Evolution Versus Intelligent Design-Astronomy May Soon Settle the Matter Once and For All
An Essay by Ty Harris
( Please click on the above link to see a trailer of Ben Stein’s new Movie Documentary on Intelligent Design versus Darwinism… ” Expelled” )
In our world of worry and woe, of toil and trouble, we humans fill our minds up with a lot of things that seem very important at the time. Our comings and goings, our pursuits and labors, our intrigues and transactions. Details, trivia, facts, numbers and plans all form the horizons of a self-centered and manageable-sized view of the world, our life, and our place in all of it. And really, it’s probably just as well that humans posess the ability to keep their perspective on life small and local, because the larger the field of view becomes when we step back and look at our situation from a more distant and less personal vantage point, the scarier the scenario becomes. We strive and struggle. We love and laugh. We plot and strategize our little affairs which all seem so important and large. We give ourselves the illusion of such control, power, and accomplishment. Skyscrapers and cities. The internet and atomic bombs. But step back even just a little bit, and we see a tiny blue marble spinning through a limitless blackness, around a little star that also rests in an infinite void. That tiny star is just one in a galaxy of billions of other stars. That galaxy is itself just a tiny smudge of color in an unimaginably large nothingness that holds billions upon untold billions of other galaxies. The absolute truth is that we are not even merely miniscule.
This viewpoint, although accurate, is not exactly one which is calculated to inflate one’s ego or to reinforce one’s feelings of self-importance. In fact, the cold, hard truth of our actual place in the great scheme of things is too difficult for most of us to dwell on at length. And so we shorten our horizons, narrow our field of vision, and go about our business in a more manageable fashion, whistling past the cosmic graveyard as it were. But at some point in our lives, growing up, most of us have looked up into a clear night sky at least once, gottten a sense of ourselves in a moment of clarity, and asked some of those Big Questions about Life. About whether we are alone, and how it is that Life even managed to come about in the first place. Questions about God, and about human origins. Sadly, the pace of life, and the attention we have to give to more mundane matters drives out such questions and ponderings as we get older, and busier. We forget ourselves, and those Big Questions, as we attend to all of the little things that need attending to. The years pass us by, and we run around pursuing this thing or that thing. But in the passage of time and the passage of loved-ones, in theunfolding of years, and in the realization that as we get older, our own time here isn’t as long as it used to be, we may again find a quiet mind, and time to think in quiet moments by the wayside, about our true place in the great scheme of things.
As we walk down the path of years, the falling of red and gold leaves in the crisp autumn of our older lives brings to mind the old questions we once asked to the night sky in the springtime of our youth- before our horizons became so small. Why are we here? Is it really just an accident? Are we really just random combinations of amino acids and protiens that happened to swirl together in eons gone by? What are love and laughter? Are they just biochemical impulses emminating from the randomly-formed carbon-based structures who strut about so importantly here on Carl Sagan’s “pale blue dot”? Is life mere chance, or is there intent, design, and purpose in us? Is there a Creator? Or did the Primordial Soup become a Protien, the Protien a Plant, the Plant a Lizard, the Lizard a Bird, The Bird a Mouse, and the Mouse a Man? Is life a product of natural, physical processes, or of Intelligent Design? Is there a God? Are we alone in the Universe? What is our true nature, and what is the role of Humanity in the great cosmic play? In short- what is the meaning of all this?
We have all asked these questions of ourselves- some more than others- in our quieter moments. And in a way, the answers we all gave to these types of questions which we asked in our youth, determined the courses of our lives, and the actions we take every day- whether we know it or not. Every house is built upon foundations, and the MEANING of our lives, and the actual SIGNIFIGANCE of the things we do, really does stem from how we answered the Big Questions once upon a time- even if the answer was ” I don’t know”. Metaphysical foundations inevitably underlie, and give meaning to our physical being. If our lives are founded upon mere random chance, then the MEANING of a particular life or of a particular set of actions is quite different from a life wherein an intentional purpose and design underlies being and action. It’s inescapable. The Big Questions of whether we evolved by random chance or if there is a God, underpin everything we are, and everything we do. Ultimately, the signifigance of life itself comes down to a question of intent. Because without it, there is literally, and by-definition, no purpose to our lives. The philisophical implications of a generation of people attempting to live lives which we have, by convention and by casual scientific consensus, now concluded have no purpose or meaning, are not small. And yet the Theory of Evolution- and it’s inescapable philisophical implications- have now totally supplanted the possibility of there even being a God-Creator in almost all serious academic and scientific circles. Men of great learning, college students, and school-children alike, accept Evolution now, as un-questioned fact. The idea of the spontaneous formation of Man from random chemical combinations occuring over time is now the ONLY explanation for our existence that is allowed to be taught or even postulated in public schools. No debate is tolerated. ” All dissent must be extinguished with buckets of bile.” Question the orthodoxy in any way, and you face instantaneous legal attack and professional recrimination. Christians, of course, have their academic enclaves here and there, in private schools who don’t accept public funding as the price of academic freedom. But by and large, Evolution is now the only acceptable explanation for Life in serious academia. And that conscerns me, because this theory seems to have some serious logical ( and indeed mathematical ) holes in it, and some unsatisfactory philisophical implications as well.
There are fundamental problems with evolution as as explanation for the origin of our species which are clear to anybody who is open-minded and brazen enough to ask the forbidden questions. The first is the most obvious, and is philisophical and logical more than it is scientific, for evolution is an idea which has imlpications far beyond biology. Without intent or design in the formation of life there is- literally- no purpose to life. If you accept the fundamental premise that human life is just a random, chance grouping of amino acids and protiens with no plan, design, or intent, then you accept that your life has no possible meaning or signifigance to it. A human-being, a clump of dirt- what is the difference? Laughter, learning, tears, love, freindship, aspiration, freedom and bondage, war and peace, home and hearth, family and neighbors, your first love, and your child’s first steps, birth, marriage and death… to accept that life is random and without intent is to set these all aside as meaningless aspects of a – literally- purposeless life. Electrochemical impulses in self-organized protiens. Kill somebody in cold blood, and all you have really done is rearrange some elemental particles. Morality of ANY kind has no credence or foundation to it if we accept the idea of a purposeless life. Any person who truly believes in a life without purpose or intent, and who has the intellectual honesty to extrapolate his or her own arguments out to their sad, lonely conclusions must feel very lost and alone in this world. This probably explains why it is that most people DON’T think about these types of things so much anymore. I mean, if you are a rational, well-adjusted person with an open mind, you have to accept scientific facts- which by all appearances now includes the Theory of Evolution, but at the same time, if you are truly HUMAN, ( and you arent a complete sociopath ), you instinctively KNOW that life does matter. It IS signifigant. It DOES have purpose. Intellectual theories are well and good, but deep-down, even most of the people who accept evolution as fact, do NOT think of their children as random groupings of amino-acids, or of their spouses as soul-less protien conglomerations. Nor do they go about their lives, their marriages, or their vocations as though they don’t matter in a universe governed soley by chance. To the contrary, even the most evolution-innured atheists seem to proceed about their lives as though their lives ( and certainly their opinions ) DO matter, despite the inherent contradiction in caring about things which- according to their beliefs- CAN’T matter.
The second big problem with Evolution, as I see it, ( at least with Evolution as an explanation for the origin of life ) is Math. Statistics in particular. the basic principle underlying any God-less or Intelligent Design-less explanation for Life as we know it, is that you start with elements- the basic constituent remnants of the Big-Bang, and SOMEHOW- through random chance interactions between these elements you wind up with Man. Mutation, natural selection, organic molecules and lightning bolts- HOWEVER you spin the tale, you have to start with basic elements, and wind up with DNA. And DNA really is the problem, because the more we learn about the awesome complexity of what a human fundamentally IS, the more of a stretch it becomes to get from basic elements to almost unimaginable complexity. We are talking about a CODED, self-replicating double-helix structure whose purpose is to store astoundingly complex, and extremely specific INFORMATION in memory, and to translate that complex, specific information into all of the biological organs and processes that make up a human-being, including the human brain. The data stored on the double-helix is SPECIFICALLY arranged, written, and ORDERED in such a way as to bring about life and everything we are. You see how hard it is to refer to billions of lines of carefully structured CODE without using words like written, arranged, ordered, and designed. And yet such phrases ARE misnomers if we accept that it all came about by chance, because all such terms imply a writer, a designer, or an arranger. ” Evolved” is really just a way of saying “happened”. It doesn’t explain HOW it happened. But to get back to the matter of statistics- there ARE people who have taken a stab at calculating the odds of human DNA spontaneously forming from elemental particles. One very smart fellow by the name of William Dembski ( Dual PHD in Mathematics and Philosophy- an interesting combination to say the least ) has written extensively on the subject, and has adressed the probabilistic limitations to evolutionary theory. I highly reccomend his book- Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology- to anybody interested in Evolution or in Intelligent Design. In his book, Dembski states; ” The universe will experience heat death before random typing at a keyboard produces a Shakespearean sonnet. The French mathematician Emile Borel proposed 10 to the 50th power as a universal probability bound below which, chance could definitely be precluded- that is any specified event as improbable as this could not be attributed to chance.” Dembski goes on… ” In the Design Inference, I justify a more stringent universal probability bound of 10 to the 150th power- based on the number of elementary particles in the observable universe, the duration of the observable universe until it’s heat death, and the Plank time.” British mathematician Roger Penrose attempted to calculate the odds against Life occuring by random chance in our universe. He came up with odds of 10 to the 10nth power to the 123rd power against. Penrose elaborates- ” Even if we were to write a 0 on each seperate proton, and on each seperate neutron in the entire universe- and we could throw in all the other particles for good measure- we would fall far short of writing down the figure needed.”
In other words,the statistical odds against Evolution are so bad that not only could it never happen, it would be impossible to even write down the number expressing the probablity against it happening, because there aren’t enough particles in the universe to write it with! THIS is the theory which no serious academic is allowed to question? Another way of looking at the matter from a statistical standpoint would be to use the old “monkeys typing at typewriters” analogy. How many monkeys does it take, and how long does it take, for random keystrokes to write the encyclopedia Britannica? It’s not even a rhetorical question, because it’s possible to give an exact answer using math. Now consider a million encyclopedia Britannica’s all precisely worded, ordered, and arranged, and you have human DNA. It’s a very good analogy, because DNA and encyclopedias both exist to store and impart complex, specific information. It isn’t random data. It is precisely ordered and arranged to yield a specific result when it translates. The complexity and specificity in human DNA appears to exceed the universal probability bounds calculated by Borel, Penrose and Dembski.
There are other problems with Evolution too. As I understand it, one of them is referred to as “irreducible complexity”. Natural selection can’t explain how something as complex as the human eye ( or many other complex biological systems ) came about as a result of a favorable mutation. There are just too many SEPERATE things that had to come together all at once for the structure to function at all. Seperately, the neccesary structures of the eye- the rods, the cones, the optic nerve etc. didnt have any inherent advantages in and of themselves, and wouldn’t have survived as favorable mutations. The whole structure would have had to then just simultaneously leap itself into existence one fine day, apart from mutation or natural selection. This strains credulity at best. Irreducible complexity, universal probability bounds, and Dembski’s postulations regarding design being inferred in complex, specified information are real, scientific arguments that are not easily dismissed by open-minded thinkers. It really IS statistically unlikely that Evolution is a natural process that occured even ONCE in our universe to produce complex life. It is utterly beyond belief to think that Evolution is a natural process which functions WHEREVER the neccesary conditions for life exist in our universe, yet that is what many scientists would have us believe now.
So if not Evolution, then what? We ARE here, after all. We can hopefully agree on that. ( Although if you read too much Nietsche, you may wind up concluding that you are just a figment of your own imagination. But for purposes of argument, let’s just stipulate that we ARE here… ) We had to get here somehow, and there are only so many explanations. Douglas Adam’s notion that we were all sneezed out of the nose of the “Great Green Arkleseizure” is one, but I am willing to set it aside. Evolution is one. Intelligent Design is another. Ultimately, I believe, the question of whether or not Life arises by natural physical processes will have to be answered definitively, by looking elsewhere. You really can’t draw reliable scientific conclusions based on a data set of one. Thus far, we only have actual knowledge of the presence of life on ONE tiny planet in a VERY big universe, and we do NOT conclusively know how it got here. There are billions, if not trillions, of planets out there in the universe, and I think that the question of whether there is life on any of them- other than ours- is a question that has to be answered before we start making definitive and sweeping conclusions as to our own origins.
Varying estimates of Life’s prevalence in our galaxy have been made- The Drake Equation is the most famous-
N* X fs X fp X nc X fi X fc X fl = N
Where: N*= stars in the Milky Way galaxy
fs = the fraction of sun-like stars
fp = the fraction of stars with planets
nc = the planets in a star’s habitable zone
fi = the fraction of habitable planets where life does arise
fc = the fraction of planets inhabited by intelligent beings
fl = the pecentage of a lifetime of a planet that is marked by the
presence of a communicative civilization
Quite a few scientists have plugged their own estimates into the variables of the Drake Equation and concluded that the universe is literally teeming with life. If such life is detected, then it will be hard to argue that Evolution isn’t a legitimate- if unexplainable- natural physical law very little different than gravity. If complex extra-solar life is discovered to be prevalent in the universe, then creationists and Intelligent Design advocates will have a tough row to hoe. Conversely though, if the data comes back in the negative- as it has so far- then as Ricky Ricardo would have said- the evolutionists will have some serious ” ‘splain’in ” to do. Despite claims of total certainty from many in science and academia on the question of Evolution versus Intelligent Design, the question does seem to come down to data that we don’t even have yet.
If we do assume, as many scientists claim, that evolution is a natural physical process that occurs WHEREVER the physical conditions neccesary for life exist, then not only is life teeming in the universe, but COMPLEX life probably is out there as well. In other words, self-aware, thinking, reasoning beings such as ourselves who are capable of communication, exist out there, and presumably they will be detected and encountered at some point. New data and new discoveries have come to light in the past few years that would seem to add both negative and positive factors to the Drake Equation. We are finding incredible life-forms here on our own planet in the most unlikely and inhospitable of places – everything from arctic lichens that thrive in freezing temperatures, to new species known as thermophiles which live in boiling sub-sea volcanic vents. The variety of life that exists in extreme environmental conditions here on earth, seems to lend credence to the idea that life may be more common in our universe than we think. On the other hand, scientists like Peter D. Ward and Donald Brownlee have put forth some very interesting ( and persuasive ) arguments pertaining to how many things have to go RIGHT on a planet, for Life to even have a fighting chance. Factors such as radiation levels, distance from the sun, which elements are present on a given planet, and in what proportion etc.. Their conclusion is that if life IS the result of a natural process, then complex life, at least, is extremely rare in the universe.
I think that Douglas Adams probably best sums up the crux of the argument for Evolution in The Hitchhikers’ Guide to the Galaxy ( Life, the Universe, and Everything ). He basically reasons ( presumably in jest ), that in an infinite universe, anything that is POSSIBLE, however improbable or ridiculous, is actually INEVITABLE from a statistical standpoint. He illustrates this graphically in some of his hillarious vignettes which take place on distant worlds where screwdrivers and mattresses are the dominant evolved life-forms. Galactic commerce in Adams’ fictional universe consists of simply locating the planet where the statistically-improbable ( and therefore inevitable ) manufactured good you wish to sell has become the dominant life-form. You just go to that planet and harvest said product- be it screwdrivers, ballpoint pens, or mattresses. Mattresses, according to Adams, are the dominant, evolved life-form on ” Squornshelles Zeta”. ” They are large, friendly, pocket sprung creatures that live quiet, private lives in the marshes”… ” many of them get caught, slaughtered, dried-out, shipped-out, and slept on. None of them seems to mind this, and all of them are called Zem.” To quote one of the matresses, “we live quiet, retired lives in the swamp where we are content to flollop and vollue, and regard the wetness in a fairly floopy manner. Some of us are killed, but all of us are called Zem, so we never know which, and globbering is thus kept to a minimum.” If you believe in Evolution as an explanation for the existence of human life, then you need to realize that this is the kind of ground you are standing on, philisophically and statistically. I am not saying that you aren’t right. Maybe you are. Maybe there ARE talking mattresses out there named Zem. But if you do believe this, you have to admit at least, that your theory is- statistically and mathematically- the most UNLIKELY possibility of all the possibilities. At least be humble enough to admit that, and consequently, please try to be a little less scornful of others who have different ideas.
So- what’s The Answer to the Big Question of Life, if not Evolution? How do we reconcile real scientific evidence for the PROCESS of evolution ( mutation and natural selection DO happen ), with the apparent statistical unlikelihood of it being an explanation for life’s ORIGINS? Is there a God? And more importantly, how do we settle the matter once and for all? Well, I don’t claim to have all the answers. But I do think that the question is at least still open- NOT closed as a matter of scientific fact as some would pretend. I think that reasonable people can disagree, and I wish there was more open-mindedness, and less cocksure arrogance on the matter. I think that from the beginning of human history, the beginning of wisdom has been the courage and intellectual honesty to open one’s mind enough to say the words ” I don’t know”. Scientific, and indeed societal progress, depend on the ability to see what one sees- not what one wants to see, and upon the willingness of people to look at facts rationally, and accept the reasonable conclusions that those facts imply, and to do so even when those facts and conclusions conflict with preconceived notions, traditions, and orthodoxy. The mantle of intolerance- for reasonable debate, and for dissent, has been worn by both sides of the Great Debate over the Big Questions down through the long years. It wasn’t too long ago when scientific minds like Galileo faced burning at the stake for heresy, when they dared to question established belief systems and stated outrageous opinions like the idea that the earth was NOT the center of the Universe. Now, in that same spirit of arrogance, any teacher, in any school anywhere who dares to question Evolution as fact, or has the audacity to even present contrary, alternate theories like Intelligent Design in the classroom, will be attacked mercilessly by the forces of secular-progressivism. Anybody who speaks out is AT LEAST going to get sued ( ironically, sometimes , by the lawyers for the American CIVIL LIBERTIES Union ). Very likely, that teacher or professor will be fired if they refuse to be silenced. If you think I exaggerate, please follow the link in the notes below to an article entitled ” The Lynching of Bill Dembski”. It’s genuinely frightening, and really saddening, the lengths to which tenured, secular-progressive academics will go to silence dissent.
As for myself, based on the reading I have done on the subject, and based on what little of his ideas I am mentally capable of penetrating, I have concluded that William Dembski ( the chief proponent of Intelligent Design ) may actually be the most intelligent man currently walking the face of the planet earth. Whether he is right or not, he certainly has intellectual curiosity and courage far beyond that of his peers who dare not even allow his forbidden ideas to be spoken. It’s ironic and sad that academics who so often go around preaching “tolerance” and “diversity” will do anything to silence anybody who questions any of the central tenants of the new religion known as secular progressivism. I think it’s sad that we are still such a close-minded species. Our technology has improved since Galileo was alive, but our wisdom as a species has not grown along with our knowledge I am afraid. If we would drop our pre-conceived notions in MANY fields of human endeavor, and would be willing to just look at problems practically and with open eyes and open minds outside the confines of orthodoxy and ideology, I think that the world would be a much better place. There are many flawed ideas which endure with us today long after they should have found their way to Reagan’s “ash heap of history” , because of this tendency of the human species to not tolerate opposing viewpoints, and to try to explain everything within the confines of narrow ideologies. As John Milton once said-“Though all the winds of doctrine were let loose to play upon the earth, so truth be in the field, we do injuriously by licensing and prohibiting to misdoubt her strength. Let her and falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worse in a free and open encounter.” Personally, whenever somebody holds ANY position that they are unwilling to expose to the hazards of free and open debate, my immediate reaction is to suspect underlying weaknesses in their arguments. I feel that way about the Theory of Evolution as an explanation for the origin of Life.
For what it’s worth, my own personal theories on the Big Questions of “Life, the Universe, and Everything” are as follows- I personally reconcile evolutionary facts with statistical improbabilities by accepting evolution and natural selection as natural processes that IMPROVE a species. I don’t however, accept evolution as a process to explain the ORIGIN of species. Mathematically, and logically, it’s hard to argue that human DNA wrote itself by random chance. The human genetic code probably didn’t write itself, the human brain probably didn’t create itself, and it is fairly evident that intent and intelligent design ARE inherent in our existence in my opinion. Also, from a metaphysical standpoint, I cannot accept the neccesary underlying philisophical implications inherent in evolution, and in a life that does not matter. I have known what true love is, and neither it, nor the sadness of it’s loss are insignifigant. We are not random molecules. There is a meaning and a purpose to this life. I don’t claim to be able to explain it, or to be able to tell you what that purpose IS, but I am certain that Life matters. I have real pity for any man or woman who manages to go through this life so empty and cold that they believe that their life holds no special signifigance. I am comfortable standing on that ground philisophically, and I am prepared to suffer the slings and arrows of any atheist, secular-progressive, or evolutionist who would care to try and knock me off that perch.
MY confidence ends at that point, however, because claims of “intent” and “design” lead naturally to questions about the nature and purpose of the designer. There I have to stop and utter the humble words “I don’t know.” I do my best to try and understand the maker’s nature and itent, and my own purpose, but it really is beyond me. Sometimes it doesn’t make any sense. Sometimes it’s hard. Like “the Grinch”, sometimes I “puzzle, and puzzle until my puzzler gets sore”. But maybe in the end it doesn’t have to all make sense. Maybe a willingness to accept that certain things are beyond us puts us in our proper place. Why is it so neccesary for Mankind to assume that they are smart enough to understand and know everything? Can an ant understand us? Maybe it’s that way between us and God. Even with our tiny, limited minds, and our limited knowledge and wisdom, we are already tinkering with a genetic code that we don’t fully understand, and getting our first inklings of the possibilities of A.I. ( Artificial Intelligence, not Allen Iverson- as a lifelong NBA fan, I have concluded that understanding what goes on in HIS mind would be truly impossible). If a species as young and immature as we are, can do such things, what would a designer capable of creating the DNA molecule understand and be capable of? Really, to that kind of being, our understanding would be similar to that of an ant’s understanding of a human. And yet people act so sure of everything, as though nothing is beyond our comprehension or power. Personally, I think that a humble ” I don’t know” is the beginning of a productive willingness to learn and grow.
I am extremely excited by the times in which we live. Stodgy old men in their ivory towers, and impetuous youths with their impertinent questions have been hurling ideas, insults, and theories at each other for centuries abut the answers to the Big Questions- about the meaning and origins of Man’s existence. The problem with the Big Questions, though, is that there have never really been definitive, irrefutable Answers that both sides can point to, after the debating is done, and say “Well, that settles that.” But for the first time in history, scientific progress in the areas of space exploration and astronomy have brought us to the brink of actually finding out what our role in the Universe IS. We are very close to gaining the benefit of VERY definitive data on the matter of whether Life is the unique creation of intelligent design, or if it’s the common result of prevalent natural processes that go forward on a billion other worlds in a billion other galaxies. The data, when it comes in, will be clear, comprehensive, and definitive. And people who stand on both sides of the Big Question had better tone down the rhetoric, and get humble, because the Answer to the Big Question may well be that “You Were Wrong.” We all may have to modify our world-views when the final analysis comes in.
I am speaking about the imminent dawn of the grandest age of human exploration, and what will be it’s crowning achievement and glory- spaceborne optical-interferometer-based astronomy. They say a picture is worth a thousand words, and if you haven’t seen the pictures from the Hubble Space Telescope yet, my friend, you are missing out, becasue they will leave you speechless. Even this first child’s step that our species has taken out into our universe with the little looking-glass of Hubble, has given us images that have changed everything. Our view of the universe and our place in it have already been altered irrevocably, and it’s just the merest hint of what is to come. These are the seminal images of the times in which we live. As recently as 75 years ago, young and upcoming scientists like Albert Einstein promulgated their early theories in the presumption that the Milky Way galaxy WAS the Universe, and that it contained all the matter and energy in it. Well, the Hubble Deep Field images have definitly put that one to rest, and they nearly boggle the mind. Pink, green, and blue pinwheels painted in the sky, which are in reality tens of billions upon tens of billions of galaxies far beyond our own- each of those galaxies containing billions of their own stars. Billions and billions of which, are orbited by planets of all shapes and sizes. Some, inevitably, are not very different than our own little speck of water and dirt. And yet this is just the first small glimpse. The Hubble has a tiny lense only a few meters wide. But by coordinating the movements of a CONSTELLATION of spaceborne observatories, and by combining their observations from different vantage-points, while focused on the same object, optical interferometry will make it possible to create a telescope which will possess a virtual-lense of THOUSANDS of meters- maybe even tens of thousands of meters. When THOSE pictures come back, they really will change everything for our species. Because we won’t need SETI, or the Allen Array, or Dr. Ellie Arroway listening for structure in the background noise of their radio telescopes. We will KNOW whether we are alone in the universe or not. We’ll look right down on worlds in other galaxies with the same resolution that the US Government currently uses to read the letters off a car’s license plate from their orbiting satellites. If there IS complex life in the universe, we will know about it LONG before we ever have the ability to cross the vast distances between them and us. Spaceborne optical interferometery is what will make it possible, and soon. It’s coming. It’s right around the corner. And I can’t wait for the Answers! If there ARE cities out there on other worlds, or other obviously-designed structures that are visible from space, we will see them. And if that day ever comes, when we gaze down at cities on distant worlds form space, an evolutionist somewhere, will turn to an Intelligent Design advocate and say “See, the complex specificity of those structures proves they were made by the intelligent designers of an alien civilization! Complex life is present elsewhere in the universe, so there is no God, and Evolution is proven!”. It would be justified, if on that day, the Intelligent Design advocate replies- “But by your own argument, the presence of specific complexity proves nothing. If probablility and chance can build a DNA molecule here on earth, then they can certainly build a city on a distant world. Therefore, the city could have built itself, and complex life is NOT neccesarily present on that world!” Perhaps God will look down on both of them and chuckle at the irony.If it does happen that way, then evolutionists will finally know how exasperated Intelligent Design advocates feel sometimes.
At any rate, someday, when historians look back on our times from the very, very distant future, only a few people, places, and events will stand out from the rest of our petty doings- A few men signing a Declaration in a tiny hall in Philidelphia that launched a tidal wave of human freedom around the world. A windy beach in Kitty Hawk, North Carolina perhaps. Scientists in the New Mexico desert unlocking the secrets of a power that our limited wisdom was unworthy of. One event that will certainly define us, will be be Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin taking “One small step for man, one giant leap for Mankind.” The first steps of our species to reach beyond our small world, into a new understanding of the universe and our place in it. The heady days of Apollo inspired the dreams and hopes of a whole generation, and it’s sad to see what has now become of the U.S. space-program. NASA’s “bold” plan for the last 40 years has been to spend trillions of dollars on the Space Shuttle and on the International Space Station so we can putter around in low earth orbit. Unmanned missions like Hubble, and a few robotic probes like Voyager have been the only real high-points of a sad and uninspired era in space exploration. The Space Station exists to give the Shuttle some place to go to, and the Shuttle exists to give us a way to get up to the Space Station. We actually debate whether it’s worth the risk, to use one of an endless series of pointless shuttle missions to repair Hubble. It’s no wonder that NASA no longer inspires kids to dream, and most adults think it’s just a big waste of money. But the good news is, that while the MANNED space program slouches towards mediocrity, the UNMANNED programs are slowly, yet persistently creeping forward. The most exciting of which, is the ORIGINS program, of which Hubble was only the first tiny step. Mark my words, when future historians look back on these times, the REAL big event that may top them all- even Apollo-is soon to come. The children of today can look forward to exciting events in the field of astronomy that may change everything. The answers we get from this new journey of exploration, depending on what we find, may be THE pivotal moment of human history. We may make “First Contact”, or we may come to the deeply sobering realization that we are truly ALONE. Either way, the question is worth asking, even if we don’t like te answers we get. Whatever the answers, the implications are as big as they come, and the results will certainly change our view of the universe, and of ourselves.
Notes/ Links / Suggested Reading / Articles of Interest:
The Lynching of Bill Dembski, Fred Hereen ( The American Spectator ):
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=532
The Writings of William A. Dembsi:
http://www.designinference.com
Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology, William Dembski:
http://www.amazon.com/Intelligent-Design-Between-Science-Theology/dp/083082314X
Salon, on secular-progressive intolerance- “every spark of dissent has to be extinguished with buckets of bile.”:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2007/03/14/coulter/index.html?source=rss
Intelligent Design weblog, William Dembski:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/
MSNBC Documentary: Confessions of a Serial Killer- In this interview just prior to his death, Jeffery Dahmer stated that his belief in Evolution signifigantly contributed to his ability to commit mass murder without ” feeling accountable to anybody”. He further stated that ” there is no point in modifying behaviors to conform to acceptable ranges”… ” if we all just evolved from slime.” He also stated that the Theory of Evolution “cheapens life”. :
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036750/
Godless: The Church of Liberalism, Ann Coulter:
http://www.amazon.com/Godless-Church-Liberalism-Ann-Coulter/dp/1400054206
Hubble Images ( Downloadable free from NASA ):
http://hubblesite.org/gallery/album/
NASA ORIGINS Mission Plans:
http://origins.jpl.nasa.gov/missions/missions.html#pi
The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, Douglas Adams:
http://www.amazon.com/Ultimate-Hitchhikers-Guide-Galaxy/dp/o345453743
John Milton:
http://www.online-literature.com/milton/
Ralph Waldo Emerson on intellectual honesty ( Essays: Heroism, Spiritual Laws ):
http://www.rwe.org/comm/?option=com_content&task=view&id=131&Itemid=42
http://www.rwe.org/comm/?option=com_content&task=view&id=127&Itemid=42
Lost in Space: The Fall of NASA and the Dream of a New Space Age, Greg Klerkx:
http://www.amazon.com/Lost-Space-Fall-NASA-Dream/dp/0375421505
Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe, Peter Ward / Donald Greenlee
http://www.amazon.com/Rare-Earth-Complex-Uncommon-Universe/dp/0387952896
Pale Blue Dot: A Vision of the Human Future in Space, Carl Sagan:
http://www.amazon.com/Pale-Blue-Dot-Vision-Future/dp/0345376595
Contact, Carl Sagan:
There is tremendous hostility on both sides of the debate. Although science in general has begun to pander more and more towards politics and less toward observation and the scientific method, this debate posesses a singular hostility. The reason is simply this. This debate, for all its scientific terminology thrown at us by both sides, is a debate of faith. Evolution is a religion (despite the gasp that occurs as this statement is read.) This concept cannot be proven, does not follow the scientific method and when its reasoning is evaluated, is found to be circular at best. Evolutionists start by believing in evolution and then look for evidence to support their feelings. Christians are no better, though, they also begin with their belief in Intelligent Design and look for the evidence to support their views. This is called FAITH, not science. Don’t get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with faith, contrary to popular belief, somethings must be accepted on faith because there is truly no way to prove them. So why the hostility?
Its all about the ramifications… The decision you make about the origins of life determine the decision you make about not only your life here but also the life after.
Evolutionists believe we are random occurences. Since we have no designed purpose, it is up to us as indivduals to decide our purpose, morality and belief system. The indivdual becomes the god. Your purpose then becomes to live a life that is most pleasing to you, that brings you the most satifaction and glorification to yourself. You and right now are all there is. Once this life is over, its over and this is the best it will ever get. So eat drink and be merry…
Christians (and other ID believers) believe we are here because we are a product and desire of a Creator. We then have the purpose as any creation, to reflect the imagination and character of our creator. It also means that we are subject to the laws that this Creator designed, both scientific and moral. It is this part that is so hard for some to swallow. It is hard to submitt to the authority of someone beyond ourselves. We all seek to be our own god. With the submission to this authority comes purpose, with this purpose comes understanding and with this understanding comes hope and peace. Peace that says that this is not as good as it gets. That this life might have suffering and disappointments and strife but a Christian’s hope looks beyond life’s hardships to an everlasting glory found in the hope they have in Christ Jesus. This allows them to weather life’s storms and hardships with a peace that understands that this is not all there is.
