This high-level summary gives an idea of the immense complexity of proteins, but there are a great many more details. For instance, protein molecular structures fall into a four-level hierarchy. The line of amino acids attached one to the next is called the protein’s primary structure. This line forms repeating patterns (helices and strands) in the folded up protein called the protein’s secondary structure. The folded up protein is called the tertiary structure. And proteins binding together form the quaternary structure.
But these structures may not always appear in this order. For instance, the secondary structure may form as a consequence of the tertiary structure coming together, rather than forming before this folding up process. Also, the tertiary structure may not form until the protein binds with its partner to form the quaternary structure.
These two facts were used in new research. A peptide that forms its tertiary structure after binding with its partner was used to determine when the peptide's secondary structure forms. Such secondary structure might provide a good framework as the peptide binds to the protein. But the researchers found that the secondary structure is not present as the peptide is folding. Rather, it appears after binding with the partner protein, and after the folding process.
Hunter:
ReplyDeleteA protein that does not form its tertiary structure until it binds with its partner was used to see if the protein’s secondary structure precedes the folding process.
From the abstract (the rest of the paper is behind a paywall):
The S-peptide from ribonuclease S forms its α-helical structure only upon binding to the folded S-protein.
It is surprising to see Dr Hunter confuse a peptide with a protein as the basis for an improbability-of-evolution argument. The S-peptide represents the N-terminal 20-amino acid end of the 124-amino acid length of the ribonuclease molecule. The authors studied the fine details of S-peptide folding in the process of binding with the rest of the protein.
How does that make the evolution of mammalian RNAse A or any other protein improbable?
Pendant-it is even worse than that.
ReplyDeleteThe S-peptide is a product of treating whole Ribonuclease A with Subtisilin (a protease).
This cleaves the 'S'-peptide off, allowing fun re-association and binding studies, like those done by Fred Richards and this group. These are pieces of one protein, NOT separate evolutionary products.
So Hunter's evolution story: "Luckily an unlikely sequence was found that binds with an existing protein, and that binding activated the folding process, and the resulting tertiary structure just happened to work perfectly with the existing protein to form a functioning quaternary structure, doing a useful job that was waiting to be done. And of course the first protein, like a patient groom, had to be available all the while, having already evolved."
Comes only from a lack of understanding the experimental system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ribonuclease_A
Pendant-
ReplyDeleteOn second re-read, that's exactly what you said. Oh well.
Pedant and RObertC,
ReplyDeleteHilarious. I was willing to give CH the benefit of the doubt (e.g. calling a peptide a protein to simplify things for his lay audience), but the final paragraph gives it away: he really thinks they used two separate proteins in the study. if his PhD Committee wasn't already re-thinking their decision to pass him, they should be now..
Pedant:
ReplyDelete"How does that make the evolution of mammalian RNAse A or any other protein improbable? "
That's a fair criticism, except I don't think RNase is likely under evolution. But this is not an easy example.
nanobot:
ReplyDelete===
I was willing to give CH the benefit of the doubt ...
===
Agreed, while the evolution of RNase is astronomically unlikely, this particular finding is not a good example of why.
===
he really thinks they used two separate proteins in the study.
===
Ah, yes, that's because they did use a protein and separate peptide. That's the whole point. But how RNase evolved is another story. There is no plausible explanation, and so if you want to criticize evolution you must envision a scenario. Whether a ~360 nucleotide gene just happened to find an astronomically unlikely spot in sequence space, or different DNA segments evolved separately to later form a gene, who knows. It is all unlikely. But using this particular finding to criticize evolution is tricky, because there isn't a specific evolutionary scenario to begin with.
RobertC:
ReplyDelete===
These are pieces of one protein, NOT separate evolutionary products.
===
The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive in evolutionary theory. If you say it is NOT separate evolutionary products, then how did ~360 nucleotides find the RNase sequence space? If you say it is the merger of separate evolutionary products, you still have an implausible scenario. I was trying to use this particular research to highlight the evolutionary problem. The link is admittedly not clear as Pedant pointed out, but this doesn't resolve the evolution of its implausible protein evolution.
We would reach quick agreement if you could simply provide a plausible explanation for the protein synthesis sequence of events: Proteins open the DNA molecule exposing the genetic information, a protein machine then copies the sequence of exposed DNA nucleotides, the resulting transcript is edited and then passed to a ribosome, at the ribosome the universal genetic code is used to translate nucleotide triplets into amino acids, the amino acids are attached together in a line like train cars hitched together, the amino acid chain folds up and is transported elsewhere where it performs a precise function, probably after forming a multi-protein machine.
Of course you can do no such thing. Let's simplify the problem, and ask for merely a plausible explanation of how proteins first evolved, forgetting about all the other steps. If there was a plausible explanation, not even necessarily how it *actually* evolved, then evolution would be more reasonable.
Dr Hunter, let's assume, for the sake of argument, that an unknown concatenation of events led to the formation of the first prokaryote, equipped with a genome and all of that protein synthesis machinery and all of the other requirements for metabolism and error-prone reproduction in an exploitable environment.
ReplyDeleteGiven such a beginning, and knowing how much geological time and natural resources (including solar and chemical energies) have been available, do you find it unreasonable that evolution might have proceeded from there, producing the biodiversity we now observe?
