>> Mr. Fox, it seems the gist of your eight ‘questions’ from ten years ago is that you doubt whether or not information, as a distinct entity, is even in the cell? In fact I remember many arguments with neo-Darwinists on UD, not so many years back, who denied information, as a distinct entity, was even in the cell. Is this still your position? If so, may I enlighten you to this recent development???,,,

Harvard cracks DNA storage, crams 700 terabytes of data into a single gram – Sebastian Anthony – August 17, 2012
Excerpt: A bioengineer and geneticist at Harvard’s Wyss Institute have successfully stored 5.5 petabits of data — around 700 terabytes — in a single gram of DNA, smashing the previous DNA data density record by a thousand times.,,, Just think about it for a moment: One gram of DNA can store 700 terabytes of data. That’s 14,000 50-gigabyte Blu-ray discs… in a droplet of DNA that would fit on the tip of your pinky. To store the same kind of data on hard drives — the densest storage medium in use today — you’d need 233 3TB drives, weighing a total of 151 kilos. In Church and Kosuri’s case, they have successfully stored around 700 kilobytes of data in DNA — Church’s latest book, in fact — and proceeded to make 70 billion copies (which they claim, jokingly, makes it the best-selling book of all time!) totaling 44 petabytes of data stored.
http://www.extremetech.com/ext…..ingle-gram

That DNA stores information is pretty much the mainstream position now Mr. Fox,,,

Venter: Life Is Robotic Software – July 15, 2012
Excerpt: “All living cells that we know of on this planet are ‘DNA software’-driven biological machines comprised of hundreds of thousands of protein robots, coded for by the DNA, that carry out precise functions,” said (Craig) Venter.
http://crev.info/2012/07/life-is-robotic-software/

That information is a distinct entity in the cell is pretty uncontroversial Mr. Fox, so why the list of eight questions? The only question that really matters is can purely material processes generate these extreme levels of functional information? Perhaps you would like to be the first Darwinist on UD to produce evidence that material processes can produce enough functional information for say the self assembly of a novel molecular machine?>>

The much underestimated and too often derided BA77  continues at 18:

>> Mr. Fox, as to the fact that a cell contains functional information, I would like to, since Dr. Sewell approaches this from the thermodynamic perspective, point out something that gets missed in the definition of functional information in the specific sequences of DNA, RNAs, and proteins. There is a deep connection between entropy and information,,

“Is there a real connection between entropy in physics and the entropy of information? ….The equations of information theory and the second law are the same, suggesting that the idea of entropy is something fundamental…”
Siegfried, Dallas Morning News, 5/14/90, [Quotes Robert W. Lucky, Ex. Director of Research, AT&T, Bell Laboratories & John A. Wheeler, of Princeton & Univ. of TX, Austin]

“Bertalanffy (1968) called the relation between irreversible thermodynamics and information theory one of the most fundamental unsolved problems in biology.”
Charles J. Smith – Biosystems, Vol.1, p259.

Demonic device converts information to energy – 2010
Excerpt: “This is a beautiful experimental demonstration that information has a thermodynamic content,” says Christopher Jarzynski, a statistical chemist at the University of Maryland in College Park. In 1997, Jarzynski formulated an equation to define the amount of energy that could theoretically be converted from a unit of information2; the work by Sano and his team has now confirmed this equation. “This tells us something new about how the laws of thermodynamics work on the microscopic scale,” says Jarzynski.
http://www.scientificamerican……rts-inform

And what is particularly interesting about this deep connection between information and entropy is that,,,

“Gain in entropy always means loss of information, and nothing more.”
Gilbert Newton Lewis – preeminent Chemist of the first half of last century

And yet despite the fact that entropic processes tend to degrade information, it is found that the thermodynamic disequilibrium of a ‘simple’ bacteria and the environment is,,,

“a one-celled bacterium, e. coli, is estimated to contain the equivalent of 100 million pages of Encyclopedia Britannica. Expressed in information in science jargon, this would be the same as 10^12 bits of information. In comparison, the total writings from classical Greek Civilization is only 10^9 bits, and the largest libraries in the world – The British Museum, Oxford Bodleian Library, New York Public Library, Harvard Widenier Library, and the Moscow Lenin Library – have about 10 million volumes or 10^12 bits.” – R. C. Wysong
http://books.google.com/books?…..;lpg=PA112