These are the sides, the battle is waging on many fronts only one of which is the debate over intelligent design. The question of purpose, truly is the only question worth the time and energy of our thought. An answer must be found. “I don’t know,” is not an acceptable answer. There is no Switzerland in this war.
You are very misinformed about evolution., You clearly do not understand it, go educate yourself.
You are also wrong in saying that the “controversy” cannot be taught in public schools. If the controversy is based on science it is welcome. But one base on any particular faith is not and should not be taught in public schools. Where do you stop? Shouldn’t they also teach astrology? Scientology? What about the controversy brought forward by the Flat Earth society? Shouldn’t they be allowed to teach that too? What about the conflicting views ont he Abrahamic god put forward by Judaism and Islam? If there was another scientific theory contradicting evolution, it would be allowed. It’s not the theory of evolution that is sacred, it’s the scientific method. In fact, when someone proves a major scientific theory to be innacurate, they become huge heroes. That is the “holy grail” of science, to reverse a well established theory.
Your assertion that life is meaningless without a god is a sad result of your religious brainwashing. The purpsoe of life is to live it, enjoy it, make the best of it, enjoy other human beings, raise families, teach them love, enjoy the wonders of nature, enjoy the arts, etc
Conversely, your version of the meaning of life is this childish notion that we are defacto sinners, are only here to redeem ourselves and revere a cruel and judgemental god so that we can than spend eternity worshipping him. I find my version much more satisfying.
You are also wrong with your math. While it is true that THIS particular version of life on earth is extremely unlikely to happen, and would almost certainly not happen the same way if we restarted it from scratch, it is also almost certain that some other form of intelligent life would evolve, and might be even smart enough to be asking the same questions.
Although you write well, I’m afraid you are making very amateurish and ill-informed arguments that only serve to demonstrate your ignorance of science, and the scientific method.
“There is a meaning and a purpose to this life. I don’t claim to be able to explain it, or to be able to tell you what that purpose IS, but I am certain that Life matters”.
I don’t know who you are, but I KNOW you…this post is possibly the absolute best I’ve read in years. Who cares about the math, who cares about defending the specifics; what’s important is that you have truth in your heart.
As to the quote I’ve pulled out: There is a meaning and a purpose to this life. And this is it, quite simply: Love God. Love your neighbor as yourself. That’s it. Love truth, and mercy. All else is vanity and death.
You are my neighbor. I am your neighbor. I am El Besino, thy neighbor.
I replied to your comment on my post. Now that you mastered the hyperlink I worked my way over here. Suffice to say I still disagree with your comments. If you think evolution is just a way of saying something “happened” you have really not bothered to consider the concept, because that is not what it means at all. Similarly, you assume evolution requires complex parts (such as the eye) to have assembled in full by random chance, but in fact evolution only suggests gradual, partial progressions appearing over long periods of time, as evidenced in Wikipedia’s Evolution of the Eye..
I also have to dispute the statistical analysis: “But to get back to the matter of statistics- there ARE people who have taken a stab at calculating the odds of human DNA spontaneously forming from elemental particles.” Which is nonsense to begin with! How many evolutionary scientists are there who think human DNA congealed out of the primoridal soup and gave birth to man, who then presumably climbed out of it dripping green goo like the Swamp Thing? No, the first self-replicating particles would have lacked the instruction set for humans and other complex organisms, which was to evolve later. In general, I don’t think you are giving enough consideration to the immense time periods over which this process took place.
dear overthinker, I dont recall making any claims about swamp things dripping slime or instantly materializing. I understand that evolution is supposed to have happened one intermediate step at a time, over a long time. But HOWEVER we get from point A, to Point B, we GOT there, and we got there within a measurable time-frame. You start with elemental particles, and you wind up with human DNA, in X amount of time. Probability and statistics CAN adress this matter on that basis, given that we have an idea of the age of the universe, the age of our planet, and a knowledge of what particles, and in what amounts, we originally had to work with. We also have a new and exciting understanding of the nature and volume of the complex , specific information coded into our DNA now, so we have an idea of exactly what we have wound up with, from a mathematically definable standpoint.We have a good starting point, and a good ending point, and a set amount of time in which to get from one to the other. Whatever the sequence was, you ARE claiming that the primordial soup gave rise to man, are you not, and that the elementary particles IN that soup self-organized into self- replicating human DNA and all the complex specified information it contains- OVER a given period of time, right? If I am making the idea sound preposterous, it’s only because it appears to be just that. You say that the “instruction set” that was written on the “self-replicating particles” happened later. Who wrote the instructions on these “self-replicating particles”? And if nobody wrote them, why would they write themseves? For what reason, and by what process or scientific law? And by the way, where is the scientific evidence for these “self-replicating particles” which spontaneously self-organized, and are capable of storing millions of lines of code? What mutation or natural selection led to THAT particular structure? Has this ever been observed or documented? A blank double-helix with blank memory ready to be coded with data supplied by a non-existent programmer, is about as unlikely as a double-helix that then proceeds to write complex , specific information on itself ( over time, to concede your point). My point is that I AM considering the “immense time periods involved”, and so have quite a few mathematicians who have taken up the problem as a matter of straight probablility. It doesnt add up. Dawkins and Darwin even conceded that on a straight probabilistic basis, evolution based on chance alone cant happen. Oddly enough, even the arch-proponents of the idea of self-organizing , complex, specified information ( which is what evolution fundamentally IS ) have to call upon the intervention of an as-yet-unspecified factor, law, or force. I submit to you that Evolutionists, Naturalistic-advocates, Intelligent Design Advocates, and Creatonists just give that factor or force a different name. ” Mother Nature” is just another name for “God”. And without a mathematical or statistical explanation, Evolution IS just a way of saying “happened”. At any rate, I appreciate very much you taking the time to discuss the matter with me, and I respect your opinions. I hope you can respect mine.
FYI, for those who wish to read more commentary and debate on this matter, I would direct you to the discussion/ thread taking place in the comments at the following blog entry:
Tyharris,
By just briefly skimming through your long essay (which, frankly, needn’t be *that* long), I realized that you are positing essentially the same argument that I just recently refuted in my “Atheist Methodology” post. Your argument is that if human evolution occurred by random chance mutations, then how is it that humans experience purpose, direction, goal, emotions, love, etc.; you rightly claim that we are not random creatures but purposeful human beings. However, you find it contradicting the evolitionary view of random mutation. I responded to this criticism by pointing out that it commits the fallacy of composition, of indiscriminately attributing to a whole system the properties of its constituent parts. Read my post carefully for more on this view, specifically, with regard to freedom and randomness and determinism. None of these three properties are contradictory.
Another point I often come across (including in your post) is that the statistical chances of our human existence is so miniscule, that surely this is a work of precision guided by an intelligent creator. In response, I say, consider situations when people randomly just run into someone else out of a pure chance and end up becoming lovers, getting married, and having children. One can quite arguably say that the existence of the children was a consequence of a freak occurance wherein the two people just happened to be at the right place at the right time (say, the man missed his usual bus and whilst waiting for the second one, saw his wife-to-be come walking by). You could attribute this freak encounter to a precisely guided plan of Cupid, or God, or nothing at all. You pick.
Again, let me remind you that merely being confounded, awed, confused, or ignorant of an issue is not enough reason to inject the hypothesis of god’s existence to explain away that issue. I may stare with awe at the skies and the mountains, but that does not give me the legitimacy to postulate that some superhuman, supernatural being created them, or that the Earth lies on the shell of a turtle, or that the skies are held up by huge pillars.
Ergo, thanks for adding some good responses before I got around to posting. However I think you may be conceding too much in comparing human origins to a chance encounter that leads to marriage and children. Although I think your basic logic is sound, it puts too much importance on random chance. In reality, although chance definitely has a role in evolution, it is wrong to describe evolution solely or mostly in terms of chance. Chance produces mutations, which may or may not be advantageous; it is the process of natural selection, not purely statistical probability, that allows the genotypes that lead to reproductive success to dominate the gene pool over successive generations. Imagining a single strand of human DNA in isolation may indeed make you wonder how lucky we are it could have ever formed, but you have to consider it against the huge numbers of organisms going through millions of reproductive cycles. When Ty says, “Dawkins and Darwin even conceded that on a straight probabilistic basis, evolution based on chance alone cant happen” perhaps he should consider that he is not addressing their ideas correctly.
In addition, trying to reason from statistics is dubious because it requires relying on assumptions about a subject matter that is still wide open for debate. Ty says, “Probability and statistics CAN adress this matter on that basis, given that we have an idea of the age of the universe, the age of our planet, and a knowledge of what particles, and in what amounts, we originally had to work with.” But there are a variety of theories about how life originated; I don’t think we know yet “what particles, and in what amounts” were necessary because we don’t know which if any of these theories best explain the origin of life.
You could certainly dismiss a particular origins theory on statistical grounds, although that would require some expertise in molecular biology. Philosophers, mathematicians, or physicists such as those Ty cited would not have the expertise to address an RNA World hypothesis, for example. How would they know whether this could happen? I find wholesale generalizing about topics one does not fully understand (topics no one yet fully understands) to be… less than scientific. And Ergo correctly notes the flaw in arguing from ignorance — you can’t see how it could have happened, so you figure it didn’t happen.
As for Ty’s question:
“Whatever the sequence was, you ARE claiming that the primordial soup gave rise to man, are you not, and that the elementary particles IN that soup self-organized into self- replicating human DNA and all the complex specified information it contains- OVER a given period of time, right?”
No, this is way off and indicates you are not trying very hard to understand evolution. I’m just a layman but I guarantee ZERO evolutionary scientists claim this. Human DNA, of course, mutated from our predecessor homo erectus, which mutated from homo habilis, which in turn mutated from I believe australopithecus — and that’s just in the last few million years. To get back to the so-called primordial soup you have to go back 4 billion years of progressively simpler life forms. The “soup” would have only produced single-celled proto-organisms, which probably didn’t even have DNA, but RNA or something simpler.
My comment about the Swamp Thing was a joke, but, while you recognize the long time periods involved, you still seem stuck on the notion human DNA materialized out of the blue as a result of random chance, which is not what the theory of evolution proposes.
You say that the “instruction set” that was written on the “self-replicating particles” happened later. Who wrote the instructions on these “self-replicating particles”? And if nobody wrote them, why would they write themseves?
The reference to genetic code as an instruction set (or, indeed, as “code”) is a metaphor to make it easier for people to describe, but genes do not have any intent or purpose, have no concept of what they are, and have the form that they do only because that form has led to evolutionary fitness.
[…] of course, break its neck with my Darwin-created hands (er, that’s a joke). Somehow I got to arguing with a guy who takes a middle ground, purportedly moderate view between the extremists of evolution and […]
Overthinker- I get the idea that evolution is supposed to have happened in steps, not all at once. But breaking the improbability of an unlikely process occuring over time to get from point A to point B ( elements to DNA ) into smaller sub-processes that require lesser probabilities doesnt change the CUMULATIVE , overall probabilities of winding up at point B. It’s like saying that the odds of winning the powerball lottery 500 times in a row were too low to be believable, so instead, I’ll look only at the odds of winning them one at a time. WHATEVER imtermediate steps occured, the OVERALL improbability of us getting from A to B is the sum of all the intermediate improbabilities. You cant dodge the final statistical analysis that way because ALL of those improbable steps you refer to, have to happen in a sequence. As far as natural selection supplying an outside factor into the process to make it unneccesary to look at the self organization of particles into DNA from a purely probabilistic standpoint, there are the problems of irreducible complexity still. There are so many complex structures and biological processes that are made up themselves of so many interdependent structures, functions and SUB-processes that would have had no natural selection advantages in and of themselves, that you really do come back to statistical odds of them all coming together at once to form something with an actual advantage in many cases. If anything , dragging natural selection into the probability analysis LOWERS the odds with MULTIPLE, cumulative statistically impossible requirements. In regards to your ‘code’ comments, I happen to think it’s a fair description of what we are talking about. DNA is complex, specified information that is stored in memory, ( which is what the structure of DNA IS fundamentally). When I say “purpose” I wasnt referring to genes being created persay, I was referring to a purpose in terms of a gene’s responsibility for translating it’s particular trove of stored information into a PARTICULAR structure or process. The responsibilty of a gene to store complex specified information pertaining to a part of a complex structure,to impart that information, and to translate it’s instructions into a physical structure or process, sure sounds to me like “code”. It has a specific “intent” relating to it’s specific job in creating a specific structure or process. I think that the problem you have with the “metaphor” is that terms like memory, code, instructions, and complex specific information imply a writer, a designer, and a programmer. I admit that they do, and it’s not my fault. It is what it is. Design and intent are just the natural conclusions that MOST people arrive at when they look at something containing complex ,specified information like a book or a computer program. You and I look at the same thing- the complex specific information on the DNA helix- and I say it was designed, and you say it evolved. Probability is on my side, but I respect your opinions. At any rate, I do thank you for your comments and discussion. I have a feeling we will have to agree to disagree on this matter. Until such time as you can come up with a mathematical explanation for impossibly improbable events, with your permission, I will continue to go about my business as a created life with intent and purpose, and until I show you the words “made by God, inspected by number 7″ scribed upon our DNA under a microscope, I guess you will go about your life as a collection of random self-organized particles. But then again, the odds of us actually FINDING those words written on a DNA molecule are infinitley more likely than the odds of there even BEING such a thing as a DNA molecule, so maybe we will find them there after all. Who knows?If we dont’, maybe the complexity and the unliklihood of the DNA itself is better than even a signature would be, at least for some of us. If you have ever read the book ” Contact” by the late Carl Sagan ( an evolutionist if I recall correctly), at the end of the story, the number ” PI ” winds up being cryptographically encoded on our genome. In my own opinion, I think that that was a final tip of the hat by Sagan to the possibility of Intelligent Design, in the sense that he acknowledges that at SOME point, you HAVE to acknowledge statistical improbability iherent in complex, specified information of a certain volume. Our understanding of what DNA really IS, in terms of it being an information storage device and in terms of the volume of the comlex, specific information it contains, was growing by leaps and bounds in his last years. Maybe he secretly hoped in his heart that we were more than just random particles in a cold, godless universe, even if he ultimatly thought that we are. Personally, I hope so too. – sincerely, Ty
PS. To change the subject, my next essay will be on the need for major Government reform as a solution to certain social problems ( as opposed to the supposed need to spend more money on them), especially in the area of education. Specifically, I will be starting with the objective facts; 1.) that the problem of kids recieving a poor education underlies many OTHER problems in our country, and that 2.) we spend more money on education than any country in the world , while achieving measurably AWFUL results on a dollar-for-dollar basis. I will make the case that public schools in many places in America are so bad that they are not worth saving. I will advocate school choice, with public funding of a market-based system where parents and students take their share of the allocated tax dollars and shop among privatley constituted and administrated schools that have demonstrated excellence on a purely competetive basis. Instead of waiting for a hopeless sytem to reform itself in direct contradiction to the interests of the parties involved ( teachers unions and government beaurocrats ), I advocate throwing that whole morass onto the ash-heap of history, and achieving excellence through competition and choice. I may even venture into arguments for similiar types of reforms in other problem-areas that are screwed up almost beyond hope in this country- like Social Security and healthcare- but the need for education reform, and for access by ALL classes and races to EXCELLENCE in learning in our country, seems like the most glaring, egregious, and wasteful oversight of our generation. This is especially true as we enter the era of a new global economy where workers, businesses, and industries face real global competition now. I will be getting started on that subject next, and hopefully I can get some overthinker discussion on that when the time comes. Surely two smart people like us cant disagree on everything.
Hi tyharris,
I thought I would quickly write a comment after reading through about one fifth of the post, because I think it is extremely important to clarify one big misconception you have.
Evolution is not a theory of chance – in fact the opposite is true – it is a blind algorithmic process in which mutation is only a part of it. Understanding this will cut down lots of the content e.g. the second problem (statistics).
Onto the “problem” with the apparent philosophical implication. People having philosophical problems does not make evolution, or other science discoveries and facts, false. It is kind of like saying: “Oh, I can’t imagine that every human being is developed from sperm and egg, therefore it cannot be true” (by the way, why don’t have ID people have problems with this? Guess this is another topic for another day…)
Nice writing even though I can see problems in your arguments.
Another quick comment after reading your reply to overthinker (comment 10) – how do you account for the never-ending arms race between germs and our medicine? How does ID account for the fact that those little tiny trouble-makers are always evolving to develop resistance to our drugs? Are there any “intelligent” forces behind this? Why are these “intelligent” forces make the tiny things lethal to the intelligent, emotional, purposeful, spiritual, complicated biological things we call homo sapiens?
It will be helpful to read Richard Dawkins’ many books on the issue of cumulative-of-chances-at-small-steps.
Henry, thanks so much for stopping by. If somebody ever actually comes up with the “algorithm” you refer to, that mathematically defines the exact process by which statistically impossible events can occur,( including the mathematical basis for mutation and natural selection creating irreducible complexity ), please send me a copy of it. I’ll file it next to E=MC2, and will turn in my Intelligent Design badge and become a card carrying evolutionist. If you read the whole post, I acknowledged adaptation, mutation and natural selection. The fact that these processes exist as a means to IMPROVE a species does not neccesarily mean that the ability to adapt explains where the species came from TO BEGIN WITH. To prove evolution as an explanation for all life, requires more than simply demonstrating that an already-existing species has adaptive abilities, I think you would agree. As far as chance having nothing to do with evolution, may I point out that- according to this theory- we started out a few billion years ago with elemental particles, and we now have a self-replicating memory storage device containing millions of lines of code, with complex, specified information written on it. ( DNA ). HOWEVER you spin the tale, these particles DID supposedly manage to come together BY THEMSELVES to write specific instructions. If there was no guiding design or intent in the process, then it WAS, by definition, chance. Calling upon non-existent algorithms to EXPLAIN away that statistical improbability doesnt really change that had to happen somehow, from a statistical standpoint. As far as the philosophy bit goes, let me adress that. I am not trying to make a scientific argument out of philosophy. They are seperate. Metaphysical arguments always come down to faith, and an atheist cant be swayed by such things unless they have an attack of conscience or a moment of clarity in which they find spirituality within themselves. I raise the philisophical arguments, not so much for the atheists, but for the REST of us, because MOST people base their opinions at least partially on feelings, instincts, conscience, spirituality and morality. Atheists ARE the minority in that regard. I realize that to a pure atheist, morality is explainable from a purely naturalistic standpoint, but to most of us, arguments for a particular viewpoint SHOULD have a moral and spiritual foundation as well as a scientific one, so I adressed the philisophical implications of evolution, which are real and important to most people. From a purely naturalistic and scientific standpoint, the holcaust was just a case of some random groupings of self-organized particles ( the Jews ) being re-arranged by the aplication of some destructive heat, which was imposed by some other random particle groupings ( the Nazis ). In the abscence of spirituality, or morality, the destruction of a human life is just a naturalistic process like gravity or entropy, and the notion of “right ” or “wrong” has no real scientific basis except as an advantage to natural selection. Most people, however, DONT believe that. Most DO believe in metaphysical right and wrong, and that changes the signifigance of physical actions for most people on a moral basis with no foundation whatsoever in science or natural selection. In fact, I heard on the radio today about a poll that was done recently, in which 91% of people expressed a belief in “God”. Ovbviously, philisophical and metaphysical arguments cant sway the other 9% on ANY topic, so really, the philisophical arguments are mostly for the majority of folks who consider themselves to have a spiritual component in their overall makup as a human being. I tried to integrate some philisophical arguments along with the mathematical ones on this topic so as to adress the matter in the light in which most people will consider it. You, the Overthinker, and Mr. Spock can skip those arguments and proceed directly to Penrose, Borel, and Dembski. I have intentionally tried to engage atheists in this discussion because I think I have some things in common with them, in terms of my mental processes, even if our conclusions are different. I can relate to how you think. I tend to be very objectiveist in my own thinking. I am a skeptic, and a cynic. I am a big believer in intellectual honesty, and I am willing to see what I see, not what I want to see. For what it’s worth, atheists share these traits. It takes courage to be willing to be the 9% and I respect that, even if I think you are wrong, based soley on the facts. Personally, I was drawn to Intelligent Design by my skepticism regarding the current prevolant theory and by objectivism, not from a religious viewpoint. I looked at things from an open-minded attitude, using logic, math, statistics, and science. I weighed the arguments, thought it out, – and yes, consulted my conscience as well- and just reached a different conclusion than you. In my case, my feelings just happened to match what my objective observations were telling me.Spirituality and Rationality arent in conflict for some of us. They are complementary for some. I do consider myself to be a spiritual being with a metaphysical component, but when arguing with atheists, I will try to rely more on hard facts, because anything else is useless. I wont apologize for tossing in the philosophy though, because deep down, I think even atheists have a soul, and a heart. They just deny them, and I do enjoy confronting them with moral and spiritual based arguments some times, because in quieter moments, I think those types of things matter to atheists more than they want to admit.
At the risk of redundancy, here is my posting again, since it didn’t seem to appear the first time. I’m not sure if it’s stuck in a moderation queue or just “didn’t take.” Here goes:
Hello tyharris and everyone else who is commenting here,
I discovered your blog through your comment at “uncommon descent” and while I think you are doing an excellent job at providing clarity to one aspect of ID (including the philosophy of morality in comment 13), I would like to propose a slightly different way of looking at the ID probability argument and its relation to evolutionary algorithms.
1. The only scientific verification we have of probabilities being CONSISTENTLY overcome in a direction where further information is being created is through designed programs. Thus, evolutionary algorithms (which in our experience must be designed with a goal with which to generate and converge information) are one major verification of ID theory.
2. Furthermore, the nature of information processors (no matter their chemical constituents) is such that they can not exist independantly of the information they process, since an information processor is defined in terms of its ability to process information and information is defined as such by its compatible processor — the two qualities are useless without each other. If evolution is the process which generates information, evolution can not occur before an information storage medium and its compatible processor already exist.
3. Take into account that information is not defined by physical laws of attraction (there is no physical law relating the units within complex specified information) and that information processors convert present information into FUTURE function (thus constituting a goal oriented, although NOT necessarily conscious process — in the same way that computer programs are goal oriented but not conscious), it makes absolutely no logical sense, nor is there any scientific inference or validity in thinking that information and its compatible processor will randomly actualize no matter the chemical reactions by which it is preceeded.
4. The only scientifically verifiable and logical construction of an information processor is accomplished by a previous information processor. Add on to this the fact that the universe is now viewed as a program resulting form a deeper information processor and consciousness may be a result of quantum (pre-natural law) information processing. As stated in point three, there is NO ROOM FOR NATURAL LAWS OF ATTRACTION to create information and there is NO LOGICAL ROOM FOR ACCIDENTAL PROCESSES WHICH ARE NOT DIRECTED to create a goal oriented system such as an information processor.
5. Furthermore, why even bother postulating ACCIDENTAL OCCURENCES for the creation of information processors, when science deals in terms of LAWS of cause and effect? The law of cause and effect that creates information processors are always summed up in terms of laws within a program that results from a previous information processor. IE: computer information processors are created by mental programs which occur within intelligent information processors (the human brain); thus biochemical information processors most likely unfold from the deeper quantum information processor which causes the program of the universe to exist. Now all we need to do is discover how an information processor can be programmed to produce further information processors.
I personally see the above five aspects as the key to Intelligent Design Theory.
At the top of the left hand margin of my blog are links to my posts re: “view on ID theory” and my definitions of key terms. Just some thought provoking material, if you care to peruse through it.
Tyharris,
I don’t know why you feel comfortable arguing about probability when you clearly know nothing about it. The creationist argument from probability was dispatched long ago; it’s a non-argument. Let me give you a little example so you might be able to see the folly in your “reasoning.”
An ordinary deck of playing cards has 52 unique individuals. The number of different ways that the deck might be ordered may be expressed, then, as 52!, or 52 factorial (52*51*50*49*…) The result of that calculation is a *very* large number:
80,658,175,170,943,900,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
That being the case, using your line of (tortured) reasoning, I can pick up a randomly-distributed deck of cards and proclaim that the ordering of it must be a miracle, or the result of Intelligent Design, because the odds against it being arranged in that particular order are 1 in (that big number above).
But of course we know that there’s no need to appeal to intelligent agency, because the 52 cards, gathered together in a deck, have to be in *some* order.
I won’t elaborate further, as I hope that this simple example at least causes you to think a little, and learn something, before you write excessively long “essays” that make no sense.
Jim- with all due respect, if you managed to come up with such a large number for the probability of 52 measly cards coming up a certain way, I’m curious to know what you come up with probability-wise for a couple of million lines of genetic instructions. Additionally, at the risk of further “folly”, may I point out that your facetious claim of intelligent design being present in the above example doesnt really apply to DNA, because it’s not enough that the cards come up in a “some order”. They have to come up in a SPECIFIC order.A randomly selected set of any complex data wont’ get the job done. You are equating probabilities for a simple volume of COMPLEX information with those of a similiar volume of complex, SPECIFIED information. They arent the same. To paraphrase one of Behe and Dembski’s famous examples- the probability of a certain random combination of scrabble letters coming up as follows is extremely low in and of itself- NDEIRUABFDMOJHRINKE. That is probability based on complex information. But if those letters come up as METHINKSITISLIKEAWEASLE, then apart from mere complexity, we have an intelligent pattern that does NOT share the same probability as the first example. This is complex, SPECIFIED information, and it implies design, whereas the first example is merely complex and does not. The information that underpins human biology isnt random. It is precise and ordered. At any rate, I wish you could confine yourself to actual reasoned debate. Not everybody who disagrees with you about something is stupid. The fact that you have to resort to ad homenim attacks and insults about a person’s education and intelligence says more about you, and the confidence you have in the actual strength of your arguments, than it does about me I think. Dont get so upset. You can’t lose when truth is on your side.
Ty,
I was pretty sure you wouldn’t get it, but I had to make sure. The constituents of DNA, just like the deck of cards, have to be in *some* order. What you’re suggesting is that you can use the same probability calculations to determine the odds of a novel event happening as you would to calculate the probability of some phenomenon that’s already happened, happening a second time. You must understand also that if you want to calculate probability, you first must rid yourself of the “statistically impossible” argument, because if you *can* calculate the odds, you’re acknowledging that the phenomenon in question *is* possible. The possibility of impossible phenomena occurring is 0, so there’s no need for calculation. On the other hand, just because the odds against a given phenomenon occurring are 1 in a bazillion, that doesn’t mean that the phenomenon can’t occur in the first possible opportunity (or the tenth, or millionth). 1 in a bazillion doesn’t mean that there must be a bazillion opportunities before the phenomenon will occur. In other words, the argument from probability is a non-starter.
I will repeat that you have demonstrated a significant lack of knowledge of probability and statistics, and that your argument has been answered many times, in many places. The fact that you repeat a much-refuted line of argumentation indicates that you are (A) ignorant, or (B) dishonest. I hope it’s (A) because with a little effort and study, you can correct the problem.
Just one more thing: given this set of letters:
ELSAEWAEKILSITISKNIHTEM,
arranged in a random order, which arrangement is more likely to occur–the one shown above, or
METHINKSITISLIKEAWEASLE?
Ty, you wrote:
“the basic principle underlying any God-less or Intelligent Design-less explanation for Life as we know it…HOWEVER you spin the tale, you have to start with basic elements, and wind up with DNA.
Ty, this is ludicrous. All the data we have suggests that there was RNA life without any DNA for a long time before there was life with DNA. Your use of “DNA” as a rhetorical crutch only highlights your aggressive ignorance to any scientifically literate person.
“And DNA really is the problem, because the more we learn about the awesome complexity of what a human fundamentally IS,…”
But the problem is, my dear Ty, that you don’t have the intellectual courage to even begin to look at the awesome complexity of a human, a mouse, an E. coli bacterium, or even a single biochemical or cell biological pathway within any of these organisms. You CHOOSE ignorance and pretend that because you are too scared to look at the data, real scientists are too. This is the most rank sort of dishonesty. Now, try and learn something (you clearly know nothing) about the REAL complexity of, say, the signalling pathways downstream of G-protein-coupled receptors (which, unfortunately for your empty repetition of “human DNA,” are equally complex in mice and humans, and tell me whether you see any suggestion of INTELLIGENT design.
1) Explain the intelligent design behind partially-overlapping functions of similar, but not identical components. Point me to mechanisms known to be designed that have this characteristic. You can’t, because our designs involve complete redundancy using identical components.
2) Explain why analysis of the sequences of these proteins always places them in a nested (containment) hierarchy, and more importantly, one that corresponds to the nested hierarchy formed by classifying the organisms that contain these proteins.
3) Explain why these nested hierarchies extend to relationships between huge families of proteins.
4) Explain why, despite the fact that humans (well, maybe not you) understand the concept of a nested hierarchy and can design nested hierarchies, NO groups of designed objects can be placed into nested hierarchies.
“…We are talking about a CODED, self-replicating double-helix structure whose purpose is to store astoundingly complex, and extremely specific INFORMATION in memory, and to translate that complex, specific information into all of the biological organs and processes that make up a human-being, including the human brain.”
Sorry, but you flunk basic informational neuroscience. There’s no way that the complexity of the human brain is coded in DNA. It is derived from experience, overlaid on a massively repeated and hypertrophied cerebral cortex. This hypertrophy is well-documented in the fossil record as a beautifully continuous increase in skull size.
“…You see how hard it is to refer to billions of lines of carefully structured CODE without using words like written, arranged, ordered, and designed.”
I can do so quite easily. Maybe you can explain the careful structuring of CAG repeats in a single allele of a single gene to a victim of Huntington’s chorea. Those CAG repeats do something very simple: they increase the number of glutamine amino-acid residues in the huntingtin protein, which (according to you) was designed to cause a horrible degeneration of mind, followed by death.
“And yet such phrases ARE misnomers if we accept that it all came about by chance,…”
Ty, let me be blunt. “it all came about by chance” is a despicable, dishonest lie. It is simply a lie. It is the primary lie in the creationists’ and IDers’ arsenal, and it is very effective for intellectual cowards like you, who are afraid to grapple with the very real complexity of biology. This lie, which you repeat like a mantra, allows you to pretend that evolutionary biology is simple.
“…”Evolved” is really just a way of saying “happened”. It doesn’t explain HOW it happened.”
No, but the language of evolutionary biology does explain HOW things evolved. There are loads of mechanisms, as well as loads of data to support them, and new data are produced and published every day. Now, name a single datum produced by a test of an ID hypothesis.
“But to get back to the matter of statistics- there ARE people who have taken a stab at calculating the odds of human DNA spontaneously forming from elemental particles.”
Ty, the calculation is irrelevant, because no one in her right mind is claiming that human DNA formed spontaneously. This is the same, despicable lie in a slightly different form.
“One very smart fellow by the name of William Dembski ( Dual PHD in Mathematics and Philosophy- an interesting combination to say the least ) has written extensively on the subject,…”
But if he’s so smart, and ID is science, why hasn’t he produced any new DATA on the subject, Ty?
“…In his book, Dembski states; ” The universe will experience heat death before random typing at a keyboard produces a Shakespearean sonnet.”
And that’s yet another variation on the Big Lie. Random typing, followed by selection, will produce a Shakespearean sonnet in no time.
It’s the selection, Ty. When you leave out selection and pretend that evolution is nothing but randomness, YOU ARE LYING.