Cornelius Hunter:
ReplyDelete"We would reach quick agreement if you could simply provide a plausible explanation for the protein synthesis sequence of events: Proteins open the DNA molecule exposing the genetic information, a protein machine then copies the sequence of exposed DNA nucleotides, the resulting transcript is edited and then passed to a ribosome, at the ribosome the universal genetic code is used to translate nucleotide triplets into amino acids, the amino acids are attached together in a line like train cars hitched together, the amino acid chain folds up and is transported elsewhere where it performs a precise function, probably after forming a multi-protein machine."
===
That's beautiful Cornelius. Of course there will be no forthcoming logical rational explanation backed by an experiment employing the "Scientific Method" for which you , I or anybody else can replicate to show how blind pointless indifferent unguided undirected forces of nothing more than physics and chemcials accomplished that amzing factual description you just plainly laid out.
---
Cornelius Hunter:
"Of course you can do no such thing. Let's simplify the problem, and ask for merely a plausible explanation of how proteins first evolved, forgetting about all the other steps. If there was a plausible explanation, not even necessarily how it *actually* evolved, then evolution would be more reasonable."
===
Of course you're asking them to sail into uncharted waters where their good ship "Beagle" will fall off the edge of the earth if they try. They know full well that attempting to explain how blind undirected forces accomplished what you brilliantly laid out is itself impossible to do and if they even remotely attempt it, then they come off as fools.
This is why life already kick-started is preferable and hijacking and plagerizing intelligent design terminologies in the form of personification fallicies is their best strategy. But don't hold your breath and expect a single evolutionary promoter to admit that. Can you imagine some of the secret PM messaging going on behind the scenes when you post such stuff. Wonder what it's "rated" ???
*smirk*
This is really something!
ReplyDeleteHunter has misread a paper, claiming one fragment of the RNAse A molecule "had to be available all the while, having already evolved" and wait "like a patient groom" for its activator while "luckily an unlikely sequence was found that binds with an existing protein, and that binding activated the folding process, and the resulting tertiary structure just happened to work perfectly with the existing protein."
Having realized his mistake-that RNAse A is a single protein, split for the purposes of this study-he fixes the original post, without mentioning the edit.
Now he demands I lay out the entire history of all RNAses and life itself?
1) This conflates the evolution of RNAses (there are multiple, structurally distinct families) with abiogenesis. We could discuss the phylogeny of RNAses. We could discuss their molecular evolution into proteins of other action, like angiogenin. Therein lies strong support for molecular evolution, but let's ignore that, and make the evolutionist answer questions about pre-LUCA life.
2) Design doesn't answer Hunter's query. I can ask lots of questions too. So, give me the design scenario answering your question, in detail, explaining when and how the designs were executed, the details of the design, its function, and the nature of the organisms they were executed in.
Oh, you can't? So we reject design?
I have additional design questions:
How were the different RNAses designed, and at what time? With or without RNA cofactors? When and how were the RNA cofactors removed? Why were mutliple families of RNAse designed? Why was their design conserved in proteins that regulate angiogenesis?
Or are arguments from ignorance one directional?
3) "~360 nucleotides find the RNase sequence space?"
How small is that RNAse A sequence space? Two catalytic histidines, and some lysines in a fold. Nature didn't have to hit on RNAse A--take any of the other dozen or so RNAse folds. Take RNAse P-or other RNA catalyzed ribonucleases. Seems a baseless plea.
4) A scenario? Sure. Why not? Take the RNA world hypotheis-RNA first. Catalytic Ribonucleases evolve. Transcription by a ribozyme yields protein scaffolds that beneficially shield catalytic RNAses from destruction. RNA is lost (incompletely-some RNAse Ps still have their RNA, some don't) as the protein scaffolds gain catalytic function. DNA evolves later, as a more stable form of genetic information, perhaps by reverse translation. Protein transport evolves much, much later, in Eukaryotes....
No poofing an RNAse out of nothingness.
Pedant:
ReplyDelete===
Dr Hunter, let's assume, for the sake of argument, that an unknown concatenation of events led to the formation of the first prokaryote, equipped with a genome and all of that protein synthesis machinery and all of the other requirements for metabolism and error-prone reproduction in an exploitable environment.
Given such a beginning, and knowing how much geological time and natural resources (including solar and chemical energies) have been available, do you find it unreasonable that evolution might have proceeded from there, producing the biodiversity we now observe?
===
Good question. It certainly helps to set aside the substantial problems of evolving a basic prokaryote. This gets large, scientifically unlikely, problems out of the way. Unfortunately, evolution's problems don't conveniently stop there. It isn't as though after OOL it is straighforward. For instance, there are significant differences in otherwise allied species (or even variants). New proteins, new development pathways, etc. Likewise biology is literally chocked full of repeated designs in otherwise distant species. Convergence is massive. Or again, there are all kinds of intricate, complex designs in biology that evolution can only guess at how they would have arisen.
RobertC:
ReplyDelete===
Hunter has misread a paper, claiming one fragment of the RNAse A molecule "had to be available all the while, having already evolved" and wait "like a patient groom" for its activator while "luckily an unlikely sequence was found that binds with an existing protein, and that binding activated the folding process, and the resulting tertiary structure just happened to work perfectly with the existing protein."
===
No, I gave the best evolutionary explanation, which itself is unlikely. Evolving RNase all at once just makes the story even less plausible.
===
Now he demands I lay out the entire history of all RNAses and life itself?
