Thursday, November 24, 2011

Let’s Talk About Evolution: How Religious Insanity Has Corrupted Science

Think the evolutionary non scientific bluster is limited to a few outspoken blowhards? For those not familiar with the world of evolution and its deep infection of the life sciences, here is an educational video that appears to be the evolutionist’s version of whack-a-mole.


If there was any question of what this video is about it is answered within the first fifteen seconds with multiple pop-ups of evolution’s staple equivocation:

Evolution is a change in population over time [0.12]

Emily Willingham, Ph.D.
Science writer

Evolution is change in gene frequency [0.14]

Marta Wayne
Professor of Biology, University of Florida

This equivocation comes in many forms, such as the ruse that observed changes constitute evolution:

Evolution is not a theory. Evolution is actually an observable phenomenon that is supported by a significant body of evidence. [0.54]

Jeanne Garbarino
Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism
The Rockefeller University

Then there is the evolution-is-true lie. Do lies count as fallacies? In any case, maybe evolution is true, maybe it isn’t, but what we do know with absolute certainty is that we don’t know. I can’t tell you what the truth is about whether or how evolution occurred. But I can tell you the truth about the current state of our knowledge. Evolutionists say evolution is a fact, but the fact is evolution is not a fact. But evolutionists are certain, and therein lies the problem:

It’s the true story of where we came from [4:40]

Sheril Kirshenbaum
Research Associate
Center for International Energy and Environmental Policy
University of Texas-Austin

And of course no compendium of evolutionary’s fallacies would be complete without Theodosius Dobzhansky’s classic summary of evolution’s metaphysics:

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. [4.20]

Jenny Ruth Morber, Ph.D.
Former nanoscience researcher, current freelance science writer

Well we could go on and on, but what’s the point? The evolution lie, with its many distortions, misrepresentations and fallacies has thoroughly corrupted the life sciences. Religion drives science, and it matters.

47 comments:

  1. It's so sad to know young impressionable minds are being indoctrinated with those darwinist lies.

    I guess they hope that if they repeat them (ad nauseum) people will believe and not ask for the evidence. When such people DO ask to see the alleged evidence, they get "EXPELLED" for not having enough faith in their god, darwin.

    ReplyDelete
  2. You tell 'em, Cornball!!

    Evolution could not possible produce the beautiful CMV virus!! This wonderful virus infects babies while they're in the mothers womb. And after birth these precious babies eventually become paraplegics. And suffer from seizures. And become blind. And then they die.

    Nothing but the love of our precious Lord and Savior could produce such beauty in this world!! And the very idea that Darwinian evolution by natural selection is somehow a better explanation as to why this astonishing act of cruelty affects the most innocent among us is truly ridiculous!! Don't those danged atheists understand the special way that our Lord and Savior chooses to show his love and mercy for us!!!

    Praise Jeeezuus!!!! Praise his holy name!!! Thank you, Jesus, for the CMV virus!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Ha ha ha - I LOVE the way you try to portray support for evolution as a 'fringe' belief - or, for sensationalism, 'perhaps not to fringe after all'.

    The actual truth is that the VAST majority of scientists do accept ToE. The ratio of ones who do to those who do not, on the statistics of Project Steve, is roughly 500 to 1.

    Though there are some scientists who do not accept ToE, you will always find a few fringe people of any group who believe anything.

    But that, of course, doesn't fit you worldview of ToE being a scientifically anemic theory, would it? How could so many scientists be fooled on science?

    The answer, of course, is that they are not. They know what they are doing, and ToE is science. It is the fringe evolution-sceptics who are motivated by their religious beliefs into refusing to accept their God is unnecessary.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Ritchie:
    But that, of course, doesn't fit you worldview of ToE being a scientifically anemic theory, would it?

    As far as I can conclude from this post over at Evolution News and Views the ToE is a scientifically anemic theory.

    ENV

    This just in: A rather basic question fundamental to any evolutionary account of life's development -- how "genotypes generate phenotypes," in other words how genes build an individual creature -- remains totally obscure to science.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Doublee -

    "As far as I can conclude from this post over at Evolution News and Views the ToE is a scientifically anemic theory."

    Again with the 'We don't know EVERYTHING, therefore we know nothing' logic. This is no less flawed an argument coming from you than it is coming from Cornelius.

    Darwin drew up ToE without understanding how physical traits got passed down from parent to child. There was a pretty huge gap in knowledge right there.

    But scientific scrutiny has a habit of filling in the gaps.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Ritchie:

    My argument is not "We don't know everything, therefore we know nothing."

    My argument is that the mechanism that is offered as an explanation for the evolution of life is merely a template. It is therefore premature to say we have a complete theory (defined as an explanation of natural phenomena) of evolution. In fact, you admit there are gaps in the theory. It is ridiculous to say that scientists know nothing, because that is obvioulsy not true.

    I have read (Jonathan Wells and/or Stephen Meyer) that mutations in DNA do not have the capability to alter body plans. Therefore, the information that controls how a body is built must reside somewhere else.

    Jonathan BL Bard in the article linked at ENV says this in the abstract:

    The evolutionary synthesis, the standard 20th century view of how evolutionary change occurs, is based on selection, heritable phenotypic variation and a very simple view of genes. It is therefore unable to incorporate two key aspects of modern molecular knowledge: first is the richness of genomic variation, so much more complicated than simple mutation, and second is the opaque relationship between the genotype and its resulting phenotype.

    You say that scientific scrutiny has a habit of filling in the gaps. I submit that our disagreement is really a disagreement over the size of the gaps.

    I say the gap is huge if scientists do not yet know how evolution really works.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Doublee -

    "My argument is that the mechanism that is offered as an explanation for the evolution of life is merely a template. It is therefore premature to say we have a complete theory (defined as an explanation of natural phenomena) of evolution."

    This is the case for every theory in every scientific field, and always will be, until we know absolutely everything there is to know. Which is quite possibly impossible.

    "In fact, you admit there are gaps in the theory."

    Not in the sense that the theory breaks down in places, no. But in the sense that there are gaps in our knowledge of the world, then yes. We can't explain everything in biology yet.

    "Jonathan BL Bard in the article linked at ENV says this in the abstract:"

    I do hope you're not taking ENV as an impartial, objective, scientific source...?

    "You say that scientific scrutiny has a habit of filling in the gaps. I submit that our disagreement is really a disagreement over the size of the gaps."

    Perhaps so.

    "I say the gap is huge if scientists do not yet know how evolution really works."

    However big they are now, they were much larger 150 years ago. That didn't stop the theory being drawn up. And it has survived 150 years of discoveries - becoming continuously more strongly supported and never falsified.

    Whether it will survive another 150 years remains to be seen. But so far is has more than earned our trust.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Education has never been indicative of the truth but, rather, indicative of the curriculum imposed on the students. The ignorance disguised as science education today is stunning and these poor women have bought it hook, line, and sinker. (Women only in the video? Come on girls, it's really a bit creepy … especially the one in an evening gown.)