Response to #18 Sigh… “Intellectual coward”, ” despicable lies”, “rank dishonesty”,” I “choose ignorance”, I’m “scared”, I “pretend”, I ” know nothing”, ” agressive ignorance”, “ludicrous”. I won’t even try to count the number of times you used the word “lie” in such a short space. This is what I was hoping to avoid. Do you talk to people like that in person? May I just say in response, how nice it is to make your aquaintance, sir? I knew that a polite, reasonable discussion with a bunch of atheists was too good to last, but I gave it a shot anyways. For what it’s worth, sincere thanks to everybody who put forward constructive comments on this subject without being hateful. As far as the people who have no recourse except insults, I will gladly leave your comments up for two reasons- 1. because- unlike many evolution advocates- I am not so afraid of contrary arguments that I feel the need to censor those who dont’ agree with me. and 2. because I think that spewing emotional hatred and personal insults says more about you than about me. As far as you questioning my integrity and intellectual honesty, you dont really know me, or have any basis at all to question my motives. This post is reminiscent of the current level of political discourse in Washington DC at the moment.. ie. “everybody who disagrees with me about something is evil and must have sinister intentions”. I really did do my level best to approach the subject with an open mind. I went to the trouble of doing a LOT of reading on both sides of the debate- including both Dawkins AND Dembski. Based on the arguments put forward by reasonable folks on both sides of the issue, I formed an honest opinion as best I could. Is it intellectual cowardice to be willing to stand up and state your opinion when you know you are going to get hammered by insults and hate? It seems to me that intellectual cowardice is being unwilling to put your ideas forward into a free and open debate, or trying to keep a theory or idea from being heard or taught. I actually want to thank you, because this kind of vitriole really makes me feel a LOT better about where I stand. I consider it a badge of honor to be on the opposite side of ANY debate from somebody who conducts themselves like you do. What are you getting so mad about anyways? If we are nothing but soul-less , algorithim-produced particle groupings, what difference does it make? And if morality is just a function of natural selection, then what is a lie anyways? Right and wrong, good and bad, it’s all just dust in the wind. At any rate, to adress a couple of your points- I believe, ( if you will actually read the entire post, and some of the reasoned debate that took place here before you waded in with all of your insults ), that I have not “left out ” selection. Ive’ adressed it. Indeed, I have straight-up acknowleged it as a scientific fact, have I not? If I havent’, then allow me to do so now- MUTATION AND NATURAL SELECTION REALLY DO EXIST. I ACKNOWLEDGE THEM AS REAL SCIENTIFIC FACTS. I just dont see design and selection as being neccesarily mutually exclusive, and I explained why. I also dont agree that selection and mutation serve to overcome the real problems of irreducible complexity. Additionally, I dont agree that it serves as a manner in which statistical REALITY can be somehow dodged or circumvented. What EXACTLY is false about the following statement?… “However you spin the tale, you have to start with basic elements, and wind up with DNA.” If you are questioning any aspect of that statement, are you also prepared to dispute my bold assertion that 2+2=4? Did the universe not start with a big explosion that eventually coalesced into basic elements? Is that not where this journey to life begins? Does DNA, and the specific, complex information it contains not exist, right here, right now? Is that not where we have wound up? You have one explanation of how we got from A to B. I have another. But we DID go from A to B , did we not? And according to you, there was no design or intent in how we got to B. I have merely pointed out the statistical unliklihood of it happening, that’s all. Is it such an unfair and horrible question to be raising? How could I NOT raise it, if I am intellectually honest? The fact that we SOMEHOW got from elements to DNA IS the 800 lb gorilla sitting on the lving room couch. It’s unreasonable for evolutionists to expect ID advocates to ignore it. We may have differnet expanations for A to B, but what can you possibly contest about my statement about where we started and wound up, and the fact that we have to explain how we got from one to the other?… Regarding Dembski, he TRIED to set up a research center at a major university, the purpose of which was to look into the statistical and mathematical nature of biological information. He was tarred, feathered, and run out of town on a rail by the tenured academics who refused to even allow the man to speak. If you want to discuss examples of intellectual cowardice, I would have to put THAT sorry episode right up there on a par with heliocentric heretics being burned at the stake in the dark ages. I went to the trouble of reading one of his books before I judged the man’s intelligence ( I am guessing you havent’) and I think he makes good, sound arguments. Unless you have double doctorates in math and philosophy ( I dont ), then he’s smarter than both of us. Putting aside whether he’s right or wrong, he seems well qualified to at least be allowed to put forward a theory. As far as my unwillingness to look at the awesome complexity of a human… etc.”, you’ve got to be kidding me- is that not the basis of everything I am trying to say? The awesome complexity of human DNA is EXACTLY the reason why I am saying it couldnt have possibly evolved apart from design. My whole POINT is that when I look at millions of lines of instructions, and the INCREDIBLY ordered and specifically-arranged thing that those instructions create, I see design. You don’t. What else can I say here, except “more power to you”, and “best of luck with your simian-shakespeare project”.When they finish Hamlet, ask them to write the Human Genome. Get back to me when they finish. ( Presumably, natural selection will speed up the process somehow, since it apparently works independently of design to contradict the laws of probability.). I just think that the crux of this whole debate comes down to this- I look at a vast assemblage of complex, specific information, and I see an author. You see the product of Natural Selection. I respect your opinion. Is it so impossible for you to see ANY possible logic or reason in mine? Can you not simply disagree with me without questioning my motives?
RE #17…
A gambit well played, my freind. The probabilities are equal. Specific complexity in reverse is still specific complexity. That’s kind of similiar to the fact that it is just as unlikely for me to pick 8 out of 8 wrong on a football parlay card in vegas as it is for me to pick them all correctly- ( this, despite my apparent probability-defying ability to pick them all wrong on a very consistent basis- ha, ha. ) Rather than comparing a sequence of specific complex information to itself in reverse, your question would have been more pointed if you had compared the relative probabilities of the two sequences I had put forward originally coming about by chance( the complex versus the specified complex ). As a straight-up matter of probability, blind to outcome, your point is well taken that they both are just a certain number of letters in a certain order, WHATEVER the order may be. I’ll try to answer that conundrum. I’ll also try to adress your assertion about there being no such thing as statistical impossibility. Firstly, if we are to make this sequence comparison argument relevant to the issue at hand, we have to expand the sequences to be one HECK of a lot longer than methinksitislikeaweasle to make them similiar in information richness to a DNA molecule. The odds grow long indeed my freind- too long. For I would submit that merely being able to calculate the odds of something occuring DOESNT mean it is possible. The universe does have limits, and therefore, statistical impossibility exists. Only so much time, and only so many particles. If the universe was truly infinite, then you would be right, and Douglas Adam’s postulation that in an infinite universe, anything that is possible- however improbable- is inevitable, would be right as well. In that case, there really ARE screwdriver-trees and talking mattresses on distant planets. ( If we actually do encounter such beings in the course of NASA’s Origins program, let me state for the record, in advance, that I will give up and become an evolutionist. ) Let me ask you this- if complex information and complex specified information are to be assigned equal probabilities in this debate, on what basis can design be inferred in ANYTHING? I mean, if we extrapolate the first RANDOM sequence in the original example out to be on the order of DNA information-wise, we just wind up with a big pile of nothing. Whereas if we extrapolate the latter sequence out, to millions of lines of precisely ordered instructions, we wind up with the Krebs cycle, the human eye, and the endocrine stystem. Is there nothing implied in the probabilities by the results? At what point, if ANY, will you look at specific, complex information and ascribe design to it? Is the encyclopedia brittanica really as likely to come about as any other equal number of randomly scrambled letters? And even if the probablility WAS the same, if you accept that the universe has limits, then a universal probability bound beyond which chance IS precluded in a certain volume of information CAN be calculated and applied to EITHER case. Dembski did it, and so have others who had fewer philisophical axes to grind ( if you question his objectivity, which I dont ). I am not a mathematician by any stretch, but you are the first person I have heard who has challenged even the idea that universal probability bounds can exist, irrespective of what various people may calculate them to be…. At any rate, I think you and I both look at a giant assemblage of specific, complex information and I say Design, whereas you say Natural Selection. We have all kicked around our arguments here as to why each of us says what we say. People have been debating this for a long time, and I doubt we will solve the question once and for all here in this forum. One of the points I made in my original post is that we are all trying to extrapolate far-reaching conclusions about the nature and origins of life in the universe with a VERY small data set. I stated that we only know for CERTAIN that life EXISTS on one very small speck of dirt in a VERY large universe, and we dont really even have a full understanding of how our data-set of one even came about, although everybody certainly has an opinion. Scientific theories such as Relativity made predictions, which, when proven to be true or false, would prove or disprove the validity of said theories. For example, Einstein predicted gravitational lensing, and when it turned out to be the case, his ideas were bolstered. Presumably, if Evolution is a natural process, then it can make some testable, observable predictions as to what we are going to find out there in the universe that are going to bolster or deflate that theory when we get some data on life and it’s prevolance. Intelligent design can perhaps make some predictions too. For argument’s sake, let’s say that NASA- by some miracle- actually does manage to fly a spaceborne optical interferometer 500 years from now, of sufficient size that we can look down on billions and billions and billions of planets all across the universe, with sufficient resolution to discern designed structures. Let’s also say that similiar astronomical advances allow us to spectrographically analyze the atmospheres of these distant planets and discern gaseous imbalances which cannot exist naturally ( ie. indicative of life-processes occuring). What is your prediction as to what they would find? If evolution is a natural process, and statistical improbabilities are skewed so much by natural selection, will life have arisen- in whatever form- wherever the requisite conditions exist? Will primitive life be found to be common? How about complex life? What do you think the chances are that we are alone as complex life-forms in the universe. What do you think the chances are that we are alone PERIOD. ie. NO discernable life forms of ANY kind- microscopic OR complex, anywhere but here. Furthermore, depending on what we actually FIND, is there any result or objective observation we could make that would CHANGE your current opinions about evolution. This is a question I want to throw out there for everybody. We can all argue until we are blue in the face, but one of the primary points of the essay is that REAL data is going to eventually come to light through astronomical advances, as to wether we are alone or not, and wether these claimed naturalistic processes proceed elsewhere or not. That data HAS to bear heavily on this debate, does it not? I find the possibility of learning more about the true facts of the matter, to be thrilling, and much more interesting than hopeful guesses from either side of the debate based on our measly observations to date. I would like to ask everybody who is so sure of themselves in this debate to venture make a prediction as to what we are going to find out there, and to state what you think those findings will prove.Conversely. if the findings turn out to be the exact opposite of your predictions, please state what would THAT prove, and what- if anything- out there could change your mind relative to your current opinions. I throw that gauntlet on the table for anybody to pick up. I was actually hoping for more comments and predictions as to what we will find out there and how you think it will bear on this debate and fewer comments on what we already know and have re-hashed a thousand times. Opinions anybody? I’ll listen to everybody elses’ guesses before venturing my own. I will just say this- the silence that SETI is hearing so far is deafening, and on a VERY preliminary basis, it’s not looking good for complex life being common so far, but then again, that could all change tomorrow.
Hi Ty,
I read your writing because you seem to be opened minded and have questioned evolution based on your reasoning, not from a ignorant religious background, which is healthy.
Just a short reply to comment #13.
Note that evolution does not deal with the beginning of life – that is a study called abiogenesis.
“If there was no guiding design or intent in the process, then it WAS, by definition, chance.” – No! Using a simple and well-known example of Conway’s Game of Life, an set of rules (algorithm, process) is in place and once the game starts, over time, interesting patterns and forms emerge from the intentionless algorithm that was not originally designed to form those patterns.
Could you explain to me how little germs evolve to develop resistence to drugs? Obviously chance and statistical improbablity cannot explain this. Does this imply something “intelligent” is behind it? No. Or could it be that a process/algorithm is the explanation?
Oh yes, I agree that the philosophical implication of evolution is huge – as Daniel Dennett said, evolution is like universal acid that corrode through the we-were-intelligently-designed thinking many of us held so dearly and so long – and that is the nice thing of it! It advances us from relying on certain ancient religions and myths for our morality. Science has added our understanding about ourselves. You mentioned atheism here – and this smells like a religious based argument to me (unlike you claimed earlier that your objection to evolution is based on science and reason). Now, speaking about atheism – much of the Asian population are atheists, now and throughout history – they need no intelligent design or deities to base their morality (mind you, Japan has one of or probably the most lowest crime rate in the world, while the Chinese has had a glorious history and at many times the most advanced socieites).
I find your link between moral explanations and atheism troubling, in particular with the example of Holocaust – please, who on earth would view that terrible event from a purely naturalist and scientific view like that (maybe you are just trying to get a point across)?? Even though I do not know this as a fact, I gathered that most atheists are humanists.
I find your statement “I think even atheists have a soul, and a heart. They just deny them…” very offensive.
How do you explain all those heartless atrocities and deaths committed in the names of religions and deities? Are the minds blinded by religious bigotry and fervor that cause the 9/11 event and thousands of other atrocities any better? You sound like a reasonable man/woman so I hope you really can see how ignorant this statement is.
In order to understand the evidence in support of the theory of evolution, you have to understand these basic concepts:
scientific method
nested hierarchy
common descent
genetic algorithm
information
random
pattern
selection
Any discussion of the evidence requires that we are using the same definitions of these important terms. It may take more than one thread. Consider starting with the nested hierarchy and common descent.
I would note that the vast majority of scientific experts in the relevant fields of study strongly support the Theory of Evolution as a unifying and predictive explanation for the evidence. It would behoove you to be somewhat tentative in your opinions in the face of such authority from so many different areas of expertise.
NATIONAL ACADEMY of SCIENCES: “The theory of evolution has become the central unifying concept of biology and is a critical component of many related scientific disciplines. In contrast, the claims of creation science lack empirical support and cannot be meaningfully tested.”
http://books.nap.edu/html/creationism/
(You also need to be a bit more consistent in your use of paragraphs to organize your ideas 🙂
Hi Ty
Saw the above. You have posted a thoughtful essay — though perhaps a bit of spell checking will help, on a re-edit.
While there are thoughtful comments above, too much of the response above is the usual rhetorical talking points that just spew out the evolutinary materialist-secularist progressivist [EMSP] partyline advocated by Dawkins et al. Namely, that those who dare question EMSP are “ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked.” [ISIW] — there, no need to type out the phrase again.]
Think about the village atheist level arrogance and bigotry that that implies!
Tell you what, pop across to UD and look at the recent threads over the past month or three. Examine the discussions that follow the main posts. For instance, look here at the current thread on specified complexity and thermodynamics, which responds to Dr Granville Sewell’s post on 2LOT issues.
Is this what you would expect from what the EMSP partyline tells you?
Then, pause and ask yourself — why it is that you feel so *morally incensed* at the ISIW’s who oppose or question your worldview?
(Is it just an epiphenomenon of underlying neuronal networks firing away, having originated by chance and necessity, and having survived by being well adapted to the life ofan ape with too many neurons for his own good out on the plains of E Africa? So, why should we pay any more attention to it than to a chimp throwing a tantrum and launching lumps of faeces at anyone within range? And, if your consciousness is so delusional that it leads you to imagine that “moral outrage” at those who challenge “facts” and “science” is more than just an interesting fact of your neuronal networks, then why should we take such a delusional brain-emanation any more seriously than we take the ravings and screams of an angry chimp?]
We could go on and on, on the issue of originating the sort of functionally specified complex information that is more and more evidently a fundamental constituent of the cosmos. But first, are “you” there to debate with? (Or are we simply dealing with lucky noise that happened to burst through the internet — chance plus necessity can explain anything in a sufficiently large universe, especially a quasi-infinite one . . .)
Of course, since “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” you have to show us first that you really are there, PROVE it. Or we can explain it with the lucky noise theory — oops, fact — and dismiss the deranged natterings of designoid random bits bursting in on the net. No need to resort to the existence of intelligent designers to explain the data — an d besides, Science must explain in terms of chance plus natural regularities only.
See what selective hyperskepticism and worldview level question begging an do with the aid of a few ad hoc assumptions?
Happy Easter, all [including lucky noise bursts out there]
GEM of TKI
I see links were stripped off. UD is at:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/
GEm of TKI
Ty,
Perhaps a little analogy using a combination lock can get across the importance of selection and why multiplying (not adding, as you say in post #10 – presumably a slip) the probabilities is not an appropriate procedure.
Suppose you have a combination lock which requires ten 10-digit wheels to be set in the correct order. There are 10 000 000 000 possibilities, with just one being correct. However, you try the first wheel and are told when that is at the correct value, say 4. Then you do not need to try 21, 22, 67, 91 and so on, just 40, 41, 42 . . . When the second wheel is correctly aligned, you are told of the fact and so on, for all ten wheels. This greatly reduces the number of values you need to try. In fact, to get all 10 wheels in the correct positions you need to try a maximum of 100 numbers. This changes the problem from one that was almost impossible to one that is trivially easy.
This is how selection works, except that there is no target. Anything that is ‘better’ than what came before is likely to be selected.
You now need to consider the following. If Dembski is a competent mathematician, he undoubtedly understands this. Why, then, does he never mention it and instead claims that the process results in extremely small probabilities? This goes a long way to explain the way he is regarded by scientists.
BTW: Your posts would be a lot easier to read if you divided them into paragraphs of a reasonable size.
BTW:
‘Biological information’ is a concept used only by creationists that has never been clearly defined and therefore is unmeasurable.
My understanding of information theory (not robust) tells me that complex information is information that cannot be described in a simple way. Specified information is information that can be described in a simple way. So where does that leave ‘complex specified information’? Like biological information, it is also unmeasurable (ask Dembski which has most CSI, Mt Rushmore or a cockroach).
Of course evolution deals with the inception of life. It’s that fact that it is unable to account for it that non-telic evolutionists then declare, “that’s a separate issue all together”.
Ty,
Frankly, I haven’t read your responses completely because you seem to be making a dedicated effort to make them unreadable through failure to provide a little white space (if you want to write essays, you’ll need to embrace the concept of paragraphs) and excessive verbosity.
What you’re failing (or refusing) to grasp is that in the two strings I used as examples, the likelihood of occurrence is indeed equal, and the fact that the second string contains information that’s intelligible to us is completely irrelevant. It has nothing to do with the probability of a given order of the letters. Similarly, the likelihood of some sort of what we perceive to be “order” in organic structures being the result of random assembly cannot be computed ex post facto. And like I said, the fact that you believe that the probability for or against *can* be computed is an admission that natural abiogenesis *is* a possibility. Using the argument from probability is a form of argument from personal incredulity–“I don’t believe it could have happened, therefore it didn’t.” But no one cares what an ignoramus believes or doesn’t; show us your data.
In order to do science, we have to assume natural causes, and exhaust the natural possibilities before ascribing supernatural causes.
There is a lot of research going on in the subject of abiogenesis (which is only peripheral to the study of biological evolution, btw) and I doubt that you would want it any other way. You are like a man at a race track who wants to cash his ticket in before the race is run.
The Discovery Institure, of which your hero Dembski is a paid fellow, has spent millions on press releases, hand-waving, and obfuscation, but not a nickel on actual scientific research. Dembski himself, while possessing impressive academic credentials, finds himself teaching apologetics at a backwater bible college. When the ID people start doing some actual research and publishing, and contributing something to the body of knowledge in biology, we’ll all take notice. Until then, you have nothing but empty rhetoric, and tired, threadbare arguments that have no scientific substance.
“How do you explain all those heartless atrocities and deaths committed in the names of religions and deities? Are the minds blinded by religious bigotry and fervor that cause the 9/11 event and thousands of other atrocities any better? You sound like a reasonable man/woman so I hope you really can see how ignorant this statement is.”
Wait a minute. We know what the foundational tenents of Christianity are. If you wish to shift the focus towards some foundational tenents of Islam than be explicit with it, state that you’re doing such.
His statement is not an ignorant statement. Why do you think non-Christians disparage Christians by making comments like, “Well that’s very Christian of you”, when the supposed Christian does something that goes against what all assume to be the foundational tenents of Christianity.
Do you truly believe that just because one affiliates himself/herself with a denomination of Christianity that they will no longer struggle to make the ‘correct decisions’ in the face of a compromising situation? (Compromising between what they are called to do and their own desires)
“Using the argument from probability is a form of argument from personal incredulity–”I don’t believe it could have happened, therefore it didn’t.” But no one cares what an ignoramus believes or doesn’t; show us your data.”
Wrong Jim, regarding the issue evidence is building up against your position. How is that an argument from incredulity? Show us the evidence that natural mechanisms can indeed account for it. And drop the ‘ignoramus’ comments, you prove nothing by saying that stuff except to show that your parents weren’t too apt at raising a boy that knows how to act towards others.
“In order to do science, we have to assume natural causes, and exhaust the natural possibilities before ascribing supernatural causes.”
No we don’t. There are numerous instances in which we make scientific claims in the absense of a mechanism or a reductionary approach (sky hooks, Jim).
To accept the validity of science we have to assume statements that science itself is unable to elucidate. The fact that you accept insight from science shows that you accept insight from other sources that do not have ‘natural causes’ & cannot be supported from naturalistic science.
Ty, you wrote:
“I won’t even try to count the number of times you used the word “lie” in such a short space.”
Probably the same number of times you used a lie in an even smaller space.
“This is what I was hoping to avoid. Do you talk to people like that in person?”
People who tell bald-faced lies about my work (biology), absolutely.
“May I just say in response, how nice it is to make your aquaintance, sir?”
I wish I could say the same.
“I knew that a polite, reasonable discussion with a bunch of atheists was too good to last, but I gave it a shot anyways.”
Another lie. I’m a Christian.
“For what it’s worth, sincere thanks to everybody who put forward constructive comments on this subject without being hateful.”
If you were intellectually honest, you’d ignore what seemed to you were impolite responses and address the substance of them. For example, you’d respond to the following questions:
1) Explain the intelligent design behind partially-overlapping functions of similar, but not identical components. Point me to mechanisms known to be designed that have this characteristic. You can’t, because our designs involve complete redundancy using identical components.
2) Explain why analysis of the sequences of these proteins always places them in a nested (containment) hierarchy, and more importantly, one that corresponds to the nested hierarchy formed by classifying the organisms that contain these proteins.
3) Explain why these nested hierarchies extend to relationships between huge families of proteins.
4) Explain why, despite the fact that humans (well, maybe not you) understand the concept of a nested hierarchy and can design nested hierarchies, NO groups of designed objects can be placed into nested hierarchies.
“As far as the people who have no recourse except insults,…”
That wouldn’t be me. I repeated the questions that you lack the integrity to answer.
“I will gladly leave your comments up for two reasons- 1. because- unlike many evolution advocates- I am not so afraid of contrary arguments that I feel the need to censor those who dont’ agree with me.”
But you don’t respond to any contrary arguments, you just reiterate the Big Lie of anti-science bigots–that evolution is random.
“… and 2. because I think that spewing emotional hatred and personal insults says more about you than about me.”
What does your employment of a lie say about you?
“As far as you questioning my integrity and intellectual honesty, you dont really know me, or have any basis at all to question my motives.”
They are obvious from your shallow, unoriginal essay.
“I really did do my level best to approach the subject with an open mind.”
Then prove it by addressing points 1-4 above.
“I went to the trouble of doing a LOT of reading on both sides of the debate- including both Dawkins AND Dembski.”
But you didn’t look at data, and you didn’t look at Darwin (hint: the word “random” does not appear in his books).
“Based on the arguments put forward by reasonable folks on both sides of the issue, I formed an honest opinion as best I could.”
But you didn’t look at a single datum.
“Is it intellectual cowardice to be willing to stand up and state your opinion when you know you are going to get hammered by insults and hate?”
What about 1-4 that you couldn’t hope to address in an honest, straightforward manner?
“It seems to me that intellectual cowardice is being unwilling to put your ideas forward into a free and open debate,…”
You aren’t. That’s why you employ the Big Lie about evolution, and you won’t address 1-4 above.
Also, scientific debates are decided by data, not books.
“… or trying to keep a theory or idea from being heard or taught.”
That’s another Big Lie. A theory has a long track record of successful predictions. ID has no such record; its proponents are afraid to put it to a single test. At best, it’s a hypothesis, but a pathetic one, because it doesn’t explain the extant data.
“I actually want to thank you, because this kind of vitriole really makes me feel a LOT better about where I stand. I consider it a badge of honor to be on the opposite side of ANY debate from somebody who conducts themselves like you do.”
You mean someone who issues challenges, like 1-4 above, that you run away from? Or do you mean someone who calls a lie a lie?
“What are you getting so mad about anyways?”
The lying. The cowardice of those who claim to have a “theory,” when they are afraid to test any of its predictions.
“If we are nothing but soul-less , algorithim-produced particle groupings, what difference does it make?”
I’m also mad about your lying about my positions. I never claimed such a thing.
“And if morality is just a function of natural selection, then what is a lie anyways?”
It is a false statement made with intent to deceive.
“Right and wrong, good and bad, it’s all just dust in the wind.”
Wrong. If my position’s so weak, why are you compelled to falsely attribute things to me? Why not suck it up and address 1-4 above?
“At any rate, to adress a couple of your points- I believe, ( if you will actually read the entire post, and some of the reasoned debate that took place here before you waded in with all of your insults ), that I have not “left out ” selection.”
If you didn’t, where is the selection in Dembski’s lame analogy that you regurgitated?
“Ive’ adressed it. Indeed, I have straight-up acknowleged it as a scientific fact, have I not? If I havent’, then allow me to do so now- MUTATION AND NATURAL SELECTION REALLY DO EXIST. I ACKNOWLEDGE THEM AS REAL SCIENTIFIC FACTS.”
Then why can’t you see that Dembski’s analogy, since it contains no selection, is a lie?
“I just dont see design and selection as being neccesarily mutually exclusive, and I explained why.”
Your position isn’t “just” that. Do you see any EVIDENCE for design? Cite some data, not what anyone says about the data.
“I also dont agree that selection and mutation serve to overcome the real problems of irreducible complexity.”
If IC presents so many problems, why has every system Behe CHOSE to illustrate IC been shown not to be IC by Behe’s definition? Without data, your opinion is scientifically vacuous.
“Additionally, I dont agree that it serves as a manner in which statistical REALITY can be somehow dodged or circumvented.”
So what? I’m calling you a coward because you won’t address the NATURE of biological complexity, something I confront every day.
“What EXACTLY is false about the following statement?… “However you spin the tale, you have to start with basic elements, and wind up with DNA.”
It’s the statements before and after it that were far more dishonest.
“If you are questioning any aspect of that statement, are you also prepared to dispute my bold assertion that 2+2=4?”
What about the statement before it–“…and SOMEHOW- through random chance interactions between these elements you wind up with Man,” Ty?
It’s a lie, pure and simple.
“Did the universe not start with a big explosion that eventually coalesced into basic elements?”
Is evolution merely chance?
“Is that not where this journey to life begins? Does DNA, and the specific, complex information it contains not exist, right here, right now? Is that not where we have wound up? You have one explanation of how we got from A to B. I have another.”
But your explanation doesn’t enable you to address 1-4 above. Mine does.
“And according to you, there was no design or intent in how we got to B.”
Another pathetic lie. According to me, there is no EVIDENCE of design or intent. See the difference? Do you see why I have contempt for you when you use an evidence-free approach?
“I have merely pointed out the statistical unliklihood of it happening, that’s all.”
No, you didn’t. You pretended that it all happened at once to attack it.
“Is it such an unfair and horrible question to be raising?”
When did you stop beating your wife?
“How could I NOT raise it, if I am intellectually honest?”
If you were honest, you’d include selection.
If you were honest, you’d address 1-4 above.
“The fact that we SOMEHOW got from elements to DNA IS the 800 lb gorilla sitting on the lving room couch. It’s unreasonable for evolutionists to expect ID advocates to ignore it.”
I expect you not to lie about it and ignore the essential role of selection.
“We may have differnet expanations for A to B, but what can you possibly contest about my statement about where we started and wound up, and the fact that we have to explain how we got from one to the other?… Regarding Dembski, he TRIED to set up a research center at a major university,…”
Research? What hypothesis what he proposing to test?
“… the purpose of which was to look into the statistical and mathematical nature of biological information.”
Weasel words. Scientists test hypotheses.
“He was tarred, feathered, and run out of town on a rail by the tenured academics who refused to even allow the man to speak.”
Another lie, Ty. No one abridged Dembski’s right to free speech. Besides, the DI has plenty of money for him to do research, but he writes books for rubes instead.
“If you want to discuss examples of intellectual cowardice, I would have to put THAT sorry episode right up there on a par with heliocentric heretics being burned at the stake in the dark ages.”
The heliocentrics had data. Dembski has none. He has no intention of producing any new data, either.
“I went to the trouble of reading one of his books before I judged the man’s intelligence ( I am guessing you havent’) and I think he makes good, sound arguments. Unless you have double doctorates in math and philosophy ( I dont ), then he’s smarter than both of us.”
My doctorate is in biology. I have more than 30 papers in the primary literature, and all of them contain new data. Dembski has 0 such papers.
Which one of us is a real scientist?
How many papers has Dembski published in the mathematical primary literature, Ty?
How many mathematicians endorse Dembski’s books?
If you don’t know, was it honest of you to dress up Dembski’s hooey by saying that MATH, and not just Dembski, has something to say about evolution?
“Putting aside whether he’s right or wrong, he seems well qualified to at least be allowed to put forward a theory.”
If qualifications are so important to you, point me to 5 mathematicians at major universities who endorse Dembski’s books.
“As far as my unwillingness to look at the awesome complexity of a human… etc.”, you’ve got to be kidding me- is that not the basis of everything I am trying to say?”
It’s a shallow cartoon. You’re the one who is kidding me, because you won’t address 1-4 above.
“The awesome complexity of human DNA is EXACTLY the reason why I am saying it couldnt have possibly evolved apart from design.”
My challenge to you is to explain the complexity of G-protein signalling pathways in that context. Dembski won’t help you there; you’ll need some intellectual courage to jump in.
“My whole POINT is that when I look at millions of lines of instructions,…”
You’ve never looked at them, Ty. You’re a fraud. They are freely available to you, as well as the software tools that can be used to analyze them, but you’ve never even looked.
“… and the INCREDIBLY ordered and specifically-arranged thing that those instructions create, I see design.”
So address 1-4 above. All the components of those pathways are encoded by DNA. Explain the relationships between all the components, particularly the nested hierarchies.
“You don’t. What else can I say here, except “more power to you”,…”
How about, “I’m afraid to look at any actual biology.”
“… and “best of luck with your simian-shakespeare project”.”
I do cell biology and genetics, goofball. Are you unable to distinguish between real biology and a phony analogy, based on a lie?
“…I just think that the crux of this whole debate comes down to this- I look at a vast assemblage of complex, specific information, and I see an author. ”
You’re lying, because you haven’t looked. How can you come to a conclusion without looking at the data?
“You see the product of Natural Selection.”
Another lie. I see the product of much more than NS; for example, I see plenty of products of drift.
“I respect your opinion.”
Good! Address 1-4 above. You’ll learn something.
“Is it so impossible for you to see ANY possible logic or reason in mine?”
Yours isn’t based on data.
“Can you not simply disagree with me without questioning my motives?”
Your lack of data and rank dishonesty about my position tell me all I need to know about your motives. I attacked what you wrote. You attack me, and attribute positions to me that I don’t hold.
” Evolution is a religion (despite the gasp that occurs as this statement is read.) This concept cannot be proven, does not follow the scientific method and when its reasoning is evaluated, is found to be circular at best. Evolutionists start by believing in evolution and then look for evidence to support their feelings”
It is amazing the extent to which those that are clearly ignorant of a subject will go to attempt to trivialize that which they are emotionally opposed to.
Gatsby Blastyn said,
I hate to be the one to shatter your illusion, Gatsby, but abiogenesis is a separate issue. Darwin’s magnum opus was called Species … not Origin of Life. While abiogenesis is indeed an interesting subject to biologists, evolutionart biology concerns itself with what’s happened since life developed, however it first happened. There are many theistic evolutionists who believe that god created life, but used evolution as a means of development of it. Whether you subscribe to this set of beliefs or not is irrelevant to the idea that abiogenesis and evolution are separate subjects.
Gatsby bloviated further:
What evidence? How can there be evidence if Paleyists do no research? There is lots of research that gives “natural mechanisms can indeed account…” for the complexity of biological structures. So far, though, that evidence has been developed by people doing science, not thinly-veiled religious apologetics. Show me your data.