1) This conflates the evolution of RNAses (there are multiple, structurally distinct families) with abiogenesis. We could discuss the phylogeny of RNAses. We could discuss their molecular evolution into proteins of other action, like angiogenin. Therein lies strong support for molecular evolution, but let's ignore that, and make the evolutionist answer questions about pre-LUCA life.
===
No, take a breath, I didn't ask for the entire history of all RNases. But explaining that a protein is a result of a mutated duplicated gene skips over the problem of where proteins came from in the first place. I am not conflating anything. The problem here is you are making a claim which you then resist being held accountable for. More below ...
===
2) Design doesn't answer Hunter's query. I can ask lots of questions too. So, give me the design scenario answering your question, in detail, explaining when and how the designs were executed, the details of the design, its function, and the nature of the organisms they were executed in.
Oh, you can't? So we reject design?
===
Are you agreeing evolution fails to provide these answers?
===
No poofing an RNAse out of nothingness.
===
Why not?
CH: "No, I gave the best evolutionary explanation, which itself is unlikely. Evolving RNase all at once just makes the story even less plausible."
ReplyDeleteI'll let others judge for themselves. I quote the original text at comment 2. Hunter's statement is quite clear. Compare this with the current revision.
CH: "But explaining that a protein is a result of a mutated duplicated gene skips over the problem of where proteins came from in the first place."
Explaining the path of falling objects ignores where gravity comes from. Gravitons anyone? Intelligent falling? Science compartmentalizes hypotheses for a reason. Evolution of RNAses is distinct from origin of life issues.
"Are you agreeing evolution fails to provide these answers?"
Design certainly fails to even address them, acting as though invoking design answers all mechanism. Depending on the question, there are historical inferences to be make from modern genomes. We can suggest mechanisms for abiogenesis and pre-luca life, but what exact path is the true history of life may be unknowable. Others readily admit this. The point is, going on this gallop of questions neither falsifies evolution nor supports design.
RC: No poofing an RNAse out of nothingness.
CH: Why not?
Because then your silly 20^130 calculations might come close to applying. Molecular evolution acts incrementally, not in grand fits of creation from the void.
RobertC:
ReplyDelete===
RC: No poofing an RNAse out of nothingness.
CH: Why not?
Because then your silly 20^130 calculations might come close to applying. Molecular evolution acts incrementally, not in grand fits of creation from the void.
===
So all explanations must be according to molecular evolution?
Cornelius:
ReplyDeleteSo all explanations must be according to molecular evolution?
No. Do you have an alternative? If you do, can you estimate it's likelihood? (You do keep on bemoaning the fact that evolution has a low likelihood, so present something that has a higher likelihood. Be a sport)
Hawks:
ReplyDelete===
So all explanations must be according to molecular evolution?
No. Do you have an alternative? If you do, can you estimate it's likelihood? (You do keep on bemoaning the fact that evolution has a low likelihood, so present something that has a higher likelihood. Be a sport)
===
It is not a matter of not being a sport, it is a matter of being a dummy. I simply do not have an explanation that we would look at and say "yes, that's a reasonably likely explanation." And you know what? I don't think you do either. In fact I know you don't. The difference between us is I admit it.
Cornelius:
ReplyDeleteIt is not a matter of not being a sport, it is a matter of being a dummy. I simply do not have an explanation that we would look at and say "yes, that's a reasonably likely explanation." And you know what? I don't think you do either. In fact I know you don't. The difference between us is I admit it.
I do have one that I find reasonably likely. It is certainly more likely than any alternatives. But then you don't really get likelihoods...
CH: But explaining that a protein is a result of a mutated duplicated gene skips over the problem of where proteins came from in the first place.
ReplyDeleteWhile Cornelius attempts to obscure his actual position, note how he inadvertently reveals it in the sentence above by using the phrase "skips over the problem."
Apparently, unless we explain where proteins came from then we cannot explain how they evolved.
Should this be the case, the "problem" Cornelius' is really trying to solve is merely tangential to evolutionary theory. He's not interested in actually explaining biological complexity - he's interested in defending his claim that it's beyond human reason and problem solving.
We can't work our way backwards, we must work forwards from some ultimate justification. And this justification is ultimately unexplainable.
CH: It is not a matter of not being a sport, it is a matter of being a dummy. I simply do not have an explanation that we would look at and say "yes, that's a reasonably likely explanation."
ReplyDeleteAnd we all know that reality is necessarily constrained to what Cornelius considers a "reasonably likely explanation."
CH: And you know what? I don't think you do either. In fact I know you don't. The difference between us is I admit it.
You've admitted nothing. The the real reason you "know" he doesn't have a "reasonably likely explanation" is because you "know" the biological complexity we observe is beyond human reason and problem solving. Right?
Or is it? its' really a simple question, which you've continually avoided.
CH: "I simply do not have an explanation that we would look at and say "yes, that's a reasonably likely explanation." And you know what? I don't think you do either. In fact I know you don't. The difference between us is I admit it."
ReplyDeleteBut you do have an explanation. You've told us. A few months ago you said you believe that the Christian God is the Designer. Doesn't that qualify as an explanation or is that a metaphysical belief you keep in a lead-proof container to make sure it doesn't affect your scientific neutrality?
Scott:
ReplyDelete===
The the real reason you "know" he doesn't have a "reasonably likely explanation" is because you "know" the biological complexity we observe is beyond human reason and problem solving. Right?