Moleular Biophysics – Information theory. Relation between information and entropy: – Setlow-Pollard, Ed. Addison Wesley
Excerpt: Linschitz gave the figure 9.3 x 10^12 cal/deg or 9.3 x 10^12 x 4.2 joules/deg for the entropy of a bacterial cell. Using the relation H = S/(k In 2), we find that the information content is 4 x 10^12 bits. Morowitz’ deduction from the work of Bayne-Jones and Rhees gives the lower value of 5.6 x 10^11 bits, which is still in the neighborhood of 10^12 bits. Thus two quite different approaches give rather concordant figures.
http://www.astroscu.unam.mx/~a…..ecular.htm

Moreover we now have good empirics to believe that information itself is what is constraining the cell to be so far out of thermodynamic equilibrium:

Information and entropy – top-down or bottom-up development in living systems? A.C. McINTOSH
Excerpt: It is proposed in conclusion that it is the non-material information (transcendent to the matter and energy) that is actually itself constraining the local thermodynamics to be in ordered disequilibrium and with specified raised free energy levels necessary for the molecular and cellular machinery to operate.
http://journals.witpress.com/paperinfo.asp?pid=420

Does DNA Have Telepathic Properties?-A Galaxy Insight – 2009
Excerpt: DNA has been found to have a bizarre ability to put itself together, even at a distance, when according to known science it shouldn’t be able to.,,, The recognition of similar sequences in DNA’s chemical subunits, occurs in a way unrecognized by science. There is no known reason why the DNA is able to combine the way it does, and from a current theoretical standpoint this feat should be chemically impossible.
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_…..ave-t.html

In fact, Encoded ‘classical’ information such as what Dembski and Marks demonstrated the conservation of, and such as what we find encoded in computer programs, and yes, as we find encoded in DNA, is found to be a subset of ‘transcendent’ (beyond space and time) quantum information/entanglement by the following method:,,,

Quantum knowledge cools computers: New understanding of entropy – June 2011
Excerpt: No heat, even a cooling effect;
In the case of perfect classical knowledge of a computer memory (zero entropy), deletion of the data requires in theory no energy at all. The researchers prove that “more than complete knowledge” from quantum entanglement with the memory (negative entropy) leads to deletion of the data being accompanied by removal of heat from the computer and its release as usable energy. This is the physical meaning of negative entropy. Renner emphasizes, however, “This doesn’t mean that we can develop a perpetual motion machine.” The data can only be deleted once, so there is no possibility to continue to generate energy. The process also destroys the entanglement, and it would take an input of energy to reset the system to its starting state. The equations are consistent with what’s known as the second law of thermodynamics: the idea that the entropy of the universe can never decrease. Vedral says “We’re working on the edge of the second law. If you go any further, you will break it.”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/re…..134300.htm

And yet, despite all this, we have ZERO evidence that material processes can generate even trivial amounts classical information much less generate massive amounts transcendent ‘non-local’ quantum information/entanglement,,,

Stephen Meyer – The Scientific Basis Of Intelligent Design
https://vimeo.com/32148403

Stephen Meyer – “The central argument of my book is that intelligent design—the activity of a conscious and rational deliberative agent—best explains the origin of the information necessary to produce the first living cell. I argue this because of two things that we know from our uniform and repeated experience, which following Charles Darwin I take to be the basis of all scientific reasoning about the past. First, intelligent agents have demonstrated the capacity to produce large amounts of functionally specified information (especially in a digital form). Second, no undirected chemical process has demonstrated this power. Hence, intelligent design provides the best—most causally adequate—explanation for the origin of the information necessary to produce the first life from simpler non-living chemicals. In other words, intelligent design is the only explanation that cites a cause known to have the capacity to produce the key effect in question.”

Verse and Music:

John 1:1-4
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.

The Afters – Every Good Thing – Lyric Video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FY2ycrpbOlw >>

Joe puts in a good knock at 25:

>>Earth to Alan Fox,

Neither you, Shallit, Elsberry nor the NCSE need concern yourselves with CSI. That is because all of you can render CSI moot just by stepping up and demonstrating that blind and undirected processes can account for what we call CSI.

It is that simple- demonstrate blind and undirected processes can produce CSI and our argument wrt CSI, falls.