And getting even more ridiculous, Gatsby says,
I need to be more careful with my tags :>(
Ty: “In that case, there really ARE screwdriver-trees and talking mattresses on distant planets. ( If we actually do encounter such beings in the course of NASA’s Origins program, let me state for the record, in advance, that I will give up and become an evolutionist. )”
If the universe or multiverse is infinite, then the odds of you coming across an given improbable event (like, say, a screwdriver tree) are likewise improbable. However, the odds of you being in a universe and on a planet that supports life are exactly 1.
Ty: “Let me ask you this- if complex information and complex specified information are to be assigned equal probabilities in this debate, on what basis can design be inferred in ANYTHING?”
If we assume that a given elementary event is drawn from a uniform distribution, and if the set of specified outcomes is much smaller than the set of unspecified outcomes, then the composite event consisting of specified outcomes is improbable. But if all events in the universe were drawn from a large uniform distribution, there would be no such thing as specificity. The universe would be completely random.
Specificity indicates that an event is not purely random. A painting that looks just like Mt. Everest is not produced by randomly throwing paint at a canvas, nor is a string of a million A’s produced by randomly choosing letters. There is an obvious causal relationship between the appearance of Mt. Everest and the appearance of the painting, and each of the million A’s obviously stems from a common cause. Causality means that there is an element of determinism.
The problem is that Dembski doesn’t characterize “design” as merely non-random. He characterizes it as non-random and non-deterministic. In his words, design is the “the complement of regularity and chance”. In order to infer design, we can’t just rule out randomness, we have to also rule out deterministic elements. Dembski addresses this in the first node of his EF. But the only way to rule out deterministic elements is to run through our list of known laws to see if any of them (possibly in combination with chance) can account for the event.
There are at least two problems with this method. One is that running through all law+chance scenarios is intractable when it comes to biology. Dembski got around this when analyzing the flagellum by invoking the concept of irreducible complexity and claiming that pure chance was the only relevant hypothesis.
The other problem is that our knowledge and understanding of physical laws is obviously incomplete. If we determine that a given phenomenon cannot be explained by any known laws or by chance, should we infer an unknown law or an unknown designer? (Keeping in mind that design as defined by Dembski’s has never been shown to be logically coherent, much less to exist as an actual process.)
I just read your second post at UD. I would argue that seem to hold us to a higher standard than yourself.
Between your first and second ID posts I counted ten comments here, of which seven were from three people on the athiest/evolutionist side. That’s hardly an onslaught.
Now let’s sample some of the words from your “sincere and polite advocacy” and your remarks about athiests/evolutionists therein:
“No debate is tolerated”; “buckets of bile”; they deal with any questions with “instantaneous legal attack and professional recrimination”; They disallow “forbidden questions”; They think “Kill somebody in cold blood, and all you have really done is rearrange some elemental particles”; They come to “sad, lonely conclusions”, and are “not truly HUMAN” because they don’t agree with you about ‘meaning’; They “attack mercilessly”; In response to someone ask questions they are “AT LEAST going to sue”; They “frighten” and “sadden” by acting at “length” to “silence dissent”; They “will do anything to silence anybody who questions any of the central tenants of the new religion known as secular progressivism”; They “forbid ideas”; Their lives are “so empty and cold”; They are “stodgy old men in their ivory towers”.
Much of that could be construed as insulting.
Then as you wrote to UD to ask for support, you added:
Your second comment at UD prompted remarks such as “nasty”, “rabid”, “ill-informed arrogance, disrespect and the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of evolutionary materialism as a movement”, “village atheist”, “zealous contempt “, “criticize without reading”, “hatred”, “irrational hatred”, “hostility”. Those remarks taken from five of the seven commenters who have replied so far
(number six wrote only “no kidding”).
Ignore the insults or at least acknowledge that you and the ID side at equally guilty. This post contains no insults of my own.
RE: #32
Dear John, Since I am not the one who actually DESIGNED overlapping functions of similar but identical components, nor am I the one who CREATED protiens or nested heierachies, how am I supposed to tell you “WHY” it was done that way? How should I know? Suffice it to say that it WAS done that way, by a process ( Design or Selection, take your pick ) that was A.> highly organized, B.> highly unlikely, or C.> both. “How”, is an ongoing question, but “Why” is quite beyond both of us I think. The first thoughts that come to my mind are that brushstrokes in different paintings by the same artist may have similiarities. Or maybe I’ll just concede your point that these things simply DO prove that natural selection, mutation and adaptation are real things that can improve complex structures like life, and therefore the similarities exist because they ARE related. I dont deny that processes which result in adaptations and improvements exist, but by the same token, just because a massive computer program can do amazing things like adapt, it still doesnt explain who wrote the program to begin with, much less where the computer came from that is running the program ( to use an analogy for the memory, information, and structure of DNA ). The idea that designless selection got us all the way from elemental particles to Human DNA just seems dubious to me. As far as your nested hierarchies, why did God- or any other designer- do things the way he did? Maybe it works best this way. Maybe life was intended to develop, adapt, and grow in this way. Maybe he’s a neat, orderly fellow who likes to do things a certain way. Are you claiming that the existence of nested heirarchies disproves God or ID or what? And if so, is this a new form of Godless Christianity we have here?Or if you acknowledge both God and Evolution simultaneously, then maybe we actually agree to an extent. Maybe the latter works within the design of the former, and they are complimentary.If so, it would adress the problems and questions raised by both of us. Maybe we are both right. Since you are a Christian and you presumably hope to meet God someday, you’ll be able to ask him the “why” questions yourself.
The fact that I cant know or explain everything in the known universe doesnt mean I dont have the right to ask some inconvenient questions, or raise some skeptical arguments about events occuring which seem to be statistically impossible, or are( at the very least ) highly unlikely. You dont seem to know everything either, because I still havent heard a convincing explanation for irreducible complexity nor have I heard anybody claiming to have an actual, mathematical proof or algorithm that explains the awesome statistical improbability of complex, specific information writing itself on a self-created memory device on the scale of DNA. So neither one of us has all the answers. You have your problems, we have ours. Unless you have the answers to everything yourself, you should relax a little, and open yourself to the possibilities. But if you DONT have all the answers, dont feel bad, because I dont EXPECT you to know everything, or to be all-knowing. For what it’s worth, my mind is open. I am listening. I hear your arguments and appreciate them. Can you say the same? Thank you for your input ( although some maners would be nice ).I put forward questions and problems that tend to support ID. You put forth questions and problems that tend to support evolution. I say God Bless You. Can you say the same to me? If not, then you have a problem with anger and hate, and you also need to ask yourself how your emotional attachment affects your objectivity. The next time you read your bible, consider Christ’s admonition to love your enemies as yourself. Is that consistent with your conduct? Also, the next time you feel inclined to look down on somebody as an ignorant rube just because they disagree with you about something, or you are about to attack a person’s motives and integrity for advancing an opinion different than yours, perhaps you should consider whether you are treating someone else in a manner that you would like to be treated. ( Do unto others ). And the next time you feel haughty, consider youself in relation to your maker, and how small your place in the universe is. You and I are closer to each other in our joint ignorance than either of us will ever be to God. I’ll accept your claim to be a Christian at face value, but I once asked my Dad when I was young how it is that you really know if somebody is a Christian, and he quoted a verse about how you shall know them by the “fruits of the spirit”. On the surface at least, the fruit looks pretty bitter. Let your pastor read your two posts and and ask him if he sees the same anger and hate that I am seeing there.- Sincerely, Ty
P.S. I apologize to all for being paragraphically-challenged, and for my attempts to fit everything in the world into one large run-on sentence. I acknowlege these faults, and will work on it.
P.S.S I notice that not one single person has commented on the challenge I posed in #21 regarding the question of life elsewhere in the Universe and what it means to this debate. I have asked everybody who is so sure about things to venture a guess or prediction as to what we will find out there, once the ORIGINS program can achieve resolutions sufficient to shed real light on the question of extra-terrestrial life. I would like to know whether or not you predict that the data will support your theories and conclusions, and how. What would we have to discover, in terms of extra-terrestrial Life’s existence or non-existence, to prove, or disprove evolution OR ID? What discoveries in terms of Life outside our planet would cause anybody here to change their mind from their current stance? If we are talking science here, and not philosophy, then we should all be able to make some testable predictions that next-generation astronomy should be able to prove or disprove. If evolution is a natural process that can skew or counteract probability to the point where Life can arise without design, then how common is Life? Does anybody predict that extra-terrestrial life will be found? Is there anybody here who predicts that it will NEVER be found outside of earth? If it is found, will it be common, or rare? Simple or complex? Any takers?
steve h- your point is well taken. I will try to be nicer. I notice that the common thread in most of the impoliteness you pulled out of my posts pertains to statements I made about evolutionists silencing dissent in some shape, form, or fashion, or to evolutionists not giving ID advocates the same opportunities to be heard in academia that they expect for themselves. This was not directed at anybody here,( except maybe John. I would sure hate to be an ID advocate in any class he was teaching ) Objectively speaking, dissent IS silenced, and ID advocates ARE attacked both professionally and legally, and they are NOT afforded the same opportunities as ID advocates. The analogy about killing somebody in cold blood was not directed at anybody in particular, nor was it intended to impute any desire upon any of you to do such a thing. The point was merely that if morality is mere Selection, then no real right or wrong is done in ANY action. It was a challenge to naturalistic explanations for morality. It was a rhetorical device, not a personal insult. And you certainly dont hear me calling people that I am actually chatting with online ” ignorant”, “uneducated”, or “intellectually dishonest”. That’s just wrong. I’ll try to hold myself to a higher standard, but I also think that the people who have been tossing around terms like that are engaging in much more egregious behavior, and owe me an apology. I dont quite see the moral equivilancy that you do. But bent/bruised feelings aside, do you have any comment or interest in the rhetorical challenge/question I posed at the end of #21 and #38? That question was the reason I wrote the essay in the first place, and I was hoping for some interesting predictions or postulations on the matter.
tyharris: Presumably, if Evolution is a natural process, then it can make some testable, observable predictions …
Yes, it does. It makes predictions in fields as diverse as geology, biology and molecular genetics. The primary predictions are based on the nested hierarchy. Do you understand why the nested hierarchy strongly implies common descent, and how the hypothesis of common descent leads to verifiable predictions?
tyharris: … as to what we are going to find out there in the universe that are going to bolster or deflate that theory when we get some data on life and it’s prevolance.
If that is meant to be the argument, it is a strawman. Certainly, we can speculate, but there is little scientific evidence to guide such speculation at this point. We can presume that imperfect carbon replicators will replicate imperfectly on other planets, but how prevalent this might be is unknown. In any case, there is strong scientific evidence in support of the Theory of Evolution as concerns life on Earth.
tyharris: “Since I am not the one who actually DESIGNED overlapping functions of similar but identical components, nor am I the one who CREATED protiens or nested heierachies, how am I supposed to tell you “WHY” it was done that way? How should I know?”
By examining the evidence. Waving your hands is not scientifically useful. We can learn all sorts of things about the mechanic by studying the machine and the mechanisms of manufacture. And if we scientifically posit a mechanic, then we immediately hypothesize the observable characteristics of the mechanic and the mechanisms of manufacture. They are inevitably linked.
By the way, the nested hierarchy in biology indicates common descent, not design.
tyharris: “The idea that designless selection got us all the way from elemental particles to Human DNA just seems dubious to me.
Not quite. Though selection was probably important to the origin of life, exactly how this process worked is still unknown. The Theory of Evolution starts with imperfect replicators.
tyharris: “I still havent heard a convincing explanation for irreducible complexity
If you closely examine the arguments concerning irreducible complexity, you will find the definition tends to slip. Accepting Behe’s definition as “composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning”, then such systems can evolve step-wise through cooption, reduction, or optimization.
Ty Harris:
The idea that morality must be born of religion is so transparently and demonstrably false that it’s hard to believe that anyone who’s thought about it would think it true.
There are simple anthropological reasons for morality, and it’s instructive to note that contrary to the religious sop that morality is absolute, morality is historically, demonstrably relative. If you don’t believe that, then you must believe that it’s immoral for white people to marry black people, and it’s immoral for women to vote and own real estate.
I don’t refrain from killing my neighbors because I’m afraid of some holy ghost’s retribution. I don’t kill my neighbors because I don’t want my neighbors to kill me, and because I respect their right to not be killed. By the same token, I don’t do good deeds in hopes that jebus will take note and smile upon me in the afterlife; I do them because I like to, and because I know that it makes other people happy, and it makes me happy, and I know that the world is a better place when people are happy.
It’s all pretty simple, Ty. No one would call you an ignoramus if you weren’t quite obviously ignorant (note that “ignorant” is not synonymous with “stupid,” as many seem to think) and didn’t think that you were making sense by regurgitating stale creationist talking points while acting like you’ve said something profound. We’ve heard all of this before, Ty, so why not try dig a little deeper, and have an original thought?
Ty, you wrote:
“Dear John, Since I am not the one who actually DESIGNED overlapping functions of similar but identical components, nor am I the one who CREATED protiens or nested heierachies, how am I supposed to tell you “WHY” it was done that way?”
Because you falsely claim to have looked at life and concluded that its complexity demonstrates that it was intelligently designed. In reality, you have never examined the nature of the complexity of biology. Hint: DNA is the simplest, and (with RNA) the only digital, part.
“How should I know?”
You’re dodging. You merely have to EXPLAIN it in terms of intelligent design. If you can’t think of INTELLIGENT reasons to do it that way, your adjective “intelligent” is a lie.
“Suffice it to say that it WAS done that way, by a process ( Design or Selection, take your pick )”
Huh? What about drift?
“… that was A.> highly organized, B.> highly unlikely, or C.> both.”
I choose C. None of your choices mandate design.
““How”, is an ongoing question,…”
Dodge noted. YOU were the one claiming it was done intelligently, remember? Where’s the intelligence?
“… but “Why” is quite beyond both of us I think.”
Is that an excuse for not bothering to look at any evidence, and then lying and claiming that you had?
“The first thoughts that come to my mind are that brushstrokes in different paintings by the same artist may have similiarities.”
Sorry, but you’re just invoking the Big Lie used by creationists to avoid explaining the gigabytes of sequence evidence. “Similarities” doesn’t come close to describing the relationships I’m talking about (and you are afraid to examine).
“Or maybe I’ll just concede your point that these things simply DO prove that natural selection, mutation and adaptation are real things that can improve complex structures like life, and therefore the similarities exist because they ARE related.”
1) You flunk scientific epistemiology. Nothing in science is ever considered to be proven; ALL conclusions are provisional.
2) I’m talking about much more than similarities. Your defensive attempt to trivialize the data you can’t be bothered to examine is dishonest.
“I dont deny that processes which result in adaptations and improvements exist, but by the same token, just because a massive computer program can do amazing things like adapt, it still doesnt explain who wrote the program to begin with, much less where the computer came from that is running the program ( to use an analogy for the memory, information, and structure of DNA ).”
You don’t understand DNA, so your analogy is useless.
“The idea that designless selection got us all the way from elemental particles to Human DNA just seems dubious to me.”
But you haven’t looked at any evidence, so your opinion is aggressively ignorant.
“As far as your nested hierarchies, why did God- or any other designer- do things the way he did? Maybe it works best this way.”
Then that would make clear predictions. If how it works best is the explanation, how do you explain that the nested hierarchies still remain if you only consider the nonfunctional and/or neutral differences?
“Maybe life was intended to develop, adapt, and grow in this way.”
In what way? Do you see how obvious your fear of evidence is, Ty?
“Maybe he’s a neat, orderly fellow who likes to do things a certain way. ”
But neat, orderly humans NEVER do things in that way. The “design inference” is a crock.
“Are you claiming that the existence of nested heirarchies disproves God or ID or what?”
I’m claiming that liars who falsely claim to have examined the evidence and come to a conclusion can’t hope to explain these superimposable nested hierarchies. They invariably choose the dishonest route and try to pretend that they are being confronted with mere “similarities,” while all the time remaining afraid of the evidence. An open-minded person would ask to see the evidence, but you don’t.
“And if so, is this a new form of Godless Christianity we have here?Or if you acknowledge both God and Evolution simultaneously, then maybe we actually agree to an extent. Maybe the latter works within the design of the former, and they are complimentary.”
Could be. But why do you feign familiarity with the evidence, when we both know that you are afraid of it?
“The fact that I cant know or explain everything in the known universe doesnt mean I dont have the right to ask some inconvenient questions,…”
Your questions are only inconvenient because they are based on disgusting lies, Ty.
“… or raise some skeptical arguments about events occuring which seem to be statistically impossible, or are( at the very least ) highly unlikely.”
Scientific arguments are resolved with evidence, which you are afraid to examine.
“You dont seem to know everything either, because I still havent heard a convincing explanation for irreducible complexity…”
Define IC and give me an example that you are SURE fits the definition you offer.
In the meantime, how does your very own human body react to a viral infection? Does it create new information in a few mere days? Does it create different information than my body does when it is infected by the same virus? What is the informational mechanism underlying this adaptive immune response?
“… nor have I heard anybody claiming to have an actual, mathematical proof or algorithm that explains the awesome statistical improbability of complex, specific information writing itself on a self-created memory device on the scale of DNA.”
You haven’t listened, and you are grossly misrepresenting the evidence while you are obviously afraid of the evidence.
“So neither one of us has all the answers. You have your problems, we have ours.”
But my provisional explanations are consistent with the evidence, and testing them generates new evidence. Yours are only tenable as long as you avoid looking at the evidence (you’ll only look at evidence that has been cherry-picked or misrepresented by quote-mining).
“Unless you have the answers to everything yourself, you should relax a little, and open yourself to the possibilities.”
I’m a scientist. That’s why I do experiments that have the potential to falsify my hypotheses. Can you say that about anyone on YOUR side? How many times have I published papers in which I concluded that a hypothesis that I had previously offered or endorsed was wrong?
“But if you DONT have all the answers, dont feel bad, because I dont EXPECT you to know everything, or to be all-knowing. For what it’s worth, my mind is open.”
It is not open if you won’t address my 1-4 above, and you try and trivialize superimposable nested hierarchies as mere “similarities.”
“I am listening.”
Not really.
“I hear your arguments and appreciate them.”
Not if you ignore and trivialize the evidence.
“Can you say the same?”
I’m afraid not. Your arguments and avoidance mechanisms are all tired and predictable.
“Thank you for your input ( although some maners would be nice ).”
You’re most welcome. There’s nothing I’ve written here that I don’t stand by, and I don’t think that those who use lies and ignore evidence deserve to be treated with respect.
“I put forward questions and problems that tend to support ID.”
You ignore evidence.
“You put forth questions and problems that tend to support evolution.”
I challenge you with evidence.
“I say God Bless You. Can you say the same to me?”
Absolutely. God bless you.
“If not, then you have a problem with anger and hate, and you also need to ask yourself how your emotional attachment affects your objectivity.”
But I didn’t, so your demonization says more about you than it does about me.
“The next time you read your bible, consider Christ’s admonition to love your enemies as yourself.”
I do. If I was using lies and ignoring evidence, I would desperately want to be confronted with those facts.
“Is that consistent with your conduct?”
Yes.
“Also, the next time you feel inclined to look down on somebody as an ignorant rube just because they disagree with you about something,…”
There you go with the lying again. I confronted you because you ignore evidence in favor of appeals to totally unqualified authorities, while you ignore the conclusions of far more qualified authorities, showing your rank hypocrisy. Jesus Christ said a whole lot more about hypocrisy than he did about gays or abortion or evolution, didn’t He?
“… or you are about to attack a person’s motives and integrity for advancing an opinion different than yours,…”
I’m attacking you for misrepresenting the foundation of your opinion and for repeatedly and dishonestly misrepresenting mine.
“… perhaps you should consider whether you are treating someone else in a manner that you would like to be treated. ( Do unto others ).”
See above. I thrive on criticism based on evidence.
“And the next time you feel haughty, consider youself in relation to your maker, and how small your place in the universe is.”
I do every day when I confront the complexities of biology. ID proponents refuse to do this.
“You and I are closer to each other in our joint ignorance than either of us will ever be to God.”
I have devoted my life to learning new things for humanity. When I learn something new about life, it makes me feel closer to God. Can you say the same while you are ignoring and trivializing the evidence?
“I’ll accept your claim to be a Christian at face value, but I once asked my Dad when I was young how it is that you really know if somebody is a Christian, and he quoted a verse about how you shall know them by the “fruits of the spirit”. On the surface at least, the fruit looks pretty bitter.”
You need to look in the mirror and ask yourself if your opinion is based on evidence, or merely on what you wish were true. How many times have you grossly misrepresented my positions already, Ty?
“Let your pastor read your two posts and and ask him if he sees the same anger and hate that I am seeing there.”
My pastor thinks that creationism and ID are just as stupid theologically as they are scientifically. I admire him for repeatedly adopting severly handicapped children whose parents have abandoned them.
“I notice that not one single person has commented on the challenge I posed in #21 regarding the question of life elsewhere in the Universe and what it means to this debate.”
I notice that evidence is the key in any scientific debate, and you’ve clearly never looked at any, while the people whose position you like have yet to produce a single bit of evidence derived from a test of their hypothesis (which you falsely tout as a theory).
“I hate to be the one to shatter your illusion, Gatsby, but abiogenesis is a separate issue. ”
Wasn’t always the case, Jim. It wasn’t just creationists that used the phrase ‘chemical evolution’. A natural selection certainly would function at the level of pre-biotics…. what would the general mechanism be that maintained the pre-biotics that accumulated into viable biomolecules and disguarded those that didn’t?
The focus of evolutionary concern shifted off of the topic because of its inability to be addressed.
“What evidence? How can there be evidence if Paleyists do no research? There is lots of research that gives “natural mechanisms can indeed account…” for the complexity of biological structures. So far, though, that evidence has been developed by people doing science, not thinly-veiled religious apologetics. Show me your data.”
Jim, are you that unable to address the topics civilly?
No research? How about Ralph Seelke showing that evolutionary mechanisms are unable to clear two hurdles at once? Finding e.coli that are lacking the gene that codes for lactase and having unguided mechanisms induce both the ability to generate permease in the absence of lactase (which is part of its feedback loop) and concurrent mutations to the ebg gene to allow it the ability to break lactase into glucose and galactose. Or unguided evolution being able to repair 2 or more induced mutations in the trpA gene to allow bacteria to code for tryptophan synthase? Both viable studies showing the limit of evolutionary abilities.
“And getting even more ridiculous, Gatsby says, (then he goes on to quote some of my comments with out any critique)”.
Jim, are you going to tell me that there aren’t sky hooks that exist in many scientific endeavors? Yet we don’t see a problem with the existence of these sky hooks? (‘sky hooks’ referencing a Dennett criticism lodged at non-reductionists).
Jim, are you unable to address comments without insult? Seriously, I’m curious. I’m trying to be as civil to you, despite the fact that you can’t seem to control your ability to not insult.
I have no idea how to estimate the chances of intelligent life existing on other planets. I am sure there is other life, but we are never going to know about it unless it was broadcasting radio signals possibly thousands or hundreds of thousands of years ago. Broadcasting isn’t a goal of evolution – we just stumbled onto it.
If we did discover alien life it wouldn’t change any of that. I would count it as a point to us, because most of us do expect life to be out there. If they bring us evidence showing how they designed us, it would be a point for any IDers who don’t think the designer is God (which is practically no one – the possibility of aliens is only raised by them to get around the no teaching religion as science rule).
Aliens may challenge any notions of specialness held by some religious people but I’m sure they’d be able to explain it away somehow. Apart from that, the same questions would still be there. Did the alians evolve as well or were they created as well?
The existence of aliens would raise the question “who designed the aliens?” You mentioned “Forbidden questions” in your opening post. Try asking that at uncommondescent and see how long you last.
Finally, I agree with jonnyb (at UD) on one thing. You need to break this into more manageable chunks in different posts.
“It’s all pretty simple, Ty. No one would call you an ignoramus if you weren’t quite obviously ignorant (note that “ignorant” is not synonymous with “stupid,” as many seem to think) and didn’t think that you were making sense by regurgitating stale creationist talking points while acting like you’ve said something profound. We’ve heard all of this before, Ty, so why not try dig a little deeper, and have an original thought?”
Jim, your attitude is depressing. You might hate others for their beliefs, but at least try to be amicable. You further highlight the idea that fundamentalists are rigidly and emotionally wedded to their beliefs…. but, for the sake of civility…. try.
Ty, silencing dissent is indeed reprehensible. But the fact is that ID advocates *do* have the same opportunities as evolutionists to be heard in academia. The same criterion is applied to everyone who wants a place in scientific community: You have to come up with a scientific theory that’s coherent and testable. Then to get your theory into academia, it has to be tested.
With regards to your challenge, we would expect the probability of life emerging exactly once to be much lower than the probability of it emerging multiple times. So if we were to scour the entire multiverse and find no life but ourselves, it would be a huge surprise. The question, then, is whether it would be a bigger surprise under the natural hypothesis than it would be under the ID hypothesis. Since we can’t answer this question, no conclusions can be drawn (other than the conclusion that *if* there was a designer, he is now dead).
Hello,
this is one of the first blog threads by an ID-er that Ive seen without bannination and “moderation” so thanks for that.
Let’s talk about your post:
If we don’t know the answer to the Big Q (the meaning of life) then what is the difference? Having no meaning and not knowing the meaning have the same consequences. Inventing a meaning for the sake of having one is no better. It might make you feel better, but it serves no other purpose than that.
Yes, self-consciousness is either a blessing or a curse.
Fact? Sure. Unquestioned? No way.
Perhaps. It depends on what you believed in the first place. If you believe that disease is caused by evil spirits, then germ theory would have implications far beyond biology for you too.
Only if you let it be that way. Maybe you can accept that life has a function and a drive. The drive is to survive and propagate the species. A species can either do it unconsciously (like plankton, crabgrass, or termites) or consciously (like humans). Again, this consciousness stuff is either a blessing or a curse. Social order provides a layer of protection for the survival of certain species. Dogs and sea otters may be less conscious of the difference between a life with “purpose” [or even the concept of “purpose” (they don’t use tools that often)] and one with no “purpose.” But they still have the drive to survive and propagate, just like we humans who have been blessed/cursed with the ability to think about these things.
Let me make another comment, because your post it very long.
Hmm, well there is some randomness involved, but only in certain places. Yes, H, He, and a smattering of Li were formed shortly after the Big Bang. Then fusion reactions in stars made the rest of the periodic table. Then these atoms reacted together forming all sorts of goodies, like rocks and water and ammonia and methane, etc. etc. Which parts of this were random? Then all that stuff congealed under gravity to form planets that were covered will all sorts of lovely stuff in millions of different varieties. How much of this is random? On this particular planet there was liquid water and organic material. How lovely. Freezing, thawing, boiling, UV, lighting, acid, base, organics, inorganics, salts, etc. all over the place reacting in different ways. How much of this is random? Chemistry is not very random by the way, but it can create a lot of diversity. Why is this so hard to accept?
Why pick out humans here? Why not an octopus or a coral reef? Both are pretty complex things. Pretty comparable in complexity to a human. What is the MEANING and PURPOSE of a coral reef anyway? I guess that’s for the coral to decide.
I thought you said you didn’t know the purpose. Here you’ve decided that it does have a purpose after all. Well, we do know what it’s primary function is, but the purpose?
Yeah, the English language is funny that way. So limited.
Uh, yeah it does. If I say it “poofed” into existence that’s different than saying it “evolved.” They both say it “happened.”
Too bad we live in a finite universe, as it seems.
I didn’t realize that “Evolution” was The Answer to the Big Question of Life. Wow.
That force of secular progressivism called the US Constitution.
O wait, now I see you have “moderation.” Well, if my posts go through, I’ll be back. I’ve been to too many ID blogs that “silence dissent.”
Gatsby wrote:
“No research?”
No research.
“How about Ralph Seelke showing that evolutionary mechanisms are unable to clear two hurdles at once?”
Is he testing an ID hypothesis? Try and hold back, Gatsby, and avoid the false dichotomies.
“Finding e.coli that are lacking the gene that codes for lactase and having unguided mechanisms induce both the ability to generate permease in the absence of lactase (which is part of its feedback loop) and concurrent mutations to the ebg gene to allow it the ability to break lactase into glucose and galactose.”
No ID hypothesis is being tested.
“Or unguided evolution being able to repair 2 or more induced mutations in the trpA gene to allow bacteria to code for tryptophan synthase? Both viable studies showing the limit of evolutionary abilities.”
Neither are tests of an ID hypothesis, Gatsby, and most experiments don’t work, so negative results aren’t as impressive as you’d like them to be. Why are they so afraid to test their OWN hypothesis? Why do they lie and call it a theory, when it’s never been used to predict anything at all?
2ndclass wrote:
“Ty, silencing dissent is indeed reprehensible. But the fact is that ID advocates *do* have the same opportunities as evolutionists to be heard in academia. The same criterion is applied to everyone who wants a place in scientific community: You have to come up with a scientific theory that’s coherent and testable.”
No, a hypothesis is fine.
“Then to get your theory into academia, it has to be tested.”
To get published in biology, you have to produce new data from your tests. No new data = no seat at the table.
I am amazed at the way IDers try to portray science as dueling essays, as though biology was just like English literature criticism.
Gatsby sayeth:
Why do we need to identify a mechanism “…that maintained the pre-biotics that accumulated in to viable biomolecules and disguarded [sic] those that didn’t”? What makes think you that those components that did not contribute to abiogenesis were discarded? Doesn’t that assume intelligent intervention? Natural selection does not happen to inanimate objects, Gatsby.
Seelke is a biochemist (like Behe, who performed so wonderfully in the Dover trial) and not a biologist, and believe me, there’s a big difference. Nonetheless, Seelke, while ID-friendly, has done no ID research, just like the rest of the Paleyist crowd. He has done research on evolution and questioned some of its “abilities” but you must understand that criticisms of biological evolution are not the equivalent of research results in favor of ID creationism, of which there are none.
Jim wrote:
“…Show me your data.”
Gatsby asked:
“Jim, are you that unable to address the topics civilly?”
In what way is a request, or even a demand, for data uncivil? If there’s a scientific controversy, it will only be resolved by new data.
BTW, quotes aren’t data.
Ty:
“explains the awesome statistical improbability of complex, specific information writing itself on a self-created memory device on the scale of DNA.”
From this it is clear you did not read my posts #26 and 27, or at least they did not register with you. Read them again, think about them and think about what they tell you about Dembski.
Other commentators are quite correct – there is NO theory of Intelligent Design (a theory has to be capable of making testable predictions), no data to support it has ever been produced and no-one makes use of it in their work. Contrast this with the Theory of Evolution, which is used by thousands of people including medical researchers, plant breeders, geologists, microbiologists, behaviourists, even computer programmers. ID proponents have to produce data before they can hope to be taken seriously, something they have been unable to do despite spending millions of dollars.
John asks you to identify 5 mathematicians at major universities who endorse Dembski. I’d go along with that. Alternatively, go to your nearest university and ask the mathematicians there what they think of him (the chances are high that they’ll have never heard of him).
Richard wrote:
“Other commentators are quite correct – there is NO theory of Intelligent Design (a theory has to be capable of making testable predictions),…”
Well, a theory has to have already made lots of successful predictions. A hypothesis has to be capable of making testable predictions.
“… no data to support it has ever been produced and no-one makes use of it in their work.”
This is the point that shows that it is simply fraud. If ID was science, ID proponents would be publishing new data. They have no intention of doing so, because they have zero FAITH that their hypothesis is correct. Ironic, eh?
“Contrast this with the Theory of Evolution, which is used by thousands of people including medical researchers, plant breeders, geologists, microbiologists, behaviourists, even computer programmers. ID proponents have to produce data before they can hope to be taken seriously, something they have been unable to do despite spending millions of dollars.”
It’s worth noting that producing data is more than a peer-reviewed ms. Spinning the data of others won’t cut it.
“John asks you to identify 5 mathematicians at major universities who endorse Dembski. I’d go along with that.”