    Let's see if one of them can come up with how evolution worked for these unexplained phenomena:

    “Mapping the brain's connections is no trivial task, however: there are estimated to be one hundred billion nerve cells ('neurons') in the brain, each connected to thousands of other nerve cells – making an estimated 150 trillion synapses. Dr Tom Mrsic-Flogel, a Wellcome Trust Research Career Development Fellow at UCL (University College London), has been leading a team of researchers trying to make sense of this complexity.”
    University College London, “Mapping the brain: New technique poised to untangle the complexity of the brain,” April 10, 2011, Physorg.
    http://www.physorg.com/
    http://medicalxpress.com/news/2011-04-brain-technique-poised-untangle-complexity.html

    "Observed in this manner, the brain's overall complexity is almost beyond belief, said Smith. 'One synapse, by itself, is more like a microprocessor -- with both memory-storage and information-processing elements --
    than a mere on/off switch. In fact, one synapse may contain on the order of 1,000 molecular-scale switches. A single human brain has more switches than all the computers and routers and Internet connections on Earth,' he said."
    Stanford University Medical Center, "Stunning Details of Brain Connections Revealed,", Novermber 17, 2010, ScienceDaily.com.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101117121803.htm

    “Scientists are reporting evidence that intact, double-stranded DNA has the 'amazing' ability to recognize similarities in other DNA strands from a distance. And then like friends with similar interests, the bits of genetic material hangout or congregate together. The recognition — of similar sequences in DNA’s chemical subunits — occurs in a way once regarded as impossible, the researchers suggest in a study scheduled for the Jan. 31 issue of ACS’ Journal of Physical Chemistry B. ...
    'Amazingly, the forces responsible for the sequence recognition can reach across more than one nanometer of water separating the surfaces of the nearest neighbor DNA,' said the authors.”
    Journal of the American Chemical Society, “Genetic 'telepathy'? A bizarre new property of DNA,” January 28,
    2008, Phys org.
    http://www.physorg.com/news120735315.html


    At least some admit they have no clue as to how evolution supposedly works:
    “Although the vast majority of research in evolutionary biology is focused on adaption, a general theory for the population-genetic mechanisms by which complex adaptations are acquired remains to be developed.”
    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S., “Scaling expectations for the time to establishment of complex adaptations”, September 7, 2010, doi:10.1073/pnas.1010836107.
    http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/08/30/1010836107.abstract

    ReplyDelete
  9. Cornelius:

    Well we could go on and on, but what’s the point? The evolution lie, with its many distortions, misrepresentations and fallacies has thoroughly corrupted the life sciences. Religion drives science, and it matters.

    Yes, you could and you do go on and on, and indeed, what's the point? It's not going to stop scientists from studying evolution, the fact and the theory. That evolution is a fact, as evidenced by the fossil record and the real-time observation of evolution, is a done deal. The theory of evolution is itself evolving, as more mechanisms that affect evolution are discovered and incorporated in the theory.

    You keep on saying "religion drives science and it matters." Matters in what sense? Is it bad? Then why do you work at an institution that requires that scientific findings that contradict religious dogma are ferboten?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Ritchie:
    I do hope you're not taking ENV as an impartial, objective, scientific source...?

    Whether or not ENV is an impartial source is not the issue. The issue is whether Jonathan Bard's statement about the state of evolutionary knowledge is true.

    Since you did not say it is false and since you continue to acknowledge that there are gaps in the knowledge about the history of life, I can only infer that what Jonathan Bard said is true.

    And whether the theory survives another 150 years is indeed the question I am asking. My only quibble is the whether the theory will even last 150 years.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Doublee:

    I have read (Jonathan Wells and/or Stephen Meyer) that mutations in DNA do not have the capability to alter body plans. Therefore, the information that controls how a body is built must reside somewhere else.

    Jonathan Wells and/or Stephen Meyer are obviously wrong. It's obvious because (1) you can't prove a negative like that without an exhaustive investigation of all possible mutations, and (2) such mutations have been found. Haven't you heard of the mutation that transforms a Drosophila's antennae into legs?

    What do you think evo-devo has been up to for the last several decades?

    Pontificating about science that you are ignorant about makes you look like an idiot. Next time, do some research first.

    ReplyDelete
  12. troy:
    That evolution is a fact, as evidenced by the fossil record and the real-time observation of evolution, is a done deal.

    It depends upon what the meaning of is is. (Sorry, I couldn't help myself.)

    Your definition of evolution can only be the trivial definition, which is "change over time", since that is the only thing that the fossil record corroborates.

    Obviously, the only evolution that has been observed is micro-evolution, and no one can rationally disagree with what can be directly observed.

    The big question remains and forever will be the point of contention. Can the small changes that are observed provide a sufficent basis for inferring that the large changes that are documented in the fossil record occur by the same mechanism?

    Since, scientists do not yet know how genotype correlates with phenotype, evolution cannot be a done deal.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Hunter: Well we could go on and on, but what’s the point?

    Heh, I could ask the same question. You do go on and on, Cornelius. Like a broken record. "Religion drives science, and it matters." It's ironic to hear this from a guy who teaches at a fundamentalist Christian school whose doctrinal statement "seek[s] to harmonize science and the Bible" and proscribes common ancestry of humans and apes.

    Pot, kettle, and all that.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Doublee:

    Your definition of evolution can only be the trivial definition, which is "change over time", since that is the only thing that the fossil record corroborates.

    Yes, indeed, that is my definition of evolution. Although I wouldn't call it trivial.

    Obviously, the only evolution that has been observed is micro-evolution, and no one can rationally disagree with what can be directly observed.

    Agreed.

    The big question remains and forever will be the point of contention. Can the small changes that are observed provide a sufficent basis for inferring that the large changes that are documented in the fossil record occur by the same mechanism?

    That is a big question. And evo-devo has some answers. And we can detect past natural selection from gene sequences. So far it all fits in the big picture. And don't forget that the big picture has some serious mathematical modelling behind it. Feel free to challenge it, but your arguments better be rigorous or you will not be taken seriously, as in any other science.

    Since, scientists do not yet know how genotype correlates with phenotype, evolution cannot be a done deal.

    But scientists do know in many cases how genotype maps to phenotype. And that has nothing to do with the claim that evolution is a done deal. It is a done deal. We can see with our own eyes that populations evolve.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Troy:
    Jonathan Wells and/or Stephen Meyer are obviously wrong. It's obvious because (1) you can't prove a negative like that without an exhaustive investigation of all possible mutations, and (2)such mutations have been found. Haven't you heard of the mutation that transforms a Drosophila's antennae into legs?