===
No Scott, it is because I've read the literature.
Janfeld:
ReplyDelete===
But you do have an explanation. You've told us. A few months ago you said you believe that the Christian God is the Designer.
===
So do evolutionists.
Hunter:
ReplyDelete...because I've read the literature.
Reading is one thing. Understanding is another.
When understanding is filtered through bias, blunders are more likely, as shown by the OP, which completely misunderstood the paper quoted.
Blinders cause blunders.
Scott: The the real reason you "know" he doesn't have a "reasonably likely explanation" is because you "know" the biological complexity we observe is beyond human reason and problem solving. Right?
ReplyDeleteOr is it? it's really a simple question, which you've continually avoided
Ch: No Scott, it is because I've read the literature.
"No" in that you deny the biological complexity we observe is beyond human reason and problem solving?
Or "No" in that you're denying that this belief is the reason that you think he doesn't have a "reasonably likely explanation?"
In other words, you can still hold this belief, yet deny it's the reason why you've reached this particular conclusion.
Hunter:
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, evolution's problems don't conveniently stop there. It isn't as though after OOL it is straighforward. For instance, there are significant differences in otherwise allied species (or even variants). New proteins, new development pathways, etc.
How serious as these "problems"? Please identify those significant differences in otherwise allied species by references to the primary scientific literature so we can evaluate them.
Likewise biology is literally chocked full of repeated designs in otherwise distant species. Convergence is massive.
Massive? What are the data? What makes that a problem?
Or again, there are all kinds of intricate, complex designs in biology that evolution can only guess at how they would have arisen.
This is true. There are known unknowns and unknown unknowns in biology as in all branches of science.
As usual robertc hurls elephants while being blind to the elephant in his own living room.
ReplyDeleteWhat a surprise
Gary: As usual robertc hurls elephants while being blind to the elephant in his own living room.
ReplyDeleteYou mean blind to the manufactured elephant he's supposedly "skipping over?"
Looks like we can add Gary to the list of those trying to solve a different problem that is merely tangential to evolutionary theory.
Scott:
ReplyDelete===
Ch: No Scott, it is because I've read the literature.
"No" in that you deny the biological complexity we observe is beyond human reason and problem solving?
Or "No" in that you're denying that this belief is the reason that you think he doesn't have a "reasonably likely explanation?"
===
You are making a false dichotomy. Pointing out the problems with a theory is not tantamount to skepticism.
Cornelius Hunter said...
ReplyDeleteYou are making a false dichotomy. Pointing out the problems with a theory is not tantamount to skepticism.
Posting ranting diatribes of ill informed and flat out wrong anti-science nonsense is not tantamount to pointing out problems with a theory either.
Posting ranting diatribes of ill informed and flat out wrong anti-science nonsense...
ReplyDeleteGee miz thorny, you just described the whole of all your er um "contributions" here!
So glad you're beginning to see some light in that damp and dirty little tunnel of yours.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCornelius,
ReplyDeleteYour objections do not exist in a vacuum. Again, I'm suggesting that your underlying metaphysical argument can be boiled down to an assertion that the biological complexity we observe is beyond human reasoning and problem solving. This would be a necessary consequence of your claim that we (human beings) cannot draw conclusions (via reason or problem solving) about what God would or would not do, is actually true in reality.
It would be easy for you to either confirm or deny this, but you have not. In fact, you've gone to great lengths to carefully evade the question, as if your silence on the issue somehow magically makes you immune their implications.
Scott: "No" in that you deny the biological complexity we observe is beyond human reason and problem solving?
Or "No" in that you're denying that this belief is the reason that you think he doesn't have a "reasonably likely explanation?"
CH: You are making a false dichotomy. Pointing out the problems with a theory is not tantamount to skepticism.
I asked which of the two questions above you responded to. However, if you're objecting on the grounds that I've presented a false dichotomy it would appear you answered neither question.
So, exactly which question did you answer? Or were you just being evasive as usual?
Furthermore, if it were true, in reality, that we human beings cannot draw conclusions about what God would or would not do, this would necessitate you could know absolutely nothing about God. However, based on your comments and religious affiliation, this clearly isn't the case. As such, this would necessitate your acceptance of some alternate form of epistemology, such as revelation.
Given that you've explicitly raised questions regarding the traditional hierarchy of philosophy, induction and mathematical deduction in your objections to evolutionary theory, it's a reasonable and relevant to ask exactly where you think revelation fits in this hierarchy.
Of course, this question has gone unanswered as well.
In other words, it's unclear why we should take your objections seriously when you appear to deny they would have consequences, in really.
Scott:
ReplyDelete===
Your objections do not exist in a vacuum. Again, I'm suggesting that your underlying metaphysical argument
===
Ah, wait a minute, I'm not the one here making the metaphysical argument.
===
can be boiled down to an assertion that the biological complexity we observe is beyond human reasoning and problem solving.
===
No, I wouldn't say that.
===
This would be a necessary consequence of your claim that we (human beings) cannot draw conclusions (via reason or problem solving) about what God would or would not do, is actually true in reality.
===
But I didn't say we can't draw such conclusions.
CH: Ah, wait a minute, I'm not the one here making the metaphysical argument.
ReplyDeleteSo, you get to apply it arbitrarily? It only has consequences when it's convenient for you?