However seeing that you all are nothing but cowards, you won’t do that because that means actually having to make a positive case. And everyone in the world knows that you cannot do such a thing.

The point being is that your misguided attacks on ID are NOT going to provide positiove evidence for your position. And only positive evidence for blind and undirected processes producing CSI is going to refute our arguments. >>

I picked back up from BA77 at 26:

>> BA77: The connexion between entropy and information is indeed important. I like the expression of it that runs like: the entropy of a body is the average missing info to specify the exact microstate of its constituent particles, that exists if what one knows about the system is the thermodynamic macrostate defined by its macro-level thermodynamic properties. This of course implies the degree of freedom or lack of constraint on the particles, and links to the situation where a rise in entropy is often linked to a rise in disorder, a degradation of availability of energy.  >>

_______________
And, dear Reader, what do you think AF’s answer is, several days later on this the 19th of April in this, The Year of Our Risen Lord, “dos mil trece” [= 2013]?

Dead silence, and heading off to other threads where he thought he could score debate points.

(In short, he raised dismissive talking points and stayed not for an answer. Sad.)

Let us hope that headlining the above will at least allow others who need and want such, to find a reasonable summary answer to the NCSE talking points. END

PS: Dembski and Luskin have responded at one time or another to the S-E team, try here and here (part II here; complete with with AF popping up here at no 3).