But Ty won’t. He only accepts authorities that agree with him.
John: “No, a hypothesis is fine.”
You’re right, I misused the word “theory”.
Ty, at Uncommon Descent: “In the same way that he doesnt have the answer to some of the problems I raised regarding Evolution…”
Ty, what problems have you raised that have gone unanswered?
To all- especially Mesogen- FYI, I will never censor, edit, ban, or intentionally “moderate” anybody out of the discussion. Every single comment I have gotten here has been put up exactly as written by the commenter. I am not sure why it is that some comments seem to require my approval, while others go right into the comment section without any need for action on my part. It may have something to do with whether or not you are logged into wordpress when you make the comment. I am not sure. Some of John’s earlier comments went through just fine, but earlier today, I found 4 copies of another comment that he made in my spam folder. I de-spammed one of the copies and put it up as soon as I found it. I work for a living, so I cant always be on hand to instantly put everything up. Just rest assured that nobody has been banned, censored, or otherwise “moderated” in such a way as to alter the course of the debate. The fact that I’m outnumbered here about 10 to one should suffice to support that statement. That would really be hypocritical for me to yammer on about silencing dissent, and then to go ahead and censor you guys, now wouldnt it? Dont worry, I can take my lumps like a man, so bring on your slings and arrows.I have checked my options on my wordpress dashboard, and everything is theoretically set up to allow comments without my needing to moderate, yet somehow I wind up having to moderate about half the time anyways. I dont know why, but rest assured I’ll get to it at least twice a day. Thank you all for participating in this discussion. The disussion has been worth the occasional abuse. I even learned a thing or two from John, once I managed to get over the insults. I am reading on nested heirarchies, and I admit that it’s a good point. I just wish somebody could admit that I have made a few as well. I cant respond individually to every point raised in every comment due to time constraints,and I especially cant re-adress an issue that I may have responded to in another earlier reply, but be assured, everything gets read and processed into my “ignoramus” brain.
“I may disagree with what you are saying, but I will defend to my death your right to say it.”
Ty, I applaud your policy on moderation, and I admire your courage. If you are, in fact, outnumbered 10 to 1 here, even after soliciting help from UD, you might want to ask yourself why ID proponents tend to shy away from open discussions.
Ty said,
Ty said,
That’s exactly what your hero Dembski and his banninator DaveScot do on a daily basis. A list of the of people who have been banned, or had their posts never see the light of day (for nothing more than disagreeing) would look like the NYC phone book. I’m glad you’ve taken a more open approach.
@#57,
Ty, I think the moderation thing is a WordPress script. I signed on to WordPress only a few days ago to comment on a different blog. I wanted to log in using my pseudonym from the AtBC forum, phonon but when I came to your blog here, it already had me logged in using mesogen. Btw, anyone from over there, mesogen here = phonon there.
Yes, it’s lame to have to try to argue/discuss with 10-15 people at once. I’ve tried it and it’s hard. Takes up a lot of time answering everyone. I wonder if anyone from over at UD will come to comment here. It is nice to see, though, a pro-ID blog that allows all comments.
Anyway, good luck with the blog. I’m sure it will end up eating up a lot of time. That’s what they’re good for anyway. 🙂
Hi Ty,
I read your comments on UncommonDescent, and decided to respond to you here. I have not had opportunity to even read your article, let alone the 60 comments. I am strictly responding to your statement on UD:
Let me start by saying that ID is not a single hypothesis, but a metatheory that encompases a variety of hypothesees.
Denton gets very close to a “theistic evolutionist” position when he suggests in “Nature’s Destiny” that life itself, with all of its variety was destined at the big bang via the strong anthropic principle. He extends the principle well into biology, and rightly so. Though I find his extension of the principle valid, I do not believe that the anthropic principle alone can account for life as we know it.
John Davison, and Mike Gene both seem to suggest that life at its beginning had the necessary seeds of knowledge to become what has become. As a tree grows from a seed, so life has followed the plan laid out for it in the first lifeforms. Davison calls his hypothesis the “Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis”, and Mike Gene refers to frontloading. Both present an intriguing argument. Phenomenon such as ultra-conserved non-coding DNA that can be removed from organisms without measurable detriment provide excellent support for this view.
Yet I have seen evidence which is not accounted for by their view. Consider, for instance the HAR1F gene, it has taken on 18 point mutations between the chimp and human, yet it varied by only 2 or 3 between the chimp and the chicken. The best explanation for this phenomenon is that a genetic engineer invoked an engineering event to produce the HAR1F gene. This is the “agency” model of ID. Yet the agency model does not require a breach of the common descent model. I see lots of good evidence for common descent. My view, this view, is that there are active genetic engieering events recorded in the DNA. Yet I beleive that these events were induced in organism A to create organism B from the womb of organism A. I believe that there was a common ancestor between human and chimp 3 to 5 million years ago. From that common ancestor I expect that there were thousands of agency events that were clearly strategized to create man. This is common descent ID. It is ID, it is also, technically, evolution. I would therefore suggest that folks like myself should be considered to be ID evolutionists.
There is a community of IDers that hold to “common design”. Their view is that the designer creates life much like software developers develop software. The designer modifies the master source code, and recompiles a new species. This is the approach that software developers use, and lo-and-behold software can normally be mapped out as a nested heierarchy. The nested heierarcy is, therefore, as consistent with the common design model as it is with common descent. However, I personally find that there is a philosophical desire that calls the common design community to this position. Further, there seems to be a component of DNA that takes on mutations truly randomly. I personally have not been able to reconcile these apparantly random mutations that map out in the heierarchy with the common design model. I would think that if the master code was being modified, that each species would be created without any of this randomness.
Lastly, one cannot deny that the Young Earth Creationist community holds to a model that is compatible with the big tent of ID. I have found tidbits of evidence that is more easily explained by a young earth model. (I note, for intance, the dry blood found in T. Rex fossils.) Yet an old earth seems to have vastly more scientific support than a young earth. I find also that young earthers have a very strong philosophical/religious committment to their position, causing them to have blinders on that are as imovable as the blinders that the committed materialists wear.
Hi Ty et al:
1] Re: Nested hierarchies
You may wish to take a look at what is now a fairly old book, Evolution, a Theory in Crisis, by Michael Denton. There, he analyses the resemblances across life forms based on typology — a design-based concept that goes all the way back to Plato.
Now, too, common design also gives rise to nested hierarchies — within systems and across similar systems.
That is, the observed architecture of classification is not a differentiating factor between common descent and common design, or even design for similar contexts and purposes.
Indeed, Linnaeus, the originator of the modern classification system of life forms, was a Creationist.
It is worth noting too that nested hierarchies are fairly common in designs and organisations etc. That is, the basic nested hierarchy system architecture is often found in indisputably design-based contexts. For example, consider a passenger jet as a cluster of nested sub-systems designed to achieve its goal. Software is often written that way too. And so on.
Should we infer from the resemblances across aircraft, autos, trucks, and even ships etc — which can be represented as a nested hierarchy — that these were not designed? [Similarly, there is a common taxonomy course exercise to classify paper clips and other similar fasteners using principles of taxonomy. One sees of course a nested hierarchy. Should we infer from that to common descent of paper clips, thumb tacks etc?]
In short, the question at stake should not be begged. Nested hierarchies are possible and even expected on BOTH explanations, so the issue is not decisive between them.
2] Re Comments policy:
Just remember that beyond a certain point, liabilities obtain under tort.
My observation and experience is that here are a lot of angry, ill-tempered folks out there, and that hey often resort to the most outrageous bullying ans insults. As this thread shows, too often they have come from the NDT side; which has far more than its fair share of intellectual bullies. [And, no, I do not accept the attempt to infer immoral equivalency on this. When professors like Dawkins and PZ Myers are indulging in the sort of strident and uncivil advocacy that are all too publicly on display, something is wrong, and the NDT side — which dominates key institutions and has abused its power in too many cases, the ongoing Smithsonian case being notorious — needs to examine and police itself.]
For instance, Prof John, it is possible to be mistaken without lying — especially for someone who is an admitted novice on speaking out in public on a major issue. [Falsehood or error are not synonymous with “lying.” Worse, it is possible to slander someone as lying when s/he in fact speaks the truth. Indeed, a very great man once had to rebuke his own people that “BECAUSE I tell you the truth, you cannot hear what I have to say.” Reflect on whether you have imbibed the attitude that you are so confident that you are right, that those who differ with you must be ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked. ]
GEM of TKI
Good to see you have left the moderation sanctuary of Uncommon Descent.
kairosfocus: “Now, too, common design also gives rise to nested hierarchies — within systems and across similar systems.”
Automobiles, computers, and almost all artifacts do not form a unique nested hierarchy. A different hierarchy is determined depending on the method of analysis, and are nearly always characterized by ambiguous and multiple nested hierarchies. When Ford introduces an automobile with air conditioning, its competitors quickly follow suit. That’s because designers mix-and-match characteristics they observe in other lineages. That is the hallmark of design.
In biology, all adaptations are modifications of adaptations already found in the existing line. And each lineage carries with it its evolutionary history.
Most importantly, we can use the Theory of Common Descent to generate testable hypotheses. For instance, Gingerich walked out into the Egyptian wastelands to look in specific geological strata to find whales with hind limbs. The ability to make specific empirical predictions which are then followed by actual observations distinguishes scientific investigation from the mere talk that constitutes the Intelligent Design movement.
A look at most any scientific journal reveals importance of the Evolution is …. The Theory of Evolution explains …. to modern scientific inquiry.
Journal Genetics on evolution, 13200 articles
Journal Genetics on ‘intelligent design’, 6 articles
Journal Nature on evolution, 744000 articles
Journal Nature on ‘intelligent design, 783 articles
(the majority if not all of the articles on “Intelligent Design” having to do with the politics of Intelligent Design and the political pressure being exerted on public schools).
—
And so on. Read some of the primary literature. There is real work in biology being done within the context of evolution. There is virtually no work being done within the context of Intelligent Design.
As to Jim Wynne’s argument about the card deck: it seems the problem with the analogy is that you have separated the “order” of the cards from any “function” whatsoever. This doesn’t happen in life. Your analogy is meant to address the improbability of any protein molecule assembling by chance. If ANY ordering of amino acids–hence, nucleotides–worked, then NONE would work, for how could one be distinguished from another. What makes proteins “proteins” is that they’re able to carry out a function.
With that in mind, if, for example, the rules of poker were that cards could not be dealt out until they were ordered two through king, then ace, of each suit, with the order of suits being spades, clubs, diamonds and hearts. Now, if an “intelligent” agent were asked to do that, it would take, what, two minutes? But if this order had to be done simply by shuffling, the first game of poker would still be waiting to be played.
As to Richard Simons example:
“Suppose you have a combination lock which requires ten 10-digit wheels to be set in the correct order. There are 10 000 000 000 possibilities, with just one being correct. However, you try the first wheel and are told when that is at the correct value, say 4. Then you do not need to try 21, 22, 67, 91 and so on, just 40, 41, 42 . . . When the second wheel is correctly aligned, you are told of the fact and so on, for all ten wheels. This greatly reduces the number of values you need to try. In fact, to get all 10 wheels in the correct positions you need to try a maximum of 100 numbers. This changes the problem from one that was almost impossible to one that is trivially easy.”
There are a few questions. Who is telling you? I can anticipate your answer, which would be Natural Selection. This answer is the hypothetical that is to be tested, and it seems strange that it must be assumed in order to prove that it exists. But let’s accept that as your answer. Then, tell me, if we asked for the answer to the first wheel and got it, what if we asked for the answer for the eigth wheel, would be get it? If you say “yes”, then this seems strange if applied to what is proposed to happen in the biological realm. If you say “no”, then what is the mechanism that does not permit the answer be given? Just a few questions.
kairosfocus: “I am not sure what he means by “nested hierarchies”.”
A nested hierarchy is an ordered set such that each subset is strictly contained within its superset. It’s the arrangement of twigs on an archetypical tree. Each twig is associated with one-and-only-one branch and each branch is associated with one-and-only-one limb.
kairosfocus: “I suppose he means ordered level of omology at the DNA level. Any discussion at the morphological level is too vague to be worthwhile.”
In fact, there is ample evidence of a morphological nested hierarchy.
Among extinct organisms, it can be shown that at one time there were no vertebrates, but once they appeared, they diversified into a variety of forms. One of these lineages led to fish which then diversified into a variety of forms. One of these lineages led to tetrapods which then diversified into a variety of forms. One of these lineages led to amphibians which then diversified into a variety of forms. One of these lineages led to reptiles which then diversified into a variety of forms. One of these lineages led to mammals which then diversified into a variety of forms. One of these lineages led to primates which then diversified into a variety of forms. One of these lineages led to hominids and the latest twig on this stem is called human.
From geology, the Principle of Superposition
In extant organisms, there are a large number of non-trivial correlations. For instance, the existence of mammary glands implies having a head at one end with an array of sense organs, including two ears each with three ear bones, having lungs, and a four-chambered heart. It implies the existence of hair folicles whether the organism swims, flies, walks or digs. It means never having feathers. Whales even have vestigial pelvises. These correlations imply a unique nested hierarchy, as originally determined by Linnaeus well before Darwin.
To claim that there is no discernable nested hierarchy among extant or extinct organisms is false. And genetics strongly supports the nested hierarchy of common descent all the way back to the origin of cellular life. (Before that there may be some ambiguity that suggests horizontal gene transfer might have been more important than vertical descent.)
And for a little fun. Here are actual photographs of three different mammalian embryos at comparable stages in their development. Can you tell us which species they are?
http://uk.geocities.com/simon_balfre/embryo.htm
Ty,
I applaud your efforts to maintain ongoing discussions on topics in which you do not hold double doctorates. Silly man!! What possible right do the commoners think they have in questioning acedemia. I also being a common sot, read your comments and even thought to add some of my own thoughts to the mix but by the time I finished reading all the responses made to you, felt the wall of imtimdation rise. I obviously do not know as many large words as some of these and therefore am too ignorant to be entitled to speak. Dispite this lack of knowledge on my part and apparently your part I will keep my original opinion of evolutionists and go about my merry way.
My original opinion was that evolution is a religion and has been defended with the zeal of an Islamic Jihad on these pages. Go ahead and silence the masses who have not studied algorythms and nested heirarchies.
John- It scares me that you educate young people… You have been insulting and condesending and angry. Is this how you treat honest questions in your class? Educators seek to enlighted the ignorant, not belittle them.
April said,
You’re certainly entitled to your opinions, but you do realize, I hope, that if you claim ignorance, and then think that you can discuss difficult subjects without benefit of knowledge in them without being refuted, you’re living in a dream world. Why should anyone care about your opinion after you admit that you’re (willfully) ignorant?
Or with the zeal of the Inquisition? No one is trying to silence anyone, so please stop whining. I might offer, however, some good advice from Mark Twain:
“Better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than to open it and remove all doubt.” And,
“It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.”
kairofocus (#61): “Should we infer from the resemblances across aircraft, autos, trucks, and even ships etc — which can be represented as a nested hierarchy — that these were not designed?”
The point is not that all of life can be represented as a nested hierarchy, but that all reasonable methods (i.e. excluding methods like considering the spelling of their names) come to virtually the same arrangement.
Aircraft, on the other hand, could be initially divided on the basis of manufacturer, number of engines, type of engine and so on. Ask a dozen people to devise a hierarchy of them and you will get a dozen different answers.
P.S. As someone who has been blocked by Uncommon Descent (apparently for suggesting that adding farts to a video of a judge and other people was not a strong debating point) I would like to add my appreciation to Ty for not moderating comments.
Regarding the nested heirarchies. As I understand it, many of the examples given by kairosfocus are not actually good ones. For example, cars can seen as systems which consists of subsystems {engines, transmission,wheels, tyres} or in terms of {country of origin, manufacturer, model, optional extras}. However the heirarchies turn out very different depending on how you look at them, whereas in nature you see the same patterns in the same groups of animals, over and over again.
For instance, car manufacturer A can use tyres from two different tyre manufactures on two models (or different versions of the same model). A car manufacturer B could use the sames two sets of tyres in its verious models.
So if you look at the heirarchy of {manufacturer, model, optional extras} you may find, say, one BMW with exactly the same tyres as an Audi but different tyres from a slightly higher spec BMW. Those tyres won’t just look similar they will be identical. Different car manufactures may come to agreements where one supplies engines for a former rival. Designers very rarely stick to nested heirarchies, they borrow parts, or whole subsystems from different designs.
That sort of thing doesn’t really happen in nature (at least not in anything more complex than bacteria). Occasionally someone comes out with a story along the lines that they’ve found something that shows humans are more closely related to jellyfish than they are to chimpanzees – but then it turns out to be a mistake or an invention. I can’t think of any specific examples off of the top of my head unfortunately.
If cars were designed the same way nature is (and I use the term “design” for nature in a loose metaphorical way), parts would not be swapped around in this way. If they did BMW would only use variations on BMW tyres and Audi only variations on Audi tyres. The same would apply within different models of the same manufacturer. If you found an engine that looked the same in two different makes of car, the difference would turn out to be superficial: An expert would be able to look inside and identify the car only by looking at the engine or only at the tyres because they would actually use different materials etc. To borrow an Idea from Zachrial’s post above, the presence of a CD player, would always be accompanied by leather seats and vice-versa.
If nature worked the same way as human designers, you might see creatures such as centaurs, minotaurs, unicorns and so on. Such a creature would pose a great problem for an evolutionary biologists and would potentially falsify much of it or at least require a radical overhall.
Designers can design things that form multiple nested heirarchies but they don’t in practice as it’s much easier to just re-use stuff. Evolution is pretty much stuck with nested heirarchies. There’s no easy way for it to borrow a system from another lineage.
Disclaimer: I am neither a biologist or a car-nut. There may in fact be no examples of BMW’s and Audi’s specifically.
Hello all-
I want to thank everybody for their comments and contributions to this debate. To summarize a few major points that I have taken from this so far…
1. The statistical problem of how we got from elemental particles to a vast assemblage of complex, specified biological information argues for design, and hasnt been sufficiently adressed by actual mathematical refutation by the evolutionists. Conclusion: The book probably has an author.
2. The dawn of a grand age of information science, and the complexity it has revealed in biology has reinstated Intelligent Design as a theory which more people take seriously than when we didnt have that insight. Conclusion: People are threatened by new ideas.
3. There is a lot more emotion in this discussion than there should be, and it says a lot about people’s emotional attachment and their objectivity. Conclusion: Always question your sources, and assume nothing about people.
4. The problems of irreducible complexity have not been mathematically refuted or sufficiently adressed by evolutionists. Conclusion: ID has more credence than people want to give it.
5. Nested heirarchies implying common descent is the best argument I have heard yet for evolution. The point goes to the evolutionists.
I am man enough to give credit where credit is due, and I will read more on this topic. I just wish that some on the other side could own up to the gaps and contradictions in their own theory. Conclusion: real evidence for evolutionary processes cannot be dismissed and any complete Intelligent Design hypothesis has to include and acknowledge this point OR effectively dispute it.
5A. Natural Selection and adaptation are real, but the exact weight that Selection should be given, ( relative to chance) , in evolutionary processes has NOT been accuratley quantified, mathematically defined or explained. Conclusion: Selection has not overcome the challenges of Probability or Irreducible Complexity yet.
6. The matter is open for debate. It’s not closed anymore, even if that fact infuriates some people.Conclusion: This battle is just getting started, and as more and more facts come out as new scientific discoveries and insights are made that were not possible even a few years ago, it’s only going to fuel the fire and raise more questions and create more incredulity at established orthodoxy.
7. The fact that there is strong evidence for evolutionary processes, AND strong evidence for design means that they MAY be complimentary and not be exclusive of one another. The former may work within the context and direction of the latter. Conclusion: Both sides should show more respect for each other’s ideas, since they are both probably right in some shape, form, or fashion.
8. That math and information science are the new frontiers and the the new battle-grounds in biology and the human origins debate. Conclusion: Both sides should look to these fields to prove or disprove their theories.
9. That ( as a purely non-scientific argument ), the metaphysical component of humans, spirituality, Christianity , and morality ( apart from mere Selection if you acknowledge such a thing) all argue for design. The reason some were disturbed by the rhetorical arguments I put forward regarding the implications of merely naturalistic morality, is that those implications ARE disturbing. Accepting a life and worldview where our actions and right and wrong have no more signifigance than rearranging particles, and our lives have no other purpose than to pro-create is a real problem, and it SHOULD be. I personally dont accept such a worldview. Conclusion: Metaphysical and philisophical arguments support Design.
Finally, and getting to one of the major points of the original essay, I think that my statements about astronomy’s role in settling this matter have been wrongfully glossed-over, pooh-pooh’ed, and diminished in signifigance. I was watching the NASA channel last night, and they had a program on called discovery. They were going through the laundry-list of unmanned exploration missions that have taken place over the last 10 years or so, and mentioning what is to come in the very near future. While NASA’s manned program has been a sad farce since Apollo was scrapped, the unmanned scientific accomplishments of the last few decades are worthy of great praise. I had no idea they had accomplished so much. They are getting VERY proficient at this, and Hubble is only the start of some amazing stuff that is probably less far off than we think, ( if the march of technological progress mankind has made in the last 40 years is any indicator of the future pace of scientific progress ). I think that 100 or 200 years from now, they really WILL have a space-interferometer up with a virtual lense size of tens of thousands of miles. I think we are going to be able to look right down on a couple of hundred billion planets with pretty decent resolution, and I think we will also have good spectrographic analysis of their atmospheres and any gaseaous anomolies indicative of life-processes that they may contain, in addition to radio/communication emissions data. The fact that evolutionists cannot give me exact odds, and a firm, confident prediction as to what that data will reveal implies that they do NOT have a clear and complete mathematical model of how we got from particles to DNA even WITH selection. If that algorithm existed, it would be able to give us an actual probability of both complex and simple life occuring on extra-solar planets. Based on the given sample-size of data, and a firm grasp of the probabilities of Life arising as natural process apart from Design, there SHOULD be the basis for a predictable, testable hypothesis , and -potentially- the experimental basis to prove or disprove it. Instead, wildly divergent prognostications are put forward by scientists. I seem to get grudging dodges that “the data wont prove anything”. Conclusion: Nobody is willing to lay it on the line and go out on a limb with an exact prediction that will prove or disprove their stance. This indicates a lack of confidence.The truth is that we have NO IDEA what we are going to find out there, because the actual mathematical probability and irreducible complexity problems inherent in evolutionary theory have NOT been worked out. You are all guessing. Is it going to be the bar-scene from the original Star-Wars, a few single-celled organisms, or nothing at all? If life really IS a process wherein selection has skewed probability to the point where it arises WHEREVER the conditions are right, then I want a prediction of what we are going to find out there, and an expressed willingness to re-think the whole problem of Life if the data doesnt back up those conclusions. If we find NO evidence of even simple life on ten billion suitable planets, then it strongly implies that chance and probability have more of a role , and selection has less of a role in the grand equation. I repeat that we are all trying to draw conclusions based on a VERY small data set, and that the data we get from future Terrestrial Planet Finder missions is going to set the record straight on probability ( in support of ID )versus selection ( in support of naturalistic processes ).
Here is my prediction for posterity. Write it down, and feel free to hold me to it… This is based on an assumed sample-size of ten billion “M class planets” ( to borrow Star Trek Jargon ), and the assumption that we gain the benefit of good spectrograhic, high-resolution visual, and radio emission data on same- I predict that we will find one of two things- 1. > That we wont’ find ANY evidence of ANY life ANYWHERE. Not a single un-explained gaseaous anomoly indicative of life-processes going forward on any planet will be located. Not a single lichen, bacteria colony ,slime-beast or anything else will be encountered.We will find no evidence of simple life, and certainly no evidence of complex life. No signals, emissions, communications, or obviously designed structures will be found. I predict that we are alone in the universe. Or at the VERY least, very, very, very rare. I predict that you WONT find life wherever the conditions for it exist. I think that Ward and Greenlea’s rare-earth hypothesis is right, and that chance is a MUCH greater factor than selection OR 2.> that we will find complex life- at least as complex as we are- very close to us- ( within a few million light years ) that is so similiar to us in design that they will either have designed us, or are obviously the work of the same designer or Panspermia. So that’s my prediction. Take it to the bank. Unless we have a “First Contact” moment in the next 30 years or so, I wont be around to see whether I am right or not, but since I wrote it down on the internet, hopefully this prediction will survive somehow. If I am right, then I expect SOMEBODY to post a comment that gives me the props I deserve.
Ty Harris:
That’s a fallacy, an argument from ignorance. Just because we don’t know why planets trace complex orbits against the fixed stars, or how lightning decides where to strike, doesn’t mean we can scientifically infer design.
You reference statistics, but don’t seem to know much about the subject, nor have you offered specifics. Don’t be shy. I read math.
Ty Harris:
I provided a number of sites to scientific journals as well as the National Academy of Sciences. Intelligent Design is not taken seriously by the vast majority of scientists or mathematicians.
More directly, the arguments put forth by the Intelligent Design movement use shoddy definitions of information in order to reach their conclusions. Such arguments have not been able to convince the mathematical or biological communities.
Ty Harris:
What you must mean is that you ignored the argument presented.
Ty Harris:
Anything can be debated, but Intelligent design remains intellectually vacuous and scientifically sterile.
Ty Harris:
There is no valid scientific evidence of “Intelligent Design” in biology. It doesn’t even represent a valid scientific theory.
Ty Harris:
Incredible as it might seem to you, there are entire fields of computational biology and informatics that use sophisticated mathematical techniques to analyze data. This research strongly supports and extends the Theory of Evolution.
Ty Harris:
If you are to make scientific arguments, then you must grapple with the observational evidence. Otherwise, you might want to confine your discussions to metaphysics and philosophy.
Ty Harris:
Are you purposefully repeating a strawman? It’s already been admitted that there is no complete theory of abiogenesis. And selection can only occur once replication begins.
After claiming to have an open mind, it’s as if you didn’t read anyone’s responses, much less the primary literature.
Quote from the essay:
“Quite a few scientists have plugged their own estimates into the variables of the Drake Equation and concluded that the universe is literally teeming with life. If such life is detected, then it will be hard to argue that Evolution isn’t a legitimate- if unexplainable- natural physical law very little different than gravity. If complex extra-solar life is discovered to be prevalent in the universe, then creationists and Intelligent Design advocates will have a tough row to hoe. ”
This is a very strange argument. Why should the creator not make a universe that teems with life, using the same processes used here? Why would life be abundant here, and not elsewhere in the vast universe? Wouldn’t billions of endless, lifeless galaxies be a bit of an overkill? What about the incredible abundance here on earth could lead us to suppose that the creator is stingy? If we found out life was abundant in the universe, is that supposed to somewow weaken faith?
You haven’t provided actual mathematical support for your design hypothesis. Until someone that’s good at statistics and iteration logs in here, I don’t think we’ll have an actual mathematical discussion of the problem. A decent mathematical treatment of chemical evolution would likely involve a genetic algorithm. This GA wouldn’t necessarily have a specified target, but there would be a fitness function. All “offspring” would be matched to a fitness function to see if they “survived” and reproduced. Over many generations, the fitness function (i.e. environment) could be changed and different sorts of “offspring” would survive.
Having said that, the problem of self-replicating molecules being produced from non-replicating precursors is more of a chemical problem, less of a mathematical one. Under a given set of conditions, a chemical reaction will proceed a certain way. The products are determined by the reactants and the conditions, not really by any kind of overall probability. Each individual molecule will have a certain probability that it will go down one reaction path or another, but the distribution of products is going to be determined by the reactants and the reaction conditions. Chemical reactions are very reproducible. When they aren’t, it’s a result of the inability of humans to adequately reproduce the conditions of the reaction.
So determining how certain self-replicating molecules, such as ribozymes, were produced naturally from non-replicating precursors, such as nucleotides, has more to do with figuring out the conditions of the reaction. In what environment were nucleotides produced? In what environment were they polymerized? Now, once they are produced, and if you had a random assortment of RNA sequences, the chances that any particular sequence would be self-catalyzing/self-replicating still depends on the chemistry. But, even if you had just a small number of these molecules, as long as their is a supply of precursors, they will reproduce themselves. Eventually, they will dominate the population of RNA molecules. Also, remember that the reproduction will be far from perfect.
As I understand it, no valid statistical objection has been put forward against evolution. Dembski’s work has not been submitted for peer review by biologists. His work may have been checked for self-consistancy by mathematicians but to be valid, it must be applicable to real biological systems. To calculate the probability of something happening you must know the various ways in which it might conceivably happen, but at present I don’t think we can even accurately model the simplest biological components we see today at a molecule by molecule level, never mind produce histories leading to the first replicators. Just look at how much work gos into
“simple” protein folding.
If design is the best explanation let’s see Demsbki design a self replicating molecular machine and demonstrate his understanding of what it means to design a living thing and of the minimum requirements of a replicator.
There is no theory of intelligent design. A theory must explain what is seen and make testable predictions. Saying “it was
designed” is not a better explanation than “Goddidit” or “it just happened”.
IDers like to tell us that “ID is the study of patterns in nature best explained by design”, but that doesn’t explain
anything, it just refers to some hypothetical explanation lurking in the background and claims it’s the “best” without
telling us why. And nobody really calculates CSI for real biological entities. They just look at something and assume
it must have a lot of CSI because it’s obvious, due to it being alive, and because they have no idea how it got there. If I am wrong, please see if you can
show me to be so by obtaining some real calculated examples. There must be some, right?
Actually irreducible complexity was predicted by evolutionary biologists a long time before Behe thought of it.
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/10/irreducible_com.html#more
Could you summarise the refutations you have come across?
Why do spirituality and morality argue for design? Has anyone ever designed a moral or spiritual creature? IMHO, the evolutionary explanations for morality far outshine the religious and philosophical ones because they deal with what we actually see. Different people and different cultures have different moral standards. There are no absolute moral rights and wrongs even thought you might like there to be.
The reason some where disturbed by your rhetorical arguments was not because they are disturbing, but because they are not implications at all. There’s a whole lot of stuff regarding human empathy, relationships and societies that are completely ignored in order to get to conclusions that sound as bad as possible. I’m sure I could come up with some similar implications for christianity if you are interested in taking this further.
Ty
Thought I’d drop by again.
Saw a couple of points I wish to briefly follow up:
1] Z: You are not citing me, kindly correct. [I think it is Ty.]
2] The nested hierarchy used in biological taxonomy is non-unique [though of course it is institutionally “standard”]. Indeed, the original scheme based on gross anatomy throws up interesting exceptions, sometimes discussed under homologies. Similarly when molecular analysis was inserted, there were/are conflicts with the traditional classification.
3] Ty: again, the nested hiwerarcy classification scheme by comparison of similarities and differences is not decisive between common descent and common diesign or even design for similar environments. Plausibility within a worldview is not demonstration.
4] Defining and understading the design inference. First credibly detecting the existence of design is an important exercise, and indeed is commonly met with in a scientific context. I suggest that several commenters may find it wise to look around at the research ID wiki before spouting off misrepresentations and propagandistic ignorance.
Start here:
http://www.researchid.org/wiki/The_Intelligent_Design_Paradigmatic_and_Heuristics
GEM of TKI
Dear Mr. Harris:
The proponents of intelligent design should desist from using their opinion that ID is the “best” explanation as though that opinion constitutes a definition of ID. If the IDists continue doing that then they will rightly be accused of intellectual dishonesty.
I have posted a definition of ID on the Internet at http://intelligent-design-hypothesis.com
How do you feel about “The Intelligent Design Paradigmatic and Heuristics” ?