If you say 20+10 = 30, I can't note that you've effectively said 15 x 2 = 30?
CH: No, I wouldn't say that.
Of course you wouldn't say that. That not what I asked. But you didn't deny it either. Evasive much?
CH: But I didn't say we can't draw such conclusions.
Again, you get to chose when your argument is applicable because, it's your argument?
Without some sort of coherent and compressive criteria, you objections appear arbitrary. Except they don't because they correlate with fields of science that could be interpreted as conflicting with fundamental theological views.
Still waiting for to you reveal where revelation fits into the traditional hierarchy of philosophy, induction and mathematical deduction. Let me guess, "you wouldn't' say" that either?
Scott: This would be a necessary consequence of your claim that we (human beings) cannot draw conclusions (via reason or problem solving) about what God would or would not do, is actually true in reality.
ReplyDeleteCH: But I didn't say we can't draw such conclusions.
I'm not saying it's logically impossible to hold a belief about what God would or would not do. You're equivocating and being evasive yet again.
I'm saying that you've essentially claimed we cannot use human reasoning and problem solving to explain biological complexity we observe because you've claimed that what God would or would not do in regards to designing the biological complexity we observe is beyond human reason and problem solving. You're invalidated it as a means of gaining knowledge. We must throw up our hands. There are no better questions to be asked.
To quote from a earlier comment:
NanoBot: Again, is "We are pretty sure that if the gods reside on mount olympus we would see them when we climbed mount olympus" a statement about religious belief?
CH: This example of Mt. Olympus is not analogous to the POE religious claim because it logically follows. The POE statement doesn’t logically follow, it is based on a religious belief.
Why doesn't it logically follow? Apparently, there is some magical boundary beyond which human reason and problem solving no longer applies.
This is a variant of solipsism. Rather than drawing the boundary at your brain/mind/soul, you've drawn it here instead. You're only a realist when you find it convenient.
Scott:
ReplyDelete===
Scott: This would be a necessary consequence of your claim that we (human beings) cannot draw conclusions (via reason or problem solving) about what God would or would not do, is actually true in reality.
CH: But I didn't say we can't draw such conclusions.
...
Scott: I'm saying that you've essentially claimed we cannot use human reasoning and problem solving to explain biological complexity we observe because you've claimed that what God would or would not do in regards to designing the biological complexity we observe is beyond human reason and problem solving. You're invalidated it as a means of gaining knowledge. We must throw up our hands. There are no better questions to be asked.
===
No, this is still a false dichotomy. Rejecting silly claims is not tantamount to skepticism.
===
To quote from a earlier comment:
NanoBot: Again, is "We are pretty sure that if the gods reside on mount olympus we would see them when we climbed mount olympus" a statement about religious belief?
CH: This example of Mt. Olympus is not analogous to the POE religious claim because it logically follows. The POE statement doesn’t logically follow, it is based on a religious belief.
Why doesn't it logically follow? Apparently, there is some magical boundary beyond which human reason and problem solving no longer applies.
This is a variant of solipsism. Rather than drawing the boundary at your brain/mind/soul, you've drawn it here instead. You're only a realist when you find it convenient.
===
The POE statement doesn’t logically follow because it entails a *religious* belief (ie, something not vulnerable to "reason or problem solving.").
You criticize me for holding that we cannot reason or problem solve about what God would or would not do, and then quote me agreeing with an example of just such reasoning (nanobot's Mt. Olympus example).
The problem is not that evolution hinges on religious beliefs. The problem is that:
1. Evolutionists deny their own metaphysics.
2. Evolutionists falsely claim to be free of metaphysics. They insist the only metaphysics influencing them are the metaphysics accepted in science (eg, uniformity, parsimony).
3. Evolutionists hypocritically criticize others for being driven by metaphysics.
4. Evolutionists erroneously criticize design theory as entailing metaphysics (beyond uniformity and parsimony)
5. Evolution is scientifically unlikely.
6. Evolutionists misrepresent science and the state of their own theory.
Does any of this mean evolution is absolutely false? No. Does it mean the evolutionist's metaphysics are false? No. But the evolutionist's metaphysics is not vulnerable to rational critique or falsification. For example, evolutionists say god, or an entity capable of creating the world, would not have created backwards photo receptor cells and the blind spot in our vision. These are said to cause uneccesary degradations of our vision.
There are two problems. First, we do not know that these are uneccesary degradations. That assumption comes from evolutionary thinking. Even evolutionists when using this argument, in their honest moments, admit that there really isn't much of a degradation. But it's the principle of the thing, they argue.
Second, how do they know this about the creator? This is not skepticism. I'm not saying we can't reason about god. But I want to know how they know this? They're making the religious claim, but they provide no reasoning or support. Darwin's book is chocked full of religious claims, not a one of which is justified. The same for today's evolutionary literature. Read Jerry Coyne's book, *Why Evolution is True*. Or search my blog for the various posts on the book. Evolutionary thought is all about metaphysics.
Second, how do they know this about the creator? This is not skepticism. I'm not saying we can't reason about god. But I want to know how they know this? They're making the religious claim, but they provide no reasoning or support.
ReplyDeleteYou got that right, Professor Hunter. Nobody knows or can, in principle, ever know anything about an imaginary being endowed with whatever powers one cares to bestow upon it. That's why appeals to the supernatural are scientifically useless.
(With apologies to Scott for butting in.)