    I have read about the Drosophila mutation experiments. The experiments that I read about did not create any new morphological features, so I would question your use of the word "transform". I would say an existing structure was "reused" in a different location.

    The four-winged fruit fly is also an example of this. Three mutations were carefully "engineered" such that the halteres were eventually replaced with a second pair of wings. No new structures here, etiher.

    In the chapter on "Four-Winged Fruit Flys" in Icons of Evolution, Jonathan Wells says this:

    [W]ithout direct evidence, neo-Darwinists can only assume that genetic differences are the cause of morphological differences. As we saw in the the chapter on homology, there are many case in which similarities and differences in genes are not correlated with similarities and differences in morphology.

    So there have been experiments performed to discover the relationship between genotype and phenotype. It doesn't appear to me that Jonathan Wells is obviously wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  16. [W]ithout direct evidence, neo-Darwinists can only assume that genetic differences are the cause of morphological differences. As we saw in the the chapter on homology, there are many case in which similarities and differences in genes are not correlated with similarities and differences in morphology.

    So there have been experiments performed to discover the relationship between genotype and phenotype. It doesn't appear to me that Jonathan Wells is obviously wrong.


    It does appear to me like that, since there are plenty of examples where we know how genotype causes phenotype, and even how genotype can affect "bauplan." What else do you need to know?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Our Savior is speaking to us!! Please click the link below for this glorious message from our Lord!!
    Thank You!

    http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/
    2011/11/18/jesus-appears-in-a-dog-butt/

    ReplyDelete
  18. troy:
    What else do you need to know?

    Obviously, I would need to see a link or some other reference.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Doublee, what exactly would meet your definition of "new morphological features"? Would you state some examples in regard to a variety of organisms?

    In other words, what would you accept, at a minimum, that would be "new morphological features" in say, a human, a butterfly, a snake, a fish, a tree, a fungus, a lichen, a frog, etc.?

    ReplyDelete
  20. The whole truth
    [W]hat exactly would meet your definition of "new morphological features"...?

    The first thing that comes mind regarding us humans is the appearance of a tail. Outwardly that is a new morphological feature as I would define the term. But is it really new, or merely the expression of a feature that is already there?

    When the whale is compared to its ancestors, we can see lots of new morphological features -- fins instead of legs for example, and lots of relocated features -- internal testes for example. Then there is the question of the classification of features that have to be "redesigned" -- modification of the teats for underwater nursing for example.

    Another question entered my mind as I pondered an answer to your question and it is this. What does the incipient new morphological feature look like? If forelegs are going to be modified into flippers, what does each step look like such that each step provides a selective advantage?

    I don't know that questions of that nature can be answered and I would wonder if anyone has answered those kinds of questions at all.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Doublee,

    In other words, you don't really have a definition of "new morphological features", but you argue against their existence anyway.

    You said:

    "Obviously, the only evolution that has been observed is micro-evolution, and no one can rationally disagree with what can be directly observed."

    But you also said:

    "When the whale is compared to its ancestors, we can see lots of new morphological features -- fins instead of legs for example, and lots of relocated features -- internal testes for example."

    Those statements are contradictory, unless you're claiming that "new morphological features" are only examples of "micro-evolution". But, if that's what you're claiming, that would seem to go against other things you say.

    So, tell me, why are there many different species of whales, and why do they have "lots of new morphological features" (like fins) that their ancestor(s) didn't have? Did they all evolve from the same ancestor or a bunch of different ancestors? Were they individually designed from scratch, or designed starting from the same ancestor or a bunch of different ancestors?

    Do you consider the differences between an ancestral land animal and all whales, and the differences between all whales, to be "micro-evolution"?

    ReplyDelete
  22. The whole truth:
    Do you consider the differences between an ancestral land animal and all whales, and the differences between all whales, to be "micro-evolution"?

    No, I do not consider the differences observed in the evolution of whales micro-evolution.

    When I talk about what can be directly observed, I mean what can be directly observed in real time. Even then, we must distinguish between directly observing a process and observing the results of a process and comparing the before and after states.

    The experiments with bacteria are an example of this. I am thinking of those that have been in progress for 20 some years(?).

    In the evolution of whales, or any other organism that has taken millions of years to evolve, we can only observe the results of the process -- that is the mechanism.

    To be absolutely rigorous regarding an evolutionary sequence science cannot know for certain the "before state" in an evolutionary sequence. The before state is imposed on the fossil record assuming that evoluton is true.

    You ask questions that I don't think anyone has answered. The fossil record for the most part documents "sudden appearance", yet the ID folks say common ancestry is compatible with ID.

    If common ancestry means all organisms can trace their ancestry back to one or a few great^n-grandfathers, this is not clearly documented in the fossil record.

    So, I have no clear answer to your question. I am uncomfortable with either answer - sudden appearance or common ancestry. No matter who or what caused evolution, why are missing intermediates the rule rather than the exception?

    ReplyDelete
  23. doublee:

    I am uncomfortable with either answer - sudden appearance or common ancestry. No matter who or what caused evolution, why are missing intermediates the rule rather than the exception?

    Why not?

    What sort of fossil pattern would be expected if evolution had occurred gradually with occasional bifurcating speciation events, and if fossilization was a rare event? Would you expect more intermediates than actually observed?

    To answer that question, you have to model the process. Since you are an electrical engineer, you are probably familiar with Monte Carlo simulation methods. So find out for yourself. Use simulations of a gradual process generating a bifurcating tree and superimpose fossilization events according to some probability distribution and plot the distribution of intermediates. Perhaps you'll find a power law distribution of intermediates.

    The point is, it doesn't make sens to complain about the numbers of missing intermediates, if you have no quantified expectation based on the hypothesized underlying processes.

    PS. You're welcome for that link I gave. Did you read the paper?

    ReplyDelete
  24. "No matter who or what caused evolution, why are missing intermediates the rule rather than the exception?"

    Troy made some good points and I'd like to add some other other comments.

    One of the problems with "intermediates" is that it's often a matter of interpretation, a lot like the "new morphological features" thing. What exactly is an "intermediate" or a "new morphological feature"?

    One of the ongoing debates in science is about how organisms, whether extant or extinct, are differentiated, and labeled. There are lumpers and splitters, and plenty of disagreement. Some people use morphological features to split or lump things and some use genes, DNA, etc. If it isn't difficult enough already, cryptic species have been found that make differentiation and labeling even more complex, and there's debate about 'cryptic' species too.

    Lots of people want to be top dog and rule over how things are researched, interpreted, differentiated, explained, and labeled, and that has always been the case. There are enough egos IN science without religious zealots trying to butt in with their crazy, egotistical, fairy tale beliefs.

    One thing about science is that many or most things are or will be generally settled and accepted eventually. I don't automatically swallow what any scientist or any study says the minute it comes out, unless it is backed up by really solid evidence. If necessary, I am patient enough to wait until there is solid evidence before accepting something. In the meantime I'm not going to fool myself into believing that anything can be explained by 'God-did-it'.