Comments
franklin:
self-replication requires nothing more than templating.
Prove it. I would say you need a template and catalysts. Then a way to separate the strands.
All the while recalling that RNA catalytic activity can be achieved with as little as five nucleotides
It is a very limited catalyst- not a do-everything molecule. Buy a vowel and calm down.Joe
April 23, 2013
April
04
Apr
23
23
2013
04:33 PM
4
04
33
PM
PDT
joe: If it started by design then it has evolved by design.
or the designer(s) realized they made a faulty product and abandoned the project and what we see is the end result of that initial broken design. No evolution by design necessary.franklin
April 23, 2013
April
04
Apr
23
23
2013
04:33 PM
4
04
33
PM
PDT
franklin, perhaps you can straighten this guy's basic chemistry out: Top Ten Most Cited Chemist in the World Knows That Evolution Doesn't Work - James Tour, Phd. - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCyAOCesHv0bornagain77
April 23, 2013
April
04
Apr
23
23
2013
04:30 PM
4
04
30
PM
PDT
@ franklin It does feel like a dialogue with the deaf. Maybe we should just leave them to it. I do have some tiles to grout that I've been neglecting.Alan Fox
April 23, 2013
April
04
Apr
23
23
2013
04:29 PM
4
04
29
PM
PDT
Alan Fox:
For the gadzillionth time. Evolutionary theory does not address the origin of life on Eaeth. Evolutionary theory is an attempt to explain life’s diversity, not its origin.
Stuff it Alan. The two are directly linked. How life started is how it evolved. If it started by design then it has evolved by design. Alan Fox:
Folding follows sequence like night follows day. It’s an emergent property.
No, that is false. There is a reason why there are chaperones- precisely because the chains do not just fold, especially the longer chains. Then there is a timing issue that effects the fold- as in so-called silent mutations ain't so silent. The arrival time of the tRNA at the ribosome effects the fold. Then there are prions- invading proteins that alter the configuration of their "sister" chains. So it ain't as Alan said.Joe
April 23, 2013
April
04
Apr
23
23
2013
04:29 PM
4
04
29
PM
PDT
kf: AF: Cf the discussion here on on OOL and the particular importance of FSCO/I in that, with particular reference to code based self replication.
self-replication requires nothing more than templating. no code analogies required.franklin
April 23, 2013
April
04
Apr
23
23
2013
04:27 PM
4
04
27
PM
PDT
Franklin: the just above holds for you too. KFkairosfocus
April 23, 2013
April
04
Apr
23
23
2013
04:27 PM
4
04
27
PM
PDT
AF: it is you who are patently ignorant or willfully dismissive. You know or should know the chaining of R/DNA chains, and you should know the chaining of proteins. You should know that the biological activity rests on side branches. You should know that the sequence is basically independent of the chaining reactions. You should know that the information in D/RNA is stored in contingent sequences. You should know that protein function depends on contingent chaining, leading to deep isolation of folds in AA sequence space, etc etc. KFkairosfocus
April 23, 2013
April
04
Apr
23
23
2013
04:25 PM
4
04
25
PM
PDT
Well CLIV, if you are not arguing for a Darwinian viewpoint of randomness then what's your point of arguing that the mutations are random to need? And if molecular machinery controlled by sophisticated software, that we have yet to understand, is driving the vast majority of changes to the genome then why in blue blazes mislead people that they are 'random' mutations when you have no clue what is really going on? For instance, this paper that came out yesterday uncovered another level of complexity and certainly argues for a 'top down' view of 'controlled randomness' i.e. exactly how did bottom up Darwinian randomness engineer the following?: Researchers study code that allows bacteria to either bet on the present or travel in time - April 22, 2013 Excerpt: Experimental studies have revealed dozens of regulatory genes, signaling proteins and other genetic tools that cells use to gather information and communicate with one another. "Bacteria don't hide their intentions from their peers in the colony," said study co-author José Onuchic, co-director of CTBP, Rice's Harry C. and Olga K. Wiess Professor of Physics and Astronomy and professor of chemistry and biochemistry and cell biology. "They don't evade or lie, but rather communicate their intentions by sending chemical messages among themselves." Individual bacteria weigh their decisions carefully, taking into account the stress they are facing, the situation of their peers, the statistics of how many cells are sporulating and how many are choosing competence, Onuchic said. Each bacterium in the colony communicates via chemical "tweets" and performs a sophisticated decision-making process using a specialized complex gene network comprised of many genes connected via complex circuitry. Taking a physics approach, Onuchic, Ben-Jacob and study co-authors Mingyang Lu, Daniel Schultz and Trevor Stavropoulos investigated the interplay between two components of the circuitry—a timer that determines when sporulation occurs and a two-way switch that causes the cell to choose competence over sporulation. "We found that the sporulation timer and the competence switch work in a coordinated fashion, but the interplay is complex because the two circuits are affected very differently by noise," said Schultz, a postdoctoral fellow at Harvard Medical School and a former graduate student at CTBP. Noise results from random fluctuations in a signal; every circuit—whether genetic or electronic—responds to noise in its own way. In the case of B. subtilis, noise is undesirable in the sporulation timer but is a necessity for the proper function of the competence switch, the researchers said. "Our