May I recommend, http://www.pubmed.com, talkorgins.com and www.*.com as alternative starting points? (Mild sarcasm aimed at kairosfocus. I wouldn’t really send you on such a pointless goose-chase)
Kairosfocus: which of the many articles at researchid.org (almost all written by joeyccampana) identify actually real, current, or ongoing ID research which would not have existed independantly had there been no ID?
kairosfocus:
Hmm. It’s actually gpuccio. I apologize, and please ignore the misattribution; however, the comments are still relevant to this discussion.
kairosfocus:
There are some very interesting exceptions, but you didn’t provide specifics. Endogenous retroviruses are such an exception, being crosses between eukaryotes and viruses. Ironically, how these sequences mutate over time creating their own nested hierarchy between species provides very strong evidence of common descent of their resident populations based on the point of infection within the nested hierarchy of descent.
kairosfocus:
The Theory of Common Descent makes specific predictions that are subject to testing. There is no evidence of design, and substantial evidence that indicates that each lineage evolves without regard to solutions found in other lineages.
kairosfocus:
The inference of “design” is intrinsic to many fields of science, including archaeology and forensics. All of these fields collect evidence concerning the connections and characteristics of the artisan, the art, and the artifact. Ironically, the Theory of Common Descent through genetics is used in modern forensics to help rule in or rule out perpetrators.
kairosfocus:
There is a single nested hierarchy containing the vast majority of taxa, though there are questions concerning specific divergences that either happened in a geologically rapid timescale, or are very remote in time. (And common descent may not properly apply to the evolution of the original cellular life which may be primarily due to horizontal rather than vertical evolution.)
To be even more specific, hominids are primates are mammals are vertebrates are metazoa are eukaryotes. There is no other reasonable way to classify these sets, and the same is true of most every other set of organisms with the questions generally only at the closest resolution of the divergences or the most ancient lineages. Because of these very strong correlations, it is possible to determine from dentition alone the type of reproductive system an organism likely has. (The ability to make specific predictions is why we know these correlations are not merely artifacts of our classification schema.)
karifocus- your link was a treasure trove of information. Wow. Anybody who still thinks ID is just a crackpot theory should probably check this out. While some might not agree with what ID is saying, it’s clear that trying to simply belittle ID, or questioning the intelligence of everybody who advocates it isnt an honest option at all. There are some pretty smart people out there who are making some very good arguments for ID. Apparently, we arent all a bunch of drooling simians on this side of the aisle after all. (Everybody please see comment # 77 for the link.) It seems like good reading. In the interest of balance and open-mindedness, I also will be following and reading some links suggested by the pro-evolution-side, and be spending some time looking at the specifics of what I consider to be some of their better arguments, probably focusing on nested heirarchies ( Respect is properly to be given to John, Zachriel, and Steve H , who seem to be the arch- advocates of that particular argument) . Thanks for links from Steve H- Comment 76, Zachriel Comments 64, 66 . I’ll digest some of this stuff, polish up my arguments, and check back in with some of the principle protagonists of this discussion at a later date to re-engage on this, ( unless somebody specifically doesnt want to be bothered by me- if so, please speak up). Ultimatley, the purpose of this blog entry and the ensuing discussion has not been to just bloviate and act like I know everything. I wanted to engage and interact with people who know more about the subject than I do, on both sides of the debate. Some of my preconcieved notions were fully confirmed, but some interesting new avenues of thought and reading have also been put forward by all this, and I appreciate the contributions. My basic stance hasnt been changed, but there is obviously a lot still to be learned and thought about. Thanks especially,to all who commented on nested heirarchies, since it interests me now. If anybody has more links to specifically focused papers, research, or commentary on that specific issue/argument, they will be helpful. Bfast ( comment 62 ) raised some possibilities as pertains to that subject that I hadnt much considered. His “Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis” instantly has appeal in the sense that it seems to reconcile the best arguments for BOTH sides. I will be reading more on this.
Avocationist ( # 74 )- For more on this, please check out the end of comments 72 and 21. I think that the inferences we will be able to draw from the data depends entirely on what we find. If we find extra-solar life that is practically identical to us, a few thousand light years away, then that’s it- design wins. Evolutionists are already engaging in intellectual contortions just to explain away the ridiculous improbabilities of life coming about even ONCE. But there’s a limit to how much of that a reasonable person can stomach, and it DIDNT happen the same way twice. You might win powerball once, but I’ll be darned if you’r going to tell me you won it twice in a row playing the exact same numbers. If we find nothing at all anywhere- nothing complex, nothing simple , Zip, Nada, Zilch, on ten-billion earth-like planets, then the argument put forward by evolutionists that Selection sufficently skews Probability enough to account for biological complexity takes a major hit. Obviously chance would be implicated much more than Selection in that case, and without Selection functioning in a MAJOR way to counteract straight improbability, pretty much EVERYBODY agrees that Life CANT happen naturally, and you are left with Design as the only real explanation. If we wind up finding all kinds of crazy life growing under every other rock all over the galaxy anywhere the conditions for life are prevolant ( ala’ the Drake Equation ), and that life shares no common descent charachteristics with life here on earth, then that’s pretty much it for ID as far as I am conscerned. I suppose it’s impossible to DISPROVE that God didnt do it a different way every time all over the universe, but I think it’s fair to say that the discovery of a weird, non-common-descended, living slime-ooze on planet X would bolster evolution more than it would ID. There might be three people holding out for ID at that point, but I wont be one of them. At the very least, design wouldnt be the first explanation that one would infer in such a case, and the implication would be that Life IS the result of a purely naturalistic process, since it goes on all over the universe with the only common thread being the presence of environmental factors. Even if you DO think that life of any kind is going to be found out there ( I don’t ), then I think that Ward and Greenleas’ arguments for the Rare Earth Hypothesis are pretty darned powerful, and that at BEST, it would be very, very simple life. It’s probably not going to be the bar scene from star-wars. But If it DOES turn out to be the bar-scene ( IE. prevolant,multiple, independently evolved ( or created ) complex life-forms- so improbable that that even selection cant reconcile the math), then yes- this argument just continues. Your point is well-taken as to that.Maybe Jabba the Hutt will have an opinion on the matter. In my opinion, we arent going to find even simple life out there because I think the probability problems and the irreducible complexity problems are going to wind up being absolutely decisive, and that naturalistic processes ARENT going to be able to come up with life anywhere, anytime, anyhow, without the intervention of Design.Time will tell I suppose. Maybe they will turn something up in Europa’s oceans just a few years from now. They have some kind of lander mission planned that will bore through the ice into the liquid water that they figure exists below the surface ( kept warm by tidal and gravitational forces apparently ). I look forward to the results ( even if they are negative), and I ESPECIALLY look forward to spectrographic analysis of extra-solar planetary bodies to look for gaseaous anamolies that may indicate life. We may be a ways off from high-resolution interferometer imagery per say, but serious spectrographic data may come in my lifetime at least. By the way, you asked some questions and raised some issues, but I didnt actually hear any predictions from you. What is your guess, if you had to guess? What do you think is out there? I am really curious as to people’s predictions on this. Is life unique on earth, or present elsewhere? Rare or common? Simple or complex?
Mr. Harris:
You wrote, “There are some pretty smart people out there who are making some very good arguments for ID.” The people who make “arguments for ID” keep telling us that ID is the “best” explanation but they never present ID as an assertion of cause and effect. In other words, they never state ID in the form of a hypothesis that can be tested and/or supported with various facts. When are the proponents of ID going to give us a simple definition of ID?
I see ID described as a “scientific theory” despite the fact that the proponents of ID have never presented ID in the form of a scientific hypothesis. ID cannot be regarded as a scientific theory unless and until ID has been stated as a scientific hypothesis and then verified. Referring to ID in the absence of those required steps is illegitimate, deceptive, and dishonest.
Ty, you wrote:
“karifocus- your link was a treasure trove of information. Wow.”
Huh? There’s not a single datum produced from a test of an ID hypothesis to be seen.
“Anybody who still thinks ID is just a crackpot theory should probably check this out.”
That site confirms that ID is a crackpot NOTION, because among all the blather, there’s not a single datum to be found.
Why do you keep misrepresenting ID as a theory when it has ZERO track record of making correct predictions, Ty?
“While some might not agree with what ID is saying, it’s clear that trying to simply belittle ID, or questioning the intelligence of everybody who advocates it isnt an honest option at all.”
I belittle it because no one who promotes it has the courage or integrity to put it to the test, and produce new data.
“There are some pretty smart people out there who are making some very good arguments for ID.”
How do you explain the fact that none of those arguments involve making and testing predictions, Ty?
“Apparently, we arent all a bunch of drooling simians on this side of the aisle after all. (Everybody please see comment # 77 for the link.)”
If you think that something that has yet to produce a single datum is a theory, what should I think about you?
“It seems like good reading.”
Why? Where are the data?
“In the interest of balance and open-mindedness, I also will be following and reading some links suggested by the pro-evolution-side,…”
But you’re not being remotely scientific unless you look at DATA. Note that kairosfocus never cites data. How do you explain that?
“… and be spending some time looking at the specifics of what I consider to be some of their better arguments, probably focusing on nested heirarchies ( Respect is properly to be given to John, Zachriel, and Steve H , who seem to be the arch- advocates of that particular argument) .”
It’s only one of many predictions made by modern evolutionary theory.
When you say “specifics,” does that mean that you wish to look at actual data, Ty? Email me and I’ll be happy to help you look at the sequence data. They are freely available, as are the tools with which you can analyze them mathematically.
“…Ultimatley, the purpose of this blog entry and the ensuing discussion has not been to just bloviate and act like I know everything.”
Then I suggest that you take a step back and reread your essay.
“…My basic stance hasnt been changed, but there is obviously a lot still to be learned and thought about.”
Would that lot include data, or is that too much?
“Thanks especially,to all who commented on nested heirarchies, since it interests me now.”
Cool. Name an animal or family of proteins that interest you, and I’ll dump you into a mathematical exploration of the data, not the cherry-picked hooey that you find in ID books.
“If anybody has more links to specifically focused papers, research, or commentary on that specific issue/argument, they will be helpful.”
The data are what matter. Did I mention that the sequence data are analyzed mathematically, and both the sequence data and the programs we use to analyze them are freely available? If it really interests you, how can you resist?
“Bfast ( comment 62 ) raised some possibilities as pertains to that subject that I hadnt much considered. His “Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis” instantly has appeal in the sense that it seems to reconcile the best arguments for BOTH sides.”
Does it make any predictions? If not, it’s worthless.
To whom it conscerns- I was visiting some other blogs this evening that have been the source of some traffic to this page. In one of them, I came upon some comments posted by several of the same people who have commented here on my essay, and who have participated in the ensuing discussion. It was a revelatory experience, and a saddening one. All I have done here is to offer some opinions, and express some ideas. I thought the matter through as best I could, and I spoke my ideas as sincerely and honestly as I could. All I wanted was to put my thoughts out there and to discuss an interesting topic in a reasoned, rational, discussion with other people, some of whom- i assumed in advance- would disagree with me. That didnt conscern me a bit, because I am perfectly capable of having a nice, freindly conversation with people I dont agree with about something.In the course of this discussion I have tried to show respect for other people and for their opinions even when I have disagreed with them. I have censored nobody. I have banned nobody. I have edited nothing. I have tried to give everybody a fair chance to speak their peace and to make their best arguments in a reasonable and polite fashion. I appreciated everybody’s contributions, and have expressed that appreciation repeatedly. For some reason, my reward for this is personal abuse and scorn. While I may refuse to censor, ban, or cut anybody out of the discussion, because I feel that it undermines the purity and honesty of the debate, I do see now why it is that blogs like uncommon-descent are finally DRIVEN to kick some of you people out. Several of the atheists and evolutionists who have showed up here, have demonstrated their ability to take a subject that is worthy of polite and reasonable debate, and instead,choose to lower the interactions occuring here between us human beings, to the intellectual equivilant of monkeys flinging poo at each other. You FORCE people to kick you out because you are so insufferablely condescending, and because you choose to conduct yourselves so poorly!Why cant we just discuss the topic like two people talking?Why do some of you find it so neccesary to insult? Why do you have to sneer, mock, and condescend? Why do you think that everybody who doesnt agree with you is evil, dishonest, uneducated, duplicitous,ignorant, and stupid? Do you people really go through your whole lives interacting with others in this manner? You guys havent gotten kicked out of UD because you disagree with the moderators. You got kicked out becuase it’s impossible to have a polite conversation with you! I have personally never encountered a group of people so full of themselves, and so disrespectful of others in my entire life. All of the pre-concieved notions and stereotypes about the intolerance of evolutionists, and the anger of atheists has been manifested and proven accurate. Although I appreciate very much some of the interesting discussion on scientific matters that has taken place here, and I have learned a thing or two on the topic at hand, the most educational part of this whole experience has been to get to learn more about the true-believers who- as April Dwamena brilliantly put it- defend evolution with all the zeal of an islamic Jihad. None of the afformentioned behaviors and attitudes is even remotely compatible with scientific objectivity or reasoned debate in pursuit of truth AT ALL, and quite frankly, these behaviors and predjudices serve only to call into question everything you advocate. If you want to be a good representative for ANY idea, the first thing you need to do is to establish that you are even capable of talking to others in a respectful and sincere manner. I happen to think that the phenomenon of obnoxious messangers bearing good ideas, is a big part of the reason why so many people still reject the well-founded scientific research supporting global warming. It’s not that the facts lack merit, it’s just that the primary messengers tend to be insufferably condescending, intolerant of dissent, and chronically hypocritical. The breathtakingly venomous hatred and condescending contempt that some of you hold for anybody who expresses an opinion contrary to yours, demonstrates that the real essence of this debate isnt about science at all. If it was, then reasonable parties could reasonably discuss and disagree. This is nothing more than a clash of two faiths. A God-centered one, and a Godless one. And only one of the two faiths has any manners that I can see. The debate SHOULD be more than that. It COULD be more than that. But right now, it really isnt. If this experience has proven any of my ideas to be right, it is my belief that an individual whose sense of morality is based purely on natural selection and pro-creation has a very different foundation for their interactions with other humans than somebody whose actions and conduct are underpinned by a sense of right and wrong that amounts to more than soul-less particles. This may explain why some of you lack the ability to treat others with the same respect you would like to be treated with. If anybody needs me, I ‘ll be knitting.
tyharris:
That is an interesting speculation. What would you consider to be “practically identical”? Most researchers expect that other life forms would be carbon based. We would expect adaptations to the local environment; e.g., if they swim in water or other dense medium, we would expect various adaptations suitable for that environment. We would not expect primates, but we might find intelligence. In other words, based on our very limited knowledge, we would expect some similarities and some differences.
This is what we know: Life on Earth is based on the chemistry of carbon and water. Carbon and water exist elsewhere in the galaxy. There are billions of stars, and good reason to believe there are billions of planets and that Earth, though perhaps not typical, is also probably not unique. Life evolved.
If we don’t find other life, then your assertion would remain as unresolved as it is now. And despite your original post, detailed exploration of other planets is probably centuries away. We might determine the existence of life by detecting oxygen in a planetary atmosphere, and at best, such a discovery might help resolve questions concerning life’s prevalence. Meanwhile, we just don’t know. And if and when life is found elsewhere in the galaxy, it will probably be full of surprises.
Which makes your assertion, interesting as it is to contemplate, mere speculation, a distinction you need to be clear about.
There is more than ample scientific evidence of Common Descent. There is no scientific evidence of Intelligent Design. If you don’t understand why this is so, then perhaps we could examine the specific evidence. If this presents a problem, then perhaps you need a better grounding in how science reaches the conclusions it does.
Ty Harris
It’s not that the facts lack merit, it’s just that the primary messengers tend to be insufferably condescending, intolerant of dissent, and chronically hypocritical. The breathtakingly venomous hatred and condescending contempt that some of you hold for anybody who expresses an opinion contrary to yours, demonstrates that the real essence of this debate isn’t about science at all.
Please point me to a couple of examples of ‘breathtakingly venomous hatred and condescending contempt’ shown by any pro-evolution poster in this thread. All I have seen has been frustration as a result of people apparently making a determined
effort not to understand and willfully ignoring things that have been pointed out to them time and time again.
Why did you refer to a God-centered faith versus a Godless one? A majority of Christians accept the theory of evolution as being true. Moreover, it is accepted by all biologists, be they Muslim, Jew, Christian, Buddhist, animist, Shintoist or atheist. It is no more atheistic than the theory of supply and demand or gravitational theory.
Lino D’Ischia
I’m sorry – my eye passed over your comment when I visited here yesterday. I think the problem is that you are trying to take my analogy too far.
“Who is telling you? I can anticipate your answer, which would be Natural Selection. This answer is the hypothetical that is to be tested, and it seems strange that it must be assumed in order to prove that it exists.”
Yes indeed that is the answer. It is not hypothetical as it has been tested thousands of times. Check out any issue of any scientific journal that covers evolution. It does not need to be assumed in order to be tested.
If the individuals in a population vary (true for virtually every population) and on average each individual produces more than one offspring (true for every population that does not become extinct) then some individuals must die without reproducing (unless you are considering very short time scales).
Any individual that is ‘better’ in some way (a more camouflaged tiger, a DDT-resistant mosquito, a more easily-harvested wheat plant) is more likely to produce offspring. If this ‘better’ trait is heritable, then the offspring are likely to also possess it. In time, the population changes. Repeat this a thousand or a million times and the population has changed beyond recognition. And that is the theory of evolution in a nutshell.
If you wish to understand more thoroughly you need to study genetics (at least up to a familiarity with the Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium) and statistics (enough to have a comfortable understanding of analysis of variance – typically about two university courses), then you should be ready to tackle population genetics.
I’m sorry if this sounds condescending – that is not my intent. It is just a fact of life. If you are interested – go for it! It has been my experience that most reasonably motivated people can cope with the genetics and statistics.
I would like to conclude by reinforcing the comments made by several other commentators.
A scientific theory is an explanation for observed facts but it must also make predictions that are not made by other theories. Some of these predictions need to have been successfully tested. “Intelligent Design Theory” makes NO predictions, therefore cannot be tested and therefore is not a scientific theory.
Predictions do not need to be things that will happen in the future, they can be things that we will find if we look in a certain place or manner. For example, the fossil Tiktaalik that hit the headlines a few months ago was found as a result of a prediction made from evolutionary theory. I predict that the immunological system of chimps will be closer to us than to dogs and much closer than to the crocodilian system – yet I know virtually nothing how they actually work. This is actually an implementation of the nested hierarchies referred to by Zachriel and John.
Currently about 1500 scientific papers are published every month, every one of which could find a flaw in the theory of evolution, yet in 150 years, NO observation has been made that contradicts it (barring blatently fake footprints and similar frauds). The general public has no conception of the amount of evidence to support the theory.
Because ID makes no predictions, it is impossible to find any evidence that contradicts ID and therefore any claims of data that ‘support’ ID are meaningless.
If clear evidence was found against the theory of evolution, the discoverer would be in line for a Nobel Prize, biologists (and other scientists) would be immensely excited and there would be a stampede to change the thrust of research programs to investigate the matter. But unfortunately, I can’t see it happening.
Rereading the comments, I noticed that John said that no designed objects can be placed in a nested hierarchy while I said that they could. That is my mistake – I was thinking in terms of devising a nested taxonomic key for designed objects. John is quite right in that the components do not form a nested hierarchy. A pressure gauge found in an aircraft, for example, could be identical to one found on a ship or in a sewage treatment plant, whereas the hearing mechanism found in mammals is never found in reptiles, beetles or ferns.
John:
Richard Simons:
You will find the term “nested hierarchy” or “containment hierarchy” used in slightly different, though related, manners. (Just as the term “evolution” has more than one meaning depending on context.) One meaning is purely a set definition, and would apply to otherwise identical soldiers in an army (arranged by command), otherwise identical twigs on a tree (arranged by stem), or any of a number of arbitrary classification schemes.
But in biology, we are usually discussing taxonomy and the conservation of traits across categories. We can arrange cars into nested ordered sets, but there is no conservation of traits, and different orderings occur depending on the traits chosen for consideration. In biological organisms, it turns out that there is only one nested hierarchy for all non-trivial traits.
John:
[The inserted text is assumed when discussing taxonomic classification, just as evolution is assumed to be biological evolution when discussing biology.]
John:
And this is because intelligent designers mix-and-match features from other lineages. But the evidence from biology indicates a clear nested hierarchy, and specific empirical predictions can be made from the assumption of Common Descent.
John:
Intelligent Design *claims* that there is available scientific evidence of agency in biology. I’ve heard the arguments (repeatedly!), but there is a want of empirical verification.
So, Ty Harris et al. What specific empirical predictions can you provide us? (Do you know what constitutes a “specific empirical prediction”?) I have my magnifying glass and notepad at the ready. Our Nobel Prize awaits! (Psst. Don’t tell John. We don’t want to get scooped.)
This is this you being nice is it? 🙂
Zachriel just posted details of his three bannings from UD at ATBC. He was one of many who have been banned, not for insults or sneering, but for disagreeing with the moderators on point of fact.
Also, try reading the comments at the following link, and tell me how febble was being disrespectful or impossible to have a polite conversation with. All she did was use Desmski’s own definitions in support of evolution and politely address each objection they raised.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/id-in-the-uk/
Ty wrote:
“All I have done here is to offer some opinions, and express some ideas.”
You’ve done much more than that in your essay.
“I thought the matter through as best I could, and I spoke my ideas as sincerely and honestly as I could.”
Thinking through the matter as best you can necessarily involves confronting the relevant data.
“In the course of this discussion I have tried to show respect for other people and for their opinions even when I have disagreed with them.”
When you falsely accused me of being an atheist because I disagree with you, were you being respectful of me?
“I have censored nobody. I have banned nobody. I have edited nothing. I have tried to give everybody a fair chance to speak their peace and to make their best arguments in a reasonable and polite fashion.”
And for that, I commend you.
“For some reason, my reward for this is personal abuse and scorn.”
How do you process my offer to point you to the relevant sequence data and the tools to analyze them mathematically as “personal abuse and scorn,” Ty?
“…Several of the atheists and evolutionists who have showed up here, have demonstrated their ability to take a subject that is worthy of polite and reasonable debate,…”
If the subject is science, the debate has to be about the data.
“…I have personally never encountered a group of people so full of themselves, and so disrespectful of others in my entire life.”
So who is being prejudiced here? Not you!
“…the most educational part of this whole experience has been to get to learn more about the true-believers who- as April Dwamena brilliantly put it- defend evolution with all the zeal of an islamic Jihad.”
How does pointing you to the data resemble a jihad?
“…If you want to be a good representative for ANY idea, the first thing you need to do is to establish that you are even capable of talking to others in a respectful and sincere manner.”
And how would you characterize your calling me an atheist merely because I realize that ID is a crock?
“…the primary messengers tend to be insufferably condescending, intolerant of dissent, and chronically hypocritical.”
Check out Febble’s treatment in the link steve_h provided. She jumps in at comment #28.
“The breathtakingly venomous hatred and condescending contempt that some of you hold for anybody who expresses an opinion contrary to yours, demonstrates that the real essence of this debate isnt about science at all.”
I agree. Scientific debates cite evidence. The ID side cherry-picks evidence and produces no evidence at all from tests of ID hypotheses.
“If it was, then reasonable parties could reasonably discuss and disagree.”
Scientific discussions involve recourse to the actual data. I offer to point you to it, while kairosfocus points you to books that cherry-pick it. Which side is scientific?
In #65, Lino said,
Gee, Lino, this only makes sense if you’re assuming “function,” no? I’m not beginning with teleological presuppositions, so the order of any given set of potential constituents is going to be random, and if by chance the amalgam causes something to happen, then we can observe the result. When you say, “This doesn’t happen in life,” why would you assume life in prebiotic conditions? If you change the statement to read, “This doesn’t happen in nature,” with “this” meaning random assemblages of naturally-occurring substances, you will be able to see that you’re not making any sense.
Mr. Harris:
You wrote, “All I have done here is to offer some opinions, and express some ideas.”
That is precisely the problem. Intelligent design is always presented as the opinion that ID is the “best” explanation for “certain features of the universe and of living things.” The proponents of ID never actually state ID in the form of a scientific hypothesis (an assertion of cause and effect). And then people get frustrated and angry with that obvious propagandistic manipulation.
Stop that! Stop trying to tell us that ID is the “best” explanation and that living things are so complex that they “must have” been created by an intelligent designer. We are very tired of hearing your opinion. Just state an assertion of cause and effect (a scientific hypothesis) that we can evaluate. If you will do that then the angry responses will stop.
Just state a scientific hypothesis or admit that you are unable to do so. We will understand.
That’s not quite right. A scientific hypothesis must be testable. The assertion you give is not testable. It’s like the difference between the terms “theory” (as used by layman) and a “scientific theory” as used by scientists.
That’s all it is, an assertion (or untestable conjecture, guess, etc.).
Sorry, I forgot to mention that the quote was from the web site to which Scott Beach linked.
Steve H:
If the intelligent designer is supposed to be a supernatural being then you are correct — the definition of ID that I extracted from the proponents’ descriptions of ID cannot be a scientific hypothesis. However, if, as some ID proponents assert, the intelligent designer was a living being who came to Earth from another planet and used genetic engineering technology to create terrestrial life forms then ID is an all-natural phenomenon and can be stated as a scientific hypothesis.
The proponents of ID refuse to specify whether the intelligent designer was a natural or supernatural being because then know that their refusal to specify the nature of the designer lets them keep the debate going around and around and around, like a silly dog chasing its own tail.
However ID is defined, it can be accurately described as a silly propaganda campaign.
Scott Beach said,
How can you be sure of “all-natural” if you haven’t accounted for “living being who came to Earth”? Is it turtles all the way down? No matter how you slice it, Paleyism is a religiously motivated political movement.
steve_h:
“Stop that! Stop trying to tell us that ID is the “best” explanation and that living things are so complex that they “must have” been created by an intelligent designer. We are very tired of hearing your opinion. Just state an assertion of cause and effect (a scientific hypothesis) that we can evaluate. If you will do that then the angry responses will stop.
Just state a scientific hypothesis or admit that you are unable to do so. We will understand.”
“So complex” … I’ve heard that many many times. The actual idea behind ID does not deal solely with “complexity,” it deals with specified complexity, which as I show on my blog is defined by an information processor.
Here’s an intro into Dr. Dembski’s thoughts:
Dr. Dembski — “To show that specified complexity is a reliable empirical marker of design, it is therefore enough to show that no natural cause has the causal power to generate specified complexity (natural causes being understood here as they are in the scientific community, namely, as undirected, blind, purposeless causes characterized in terms of the joint action of chance and necessity). Showing that natural causes cannot generate specified complexity seems like a tall order, but in fact it is not an intractable problem. Natural causes, because they operate through the joint action of chance and necessity, are modeled mathematically by nondeterministic functions known as stochastic processes. Just what these are in precise mathematical terms is not important here. The important thing is that functions map one set of items to another set of items and in doing so map a given item to one and only one other item. Thus for a natural cause to “generate” specified complexity would mean for a function to map some item to another item that exhibits specified complexity. But that means the complexity and specification in the item that got mapped onto gets pushed back to the item that got mapped. In other words, natural causes just push the problem of accounting for specified complexity from the effect back to the cause, which now in turn needs to be explained. It is like explaining a pencil in terms of a pencil-making machine. Explaining the pencil-making machine is as difficult as explaining the pencil. In fact, the problem typically gets worse as one backtracks specified complexity.
Stephen Meyer makes this point beautifully for DNA. [19] Suppose some natural cause is able to account for the sequence specificity of DNA (i.e., the specified complexity in DNA). The four nucleotide bases are attached to a sugar-phosphate backbone and thus cannot influence each other via bonding affinities. In other words, there is complete freedom in the sequencing possibilities of the nucleotide bases. In fact, as Michael Polanyi observed in the 1960s, this must be the case if DNA is going to be optimally useful as an information bearing molecule. [20] Indeed, any limitation on sequencing possibilities of the nucleotide bases would hamper its information carrying capacity. But that means that any natural cause that brings about the specified complexity in DNA must admit at least as much freedom as is in the DNA sequencing possibilities (if not, DNA sequencing possibilities would be constrained by physico-chemical laws, which we know they are not). Consequently, any specified complexity in DNA tracks back via natural causes to specified complexity in the antecedent circumstances responsible for the sequencing of DNA. To claim that natural causes have “generated” specified complexity is therefore totally misleading — natural causes have merely shuffled around preexisting specified complexity.”
So the question is … from whence do information/processing systems originate? An no, there is absolutely no ignorance within this argument. There is a bit of denial, but no ignorance. I deny that accidents create information processors. Do you have any scientific logic to show otherwise?
Here is my basic understanding of the issue:
1. The only scientific verification we have of probabilities being CONSISTENTLY overcome in a direction where further information is being created is through designed programs. Thus, evolutionary algorithms (which in our scientifically verified experience must be designed with a goal with which to generate and converge information) are one major verification of ID theory.
2. Furthermore, the nature of information processors (no matter their chemical constituents) is such that they can not exist independantly of the information they process, since an information processor is defined in terms of its ability to process information and information is defined as such by its compatible processor — the two qualities are useless without each other. If evolution is the process which generates information, evolution can not occur before an information storage medium and its compatible processor already exist.
3. Take into account that information is not defined by physical laws of attraction (there is no physical law relating the units within complex specified information) and that information processors convert PRESENT specific coded information into a FUTURE specific goal in the form of function (thus constituting a goal oriented, although NOT necessarily conscious process — in the same way that computer programs are goal oriented but not conscious), it makes absolutely no logical sense, nor is there any scientific inference or validity in thinking that information and its compatible processor will randomly actualize no matter the chemical reactions by which it is preceeded.
4. The only scientifically verifiable and logical construction of an information processor is accomplished by a previous information processor. Add on to this the fact that the universe is now viewed as a program resulting form a deeper information processor and consciousness may be a result of quantum (sub-natural law) information processing. As stated in point three, there is NO ROOM FOR NATURAL LAWS OF ATTRACTION to create information and there is NO LOGICAL ROOM FOR ACCIDENTAL PROCESSES WHICH ARE NOT DIRECTED to create a goal oriented system such as an information processor.
5. Furthermore, why even bother postulating ACCIDENTAL OCCURENCES for the creation of information processors, when science deals in terms of LAWS of cause and effect? The law of cause and effect that creates information processors are always summed up in terms of laws within a program that results from a previous information processor. IE: computer information processors are caused by mental programs arising from intelligent information processors (the human brain); thus biochemical information processors most likely unfold from the deeper quantum information processor which causes the program of the universe to exist. Now all we need to do is discover how an information processor can be programmed to produce further information/processing systems within its program.
More of my “brain juice” on the matter can be seen at my blog in the upper corner of the left margin under “my view on ID theory.”
http://cjyman.blogspot.com/
Mr. Wynne:
You asked, “How can you be sure of ‘all-natural’ if you haven’t accounted for ‘living being who came to Earth’? Is it turtles all the way down?”
I cannot be sure because the proponents of ID refuse to specify how the aliens from outer space came into existence. Were the aliens created by God or through natural abiogenesis and evolution? The ID proponents won’t say because they want this silly debate to keep going around and around and around…
Silly, silly, silly…
Steve h. ( RE # 93 )
– I admit that you guys finally got a rise out of me. If you kick a dog enough times, he is going to turn around and bite you sooner or later. It doesnt imply moral equivilancy between the dog’s actions and the man’s.
– I was referencing the insults on the anti-evolution site, not uncommon descent.
– well, back to my knitting. Since I am unworthy to comment on any ideas or theories about human origins, can I make anybody a sweater?
This is quite an unfortunate statement. And remember that there are probably more Muslim creationists than there are Christian ones. How much zeal do you have for intelligent design?
Richard Simons:
I don’t accept Natural Selection, but conceded it for the moment. I’m much more interested in your reply to the other questions I asked. Here are the questions once again:
‘But let’s accept that as your answer. Then, tell me, if we asked for the answer to the first wheel and got it, what if we asked for the answer for the eigth wheel, would be get it? If you say “yes”, then this seems strange if applied to what is proposed to happen in the biological realm. If you say “no”, then what is the mechanism that does not permit the answer be given? Just a few questions.’