    I realize that neither science nor the fossil record are perfect, but much of science and the fossil record should be convincing to anyone who doesn't have a religious bias.

    Something that scientifically minded people keep trying to get across to religious zealots is that science has no way to seek, find, research, or explain alleged gods. Science is and must be devoted to seeking, finding, researching, and explaining evidential, or potentially evidential things.

    Religious zealots would surely argue that a god or gods are evidential or potentially evidential, but it is upon them to show that. It is not science's responsibility to cater to any or every belief that religious people have and try to prove its veracity.

    'Best explanations', based on actual available evidence, may be all science can do in some cases but that's a lot better than trying to insert totally non-evidential religious fairy tales into the evidence or explanation, or into the pursuit of further knowledge.

    Even IF there's some sort of being/entity responsible for the universe and life, it just doesn't matter to scientific investigations. Science should and will proceed on the basis of investigating things that it CAN investigate. I'm sure that if someone could come up with some real evidence of a god or other universe/life creating and designing being, science would be very interested, but science just isn't and shouldn't be interested in any of the myriad, non-evidential religious beliefs that people have, except maybe for the part of science that pertains to investigating why people have religious beliefs.

    And that brings me to this: Which beliefs are the right ones, IF any? Even though there is debate and disagreement between scientists on some things within the purview of science, there is a lot more debate and disagreement between religious people on virtually every aspect of religious beliefs. Differentiation, labeling, interpretations, practices, traditions, and virtually everything else about gods/religion is endlessly argued about BY religious people, and often to the point of violence or even all out war. Everyone thinks that THEY are right in their beliefs, even though none of them actually KNOW anything about what is right or wrong. It's all based on non-evidential, arrogant, wacky opinions.

    ReplyDelete
  25. The whole truth:
    I'm not going to fool myself into believing that anything can be explained by 'God-did-it'.

    and

    ...[T]he fossil record should be convincing to anyone who doesn't have a religious bias.

    So it is O.K. to be biased against a 'God did it' explanation but it is not O.K. to have a religious bias?

    Do you automatically assume that someone who posits the inference to intelligent agency has a religious bias? Is there no possibility that based on our uniform and repeated experience with cause and effect relationships that intelligent agency is a reasonable or at least a possible explanation?

    Life fundamentally depends on information and the processing of that information. At the core of life is an encoding and decoding system. I earned a living working with and designing encoding and decoding systems. Three functional elements are required: the encoder, the code transmission medium, and the decoder. The encoder and decoder are obviously not independent of each other. The design of the encoder has to take into account the design of the decoder; foresight is required to design such a system. Foresight is a property of intelligent beings.

    Even at this fundamental level, one ought to be at least a little bit suspicious that unaided nature can create such a system. Does this reflect a religious bias? It does reflect a certain level of incredulity. That only means that science has discovered something amazing to investigate.

    Do the atheists who defend the intelligent design inference have a religious bias?

    I'm not quite sure what the fossil record can tell us about the mechanism of evolution. The record does tell us that life progressed from a very complex single celled form to extremely complex animals. An explanation about how this occurred has to come from somewhere else. The fossil record does not provide demarcation evidence between the theory of evoluton and intelligent design.

    'Best explanations', based on actual available evidence, may be all science can do in some cases...

    I agree 100% with that. But what if the best explanation based on our uniform and repeated experience is that life was designed?

    On what logical basis would scientists rule out that inference? Is the design inference really a non-evidential fairy tale? A scientist who looks at patterns in nature is certainly looking at evidence. So to say that the design inference is non-evidential is nonsensical.

    What you can say is that the inference to design is not warranted if you can develop arguments that there are no insurmountable improbabilities regarding the creation of new proteins, for example.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I'm not quite sure what the fossil record can tell us about the mechanism of evolution. The record does tell us that life progressed from a very complex single celled form to extremely complex animals. An explanation about how this occurred has to come from somewhere else. The fossil record does not provide demarcation evidence between the theory of evoluton [ToE] and intelligent design [ID].

    You're wrong because it does. The fossil evidence points to a bifurcating tree-like diversification of life forms where traits are passed on vertically (inheritance with modification), that is, traits do not "jump" across taxonomic boundaries (e.g. no sudden appearance of gills in whales), with some exceptions at the root of the tree (e.g. horizontal transfer between bacteria). This is what the ToE models predict. ID does not predict this. Of course the branching pattern is consistent with ID - everything is consistent with ID if no constraints on the designing process are postulated. But the likelihood of ToE given the data is infinitely larger than the likelihood of unconstrained ID given the data. You need to be more specific about ID to produce testable models.


    And this stuff about information? There is information everywhere in nature. Patterns of matter cause predictable changes in other patterns of matter, hence the latter contain information about the former. That is, observing the latter has mutual information (reduction in Shannon info) about the former. Or yet in other words, there is a flow of information between the patterns, one pattern is the code for the other.

    Natural selection is a process that transfers information about the match between phenotypes and environment to the gene pool. Changes over time in the genetic composition of populations tell us something about the environment of the species. Adaptation builds up information.

    ReplyDelete
  27. PS. So the fossil record does tell us something about the mechanisms of evolution: vertical transmission with modification. I agree with you that it doesn't tell us whether the changes were caused by natural selection and mutation or by drift or whatever. This is where genetics comes in. The trees estimated from fossil evidence agree to a very large extent with the trees estimated from variation in DNA sequences. But in addition to that, we can see the signature of selection in DNA sequences. It's complicated and it takes fancy modeling but it's there.

    ReplyDelete
  28. "So it is O.K. to be biased against a 'God did it' explanation but it is not O.K. to have a religious bias?"

    It is okay, and actually necessary, to ignore religious beliefs (like god-did-it) when doing science. Religious beliefs are not scientific. Anyone can have any beliefs they like, but keep them out of science, government, and public education.

    Re-read what I said about which beliefs are right, if any. Let's say that I believe that a flock of Flying Spaghetti Monsters are the gods and that they designed and created the universe. Should that belief be a serious part of science and be investigated by scientists? What about all the religious beliefs that people have or have ever had, around the world? What makes your religious beliefs any more credible than any others? What makes your religious beliefs credible at all? If one religious belief is let in, all are let in. All religious beliefs have exactly the same amount of supporting evidence: NONE.

    "Do you automatically assume that someone who posits the inference to intelligent agency has a religious bias?"

    Yes, because everyone who posits the inference is religious, and because the inference depends on there being what the people positing it would label as a god, and gods are religious.

    "Is there no possibility that based on our uniform and repeated experience with cause and effect relationships that intelligent agency is a reasonable or at least a possible explanation?"