study explains how the two opposite noise requirements can be satisfied in the decision circuitry in B. subtilis," Onuchic said. "The circuits have a special capacity for noise management that allows each individual bacterium to determine its fate by 'playing dice with controlled odds.'" Ben-Jacob said the timer has an internal clock that is controlled by cell stress. The noise-intolerant timer typically keeps the competence switch closed, but when the cell is exposed to stress over a long period of time, the timer activates a decision gate that opens brief "windows of opportunity" in which the competence switch can be flipped. Thanks to its architecture, the gate oscillates during the window of opportunity, he said. At each oscillation, the switch opens for a short time and grants the cell a short window in which it can use noise as a "roll of the dice" to decide whether to escape into competence. "The ingenuity is that at each oscillation the cell also sends 'chemical tweets' to inform the other cells about its stress and attempt to escape," said Ben-Jacob, the Maguy-Glass Professor in Physics of Complex Systems and professor of physics and astronomy at Tel Aviv University. "The tweets sent by others help regulate the circuits of their neighbors and guarantee that no more than a specific fraction of cells within the colony will enter into competence." http://phys.org/news/2013-04-code-bacteria.htmlbornagain77
April 23, 2013
April
04
Apr
23
23
2013
04:25 PM
4
04
25
PM
PDT
This is sheer gobbledegook. You appear to have a total miscomprehension of basic biochemistry!
that seems to be a common theme here at UD.franklin
April 23, 2013
April
04
Apr
23
23
2013
04:23 PM
4
04
23
PM
PDT
AF: Cf the discussion here on on OOL and the particular importance of FSCO/I in that, with particular reference to code based self replication. Where of course your predictable next objection will be to the implication of codes: LANGUAGE. KFkairosfocus
April 23, 2013
April
04
Apr
23
23
2013
04:22 PM
4
04
22
PM
PDT
phinehas: Let’s go with your impression. Will that help you answer my questions?
Why should I bother if your lacking in knowledge of pertinent data and the literature on the subject? That is where your answers lie.franklin
April 23, 2013
April
04
Apr
23
23
2013
04:20 PM
4
04
20
PM
PDT
AF, stop playing strawman games. The chaining chemistry is essentially independent of the sequence. The side branches that bear the active components are at in effect right angles. And that is why proteins, RNA and DNA are informational macromolecules. The sequencing needs to be explained, and the link between instructing a particular chain of codons in mRNA that is the tape for assembling a protein in the ribosome based on tRNA’s being loaded at a universal CCA coupler with the right AA, and the resulting chained protein that when folded then functions based on side chain interactions, is informationally connected. The design of a special string that will fold into a knot and function in special ways is not a trivial design problem and is not solved by the chemistry of chaining. KF
This is sheer gobbledegook. You appear to have a total miscomprehension of basic biochemistry!Alan Fox
April 23, 2013
April
04
Apr
23
23
2013
04:16 PM
4
04
16
PM
PDT
CR, I intend to headline it on the morrow, DV. I will add a few comments. KFkairosfocus
April 23, 2013
April
04
Apr
23
23
2013
04:16 PM
4
04
16
PM
PDT
AF: Still insisting on refusing to look at the logic of the roots of the tree of life I see. Rhetorically convenient, until the begged questions are highlighted. KFkairosfocus
April 23, 2013
April
04
Apr
23
23
2013
04:15 PM
4
04
15
PM
PDT
KF,
"Your image space point is excellent."
Thanks much. :) I think it needs some refinement, but in general it makes sense. It may be best to use a much smaller pixel and color space, such as 16-color gray and 64 pixels squared, which would still provide a gigantic image space (16384 bits) while keeping enough detail to produce distinct faces at disparate ages and facial expressions, etc., as well as distinct models of automobile, species of animal, and so on. Anything smaller risks necessary detail, and anything larger may be superfluous.Chance Ratcliff
April 23, 2013
April
04
Apr
23
23
2013
04:13 PM
4
04
13
PM
PDT
AF, stop playing strawman games. The chaining chemistry is essentially independent of the sequence. The side branches that bear the active components are at in effect right angles. And that is why proteins, RNA and DNA are informational macromolecules. The sequencing needs to be explained, and the link between instructing a particular chain of codons in mRNA that is the tape for assembling a protein in the ribosome based on tRNA's being loaded at a universal CCA coupler with the right AA, and the resulting chained protein that when folded then functions based on side chain interactions, is informationally connected. The design of a special string that will fold into a knot and function in special ways is not a trivial design problem and is not solved by the chemistry of chaining. KFkairosfocus
April 23, 2013
April
04
Apr
23
23
2013
04:12 PM
4
04
12
PM
PDT
Like it or not, Phinehas, evolutionary theory still doesn't attempt to explain life's origin. Behe should have dumped the flagellum and raised OOL at Harrisburg.Alan Fox
April 23, 2013
April
04
Apr
23
23
2013
04:12 PM
4
04
12
PM
PDT
franklin: Let's go with your impression. Will that help you answer my questions?Phinehas
April 23, 2013
April
04
Apr
23
23
2013
04:11 PM
4
04
11
PM
PDT
...it remains the case that the OOL is the root of the relevant tree.
I don't have an explanation for the origin of life on Earth; Do you?Alan Fox
April 23, 2013
April
04
Apr
23
23
2013
04:10 PM
4
04
10
PM
PDT
Evolutionary theory is an attempt to explain life’s diversity, not its origin.