BTW, the Hardy-Weinberg Law is mastered in about 5 minutes time. It’s not much more than a binomial distribution. As to variance, this are simple equations as well. I’ve taken genetics; I’m impressed with Hoyle’s “Mathematics of Evolution”.
Jim Wynne:
“I’m not beginning with teleological presuppositions, so the order of any given set of potential constituents is going to be random, and if by chance the amalgam causes something to happen, then we can observe the result. When you say, “This doesn’t happen in life,” why would you assume life in prebiotic conditions? If you change the statement to read, “This doesn’t happen in nature,” with “this” meaning random assemblages of naturally-occurring substances, you will be able to see that you’re not making any sense.”
It would seem to me that if you presume prebiotic conditions, then in such an environment replication does not exist, and hence, natural selection is a non sequitor. So, yes, in an environment where no function exists, then one protein is a good as another, and we would have a situation akin to your deck of cards example. However, we should note that it is hard to get more than 10 nucleotide bases to chemically connect in the absence of a template. So, actually, in a prebiotic environment, proteins wouldn’t even exist; thus the relevance of your analogy to the probabilities involving protein specification is hard to see.
Scott:
(MY emphasis) Phrased this way the living being can’t be a “living thing”.
Sorry I couldn’t tell if you were an ID supporter or detractor. I guess you’re on the same side as myself. Your statement above effectively says that the designer must be supernatural so it could be dismissed as a strawman by the IDers (who also allow for aliens to make it more “sciency”). However it’s not so different from some of Demsbki’s own statements. If you ask me, he wants to have his aliens and eat them too. Maybe the potential aliens are living, material beings in an alternate universe, but to the best of my knowledge, most IDers do not agree with mutliple universe scenarios when we consider them. Aliens creating this universe would require multiple universes.
CJYMan:
You have wrongly attributed Scott’s statement to me. I demand satisfaction, sir! Oops, no, forget that (runs away and hides).
tyHarris:
re ‘rise’. Have you tried counting instances of insults, character assasination and general unpleasantness at UD? If you are going to be fair you should do it some time. However, the worst cases are censored – we on the other hand have to live with the people that embarrass us and our own past mistakes.
Also try looking at this site
http://www.overwhelmingevidence.com/
it is a treasure trove of information. However, your chances of finding any evidence on it are about the same as that of finding details of actual ID research at researchID.org. But it does have a rather amusing animation featuring the “world’s smartest man” providing silly voices for evolution supporters at the Dover trial. The orginal version had additional gravitas due to the way the Evolutionists broke wind as they approached to draw the string.
P.S: I’m an XXXL, and currently adding an X every two years, let me know if you need additional funds for wool.
Lino D’Ischia:
As I understand it, the idea is that if you somehow stumble on the first wheel and then future generations of solution “inherit” that setting, your chance of getting the eigth wheel is one in ten. If you have a population of creatures which know the first seven settings, the eigth is going to get cracked pretty quickly.
The question is, does the biological realm demand all ten wheels to be correctly set before providing any feedback or does each correct wheel improve an organisms fitness?
The task of the IDer is to argue that improvements only come as a result of multiple correct changes and that of evolutionists to find instances where a single wheel confers some advantage. In the case the bacterial flagellum, as I understand it we are down to the last two wheels, the safe started to give up some of the booty when a subset of the wheels were set.
CJYman wrote:
““So complex” … I’ve heard that many many times. The actual idea behind ID does not deal solely with “complexity,” it deals with specified complexity, which as I show on my blog is defined by an information processor.”
The challenge was to produce a testable hypothesis and test it. If you can’t do that, whatever you’re doing on your blog isn’t scientific. As for showing that something is defined as something else, that’s not a demonstration at all. You can redefine terms and misrepresent assumptions as facts all you want, but if you’re not proposing and testing hypotheses, don’t claim to be doing science.
“Here’s an intro into Dr. Dembski’s thoughts:…”
Since you are privy to his thoughts, would you mind explaining why Dembski hasn’t bothered to apply his math to a single biological system? And what has he been thinking about Jon Stewart’s challenge to him to explain what is intelligently designed about the scrotum?
“…Showing that natural causes cannot generate specified complexity seems like a tall order, but in fact it is not an intractable problem.”
It’s a huge problem if Dembski never has and never will produce any data.
“…In other words, natural causes just push the problem of accounting for specified complexity from the effect back to the cause, which now in turn needs to be explained.”
And as Febble showed very politely, before she was banned from UD, the cause of “specified complexity” is the “intelligence” of natural selection, which fits Dembski’s definition of “intelligence” perfectly. It’s not that complicated.
“Stephen Meyer makes this point beautifully for DNA.”
Stephen Meyer doesn’t produce data.
“…The four nucleotide bases are attached to a sugar-phosphate backbone and thus cannot influence each other via bonding affinities.”
Stephen Meyer clearly doesn’t know basic biochemistry.
“In other words, there is complete freedom in the sequencing possibilities of the nucleotide bases. ”
IOW, Stephen Meyer, Dembski, and you don’t have a clue.
“…I deny that accidents create information processors. Do you have any scientific logic to show otherwise?”
Logic? Science is about data, and the data in this case are irrelevant, since you are employing the Big Lie. Selection isn’t accidental.
“Here is my basic understanding of the issue:
1. The only scientific verification…”
If the verification is scientific, it involves offering and testing hypotheses, generating new data.
The fact that you use the adjective “scientific” doesn’t magically transform pseudoscience into science.
“…Thus, evolutionary algorithms (which in our scientifically verified experience…”
You clearly don’t understand the meaning of the adjective “scientific.”
“… must be designed with a goal with which to generate and converge information) are one major verification of ID theory.”
If you are sure that there is an ID theory, please state the prediction and the data generated by testing it. You won’t, because no ID proponent has the integrity to make a prediction and test it.
“…scientific inference…”
“…scientifically verifiable…”
A speck of basic honesty would be appreciated. If you can’t articulate specific predictions and tests of predictions, it’s simply dishonest to pepper your bloviations with the adjective “scientific.”
“…5. Furthermore, why even bother postulating ACCIDENTAL OCCURENCES…”
Straw man, and therefore according to the Ten Commandments, a sin.
“… for the creation of information processors, when science deals in terms of LAWS of cause and effect?”
By a clue. Science deals with the testing of hypotheses. Hypotheses with long track records of successful predictions are promoted to the status of theory or law. One can do science for a lifetime without ever dealing with a law.
“More of my “brain juice” on the matter can be seen at my blog in the upper corner of the left margin under “my view on ID theory.”
http://cjyman.blogspot.com/”
Why do you repeatedly misuse the term “theory”? Is that an intellectually honest practice?
——————-
Scott Beach wrote:
“The ID proponents won’t say because they want this silly debate to keep going around and around and around…”
This is an important point. If ID hucksters wanted to do real science, there are plenty of ID hypotheses they could test that would generate new data, like real scientists do: the mechanisms of design, the characteristics of the designer, the time(s) at which design occurred, etc. However, they have so little faith in their notion that they are afraid to generate even a single new datum from testing an ID hypothesis. This is intellectual and moral cowardice.
——-
Ty wrote:
“Since I am unworthy to comment on any ideas or theories about human origins, can I make anybody a sweater?”
Who said that you were unworthy to comment, Ty?
————
Lino D’Ischia wrote:
“It would seem to me that if you presume prebiotic conditions, then in such an environment replication does not exist,…”
Why? Are you claiming that a solution of only self-replicating, catalytic RNA would constitute life?
“… and hence, natural selection is a non sequitor. So, yes, in an environment where no function exists,…”
Who said that no function exists?
“… then one protein is a good as another,…”
Huh? Protein? Since the discovery of catalytic RNA, who includes protein in pre- or peri-biotic hypotheses any more?
“…So, actually, in a prebiotic environment, proteins wouldn’t even exist;…”
No prebiotic scenario requires proteins, since RNA can act enzymatically. Proteins would come much later–at least if your scenario had any basis in what we’ve known for over 20 years.
“… thus the relevance of your analogy to the probabilities involving protein specification is hard to see.”
That’s because you’re clueless about 20-year-old, Nobel Prize-winning molecular biology.
Don’t you think your arguments should have a minimal factual basis, Lino?
Lino:
Who said anything about protein specification? I think there must be a great deal of stuff that’s hard for you to see, Lino. Once, just once I would like to see one of you guys, after saying something that makes no sense and being corrected, say “Oh, yeah, that’s right. Never mind.” Instead, you dig yourself a deeper hole, and make believe you’re still somewhere near the surface with the rest of us.
Hello Ty,
Re life in the universe
I’m not sure I agree with your options. Let me try to organize them a little. You say if life is all of a piece, i.e., similarly structured and common, then it is design. And this is because of the improbabilities involved. In fact, one of the earliest antiDarwinian books I read did state that while cosmologists, overwhelmed at the sheer numbers, expected life to be scattered about the universe, that many biologists did not, being more aware of those improbabilities.
Now, you say that if we find absolutely nothing, then evolution takes a hit. I am not sure I follow, but it seems you are saying that if we are the only one, it’s just too unlikely the the improbabilities were overcome only one time. I didn’t follow your argument (post 84) about the role of selection in this scenario. Selection, it seems to me, is just automatic in any life scenario.
Now, you say that if life is very common but follows no particular pattern, then design takes the hit and goes down. Actually, if life is improbable then it is at least as likely that a designer would have fun utilizing different methods than that life would arise spontaneously in different ways.
But I think it is unlikely for life to be fundamentally different all over the place, because as Denton explains in Nature’s Destiny, other solutions pretty much won’t work at all, or won’t work very well. Also, I visited the Panspermia website, and I think they’ve got some good points. At least, they do make it seem plausible for bacteria to make it around the cosmos and remain viable. Now, if you add to that the PEH that you will eventually read up on if you get the time, it becomes quite interesting. And, this would tend to make life all of a piece, as well as interconnected, which is what I expect.
Why shouldn’t life be interconnected? Our planet is like an island in an endless sea. Sure, the distances are mind-boggling, but so were many things before, such as humans flying across continents in just hours.
Suppose we are the lucky one chance – it could be that we are the first and more will come. I don’t really see this as supporting design, at least not enough to convince people, because they will just say that we won the lottery. Or suppose that life is similar and nearby. I don’t really see this as supporting design either, and here’s why:
Like you have pointed out, we really have too small a data set. (One good reason for people to sit down and stop being so emotional.) I tend to, in my personal philosophy, see patterns to things, and expect those patterns to ring true in repetition in other areas of reality. Life on earth is abundant. If it got here without any prior supporting intelligent intent, then this makes me suppose that there are things we don’t know, laws I guess, that make it come about readily. The science facts of today tell us that life began on earth at the first possible moment that it could do so, with the sort of bacteria that were rough-living and would generate the next conditions needed for the next round of development. I happen to find that highly suspicious. Life being abundant, it seems contradictory to me that if God is the author of life, that he would confine it to just one place, and especially in light of the size of the universe. But even if it is just evolution, and no matter that evolution seems improbable, the lottery idea just seems implausible to me. Frankly, if life evolved via abiogenesis, there’s a LOT we don’t know.
I admit that I have a preference. It kinda bothers me that I see Christians having a tendency to want there to be life only here. I find that niggardly, and perhaps egotistic. Anyway, for whatever reason, to me the thought that we are it is almost horrifying. A vast, empty, pointlessly huge universe with one small oasis of very troubled life on a vulnerable planet. Well, maybe the planets are out there for the Mormons. As I understand, they are planning to use them.
So I guess that I don’t expect strong corroboration of either position to come from other life in the universe. The universe and its elements and laws are already fine tuned enough, and the complexity of life and unlikelihood of abiogenesis already high enough, that I don’t buy neoDarwinism. I don’t buy it anyway, because the existence of the universe itself is already proof that something so astonishing lies at the foundation of Reality that the mind can hardly even form a question.
I wish I understood better what Seti is trying to do and how likely it is that they will find what they seek with their methods.
avocationist
Um, Neodarwinism has nothing to do with the basic laws of physics or abiogenesis. Neodarwinism denotes “the integration of Charles Darwin’s theory of the evolution of species by natural selection, Gregor Mendel’s theory of genetics as the basis for biological inheritance, random genetic mutation as the source of variation, and mathematical population genetics.”
avocationist
“The mission of the SETI Institute is to explore, understand and explain the origin, nature and prevalence of life in the universe.” SETI attempts to detect artifice, primarily by searching for narrow-band radio signals. In other words, they attempt to find simplicity — not complexity. If you mean by “find what they seek” to be find ETI, that is very unlikely. If you mean to set parameters on the prevalence of life, progress may be possible in conjunction with other research.
Greetings John (comment 108),
CJYman wrote:
““So complex” … I’ve heard that many many times. The actual idea
behind ID does not deal solely with “complexity,” it deals with specified complexity, which as I show on my blog is defined by an information processor.”
John wrote:
“The challenge was to produce a testable hypothesis and test it. If you can’t do that, whatever you’re doing on your blog isn’t scientific. As for showing that something is defined as something else, that’s not a demonstration at all. You can redefine terms and misrepresent assumptions as facts all you want, but if you’re not proposing and testing hypotheses, don’t claim to be doing science.”
First tell me, is abiogenesis scientific?
Then, if you actually looked on my blog where I guided the reader (in this case yourself), you would have seen my comments on verification (testability) and falsification of ID THEORY.
Where have I misrepresented assumptions as facts and where have I defined terms incorrectly? I would genuinely like to discuss the issues that you have with my thoughts on the subject at hand.
CJYman wrote:
“Here’s an intro into Dr. Dembski’s thoughts:…”
John wrote:
“Since you are privy to his thoughts, would you mind explaining why Dembski hasn’t bothered to apply his math to a single biological system? And what has he been thinking about Jon Stewart’s challenge to him to explain what is intelligently designed about the scrotum?”
Ask Dembski. Your above comment has nothing to do with what I am discussing. If you read through and understood it, you would most likely realize that the quotation from Dembski is not in regard to measuring the informational content of a biological system. IT IS IN REGARD TO THE GENERATION OF INFORMATIONAL SYSTEMS AND THIS IS WHAT I AM DSCUSSING. However, you can measure the informational content of the genome, as with any other information system. Biological structures are merely the result of the processing of this information.
CJYman wrote (quoting Dembski):
“…In other words, natural causes just push the problem of accounting for specified complexity from the effect back to the cause, which now in turn needs to be explained.”
John wrote:
“And as Febble showed very politely, before she was banned from UD, the cause of “specified complexity” is the “intelligence” of natural selection, which fits Dembski’s definition of “intelligence” perfectly. It’s not that complicated.”
I agree with you. Now, can you tell me the necessary system which must be in place for the evolution of specific complexity to occur and produce further information, which is what Demski is actually referring to in this case.
CJYman wrote (quoting Dembski):
“…The four nucleotide bases are attached to a sugar-phosphate backbone and thus cannot influence each other via bonding affinities.”
John wrote:
“Stephen Meyer clearly doesn’t know basic biochemistry.”
Ummmm, actually this IS basic biochemistry. You must have misunderstood what is being stated.
CJYman wrote (quoting Dembski):
“In other words, there is complete freedom in the sequencing possibilities of the nucleotide bases. ”
John wrote:
“IOW, Stephen Meyer, Dembski, and you don’t have a clue.”
We must be speaking “past” each other. Can you please show me what is so incorrect in these last two statements.
CJYman:
“…I deny that accidents create information processors. Do you have any scientific logic to show otherwise?”
John wrote:
“Logic? Science is about data, and the data in this case are irrelevant, since you are employing the Big Lie. Selection isn’t accidental.”
Are you saying science isn’t logical?
As to selection, I’m discussing the origination of the system which makes selection of information possible. Please read through the top corner of the left margin of my blog: “my view of ID.”
CJYman wrote:
“Here is my basic understanding of the issue:
1. The only scientific verification…”
John wrote:
“If the verification is scientific, it involves offering and testing hypotheses, generating new data.
The fact that you use the adjective “scientific” doesn’t magically transform pseudoscience into science.”
I am aware of that. Now would you like to discuss the issue at hand and how evolutionary programs are a test of and verify ID.
CJyman wrote:
“…Thus, evolutionary algorithms (which in our scientifically verified experience…”
John wrote:
“You clearly don’t understand the meaning of the adjective “scientific.””
Please enlighten me and show me how evolutionary programs are not scientifically verified to be produced by intelligence. Do we have any hypothesis as to random creation of programs which can undergo evolution. I’m sure you already understand (since you obviously read my previous post) that information is not defined by physical laws of attraction, thus previous information processors or random accidents are (unless you can show otherwise) the only available options for the generation of information/processing systems.
CJYman wrote:
“… must be designed with a goal with which to generate and converge information) are one major verification of ID theory.”
John wrote:
“If you are sure that there is an ID theory, please state the prediction and the data generated by testing it. You won’t, because no ID proponent has the integrity to make a prediction and test it.”
Actually, that is exactly what I have done here and on my blog. Are you denying that evolutionary programs are designed with a goal with which to generate and converge information?
John wrote:
“A speck of basic honesty would be appreciated. If you can’t articulate specific predictions and tests of predictions, it’s simply dishonest to pepper your bloviations with the adjective “scientific.”
A speck of basic discussion would be appreciated. Are we to just have blind faith that you are the one to pronounce something as scientific or not? Please define science for me (this is something I have already done on my blog) and then proceed to show me why my ideas are not scientific.
CJYman wrote:
“…5. Furthermore, why even bother postulating ACCIDENTAL OCCURENCES…”
John wrote:
“Straw man, and therefore according to the Ten Commandments, a sin.”
Ummmm, ok?!?!?! And … are you then agreeing with me that there is a more foundational law than physical laws of attraction to generate information/processing systems? After all, you do imply earlier in this post that you have a basic understanding of biochemistry and information. Oh btw, have you read anything by Paul Davies on the subject? I have a link to some of his thoughts under the “definitions” section under “read these for my view of ID” at my blog.
CJYman wrote:
“… for the creation of information processors, when science deals in terms of LAWS of cause and effect?”
John wrote:
“By a clue. Science deals with the testing of hypotheses. Hypotheses with long track records of successful predictions are promoted to the status of theory or law. One can do science for a lifetime without ever dealing with a law.”
So then, according to you, science is NOT the discipline which attempts to explain phenomenon in terms of laws of cause and effect? I think that now would be a excellent time to start defining terms such as “scientific.” Or, just look under “definitions” at my blog.
CJYman wrote:
“More of my “brain juice” on the matter can be seen at my blog in the upper corner of the left margin under “my view on ID theory.”
http://cjyman.blogspot.com/”
John wrote:
“Why do you repeatedly misuse the term “theory”? Is that an intellectually honest practice?”
My apologies. I wasn’t aware before now that I have been lying. (note sarcasm).
CJYman:
You made reference to “ID THEORY” and I still do not know what you mean by that. What is the assertion of cause and effect are you putting forward? Is the cause natural or supernatural? What effect is that cause having the natural world?
You make the demand on John that he, “First tell me, is abiogenesis scientific?” Stop trying to direct attention away from ID and just tell us what ID is. Define your own term. If you believe that God created the universe and all living things then have the courage to state that. If you believe that space aliens used genetic engineering technology to create the ancestors of all terrestrial life forms then have the courage to state that. Take a deep breath and find the courage to state YOUR definition of intelligent design. Put up or shut up!
RE: 110
Avocationist- It’s all speculation of course at this stage. The point I was trying to make about selection and probability referrs to the fact that one common point everybody has agreed on here is that it’s mathematically impossible to get from basic elements to DNA based on straight probability. Everybody from Dembski to Darwin to Dawkins acknowledges this. The way evolutionists get around the probability problem is by stating that the introduction of the factors of natural selection and mutation skew the numbers away from straight-up chance enough to account for biologocal complexity beating the odds. ( Of course, once you get around straight probability, you run head-on into the wall known as irreducible complexity, but that’s another argument ). My point is this. If selection really does overcome probability, then there is no way we should be alone in this universe. If we look under every rock from here to the end of the universe, and we find bupkus, then apparently selection doesnt skew the odds to the extent that the evolutionists say it does. Which means chance and probaility is what we are left with, and EVERYBODY says we cant there with probability. If it comes down to probability and Design, then design wins. That was my basic line of reasoning. I think that if Human DNA really did come about by a purely naturalistic process, and if Natural selection really does skew the probabilities to the extent some say it does, then we really should be seeing it happen somewhere other than here. ( And since evolutionists are so certain it skews the probabilities sufficiently, I wish they would give me the EXACT extent to which it does, so we could come up with a testable hypothesis as to how prevolant life SHOULD BE in the universe that empirical data will eventualy support or not ). EVENTUALLY, be it in 50 years, or 500, we’ll get some signifigant data on this matter, and both sides should be prepared to accept the implications of what comes out in the wash. It might be too much to say that the ORIGINS missions will prove or disprove one theory or the other, but probably one will be hurt, and one will be bolstered. Thanks for the comments and postulations. I find the possibilities VERY interesting. Whatever side of the debate you are on, everybody here is probably science-nerdy enough to be interested in what we will find out there. I certainly am.
CJYman wrote:
“First tell me, is abiogenesis scientific?”
That’s like asking, “Is gravity scientific?” Events aren’t scientific, Bubba; science is a method that involves constructing hypotheses that make predictions and testing those predictions.
Is RESEARCH INTO HYPOTHESIZED MECHANISMS OF abiogenesis scientific? Sure, because real researchers test hypotheses and generate data. Can you grasp the enormous difference between your nonsensical question and mine?
“Then, if you actually looked on my blog where I guided the reader (in this case yourself), you would have seen my comments on verification (testability) and falsification of ID THEORY.”
Sorry, I don’t see any predictions and tests of predictions anywhere on your blog. Mere comments won’t cut it.
“Where have I misrepresented assumptions as facts…”
See your completely unsupported (and dead wrong) quotes about DNA below for a perfect example.
“… and where have I defined terms incorrectly?”
When you conflated comments with actual predictions above.
“I would genuinely like to discuss the issues that you have with my thoughts on the subject at hand.”
Do you have any data? Do you have any hypotheses and predictions from them that will generate any new data?
“Ask Dembski.”
You’re the one who claimed to know his thoughts. I suspect that his thoughts when he wrote the hooey you quoted had more to do with separating scientifically illiterate people like you from your money.
“Your above comment has nothing to do with what I am discussing.”
What you’re discussing, despite your clueless use of the adjective “scientific,” has nothing to do with science if there aren’t any data.
“If you read through and understood it, you would most likely realize that the quotation from Dembski is not in regard to measuring the informational content of a biological system. IT IS IN REGARD TO THE GENERATION OF INFORMATIONAL SYSTEMS AND THIS IS WHAT I AM DSCUSSING.”
It’s all hooey, and he knows it, because he can’t be bothered to use any of it to generate any data.
“However, you can measure the informational content of the genome,…”
Interesting. Please rank the following cells by the quantity of informational content of their genomes:
1) One of your macrophages
2) One of your immature B lymphocytes that has not undergone V(D)J recombination
3) One of your mature B lymphocytes that has undergone V(D)J recombination in one allele, but not the other, and is secreting an antibody against the last rhinovirus that infected you
4) One of your mature B lymphocytes that has undergone V(D)J recombination in both alleles, and is secreting an antibody against the last rhinovirus that infected you
5) One of your mature B lymphocytes that has undergone V(D)J recombination in one allele, but not the other, but makes no functional antibody
6) One of your mature B lymphocytes that has undergone V(D)J recombination in both alleles, but makes no functional antibody
“… as with any other information system. Biological structures are merely the result of the processing of this information.”
Great! Please rank the cells above, and we’ll talk about how biological information is generated, independent of design vs. evolution.
“I agree with you.”
Excellent! Was it wrong for Febble to be banned, then?
“Now, can you tell me the necessary system which must be in place for the evolution of specific complexity to occur and produce further information, which is what Demski is actually referring to in this case.”
Necessary? Replication. Sufficient? I don’t know. Why don’t we study a case of information production in real time before we go back billions of years?
CJYman wrote (quoting Dembski):
“…The four nucleotide bases are attached to a sugar-phosphate backbone and thus cannot influence each other via bonding affinities.”
John wrote:
“Stephen Meyer clearly doesn’t know basic biochemistry.”
“Ummmm, actually this IS basic biochemistry.”
No, actually this is completely, utterly, idiotic. Anyone who has done any basic molecular biology for more than a week or two knows how profoundly stupid this statement is.
If this statement is true, single-stranded DNA cannot have any secondary structure.
“You must have misunderstood what is being stated.”
Not at all. I work with single-stranded DNA on a daily basis. Has Dembski ever done anything with DNA?
CJYman wrote (quoting Dembski):
“In other words, there is complete freedom in the sequencing possibilities of the nucleotide bases. ”
John wrote:
“IOW, Stephen Meyer, Dembski, and you don’t have a clue.”
“We must be speaking “past” each other.”
No, we are not. You do not have a clue.
“Can you please show me what is so incorrect in these last two statements.”
Different DNA sequences have different stabilities under different conditions.
“Are you saying science isn’t logical?”
No, I’m saying that scientific logic isn’t different from regular logic. Science is about testing hypotheses, and not a single datum has ever been produced by an ID proponent testing an ID hypothesis.
“I am aware of that. Now would you like to discuss the issue at hand and how evolutionary programs are a test of and verify ID.”
No, because you don’t understand that the point is to make predictions that have the potential to falsify one’s hypothesis. If some data are consistent with one’s hypothesis, that does not justify claiming that the hypothesis is verified.
“Please enlighten me and show me how evolutionary programs are not scientifically verified to be produced by intelligence.”
“Scientifically” means using predictions and data. Show me the data.
“Do we have any hypothesis as to random creation of programs which can undergo evolution.”
We? I’m not convinced that you know what a hypothesis is, since you clearly don’t know what a theory is.
“I’m sure you already understand (since you obviously read my previous post) that information is not defined by physical laws of attraction,…”
I don’t see how reading your post can be conflated with data.
Do snowflakes have information?
“… thus previous information processors or random accidents are (unless you can show otherwise) the only available options for the generation of information/processing systems.”
Here is how scientific writing is done:
The hypothesis that mechanism X plays a role in phenomenon Y predicts that the absence of X will alter phenomenon Y. Therefore, we did experiment A with positive control B and negative control C. The data, shown in Figure 1, are consistent with our hypothesis. To further test our hypothesis…
John wrote:
“If you are sure that there is an ID theory, please state the prediction and the data generated by testing it. You won’t, because no ID proponent has the integrity to make a prediction and test it.”
“Actually, that is exactly what I have done here and on my blog.”
No, that is exactly what you have NOT done in either place. If you disagree, simply fill in the following blanks:
Hypothesis:___________
Prediction:____________
New data you generated/new observations you made:_____________
“Are you denying that evolutionary programs are designed with a goal with which to generate and converge information?”
Are you denying that you continued to beat your wife?
“A speck of basic discussion would be appreciated. Are we to just have blind faith that you are the one to pronounce something as scientific or not?”
Not at all. Simply read the PRIMARY scientific literature. The primary literature is the stuff with the NEW data. If it ain’t got new data, it’s not the primary literature.
“Please define science for me (this is something I have already done on my blog) and then proceed to show me why my ideas are not scientific.”
I have done so repeatedly. Asking whether ideas are scientific is as ridiculous as asking if an event was scientific. Scientific can only be applied to describe an approach to understanding an event or testing an idea.
“And … are you then agreeing with me that there is a more foundational law than physical laws of attraction to generate information/processing systems?”
No.
“After all, you do imply earlier in this post that you have a basic understanding of biochemistry and information.”
I don’t think that I implied it–I was pretty blatant about it.
“Oh btw, have you read anything by Paul Davies on the subject?”
Do any of his writings describe new data he has generated?
“I have a link to some of his thoughts under the “definitions” section under “read these for my view of ID” at my blog.”
I’m far more interested in new data than I am in thoughts. Why hasn’t a single ID hypothesis generated a single new datum?
CJYman wrote:
“… for the creation of information processors, when science deals in terms of LAWS of cause and effect?”
John wrote:
“By a clue. Science deals with the testing of hypotheses. Hypotheses with long track records of successful predictions are promoted to the status of theory or law. One can do science for a lifetime without ever dealing with a law.”
“So then, according to you, science is NOT the discipline which attempts to explain phenomenon in terms of laws of cause and effect?”
Science is the discipline THAT attempts to explain phenomenA in terms of cause and effect. “Laws” aren’t a necessary part of the definition.
“I think that now would be a excellent time to start defining terms such as “scientific.” Or, just look under “definitions” at my blog.”
Most of them are so far off that they are laughable. Tell me, CJYman, have you ever even read a single paper from the primary scientific literature?
John wrote:
“Why do you repeatedly misuse the term “theory”? Is that an intellectually honest practice?”
“My apologies. I wasn’t aware before now that I have been lying. (note sarcasm).”
Really? How would you describe the difference between “theory” and “hypothesis,” then?
Let’s deal with concrete cases, like the informational content of the genomes of the cells I described above. Or, let’s discuss the pseudoprediction you linked to, “Much so-called “junk DNA” will turn out to perform valuable functions.”
How much? Which “junk DNA” will be more likely to perform a valuable function?
When were the first data published showing that removal of some so-called “junk DNA” negatively affected fitness?
Why are ID proponents running around claiming that the evidence is recent, or dishonestly offering something we already know as a prediction? What could be more dishonest?
Ty wrote:
“…it’s mathematically impossible to get from basic elements to DNA based on straight probability.”
Basic elements? Is anyone claiming that compounds on the young Earth didn’t exist? That everything was elemental?
What does probability have to do with it? If one wants to determine whether it is possible, isn’t the experimental route better than blogging?
http://online.kitp.ucsb.edu/online/evonet07/bada/
“Everybody from Dembski to Darwin to Dawkins acknowledges this.”
How could Darwin have acknowledged anything about DNA, given that he died long before it was ever discovered? Do you see how obvious it is that you have no clue what Darwin did or didn’t acknowledge?
Do you view posting blatant falsehoods like this as “holding your own,” Ty?
Zachriel: We can falsify the Theory of Evolution if we find a magic flying pony.
CJYman
That’s not a valid scientific test. A potential falsification has to be an actual test that can be performed. It can’t simply be based in ignorance or a lack of technical ability. ID has to have an observable consequence. We might never be able to understand how life arose on the primordial Earth, but that doesn’t make ID true by default, any more than not knowing what causes the intricate movement of planets means that angels move them on crystal spheres.
Note to Ty Harris,
You may want to break this discussion down into separate threads. Your original idea about how extraplanetary exploration may shed light on Intelligent Design has been lost in the shuffle.
Meanwhile, the Theory of Evolution, including Common Descent, is a strongly supported scientific theory. You really need to resolve this question in your mind. Perhaps you are having difficulty with the scientific method. John, despite what you believe to be his abrupt manner, is right. It’s all about the data.
The Scientific Method: hypothesis, prediction, observation, validation, repeat.
Zachriel:
“Zachriel: We can falsify the Theory of Evolution if we find a magic flying pony.”
CJYman wrote:
“One way ID can be falsified is if anyone shows that information processors can accidentally, and randomly self-organize no matter the laws of the system within which the information processor is generated.”
Zachriel:
“That’s not a valid scientific test.”
And your above example of falsification of evolution IS a valid scientific test?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? er ….
OUCH!!! Zachriel, in all my days of debate, I have never seen such a blatant case of hypocrisy!
First, I’m not out to falsify evolution. I personally see evolution as the default, which could not be easily falsified at all by any one phenomenon. In fact, the only way that evolution could be falsified at this time is by actually going back in time and watching the “supernatural creation event,” since there is more than a ton of evidence for a history of our life which has changed from low information content to extremely high information content.
Second, I am an ID evolutionist. But, I’m sure you saw this under my blog posting “designed to evolve.”
Third, how do you define magic as you have used it above, and how would a flying pony disprove evolution?