    Lots of things are "possible" but science isn't in the business of catering to what religious people think is possible. You posit a designer/god, you get the evidence. Then science will likely listen.

    "That only means that science has discovered something amazing to investigate."

    Science is investigating the "core of life" and hasn't found any gods or miracles or magic. Reinterpreting evidence just to see those things wouldn't answer any questions and would actually stifle science. A reinterpretation like that might make some religious zealots happy, but which ones? Which religious interpretation would prevail? Should it be voted on? Draw straws? Fight wars over it?

    "Do the atheists who defend the intelligent design inference have a religious bias?"

    Name some.


    (See part two)

    ReplyDelete
  29. Part two.


    "An explanation about how this occurred has to come from somewhere else."

    That's why many scientists are working on other ways to figure out the mechanisms. Some things may never be figured out. Oh well. I can easily live (or die) with that. I don't need a religious crutch to fill gaps.

    "But what if the best explanation based on our uniform and repeated experience is that life was designed?"

    What if a flock of Flying Spaghetti Monsters stops by The White House for lunch? Asking what if life was (or is) designed doesn't answer any questions or provide an avenue of investigation.

    "On what logical basis would scientists rule out that inference?"

    The complete lack of evidence, and the fact that it's just a religious and political agenda.

    "Is the design inference really a non-evidential fairy tale?"

    Yes, since it is based on non-evidential, religious fairy tales, and because it's just a ploy to cram religion into every aspect of everyone's life.

    "A scientist who looks at patterns in nature is certainly looking at evidence. So to say that the design inference is non-evidential is nonsensical."

    Yeah, they're looking at evidence of patterns, which doesn't automatically mean intentional, intelligent design.

    Have you ever looked at the patterns that often form in the sand on an ocean beach? Were they intentionally designed by a god or formed naturally by wind and/or waves? If there are no patterns on the beach at the time you're there, and the sand is flatter than a pancake, was that flatness intentionally designed by a god or was it formed naturally by wind and/or waves?

    "What you can say is that the inference to design is not warranted if you can develop arguments that there are no insurmountable improbabilities regarding the creation of new proteins, for example."

    Be patient. Science takes time. It's a helluva lot more work than saying god-did-it.

    ReplyDelete
  30. The whole truth:
    Name some... [atheists who defend intelligent design.]

    Here is a post by Bradley Monton criticizing Steve Fuller who are both non-thiests.

    Bradley Monton

    I have not read the entire post but it is interesting to see one non-theist criticizing another about ID.

    Have you ever looked at the patterns that often form in the sand on an ocean beach?

    Of course I have, but I have yet to see a pattern in nature outside of the cell that is a sequence of symbols. And I have seen the rock formation on Camelback Mountain in Phoenix that looks like a praying monk. I find it hard to believe that you would resort to this simplistic argument.

    As I have already alluded to what needs to be explained is the existence of an encoding/decoding system in the cell and the exceedingly long sequence of symbols that is required to specify the construction of proteins.

    The patterns you refer to on the beach can easily be explained by the interaction of the forces of nature.

    The sequence of nucleotides in the DNA cannot be explained by the forces of nature any more than the sequence of magnetic letters attached to a metal board that spell out a sentence can be explained by the force of magnetic attraction.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Doublee said...

    As I have already alluded to what needs to be explained is the existence of an encoding/decoding system in the cell


    Er, no. There is no abstract encoding/decoding system in the cell. When biologists speak of DNA encoding for amino acids, they are using 'code' to mean merely a system where the inputs map to the outputs. There are no abstract symbols, no abstract coding or encoding.

    and the exceedingly long sequence of symbols that is required to specify the construction of proteins.

    There are no long sequence of symbols required to construct a protein. There are long sequences of organic molecules that interact through the laws of chemistry and physics to form other large organic structures. Humans use long sequences of symbols to describe the molecules, but the molecules themselves aren't symbols. Don't confuse the map with the territory.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Doublee, I find it interesting that you changed the term from atheists to non-theists. In some cases it may not matter, but in some it could.

    At the page you linked to, about all I see is Monton chastising Fuller for being insincere and nonsensical.

    After looking at other things they have both said, I wouldn't describe either Fuller or Monton as atheists. Fuller is obviously not an atheist and he appears to be a very dishonest moron to boot, and Monton is more agnostic than atheistic, and frankly, my saying that he's agnostic is being generous.

    Monton chose statements from four people to support his book "Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design":

    http://spot.colorado.edu/~monton/BradleyMonton/ID.html

    The four are Dembski (dishonest godbot), Berlinski (dishonest godbot), Groothuis (godbot!), and Roberts (godbot?). Why would an alleged atheist choose statements from three, possibly four, godbots to support his book?

    Monton opposes the decision by Judge Jones at Dover, and thinks that ID should be taught in public schools. He also thinks that science should not exclude the supernatural.

    On his blog he says:

    "I consider myself an atheist — while I’m not certain that there is no God, I think it’s pretty unlikely that there is. (Some intelligent design arguments make me less certain that there is no God than I would be had I not heard the arguments, so that’s why, even though I’m an atheist, I think intelligent design arguments are worth taking seriously.)"

    Does that sound like an atheist? Sounds agnostic, at most, to me.

    He does say something I agree with though:

    "...sometimes I think it’s good that scientists don’t concern themselves with philosophy because by avoiding philosophy they’ll do better science as a result."

    The strange thing is that that statement contradicts his opinion about ID and the teaching of it as a scientific theory. Oh well, he's a "philosopher" and clearly doesn't have a clue about science.

    For instance, he says:

    "The minimal government standards I would set would allow ID arguments to be taught in science classes, as long as the science was taught as well. Basically I think parents should be allowed to decide what their children learn, subject only to the sort of guidance that the children aren’t taught horribly wrong things."

    And:

    "So this leads to the question – what should be taught in public school? Well, it’s legitimate to teach ID in public school, as long as it gets taught in a comparative religion class, or a current events class, or something along those lines. The controversy is over what should be taught in public school science classes."

    Hmm, he thinks that ID is science but also thinks that it isn't. He jumps all over the place and seems to be doing what he accuses Fuller of. And isn't it interesting that he says "comparative religion" when referring to the teaching of ID?

    Support for ID from a so-called "philosopher" (Monton), especially when it's only partial and provisional (and not necessarily current?), isn't 'scientific' support, and ID needs scientific support to be taken seriously by science in a positive way. Anyone can call themselves a philosopher but that doesn't mean they have a clue about anything. Support for ID from Fuller is also a joke, and what I said about scientific support is what matters.

    The tard fight between Monton and Fuller is pretty funny. Two so-called 'philosophers' arguing about whose non-evidential, inconsistent ramblings are correct. Some philosophy is interesting, but a LOT of it is just crazy ramblings by people who can't get a real job and just like to bloviate.

    See part two.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Part two.