For some, evolutionary theory is an attempt to be intellectually fulfilled without allowing a divine foot in the door. And IF these folks, at around 7:59 EST tomorrow morning, suddenly had the ability to replace pure speculation and towering doubt with some sort of evidence pointing to the existence of self-replicating molecules or the like, I'm betting that by 8:00am EST, they wouldn't be nearly as concerned about the boundaries of evolutionary theory.Phinehas
April 23, 2013
April
04
Apr
23
23
2013
04:08 PM
4
04
08
PM
PDT
t eh real world still highlights that the relevant fold and function patterns are exceedingly rare int he space of all possible chains.
You have no way of knowing this and what evidence there is currently suggests otherwise. Plus nobody is saying that proteins pop up de novo. RM + NS will only explore sequence space adjacent to already viable sequences.Alan Fox
April 23, 2013
April
04
Apr
23
23
2013
04:07 PM
4
04
07
PM
PDT
AF: You can spew that talking point till you are blue in the face, it remains the case that the OOL is the root of the relevant tree. And it is the case that this is why it is addressed in any number of textbooks etc. In short there is a major question being begged at the outset, one that when properly addressed shows the breakdown of the whole system from the beginning. KFkairosfocus
April 23, 2013
April
04
Apr
23
23
2013
04:04 PM
4
04
04
PM
PDT
Phinehas: Really? How likely? On what are you basing this likelihood? And how does this compare to the likelihood that these replicators exist outside the imagination? Is this statement of likelihood a scientific one?
I get the impression that you are unaware of the body of data concerning RNA nucleotide generation and polymerization. Based on your understanding of the chemistry what different conditions promote, not only nucleotide formation, but polymerization of those nucleotides into RNA. All the while recalling that RNA catalytic activity can be achieved with as little as five nucleotides.franklin
April 23, 2013
April
04
Apr
23
23
2013
04:03 PM
4
04
03
PM
PDT
...the chaining chemistry is not connected directly to the means by which they store info or fold and function.
Good grief! Folding follows sequence like night follows day. It's an emergent property.Alan Fox
April 23, 2013
April
04
Apr
23
23
2013
04:02 PM
4
04
02
PM
PDT
By any reasonable standard FSCO/I is a common and measured quantity...
Hogwash! I give you credit for coining the acronym. It is scientifically vacuous and useless. You can't tell me how to measure the data related to any real entity on which to base a calculation of CSI or its variants.Alan Fox
April 23, 2013
April
04
Apr
23
23
2013
03:57 PM
3
03
57
PM
PDT
kf: Absent that you are spinning just so stories and materialist origins myths with no relevance to the real world.
there are numerous published data that support all of what Alan and I are speaking about from the chemical perspective including work on minimalist amino acid libraries and generation of functional peptides and proteins. Can you supply us with the details of the first replicator and how a disembodied D/designer might act on atoms and molecules to put them together to achieve the desired configurations?...lacking those levels of detail that I think your 'just so story meme' applies equally well to you and your position.franklin
April 23, 2013
April
04
Apr
23
23
2013
03:56 PM
3
03
56
PM
PDT
franklin:
While this is mostly true for current life as we observe it does not necessarily apply to the origin of the first replicators which were likely much simpler than life forms of today.
Really? How likely? On what are you basing this likelihood? And how does this compare to the likelihood that these replicators exist outside the imagination? Is this statement of likelihood a scientific one? Or faith-based?Phinehas
April 23, 2013
April
04
Apr
23
23
2013
03:56 PM
3
03
56
PM
PDT
Claudius: Relevant mutations are chance based, in the sense that there is no credible correlation between changes and onward functionality, and there are no natural forces that program the emergence of life forms by necessity. And if there were, that would be as strong a proof of design -- laws of nature programmed to produce life -- as you could muster. In short that is barking up the wrong tree. In fact the relevant molecules are highly contingent and the chaining chemistry is not connected directly to the means by which they store info or fold and function. Those are at 90 degrees. Indeed, to store info we need as much flexibility to get strings of characters as we can get. For proteins, we need to be able to get sequences that give us a vast array of possible folds and funcitons. And,t eh real world still highlights that the relevant fold and function patterns are exceedingly rare int he space of all possible chains. That is before we look at the problem of racemic forms as the normal pattern of formation in an extra biological context, and it is before we look at interfering cross reactions etc. Yes I know I know you want to stay as far from Darwin's little pond as possible but that is exactly what grounds the problem most directly. Remember OOl is the ROOT of the tree of life. No root, no trunk no branches etc. Where also, playing pretty little parsing games with definitions of "random" are not going to do more than chase away after red herrings. KFkairosfocus
April 23, 2013
April
04
Apr
23
23
2013
03:53 PM
3
03
53
PM
PDT
Count one, the root of the tree of life is OOL. That makes it highly relevant, and this is why OOL appears in any number of biology textbooks that address evolution.
For the gadzillionth time. Evolutionary theory does not address the origin of life on Eaeth. Evolutionary theory is an attempt to explain life's diversity, not its origin.Alan Fox
April 23, 2013
April
04
Apr
23
23
2013
03:53 PM
3
03
53
PM
PDT
1 7 8 9 10 11 18

Leave a Reply