CH: 1. Evolutionists deny their own metaphysics.
ReplyDeleteTranslation. They deny that the biological complexity we observe is beyond human reason and problem solving.
CH: 2. Evolutionists falsely claim to be free of metaphysics. They insist the only metaphysics influencing them are the metaphysics accepted in science (eg, uniformity, parsimony).
Evolutionists claim that the biological complexity we observe can be explained by human reason and problem solving, which is part of the scientific method.
How you define observations, science, etc. is paramount to this point, yet you've intuitionally avoided direct questions designed to clarify your position.
CH: 3. Evolutionists hypocritically criticize others for being driven by metaphysics.
"God did it" doesn't explain the biological complexity we observe. It might explain some other problem that you're trying to solve, but it's indefensible as an explanation for the biological complexity we observe.
An infinite number of un-conceived explanations are indefensible as explanations as they cannot explain anything. You are being criticized for attempting to hijack evolution, and other fields of science.
CH: 4. Evolutionists erroneously criticize design theory as entailing metaphysics (beyond uniformity and parsimony)
See above.
CH: 5. Evolution is scientifically unlikely.
You're conflating a particular outcome of evolution with evolution as a mechanism for creating outcomes. This statical nature of this statement also contains a hidden assumption that the outcome was predetermined ahead of time.
CH: 6. Evolutionists misrepresent science and the state of their own theory.
When you present a coherent and comprehensive definition of science, then we can determine whether evolutionists misrepresent it. Until then, your selective objections appear to be merely hand waving and can be better explained as fields that could be interpreted as conflicting with core fundamental theological views.
CH: Does any of this mean evolution is absolutely false? No. Does it mean the evolutionist's metaphysics are false? No.
ReplyDeleteCornelius,
First please see above. Evolutionists think the biological complexity we observe can be explained using human reasoning and problem solving. We do not deny this or think it's false any more than we do in the case of gravity or heliocentrism. It's unclear why your objections about God are not a problem in all other fields and empirical observations.
For example, take the heliocentric theory as an explanation of the night sky.
It could be the earth is surrounded by a giant planetarium that merely displays an elaborate simulation of a heliocentric solar system. This includes reflecting radio waves, lasers and photons back to earth as if they had bounced of a planets, comets and stars. It could capture space craft and return them with simulated telemetry, missing precisely the amount of fuel necessary for their planned journey and even return astronauts with implanted memories and fake moon rock samples. As such, you could claim what ever you like, or even nothing at all, exists beyond this planetarium.
In other words, that we actually observe a heliocentric solar system, rather than an elaborate simulation of one, is based on human reason and problem solving. Empirical observations do not and cannot positivity support this conclusion on their own. They are theory laden.
Given the overwhelming amount of observations that collaborate it, It's unclear how you could accept a heliocentric solar system as an explanation of the night sky yet object to evolutionary theory as an explanation for the biological complexity due to a lack of observations.
CH: But the evolutionist's metaphysics is not vulnerable to rational critique or falsification.
That reality can be explained using human reasoning and problem is not vulnerable to rational critique or falsification?
I'd disagree. I'm not a solipsist just because it conflicts with my intuition or common sense. I'm not a solipsist because solipsism is also a convolved elaboration of reality.
For example, Solipsism fails to explain why object-like facets of my internal self would follow laws of physics-like facets of my internal self, etc. And It's commonly trotted out to attack science. I'm suggesting that your metaphysics argument a variant of Solipsism. You've just moved the boundary from our minds/brain/soul to the biological complexity we observe.
CH: For example, evolutionists say god, or an entity capable of creating the world, would not have created backwards photo receptor cells and the blind spot in our vision. These are said to cause uneccesary degradations of our vision.
Please see above. How do we know that God, aliens or any other yet to be conceived entities didn't surround the earth with a giant planetarium that merely simulates a heliocentric solar system? Perhaps God is testing us for some mysterious reason using a supernatural version of the Truman Show? Why doesn't the boundary fall at the earth's atmosphere, rather than biological complexity?
CH: There are two problems. First, we do not know that these are unnecessary degradations. That assumption comes from evolutionary thinking.
ReplyDeleteIf by "evolutionary thinking", you mean that the biological complexity we observe can be explained by human reason and problem solving, then yes. I agree that assumption comes from evolutionary thinking.
Why would desegregations in the human eye be any different that any other desegregation we observe? Because some people think God created human beings?
CH: Second, how do they know this about the creator? This is not skepticism. I'm not saying we can't reason about god. But I want to know how they know this? They're making the religious claim, but they provide no reasoning or support.
The creator as currently defined is indefensible as an explanation of this degradation because he's the equivalent of the abstract designer. Merely saying a designer did it fails to explain the degradation.
It might explain how the degradation fits into some other problem you've trying to solve, but it doesn't actually explain the degradation. It's a non-explanation.
Just as the evidence for Newton's laws of motion have been falling on every square foot of the earth's surface for billions of years, the evidence that allows us to explain this degradation of the human eye has existed long before human beings evolved, continues to exist today, and will continue to exist in the future.
Scott:
ReplyDelete===
CH: Second, how do they know this about the creator? This is not skepticism. I'm not saying we can't reason about god. But I want to know how they know this? They're making the religious claim, but they provide no reasoning or support.
The creator as currently defined is indefensible as an explanation of this degradation because he's the equivalent of the abstract designer. Merely saying a designer did it fails to explain the degradation.