    Doublee said:

    "...but I have yet to see a pattern in nature outside of the cell that is a sequence of symbols."

    Neither you nor anyone else has ever seen "a sequence of symbols" in a cell. The "symbols" are a labeling system invented and applied by humans to parts or actions of cells, like the labeling systems invented and applied by humans to anything else (e.g. patterns or lack of them in beach sand).

    You obviously believe that the 'degree' of complexity is what's relevant to inferring design. The patterns in the sand on a beach, formed by wind and/or waves, are apparently not complex enough to infer intentional, intelligent design, but the parts and actions of cells apparently are. You also apparently believe that your chosen god didn't (or doesn't) design or control everything, including all the parts and processes/forces in nature.

    So, tell me, where exactly is the line between intentional, intelligent design and control, and just plain old natural parts and processes/forces? How exactly can that line be tested and determined?

    ReplyDelete
  34. How about an example of how Monton, the "philosopher" and alleged "atheist", thinks:

    "I will now argue that it is counterproductive to restrict scientific activity in such a way that hypotheses that invoke the supernatural are ruled out. Specifically, I will argue that it is possible to get scientific evidence for the existence of God. The scenario I am about to describe is implausible, but there is nothing logically inconsistent about it. The point of the scenario is that in the described situation, it would be reasonable for scientists to postulate and test the hypothesis that there is supernatural causation occurring. (I am not the first to present this sort of scenario; for a related scenario, see Dembski 1992.)

    Imagine that some astronomers discover a pulsar that is pulsing out Morse code. The message says that it’s from God, and that God is causing the pulsar to pulse in this unusual way. The astronomers are initially skeptical, but they find that when they formulate questions in their head, the questions are correctly answered by the message. The astronomers bring in other people to examine this, and the questions are consistently answered. The message goes on to suggest certain experiments that scientists should perform in particle accelerators – the message says that if the experiments are set up in a specified precise way, then God will cause a miracle to occur. The experiments are done, and the resulting cloud chamber tracks spell out Biblical verses. Then the message explains to the scientists how to form a proper quantum theory of gravity…
    I could go on, but you get the picture. The evidence doesn’t prove that God exists – maybe some advanced alien civilization is playing a trick on us; maybe the scientists are undergoing some sort of mass hallucination; maybe all this is happening due to some incredibly improbable quantum fluctuation. But the evidence does provide some support for the hypothesis that God exists. It would be close-minded for the scientists to refuse to countenance the hypothesis that God exists, due to some commitment to methodological naturalism. Of course, it is important to consider the naturalistic hypotheses, but one has to consider the theistic hypothesis as well."


    Implausible? Really? Why just last night I was watching a pulsar that suddenly pulsed out the Morse code message: "Kilroy was here".

    ReplyDelete
  35. Steve Fuller, the "philosopher" and alleged "atheist" was asked:

    What inspired you to write Science: The Art of Living?

    "Mark Vernon, himself once a student of theology, contacted me to write this book for his ‘art of living’ series at Acumen, a distinguished UK philosophy publisher. He knew about my work in science studies, especially my interest in the democratisation of scientific authority – and how creationism and intelligent design theory played into that trend, certainly in the US and increasingly in the UK.

    With his help, I coined the term ‘Protscience’, which I explain later in this interview. Arguably that concept forms the centrepiece of the book. However, Mark probably did not expect that I would stress so much the positive role that even quite difficult and problematic theological concepts – such as the Eucharist, Grace and Providence – have played in motivating the scientific enterprise.

    Personally speaking, the book provided me with the opportunity to re-connect with my own religious roots. I was never an enthusiastic churchgoer or especially pious. To be sure, my mother always spoke of God as a source of personal strength, a view that I have always found attractive. However, I never fell in and out of love with God, the way so many born-again atheists seem to have done. Rather, I have been taken with theology as a kind of 3-D version of philosophy, in which abstract metaphysics acquired vivid personal qualities. Maybe this had to do with my excellent Jesuit teachers in high school (Regis, in New York City) who made the transition from Jesus to Marx and Teilhard de Chardin appear seamless.

    For me, all theology – if it’s any good—is ultimately liberation theology, in which science plays a central role as a change agent. While I realize that people tend to see the science-religion relationship in much more adversarial terms these days, that was not so obvious in the 1970s, when I first caught the God bug. For me, recovering the theological underpinnings of science is all about recovering science’s progressive mission in the world."


    And there is more, here:

    http://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/swfuller/entry/interview_on_my/

    ReplyDelete
  36. The whole truth:
    Neither you nor anyone else has ever seen "a sequence of symbols" in a cell. The "symbols" are a labeling system invented and applied by humans to parts or actions of cells, like the labeling systems invented and applied by humans to anything else (e.g. patterns or lack of them in beach sand).

    Well, yeah, that's what scientists do. Everything they find in nature is given a name of some kind, so they can communicate ideas and write papers about those ideas.

    So what do you call discrete physical elements, which, when arranged in different sequences, result in the construction of different physical structures? Would you agree that it is not the properties of the elements per se that are of prime importance, but it is the sequence of those elements that matter most?

    No analogy is perfect, but magnetic letters attached to a metal board that spell out a sentence is a fairly good one that illustrates the basic concept. If this is not a good analogy, tell me how it fails.

    Then when I see a translation table that shows the "3-digit" code for each of the amino acids and also shows that there are redundant codes, I am reminded of the coding tables I have constructed when I was working as a logic design engineer. If you can do that with any other pattern found in nature that would be interesting, indeed.

    What are the specific sequences of discrete sand particles that specify the patterns of sand on the beach? Are you able to construct a table to show the relationship between the source elements and the resulting patterns?

    I have read about Dembski's thought problem about code received from outer space. It is a extremely improbable scenario, but it does give one pause.

    Perhaps a slightly less improbable scenario, but possibly a more realistic one, is one in which the SETI researchers detect a code from outer space, just as Dr. Arroway (Jody Foster) did in the movie Contact. Imagine that! An improbable sequence of symbols from which you can infer that the source is an intelligent being.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Doublee said...

    No analogy is perfect, but magnetic letters attached to a metal board that spell out a sentence is a fairly good one that illustrates the basic concept. If this is not a good analogy, tell me how it fails.


    Words and sentences are abstract concepts that only signify something if you've predefined those patterns to have a meaning. Base pairs in genomes aren't abstract symbols. They don't 'spell' anything, and proteins don't have any abstract meaning.

    So what do you call discrete physical elements, which, when arranged in different sequences, result in the construction of different physical structures?

    Most people call it chemistry. Start with the discrete physical elements of sodium, oxygen, carbon, hydrogen.

    NaOH + CO2 --> NaHCO3

    NaHCO3 + H2SO4 --> Na2SO4 + CO2 + H2O

    Different sequences = different physical structures.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Doublee asked:

    "So what do you call discrete physical elements, which, when arranged in different sequences, result in the construction of different physical structures?"