===
No, evolutionists say the designer did *not* do it.
Cornelius Hunter said...
ReplyDeleteNo, evolutionists say the designer did *not* do it.
That is a blatant falsehood CH.
Evolutionists do NOT say "the designer did *not* do it."
Evolutionists say "there is no positive evidence that a designer did it."
Those are two very different things, and it's quite dishonest of you pull such a bait and switch.
CH: No, evolutionists say the designer did *not* do it.
ReplyDelete"No", in that an abstract designer is defensible, or?
You seem to be having difficulty with the particular argument I'm making.
The absence of an explanation not only makes a theory indefensible but it also makes it non-negatable. You can't deny a non-explanation because, well, it's not an explanation.
While there could be an infinite number of un-conceived explanations for the biological complexity we observe, they cannot explain anything in particular by nature of being un-conceived. As such, they too are indefensible as an expiation of anything in particular, let alone the biological complexity we observe.
So, even if this was the case, it's unclear exactly what explanation these supposed evolutionists would be denying, if any.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThorton: Evolutionists say "there is no positive evidence that a designer did it."
ReplyDeleteI think we're ultimately in agreement, but have reached it from opposite directions.
The theory that an "abstract designer did it" doesn't explain the evidence, rather than vice versa. This is because it's a convoluted elaboration of evolutionary theory. Adding an abstract designer to the mix doesn't explain the biological complexity we observe. That's just what the designer must have wanted.
We have plenty of evidence. It's deep and hard to vary theories that explain that evidence that are scarce. We use human knowledge and problem solving to develop and differentiate between various theories.
David Deutsch elaborates on this knowledge based view in the following TED talk.
http://www.ted.com/talks/david_deutsch_on_our_place_in_the_cosmos.html
Thorton:
ReplyDelete====================
That is a blatant falsehood CH.
Evolutionists do NOT say "the designer did *not* do it."
Evolutionists say "there is no positive evidence that a designer did it."
Those are two very different things, and it's quite dishonest of you pull such a bait and switch.
====================
Examples:
##################
Any engineer would naturally assume that the photocells would point towards the light, with their wires leading backwards towards the brain. He would laugh at any suggestion that the photocells might point away from the light, with their wires departing on the side nearest the light. … it is the principle of the thing that would offend any tidy-minded engineer!
http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/05/why-ken-miller-is-right-about-our.html
##################
Incredibly, this is exactly how the human retina is constructed. … the basic design flaw. … another feature that no engineer would propose.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/change/grand/page05.html
##################
Who would design an eye like this? Certainly not me. Certainly not an engineer or anyone who had given it a little thought. …
All vertebrates (from fish to humans) have the retina built the wrong way around and therefore we all have blind spots. But why design the eye this way? Well, it wasn't designed at all! (Sorry Paley.)
http://www.synapses.co.uk/evolve/lec3l.html
##################
Scott:
ReplyDeleteI asked you this:
===
CH: Second, how do they know this about the creator? This is not skepticism. I'm not saying we can't reason about god. But I want to know how they know this? They're making the religious claim, but they provide no reasoning or support. Darwin's book is chocked full of religious claims, not a one of which is justified. The same for today's evolutionary literature. Read Jerry Coyne's book, *Why Evolution is True*. Or search my blog for the various posts on the book. Evolutionary thought is all about metaphysics.
Scott: The creator as currently defined is indefensible as an explanation of this degradation because he's the equivalent of the abstract designer. Merely saying a designer did it fails to explain the degradation.
CH: No, evolutionists say the designer did *not* do it.
Scott: "No", in that an abstract designer is defensible, or?
===
No, in that you have still failed to answer my question. Evolutionists say the designer did *not* do it. My question for you is how do they know this?
Evolutionists say the designer did *not* do it. My question for you is how do they know this?
ReplyDeleteHunter, they don't know it and they don't say it. This has been pointed out to you repeatedly above. Do you think that chanting that silly claim like a mantra will make it come true?
LOL! CH, you *do* realize that those quotes you provided do not support your claim but back up exactly what I pointed out?
ReplyDeleteNo, in your religiously induced fog you probably don't.
We see people saying "no *competent* designer would do it this way" which is NOT the same as saying "the designer did *not* do it."
We've been over this bit of underhanded spin by you before, remember? You really need to take off those Bible goggles before trying to read any scientific literature. But I doubt you have the intellectual honesty to do so.
Cornelius Hunter said...
ReplyDeleteNo, in that you have still failed to answer my question. Evolutionists say the designer did *not* do it. My question for you is how do they know this
People say Cornelius Hunter steals from the collection plate. My question for you is how do they know this.
CH: No, in that you have still failed to answer my question. Evolutionists say the designer did *not* do it. My question for you is how do they know this?
ReplyDeleteCornelius,
Again, you still seem to be having difficulty with my argument. Perhaps an analogy would be helpful.
I have a large grey rock in my back yard. Imagine I claimed this rock was a person.
Since no one has claimed to have discovered a sentient rock before, one could ask exactly what I mean when I describe this rock as a person.
One might ask, does the rock talk to me? To which I'd reply, "who's to say that a rock that is also a person would talk to anyone in particular?"
One might ask, does this rock have a nervous system." To which I'd reply, "who's to say rocks need a nervous system to be a person?"
One might ask, does the rock somehow keep me company? To which I'd reply. "With the exception of when I'm working in the back yard. No. But who's to say a person-rock needs to be close to anyone to keep them company, or would want to keep anyone company in the first place? "
One might ask, does this rock do anything in particular to interact or intervene in my life or the life of anyone else. To which I'd reply. "Who's to say a person-rock would interact or intervene with anyone? Who's to say that the person-rock doesn't want to interact with us but cannot because of some unknown limitation or logical constraint? "
I could go on, but I think you get the point.
Can we know the rock in my back yard is *not* a person, in reality? No we cannot.
But merely saying the rock is a person doesn't explain any features of the rock, or lack there of. It might explain human phenomena in regards to rocks, such as the popularity of keeping them as "pets", but it doesn't improve the existing explanation of the rock itself. Mere personhood is indefensible as an explanation of the rock.
Despite the fact that we cannot know if the rock is a person, in reality, we use human reasoning and problem solving to conclude the rock is not a person.
With this in mind, let's return to your question.
CH: Second, how do they know this about the creator? This is not skepticism. I'm not saying we can't reason about god. But I want to know how they know this? They're making the religious claim, but they provide no reasoning or support.
Despite the fact that we cannot know if an abstract designer did it, in reality, the mere claim that "the designer did it" is indefensible as an explanation of the biological complexity we observe. It's a non-explanation.
It might explain how human beings fit the biological complexity we observe into a particular theodicy, but it doesn't improve the explanation of the biological complexity we observe.
Who's to say that a designer/engineer wouldn't design a retina with photo receptors in the back of the eye and locate the nerve to result in a bind spot?
We are. And we do so using the same human reasoning and problem solving process we use elsewhere. You've merely asserted that it doesn't work in the cause of biological complexity.
I wrote: Who's to say that a designer/engineer wouldn't design a retina with photo receptors in the back of the eye and locate the nerve to result in a bind spot? We are.
ReplyDeleteWhat I should have wrote was..
I wrote: Who's to say that a designer would not design/engineer a retina with photo receptors in the back of the eye and locate the nerve to result in a bind spot? We are.
What do I mean this?
Terms "design" and "engineer" in the quotes you posted above were not abstract but had particular meaning. Just as the term personhood has particular meaning in regards to expectations of the rock.
In the absence of such expectations then it's unclear how using the term "design" actually explains anything in particular.
Scott:
ReplyDelete===
Who's to say that a designer would not design/engineer a retina with photo receptors in the back of the eye and locate the nerve to result in a bind spot? We are. And we do so using the same human reasoning and problem solving process we use elsewhere.
===
OK, good. We finally have an answer from the evolutionist. We get to decide what the designer / engineer of the universe would and would not do. Well that was easy.
And just how do we make such determinations. Easy, by human reasoning and problem solving. And whose reasoning and problem solving is used to make such determinations? Evolutionists of course.
===
You've merely asserted that it doesn't work in the case of biological complexity.
===
No, I did not assert that. I asked how evolutionists know so many metaphysical truths. And the answer is, of course, by assertion.
Evolutionists are so deeply immersed in their own metaphysics they are not even aware of it. With a straight face they make all manner of religious and metaphysical claims, and then turn right around saying they are perfectly objective, and in fact it is you that are the religious one. I literally could not make this up.
Cornelius Hunter said...
ReplyDeleteEvolutionists are so deeply immersed in their own metaphysics they are not even aware of it. With a straight face they make all manner of religious and metaphysical claims, and then turn right around saying they are perfectly objective, and in fact it is you that are the religious one. I literally could not make this up.
Sorry CH, but the empirical evidence shows you did make it up. All of it, whole cloth. Pulled it straight out of your nether regions.
But that's OK. You're not known for being objective, or intellectually honest, or being able to peek even a teeny bit past your Bible blinders. Heck, I bet you could probably even round up 2 or 3 IDiot syncophantic fanboys to agree with you. The rest of us will just laugh.
Scott: You've merely asserted that [human reasoning and problem solving] doesn't work in the case of biological complexity.
ReplyDeleteCH: No, I did not assert that. I asked how evolutionists know so many metaphysical truths. And the answer is, of course, by assertion.
I see you're still having difficulty.
Again, I'm pointing out that you've effectively defined "metaphysical truth" as a truth that is beyond human reasoning an problem solving.
So, to rephrase..
I asked how evolutionists know so many truths beyond human reasoning and problem solving. The answer is, of course, the claim that I've asserted some truths, but not others, are beyond human reasoning and problem solving.
We can use human reasoning and problem solving to conclude a rock isn't a person, but we cannot use human reasoning and problem solving to conclude the biological complexity we observe isn't designed?
Why is this?
CH: And just how do we make such determinations. Easy, by human reasoning and problem solving. And whose reasoning and problem solving is used to make such determinations? Evolutionists of course.
ReplyDeleteFirst, apparently we can add "easy" to the list of adjectives you regularly add for effect, such as heroically, amazingly, violently, etc.
Second, you still seem to have difficulty understanding my argument.
Not only is "an abstract designer did it" indefensible is because it's a non-explanation, but it's effectively an assertion of a boundary where human reasoning and problem solving cannot pass. No better questions can be asked. We must throw up our hands.
As such, it's not that anyone is being excluded - they are excluding themselves.
It's unclear how anyone can complain about being excluded when they effectively exclude themselves from the process.