    Well, I suppose they could be called chemicals, elements, cells, molecules, atoms, quarks, or whatever, depending on how discrete someone wants (or is able) to go. Larger things, such as individuals in a population (e.g. elephants), are also "discrete" but do affect the "construction" of a "physical structure" (the herd). "Discrete" is a word with a broad range of implications.

    "Would you agree that it is not the properties of the elements per se that are of prime importance, but it is the sequence of those elements that matter most?"

    I'd say that both matter. Without so-called "discrete elements", sequences of "elements" wouldn't exist.

    "No analogy is perfect, but magnetic letters attached to a metal board that spell out a sentence is a fairly good one that illustrates the basic concept. If this is not a good analogy, tell me how it fails."

    I would say it fails because the complexity of things is a matter of opinion/perception, based on things like education, knowledge, skill, talent, interest, upbringing, experience, IQ, and in some cases biases.

    When it comes to things designed by humans, some things are relatively simple while other things are relatively complex, yet they're all designed. I don't see ID pushers trying to use relatively simple things in nature as an argument for intelligent design. They latch onto things that, to them, are complex, and according to them, are too complex to have come about 'naturally'. They also use the labeling systems invented and applied by humans as an argument for the degree of complexity of some things.

    To some people, cells, molecules, atoms, etc., and the labeling systems applied to them, are pretty easy to understand (at least to the limit of current knowledge), while to most people they are extremely complex.

    Then too there are people who, even if they could understand, don't want to understand because they just aren't interested or are biased. Religious bias is an understanding stopper. The degree of complexity in organisms or other things in nature, especially as perceived by a person with a religious bias, is not an indicator of whether they were designed. To me, atoms are very complex, yet every organism contains them, whether the organism itself is considered complex or simple.

    "Then when I see a translation table that shows the "3-digit" code for each of the amino acids and also shows that there are redundant codes, I am reminded of the coding tables I have constructed when I was working as a logic design engineer. If you can do that with any other pattern found in nature that would be interesting, indeed."

    I'm not very knowledgeable about amino acids or the code used to describe them, but maybe someone else will respond to that. Keep in mind though that the "code" is a human construct, and an elaborate "code" could probably be devised for just about anything.

    See part two.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Part two.

    Doublee asked:

    "What are the specific sequences of discrete sand particles that specify the patterns of sand on the beach?"

    Whatever sequence that makes up the patterns, or lack thereof, at any particular time.

    "Are you able to construct a table to show the relationship between the source elements and the resulting patterns?"

    For a start, see these:

    http://coastalcare.org/educate/exploring-the-sand/

    https://circle.ubc.ca/handle/2429/19885

    http://www.mendeley.com/research/seasonal-patterns-coarse-sediment-transport-mixed-sand-gravel-beach-due-

    vessel-wakes-wind-waves-tidal-currents/

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0025322782900627

    http://www.jstor.org/pss/25736293

    "I have read about Dembski's thought problem about code received from outer space. It is a extremely improbable scenario, but it does give one pause."

    I haven't read it.

    "Perhaps a slightly less improbable scenario, but possibly a more realistic one, is one in which the SETI researchers detect a code from outer space, just as Dr. Arroway (Jody Foster) did in the movie Contact. Imagine that! An improbable sequence of symbols from which you can infer that the source is an intelligent being."

    I would be thrilled if Seti detects a message from alien beings.

    ReplyDelete
  40. The whole truth:
    Is there not a direct correlation between the forces of nature and the patterns observed in the sand? Certain combinations of winds and waves result in cetain patterns, which vary depending on the properties of the sand in various locations.

    What about a pattern that exists that has no direct correlation between the forces of nature and the physical properties of the medium? Consider the following thought experiment.

    The following is a truth table similar to the kind I constructed when I was designing logic circuits. The basic requirements for this particular circuit are these.

    The inputs consist of three-digit numbers consisting of all possible arrangements of the digits 0 - 3, 64 combinations in all. Certain combinations are required to light up the letter shown. As can be seen in the table, many letters are activated by more than one value.

    000-A 010-F 020-J 030-Q
    001-A 011-F 021-J 031-Q
    002-B 012-F 022-S 032-S
    003-B 013-F 023-S 033-R
    100-B 110-G 120-K 130-T
    101-B 111-G 121-K 131-T
    102-B 112-G 122-L 132-T
    103-B 113-G 123-L 133-T
    200-C 210-H 220-M 230-U
    201-C 211-H 221-M 231-U
    202-C 212-H 222-N 232-V
    203-D 213-H 223-N 233-V
    300-E 310-I 320-O 330-W
    301-E 311-I 321-O 331-W
    302-E 312-I 322-P 332-W
    303-E 313-I 323-P 333-W

    My experience with digital circuits spans four decades. In principle, the above truth table could have been actualized in any of the technologies I have worked with beginning with electro-mechanical relays, discrete germanium transistor logic circuits, silicon transistor 14 and 16 pin logic gates, to the very large scale integrated circuits we see today.

    The functional design exists independently of the medium in which it is implemented. There is no direct correlation between the forces of nature and functional operation of the circuit. The forces of nature -- electrical energy -- have been restricted by the design to operate in a certain way. Specific inputs always yield specific outputs.

    Is there a medium in which you might find this design that would justify a conclusion that the design is only illusory? Could you conclusively prove or at least demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that such a medium exists?

    Hint: If the truth table above looks suspiciously familiar, you are correct. It is based on the truth table that shows the relationship between the four nucleotides and the amino acids they code for. Just to be clear, the letters I chose were not intended to be mnemonics for the amino acids.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Doublee said...

    My experience with digital circuits spans four decades.


    Which is a major source for your confusion. You don't understand biology, so you continually fall back on using engineering analogies as a way of interpreting biological data. But analogies only go so far before they break down as they do in this case. Analogies are not reality, and the map is still not the territory.

    The functional design exists independently of the medium in which it is implemented.

    You've just highlighted the big hole in your analogy. DNA sequences and their subsequent expression into proteins are not independent of the media. The reactions responsible for life are completely dependent on the physical materials and laws of chemistry to proceed. That's because DNA molecules are not abstract symbols like you used in your engineering analogy.

    That's a basic, fundamental mistake you keep making over and over Doublee. Until you realize that DNA is not an abstract code you'll never understand this stuff.

    ReplyDelete
  42. The whole truth:
    The reactions responsible for life are completely dependent on the physical materials and laws of chemistry to proceed.

    Of course, once a given physical architechure is created, that physical architecture is dependent on the laws of chemistry to work, just as the letters in this post are dependent upon the laws of physics.

    The fundamental question is how the physical architecture was created in the first place.

    What law of chemistry is responsible for each and every sequence of nucleotides in the DNA chain? What law of physics is responsible for the sequence of letters in these sentences?

    Even if there is a law responsible for nucleotide sequences, that law had to be "smart enough" to know how the sequences would be decoded into the unique amino acid chains. And not just any amino acid chain - only those that would fold into a protein. An encoding system cannot come into existence without knowledge of the decoding system. It could, I suppose, but then it would have nothing to do.

    Until you realize that DNA is not an abstract code you'll never understand this stuff.

    So what do you call a system of physical elements such that the sequence of those elements effects a sequence of different physical elements?

    Dictionary.com has this definition of "code."

    Genetics . to specify the amino acid sequence of a protein by the sequence of nucleotides comprising the gene for that protein: a gene that codes for the production of insulin.

    Biology constantly uses words from other disciplines. I see a coding/decoding system in biology. If I were to provide a neutral description of the transcription of the nuceotides into amino acids, you would have to conclude that I was describing an encoding/decoding system.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Doublee said...

    T: "Until you realize that DNA is not an abstract code you'll never understand this stuff."

    So what do you call a system of physical elements such that the sequence of those elements effects a sequence of different physical elements?


    The process can be referred to as code, but it's not an ABSTRACT code. Nucleotides aren't symbols used to abstractly represent other quantities or values. They're organic molecules that follow the laws of chemistry and physics to react and create other organic molecules.

    Code has more than one definition:

    CODE (1) a set of abstract symbols used to convey a message
    CODE (2) any process that maps a specific input to a specific output

    Computer programming language is definition (1). DNA is definition (2). When scientist talk about the "DNA code", they are using definition (2) NOT definition (1).

    Code as used in genetics merely means a system where the outputs map to the inputs, period. There is no abstraction like in your engineering analogy.

    Abstract codes require a designer. Self-replicating chemical reactions do not.

    Biology constantly uses words from other disciplines. I see a coding/decoding system in biology. If I were to provide a neutral description of the transcription of the nuceotides into amino acids, you would have to conclude that I was describing an encoding/decoding system.

    Yes but it's not ABSTRACT coding. There are no symbolic meanings ANYWHERE. It's a physical mapping process that doesn't require any intelligence to encode or decode.

    Sodium and chlorine 'code' for table salt the same way as genes 'code' for proteins. The only difference is in the degree of complexity of the chemical reactions.

    How many times does this need to be explained before your light bulb comes on?

    ReplyDelete
  44. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Thorton:
    Yes but it's not ABSTRACT coding. There are no symbolic meanings ANYWHERE. It's a physical mapping process that doesn't require any intelligence to encode or decode.

    My trivial example of the 3-digit code that lights up certain letters once implemented in actual hardware is also a physical mapping process. What is seen as a physical mapping process began as an abstract code in the mind of a designer.

    We can argue forever whether the code in DNA is abstract. What still needs to be explained is how physical and chemical laws can create a system which does not depend on physical and chemical laws; it is the sequence of physical entities that is important in the chemistry of life.

    Sodium and chlorine 'code' for table salt the same way as genes 'code' for proteins. The only difference is in the degree of complexity of the chemical reactions.

    I don't see that to be the case at all. Sodium and chlorine react directly as a function of physical and chemical laws to form salt.

    To say that the only difference is the degree of complexity is a gross understatement, because more than physical and chemical laws is involved.

    Physical and chemical laws are responsible for the binding of the molecules and their movement within the cell. But ultimately, what happens is a function of the sequence of the nucleotides and not any physical or chemical laws.

    In general, laws imply a fixed relationship between variables. If each sequence of nucleotides was a function of physical and chemical laws then that only moves the question of how that sequence was created back a level.

    Consider a sentence that was printed on paper with a rubber stamp. A different sentence would require a different rubber stamp. The ink adheres to the paper according to the laws of chemistry. The sequence of letters cannot be explained by laws. Now we have to explain the orgin of the sequence of letters on the rubber stamp.

    CODE (1) a set of abstract symbols used to convey a message
    CODE (2) any process that maps a specific input to a specific output.


    To ask the question another way, can code 2 come into existence without there first being a code 1? This assumes that the word "maps" means something more than a simple physical law such as those that form a salt crystal.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Doublee said...

    My trivial example of the 3-digit code that lights up certain letters once implemented in actual hardware is also a physical mapping process. What is seen as a physical mapping process began as an abstract code in the mind of a designer.


    In your example it does, but your logic is suspect:

    All sharks live in water, but not all things that live in water are sharks.

    An abstract code can be given a physical mapping, but that doesn't mean every coded physical mapping began as an abstract code.

    Capiche?

    We can argue forever whether the code in DNA is abstract. What still needs to be explained is how physical and chemical laws can create a system which does not depend on physical and chemical laws; it is the sequence of physical entities that is important in the chemistry of life.

    I already showed you other simpler examples of where the arrangement of molecules made a difference in the end result of a chemical reaction. Do we need to go over them again?

    I don't see that to be the case at all. Sodium and chlorine react directly as a function of physical and chemical laws to form salt.

    To say that the only difference is the degree of complexity is a gross understatement, because more than physical and chemical laws is involved.

    Physical and chemical laws are responsible for the binding of the molecules and their movement within the cell. But ultimately, what happens is a function of the sequence of the nucleotides and not any physical or chemical laws.


    The sequence of the nucleotides IS the physical makeup that follows the laws of chemistry. There's no higher level abstract 'meaning'.

    In general, laws imply a fixed relationship between variables. If each sequence of nucleotides was a function of physical and chemical laws then that only moves the question of how that sequence was created back a level.

    We already know how new sequences of nucleotides are created, and how they propagate. The thing we don't know yet is how the first self-replicating chemical reactions began. That's what abiogenesis research is studying.

    Consider a sentence that was printed on paper with a rubber stamp. A different sentence would require a different rubber stamp. The ink adheres to the paper according to the laws of chemistry. The sequence of letters cannot be explained by laws. Now we have to explain the origin of the sequence of letters on the rubber stamp.

    That analogy fails because in the case of DNA you don't have a sentence. A sentence assumes abstract communication with a message is taking place. In DNA all you have are arrangements of nucleotides that were originally randomly placed and which have been filtered by selection to keep the combinations that work.

    You really really really need to get it through your head - THERE IS NO ABSTRACTION IN DNA.

    CODE (1) a set of abstract symbols used to convey a message
    CODE (2) any process that maps a specific input to a specific output.

    To ask the question another way, can code 2 come into existence without there first being a code 1?


    Yes. There are any number of naturally occurring processes that do such mapping. A simple example is tree rings. Tree rings vary in size as a direct correlation of the climate - thick in cooler wet years, thin in hot dry years. The ring thickness therefore 'code' the climate. We can go back and read the code to determine the climate history of a region by examining the ring thickness. But no one intelligently designed the tree rings to perform that coded mapping.

    ReplyDelete