Fourth, you are correct in one thing. My example is NOT a valid scientific test of ID. But, then again, I never said that the above WAS a test of ID. That would be under “my view of ID VERIFICATION.” The above is a FALSIFICATION of ID, which is why it is under “my view of ID FALSIFICATION.” I’m sure you ARE aware of the difference between verification and falsification.
Zachriel:
“A potential falsification has to be an actual test that can be performed. It can’t simply be based in ignorance or a lack of technical ability.”
I agree. That’s why I have laid out a potential falsification of ID. Are you saying that my example of falsification of ID theory is NOT an actual test that can be performed either in practise or in theory. If so, then are you now agreeing with me that abiogenesis by accidental means can not occur within any program, no matter the laws of the program? If so, hand me some scientific options as to the creation of information/processing systems other than that stated by ID theory (since according to yourself, ID theory is not falsified by accidental abiogenesis).
Zachriel:
“ID has to have an observable consequence. We might never be able to understand how life arose on the primordial Earth, but that doesn’t make ID true by default, any more than not knowing what causes the intricate movement of planets means that angels move them on crystal spheres.”
Correct. In all of our observable experience (which you rightly point out is a MUST for scientific theories) with angels and crystal spheres, we have never seen anything remotely similar to planetary movement. But I’m sure that goes without saying.
Actually, this has more to do with a class of phenomenon, than strictly “how did life arise on the primordial earth,” although it is true that life exists within the category of phenomenon that ID attempts to explain. You’ve been around the block a few times on this issue and you seem to have read my thoughts on ID at my blog, so you are aware that the phenomenon we are dealing with here is the phenomenon if information/processing systems. You must also be aware that according to ID, information processors must necessarily originate from a previous information processor.
This is a straight forward observation and the positive agument has been tested repeatedly, the argument against the negative has been laid, and nothing else has been shown to produce information processors either logically or scientifically.
You surely are aware that a statement that says “x” only arise from “yx” because we observe that is true and we can re-create “x” arising from “yx” thus testing the theory, and there are inconsistencies with “x” arising accidentally (I’ve linked to two peer-reviewed papers that discuss this on my blog) or through physical laws of attraction, can be falsified by showing “x” arising either through accidental occurences or through physical laws of attraction. Furthermore, since you seem to understand the phenomenon of information/processing systems, you must also understand that they do not originate from physical laws of attraction.
Hello John,
I was just reading through your last comment to me and I’m more than a tad confused by your seeming emotionally charged answer to my question.
CJYman wrote:
“Are you denying that evolutionary programs are designed with a goal with which to generate and converge information?”
John wrote:
“Are you denying that you continued to beat your wife?”
Could you please clarify what you are attempting to state here?
I will be back to continue our discussion …
Here’s CJYmans ID falisiabiliy crriterion (again)
Zachriel has already pointed out that this is not a scientific test. I would like to add my own comments has to how unreasonable this is.
To meet this criteria we must prove that life would accidentally appear under any laws. Eg if gravity was a repellant force, water melted at 400K and evaporated at 401K, opposite charges repelled and like charges attracted, there would still be replicators. Could you design a workable system under such conditions?
And let’s say that by some miracle we were able to meet your conditions. That would take a computer, right? Or a information processing system that doesn’t exists on earth today and which we would have to design and build first, or coax into being somehow in a lab. Let’s look at your method for verifying ID.
Rats! Mistyped my end blockquote. The last paragraph above is naturally mine and not CGYman’s. Double rats! my first line had four typos.
Hello Tyharris,
Are my comments somehow caught up in the spam filter again?
“This is quite an unfortunate statement. And remember that there are probably more Muslim creationists than there are Christian ones. How much zeal do you have for intelligent design?”
However many Muslim creationists there are, I hope that they are ashamed of fundamentalist Jihad and consider it a blot upon Islam, just as I consider the Inquisition or the crusades to be a blot upon Christianity.
Jim Wynne:
““I’m not beginning with teleological presuppositions, so the order of any given set of potential constituents is going to be random, and if by chance the amalgam causes something to happen, then we can observe the result. ”
Based on your last post, it seems that you think the above statement of yours means something. What does it mean exactly?
What is “it” that we observe? Where is “it” being observed?
And if, perforce, you’re suggesting that we’re talking about the incredible complexity of “life”, well, before we get there, please explain how your “amalgam” gets above 10 nucleotide bases, as I indicated that without a template you can’t coax more than 10 nucleotide bases to attach to one another.
steve_h
“As I understand it, the idea is that if you somehow stumble on the first wheel and then future generations of solution “inherit” that setting, your chance of getting the eigth wheel is one in ten. If you have a population of creatures which know the first seven settings, the eigth is going to get cracked pretty quickly.”
Well, what if an organism stumbled onto to the eighth wheel’s correct answer, then wouldn’t it have the same one in ten chance of getting wheel number one correct?
John: #108
“Huh? Protein? Since the discovery of catalytic RNA, who includes protein in pre- or peri-biotic hypotheses any more?”
From Wikipedia:
A ribozyme (from ribonucleic acid enzyme, also called RNA enzyme or catalytic RNA) is an RNA molecule that catalyzes a chemical reaction. Many natural ribozymes catalyze either their own cleavage or the cleavage of other RNAs, but they have also been found to catalyze the aminotransferase activity of the ribosome. Investigators studying the origin of life have produced ribozymes in the laboratory that are capable of catalyzing their own synthesis under very specific conditions, such as an RNA polymerase ribozyme.[1] More work needs to be done in this area though, as the polymerase ribozyme does not have enough catalytic prowess: it is able to add up to 14 nucleotides to a primer template in 24 hours until it is decomposed by hydrolysis of the phosphodiester bonds.
With the above quoted section in hand, let’s revisit one of your statements:
John: “No prebiotic scenario requires proteins, since RNA can act enzymatically. Proteins would come much later–at least if your scenario had any basis in what we’ve known for over 20 years.”
Ribozymes are enzymes, and enzymes are proteins, so if you want to invoke catalytic RNA in your abiogenesis, then you had better be prepared to admit that proteins exist and are needed. You’ll also notice that when it is a case of ‘catalyzing their own synthesis’, that these ribozymes ‘were produced in the lab’; they weren’t naturally occurring.
And as to their synthesis, it, first, speaks of the presence of a template (what is the origin of the template? Likely it is also produced in the lab), and, second, says that no more than 14 nucleotides could be added together.
John: “Don’t you think your arguments should have a minimal factual basis, Lino?”
I think I do have a factual basis.
RE:123- CJYman- you arent winding up in the spam filter. For some reason, all of your comments require me to moerate/approve them via e-mail. I work, so I cant always be present to do so instantly. Most people’s comments get through just fine now without my needing to approve them. Question- are you logged into wordpress when you comment? I think it may be what makes the difference. By the way, thanks for your participation and contributions.
Lino said:
The typical Paleyist bait-and-switch approach. You will recall that it was you who wanted to ascribe function to prebiotic events, assuming some teleological purpose. I pointed out to you that there would be no reason to assume function if what was going on prebiotically was random. The “it” referred to is any prebiotic compound. We can’t observe “it” until “it” happens.
As for your “template,” please present the proper citations, and not vague references.
Ty (#83), I’ve looked through that site periodically since its inception, and my opinion of it is diametrically opposed to yours. I don’t what impresses you about the site. Is it Campana’s technical-sounding jargon? Is it arguments that intuitively make sense to you? (Note: Intuition stinks when it comes to modern science.)
CJYman, I’ve looked at the “Summary” and “Definitions” pages of your site. I see many logical problems and fatally vague definitions that lead me to believe that nobody has ever tried to actually put your ideas to use in the real world. Am I right?
For instance, “information” seems to be a key term in your paradigm. You equate the term with CSI, which is itself highly problematic and of no demonstrated use. But then you immediately contradict Dembski’s notion when you mention a “non-repetitive arrangement of units”. Dembski’s most oft-used example of CSI is the Caputo sequence, which is a very repetitive sequence.
The rest of your definition is too vague to distinguish information from non-information. What counts as “meaning”? What counts as “function”? Is your definition based on Shannon self-information like Dembski’s? If so, then to determine the amount of information, you have to calculate the probability based on a hypothesis that includes evolutionary mechanisms, right? Have you ever done this?
And on what basis do you claim that “there is no physical or chemical law apart from a combination of intelligence and evolution that causes the specific ordering and non-repetitive sequencing of these letters or bases to produce specific effects.” Is there any science at all to back up your assertion that intelligence is necessary? Do you even have a definition of “intelligence” that conforms to the ID movement’s goals and is scientifically meaningful?
Lino D’Ischia:
I’m not sure what you mean.
if you are talking about respinning all of the wheels at every attempt, you will get nowhere fast. In the evolutionary scenario, having some correctly set wheels gives an advantage over having no wheels set and gives you more tries at the remaining wheels. If you only spin one or two wheels at each generation, you may sometimes undo your previous work and lose out, or you may advance at little further. If there are a lot of you starting with the advantageous settings from the previous generation and all spinning only one or two wheels (which is a 10-20% change in one go, way more than actually happens), then at least some of the individuals will be selected for. The next generation will contain a number of individuals with one wheel setting more.
As I said, it still boils down to whether there are systems which require 10 wheels correctly set at once or there is some sort of advantage to having one or two correct. In the case of the flagellum , the IDers were talking about having over forty wheels which all had to be set at once. But it turns out that many of them could have been set to the correct values by the role they played in other systems.
I.E Maybe one of the wheels when set to its correct value also turns on the light enabling you to see what you are doing, and the second controls a radio with presets, where the correct setting happens to be Safecracking-FM.
I don’t like the safe analogy because it presumes there is a specific goal. Evolution works with small pay-outs which eventually build up, not by suddenly winning several major lotto draws on the same day.
RE: any muslims who were offended by the “islamic jihad” comments- perhaps I should have chosen a better analogy. I know there are many good muslims who dont support the fundamentalist whackos. My point was that there are some similarities between islamic fundamentalists who have zero-tolerance for other viewpoints, and many evolutionists who are hell-bent on keeping ID from being presented as an alternate viewpoint in schools. An irrational and emotional intolerance , and an unwillingness to give other viewpoints the same freedom of expression as their own, IS a feature that islamic fundamentalism, and the evolutionist true-believer academic establishment has in common. Obviously, the similarities end there. If you deny allah in Egypt, you get beheaded. If you present ID alongside evolution in a high-school biology class, you only get sued and fired. The evolutionists arent flying planes into buildings or throwing grenades into elementary-school classrooms like the islamic fundamentalists are doing every day in iraq. Also, the point that there are a lot of muslim creationists is well-taken. I apologize for using such an extreme example, and will try to choose my analogies with more care. I actually do feel sorry for peaceful, tolerant, moderate muslims who wind up being tarred by the actions of the crazy zealots. It’s too bad that Islamic fundamentalism has gotten so out of control. For what it’s worth, I think that one of the fundamental reasons that Islam seems to not be able to co-exist peacfully alongside other religions ( in the way that different religions are tolerated here in America ) is that islam presents itself not only as a religious system, but as a system of governance in general. A strong secular government that protects the rights of all religions and viewpoints equally is critical for societal progress and peacful co-existence. Christianity, for instance, is able to go about it’s business within the context of a secular government alongside other religions, whereas Islam always seems to be trying to subjugate EVERYBODY to their viewpoints by taking control of ALL aspects of society, which is unfortunate. Intolerance, I’m sorry to say, is a problem that is fundamentally ( and perhaps inextricably ) woven into the fabric of islam in my opinion. I hope the tolerant,nice muslims manage to wrest control of their societies from the zealots in the years and decades to come, but right now, things arent looking too good on that front. The Crusades were an example of the same sort of agressive intolerance on the part of Christians once upon a time, but now, today, the mantle of agressive intolerance is worn by Islam, not Christianity, and moderate muslims have to realize that truth. There is NO moral equivilance between modern-day christian fundamentalism and modern-day islamic fundamentalism. At any rate, I’ll choose my phrases more carefully in the future, and that’s the last comment I will make on the subject of religion, as I am not trying to start a holy – war here )
Lino wrote:
“Ribozymes are enzymes, and enzymes are proteins,…”
No, Lino, ribozymes are enzymes that are not proteins. You are simply, spectacularly wrong, but I predict that won’t be a problem for you.
—–
enzyme |ˈenzīm| noun Biochemistry a substance produced by a living organism that acts as a catalyst to bring about a specific biochemical reaction. Most enzymes are proteins with large complex molecules whose action depends on their particular molecular shape. Some enzymes control reactions within cells and some, such as the enzymes involved in digestion, outside them.
—–
Do you see the qualifier “most” preceding “proteins,” Lino? I can see your eyes rollling back into your head from here.
“… so if you want to invoke catalytic RNA in your abiogenesis, then you had better be prepared to admit that proteins exist and are needed.”
I need no such preparation. You should go a little deeper than Wikipedia, because its shallowness allowed you to gloss over the fact that RNAs have been shown to have enzymatic activity in the absence of proteins, and that not all enzymes are proteins.
It also is amusing that you can’t recognize a rapid modification of the central dogma of molecular biology (whose discoverer was never ostracized and won a Nobel Prize) while trying to falsely portray scientists as more dogmatic than yourself.
“You’ll also notice that when it is a case of ‘catalyzing their own synthesis’, that these ribozymes ‘were produced in the lab’; they weren’t naturally occurring.”
Yes, but that doesn’t mean that they never naturally occurred; in fact, they could be arising naturally all the time, but we’d never detect them because all modern living things produce loads of ribonuclease, an amazingly resilient protein. Try purifying RNA without changing gloves every few minutes if you don’t believe me.
“And as to their synthesis, it, first, speaks of the presence of a template (what is the origin of the template?”
No, Lino, oligonucleotides are routinely synthesized without templates; the price for oligodeoxynucleotides has dropped to
Ty: “My point was that there are some similarities between islamic fundamentalists who have zero-tolerance for other viewpoints, and many evolutionists who are hell-bent on keeping ID from being presented as an alternate viewpoint in schools.”
In what class should this viewpoint be presented? Science? Science isn’t about viewpoints. Should there be a “survey of viewpoints” class, where kids can learn about astrology, alchemy, flat-earthism, conspiracy theories, and ID?
Finishing up in response to Lino:
No, Lino, oligonucleotides are routinely synthesized without templates; the price for oligodeoxynucleotides has dropped to
No “less than” symbols seem to be allowed. One more time:
No, Lino, oligonucleotides are routinely synthesized without templates; the price for oligodeoxynucleotides has dropped to less than $1/base.
http://www.oligofactory.com/tech.htm
You don’t have a factual basis for your position, and pointing out the errors in your most fundamental assumptions clearly doesn’t help.
“Likely it is also produced in the lab),…”
Since no template is needed for oligonucleotide synthesis, your scenario is so unlikely as to be laughable.
“… and, second, says that no more than 14 nucleotides could be added together.”
And 40 years ago we hadn’t figured out the organic chemistry for synthesizing oligonucleotides or sequencing DNA, but now we routinely do them for $1/base and $12/500 bases respectively. Isn’t technology amazing? Do you realize that we figured out how to design ribozymes only after discovering them in nature?
Do you not agree that more work needs to be done in this area, Lino, or does the first technical limit observed become Gospel in your mind?
——-
Ty,
I have a proposal based on secondclass’s comment. In science classes, teachers will be mandated to present all new data (but ONLY new data) produced by ID proponents from tests of predictions (real ones, not CJYman’s or researchdesign.org’s bogus ones) that have the potential to falsify ID hypotheses.
At present, that would consist of the following announcement:
“I have been ordered to present all data produced by ID proponents from testing of actual predictions of ID hypotheses. There are none. If ID proponents care enough to start doing real science that generates real data, your teachers will report their new data to you. In the meantime, check out the latest fossils of cetacean intermediates published in just the last year; they were found in the strata that the scientists predicted they would be found in…”
Waddaya think, Ty?
Ty wrote:
“An irrational and emotional intolerance , and an unwillingness to give other viewpoints the same freedom of expression as their own, IS a feature that islamic fundamentalism, and the evolutionist true-believer academic establishment has in common.”
Ty, this is simply a lie. The “evolutionist true-believer academic establishment” hands out Nobel Prizes for those who show that existing dogma is wrong. How many Nobel Prizes have been awarded to scientists who have modified the central dogma of molecular biology?
Also, if this is about science this isn’t about “expressing viewpoints,” it’s about producing data, and your side has produced none. Nada. Zero. How do you explain that?
“Christianity, for instance, is able to go about it’s business within the context of a secular government alongside other religions…”
This is laughable. How many Christian fundamentalists go on about how the US is a Christian nation?
“The Crusades were an example of the same sort of agressive intolerance on the part of Christians once upon a time, but now, today, the mantle of agressive intolerance is worn by Islam, not Christianity, and moderate muslims have to realize that truth.”
“This crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while.”
–George W. Bush
“There is NO moral equivilance between modern-day christian fundamentalism and modern-day islamic fundamentalism.”
You haven’t provided a speck of evidence to support your assertion, just other assertions.
CJYman to Zachriel:
“And your above example of falsification of evolution IS a valid scientific test?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? er ….
“OUCH!!! Zachriel, in all my days of debate, I have never seen such a blatant case of hypocrisy!”
He was mocking your bogus test. A flying pony is as worthless as your test.
“I’m sure you ARE aware of the difference between verification and falsification.”
You don’t seem to be aware that real scientists don’t use the term (or the concept of) “verification.” We much more modestly note that the data support the hypothesis.
“You surely are aware that a statement that says “x” only arise from “yx”…”
Are any scientists making such statements?
“… because we observe that is true and we can re-create “x” arising from “yx” thus testing the theory,…”
Theory or hypothesis? Words have meanings, and you’re not some etymological czar.
To me:
“Could you please clarify what you are attempting to state here?”
That you are asking loaded questions, of course.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/loadques.html
Oh flippin’ ‘eck, I didn’t close me blockquotes properly again. The second quote above is my response to the first quote. My apologies.
Steve, it’s not that no testable hypotheses can be derived from the notion of ID, it’s that those pretending that it is science lack the faith to test any of them.
For example, I could hypothesize that design activity on proteins occurred sometime between the appearance of the first mammals and the appearance of modern humans. This clearly predicts discontinuities in common descent among proteins during that time, as long as the design does more than mutation, natural selection, and drift.
Ty, in regards to your ET life query, if there are N planets in the multiverse, and the probability of life emerging on a given planet is P, then the probability of life on exactly one planet is P_1 = N*P*(1-P)^(1-N), while the probability of life on multiple planets is P_m = 1 – (1-P)^N – P_1. For higher values of N and P, P_m > P_1, meaning that we would expect to find life elsewhere. For lower values of N and P, P_m P_1, although this assumption is not a given.
Also, keep in mind that relativity prevents us from getting a “current” snapshot of the universe. Most of the universe can be “seen” only as it was billions of years ago.
Zachriel: We can falsify the Theory of Evolution if we find a magic flying pony.
CJYman
I’m not sure how much more ironic I could have been.
If we never discover information processors that “randomly self-organize,” that may only reflect a limitation of our knowledge or technical capabilities. If you have a valid hypothesis, then please make a prediction about observable phenomena — something that I can actually test with something other than an invisible magic pony net.
This is a scientific test of the Theory of Evolution. It starts with a hypothesis, that cetaceans descended from land mammals about 40 million years ago. So, you talk to your friends, the geologists, to find the appropriate strata, and they say to take a hike out into the Egyptian wastelands and spend a few years digging in the desert. If you find a fossil organism that doesn’t fit the nested hierarchy of descent, then you have a potential falsification of the Theory of Evolution. If you find a whale with hind limbs, then they might let you spend more years digging in desert rocks. Fun!
CJYman
If by “default”, you mean a theory strongly supported by a wide variety of evidence, then yes. But you also write this on your blog:
CJYman
This is not a “major verification” of anything. You are fallaciously assuming your conclusion. Only by assuming that life is not a natural source of “information” does your syllogism make sense. You are also fallaciously arguing from ignorance. There may be many different natural “information creators,” but we may only have knowledge of one with any certainty. Consequently, the less we know, the stronger your argument appears to be!
Does this make any sense? Frankly, you do not understand the scientific method.
At best, at best, you have an analogy. The spark of a hypothesis. So, let us suppose that life is designed. Now, what can we say about it? What are the empirical implications of this tentative assertion? It turns out, as with all such “design” assertions, that it requires investigation of not just the artifact, but of the evidence linking the artifact, the artisan and the art. Every contact leaves a trace. And there is no scientific evidence to support this claim. You are left with nothing but a vague idea that the planets are gods that watch over humanity and interfere willy-nilly in the course of history.
Whoops, forgot to escape the less-than sign.
John,
Do we have samples of proteins from early mammals and the first humans? (That’s not a rhetorical question, I really have no idea).
You may be right, but as I see it, there will always be too many oportunities for goalpost moving once the tests had failed. You
would have to repeat the exercise for each protein. Also a path of “Mammals to Humans” stills leaves “Fish To Mammals” and (unfortunately) “rocks to bacteria”. I suspect they’d insist on “Rocks to People”.
elsewhere, you said
“Dr. Dembski, all I can say is that you must have a very, very thick skin. Because I have tasted but a thimbleful from the cup of scorn that you drink deeply from every day”
actually, no. Dr Dembski doesn’t publish, and respond to, criticism, as you have done. your view is not the scientifically popular one, so you have two choices: open yourself to a firestorm of skepticism that you are writing in ignorance; or insulate yourself while telling yourself and your friends how you COULD answer your detractors if you could be bothered weathering the storm. Dr Dembski does the latter, but I congratulate you for attempting the former.
Jim Wynne:
“The typical Paleyist bait-and-switch approach. You will recall that it was you who wanted to ascribe function to prebiotic events, assuming some teleological purpose.”
As I recall, I used the word function in reference to “life”. You then wanted to talk about a functionless abiotic world, to which, I acceded, that in such a world, yes, a protein would have no function. But, of course, it didn’t seem like your analogy had much relevance then to actual life.
JW: “The “it” referred to is any prebiotic compound. We can’t observe “it” until “it” happens.”
Well, if we don’t know what “it” is, OK, but where are we going to observe “it”. That seems a fair enough question.
JW: “As for your “template,” please present the proper citations, and not vague references.”
I don’t consider Wikipedia to be a vague reference.
steve_h
“I’m not sure what you mean.”
Your example was of some entity getting the first wheel right, and then being in a position of getting the eighth wheel right. ( I understand you could have used the sixth, or ninth, or etc.). I’m wondering if you can work both ‘up’ and ‘down’ the lock. In other words, does the direction matter?
Protein sequences of Neanderthals and modern primates
(PNAS: March 22, 2005)
The research was done by Nielsen-Marsh et al. at the Department of Human Evolution, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Those darn evolutionists. Always collecting data to test their “theories”.
Protein sequences of Neanderthals and modern primates
(PNAS: March 22, 2005)
The research was done by Nielsen-Marsh et al. at the Department of Human Evolution, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Those darn evolutionists. Always collecting data to test their “theories”.
John:
First, your comments make you come off as a rude and intemperate man. Shall I presume you never took a Dale Carnegie course?
LD:You’ll also notice that when it is a case of ‘catalyzing their own synthesis’, that these ribozymes ‘were produced in the lab’; they weren’t naturally occurring.
John: “Yes, but that doesn’t mean that they never naturally occurred; in fact, they could be arising naturally all the time, but we’d never detect them because all modern living things produce loads of ribonuclease, an amazingly resilient protein. Try purifying RNA without changing gloves every few minutes if you don’t believe me.”
Is your argument that since ribonuclease is ubiquitous in the biotic world, we’ll probably never know whether ribozymes can arise on their own? Doesn’t that make your argument unfalsibiable? I see that as problematic.
LD: And as to their synthesis, it, first, speaks of the presence of a template (what is the origin of the template?
John: “Since no template is needed for oligonucleotide synthesis, your scenario is so unlikely as to be laughable.”
Is the scenario you’re presenting that the need for templates in an abiotic world is laughable when sophisticated chemical apparati and state of the art stoichiometric techniques would work just as well?
LD: … and, second, says that no more than 14 nucleotides could be added together.
John: “And 40 years ago we hadn’t figured out the organic chemistry for synthesizing oligonucleotides or sequencing DNA, but now we routinely do them for $1/base and $12/500 bases respectively. Isn’t technology amazing? Do you realize that we figured out how to design ribozymes only after discovering them in nature?”
Why don’t we begin by differentiating between naturally occurring oligonucleotides and artificially synthesized oligonucleotides. I’m no expert, but it seems reasonable to believe that naturally occuring oligonucleotides can be up to 20, perhaps, I would think very rarely, 25 nucleotides long.
Now, the odds of any such string coming together by chance is 1 in 4^25 (th power) using 25 nucleotides as the length. That corresponds to roughly 4 x 10^18 (th power). I remember that there are 6.023 x 10^23 molecules/mole, and that a mole of any chemical doesn’t weigh much at all. So, if there were even a relatively small amount of nucleotides in solution, the chances of a nucleotide occurring simply by chance are good. Lo, and behold, they do naturally occur. But apparently when you want lengths of 160 to 200 nucleotides, then intervention via sophisticated lab equipment and techniques are needed. Perhaps you can enlighten me here, but without a template, as best I can see, the chemical process simply produces oligonucleotides in a random fashion. Is that correct?
I would suggest anyone who believes that “Intelligent Design” has any scientific validity peruse a scientific research facility such as the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology with scientists making hypotheses and testing those hypotheses by collecting and analyzing relevant data. Then try to find any, any research facility for “Intelligent Design. There are none. There is no science of “Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design is a political movement that uses the language of science to convince laypersons to effect social change. Intelligent Design is scientifically vacuous and intellectually sterile.
—
Note re; #146, #147
#146 and #147 are identical except the former has five embedded links. #146 ended up in the moderation queue.
Lino D’Ischia,
At first I was completely baffled by your reiteration of the question as I had no idea what you were driving at, but having seen Steve_h’s responses and your replies I understand.
The answer is ‘it all depends.’ Each mutation must be advantageous in its own right to be selected. Organisms can’t anticipate what they will need in the future. So, in the case of the lock, it is as though you would not know that you had the correct setting for the eighth wheel until the previous seven were all in place.
It’s probably helpful to change the illustration. Suppose a bacterium requires two different mutations, A and B, before it is able to metabolize a novel substrate. It is extremely unlikely that the two would occur by chance in the same organism. However, suppose mutation A confers some kind of advantage to the organism. Then any bacteria containing this are likely to increase in the population. As the proportion of bacteria containing mutation A increases, the chance of mutation B happening to occur in a bacterium with mutation A increases.
If mutation B on its own conferred no advantage then it would not increase in the population in anticipation of mutation A taking place (barring genetic drift).
My understanding is that something like this took place with the evolution of nylon-digesting bacteria, but you’ll have to excuse me not trying to track it down – it’s past midnight and I have an early start in the morning.
Steve_h – You used an expression I’ve not heard since the days when I grew up in the Manchester area – flippin’ heck.
CJYman: You refer to complex specified information as though it actually means something. What has more CSI, Mt Rushmore or a cockroach and how did you determine this?
RE: Comment140
Secondclass- So, to clarify, are you definitly predicting that we will find life, or are you defining an expression of probability with variables that we can plug our own guesses into? I think that if Evolution, as a naturalistic process, actually has a sound mathematical and probibalistic explanation for the creation of complex life from particles here on earth, then it should be able to make a straightforward and SPECIFIC prediction on the prevolance of life elsewhere. So I ask again- Is life in the universe rare or prevolant? Simple or complex? If evolution- as a purely naturalistic explanation for the origins of life- is a theory that states DEFINITIVELY that selection is a sufficient factor to counteract chance in the production of biological complexity, then the extent to which probability is counteracted should be mathematically quantifiable should it not? An exact prediction as to life’s prevelance should then be possible given a certain sample-set of planets with the right conditions for life. For instance, lets say I show you ten billion “M- class ” planets ( Star-Trek Jargon, but you know what I mean ) where the conditions for life exist- can the theory of evolution predict how many of them will have life on them and what the complexity of that life will be? If it cant predict that, then why not? If we can state definitively with such certainty, that mutation and Selection counteract straight probability enough to allow the production of bilological complexity, then we must be able to quantify the resulting “selection-adjusted probability” of life occuring in nature apart from design. And if we CANT quantify the exact extent to which selection counterracts probability to produce biological complexity, then how do we know with such certainty that it lowers the probabilities sufficiently to work in the first place? The introduction of selection as a means to counteract and offset straight-probability is the absolute foundation of evolution’s viability as a theory in the face of otherwise insuperable odds, but has selection’s influence actually ever been calculated in a strict mathematical/probabalistic sense? And if it has, then I want to hear a specific , testable prediction on extra-solar life’s prevelance. I think the reason I am not getting an answer from somebody that says ” Ty, given ten billion M class planets, the naturalistic process of evolution predicts 7 of them will produce life of such and such a complexity” is that nobody has actually precisely quantified the relative influences of selection and chance on the process, and therefore, nobody has the slightest clue whether selection even has any chance to suceed against the odds at all, be it here or anywhere else. I think the fact that I cant get a specific prediction or answer on this question proves that evolutionists havent really even mathematically shown or quantified to what extent Selection counteracts chance. I keep hearing that selection counteracts probability, but if you all know that to be so certain, then I think you should be able to exactly express the extent to which it does counteract it, and be able to parlay that resulting “selection-adjusted probability” of life arising, into a testable prediction. If this naturalistic process is so well defined and certain, then it should work elswhere too, and should do so with predictable frequency and complexity.
RE John’s comment 116 on my comment 114 : “Everybody from Dembski to Darwin to Dawkins acknowledges this.” OK, you got me.( I thought you hated quote mining?) Substitute the phrase “Human Biological Complexity” as Darwin understood it in his day for the phrase “DNA”, and I think you would have a true statement there. The point I was clearly making in this paragraph was that even Darwin would have acknowledged- (and I think he did)- that evolution cant function purely as a matter of chance. His theory obviously requires the introduction of natural selection as an offset to the problems of probability. Dembski and Dawkins both acknowledge that you cant make the jump from particles to DNA on chance alone. I put Darwin in that group as well, because all though he didnt know about DNA, I am pretty sure he acknowledged that chance alone couldnt account for life’s complexity. Congratulations on catching my technical error- which , by the way has little to do with the overall point I was trying to make about ID being bolstered if future data on the non-prevalance of extra-terrestrial life supports the notion that Selection is less of a counteracting factor to straight probability than evolutionists claim it is- ( ie, if we dont find life anywhere else but here ). I perused the actual texts of “origin of species” and “descent of man” looking for an exact quote to support my statement that Darwin acknowledged random chance alone cant account for life apart from natural selection, and got too tired to continue, and it’s probably a moot point anyways, since it isnt really relevant to the gist of what I was trying to say- ( we are just quote-mining and sniping at technicalities here arent we? ). I did come up with these interesting quotes though for you that I thought you might enjoy…
” It is impossible to conceive of the immense and wonderful universe as the result of blind chance or neccesity.” – origin of species
” If it could be demonstrated that any organ existed which could not possibly have formed by numerous, succesive slight modifications my theory would absolutely break down.”- origin of species
I wonder- if the chuckster were alive today, and knew everything we now know about the interdependent, interwoven structures and processes of human anatomy- given his own statement/ admission regarding irreducible complexity- would he even believe his own theory? If he were still alive, he might be leading the Intelligent Design movement for all we know. He was an intellectual rebel then, who questioned the established orthodoxy of the day, with the evidence he had at hand, and he was willing to bear a lot of insults and reproach for his views. In that sense, he maybe had more in common with Dembski than Dawkins. ( And with THAT statement, I must retire for the evening, having perhaps reached the limits of outrage with the ultimate heretical affront to the sensebilities of all evolutionists everywhere. )
Ty Harris
The The Theory of Evolution doesn’t speak to the origin of life, nor does Darwin. Abiogenesis is not a component of the Theory of Evolution, or Germ Theory for that matter. The first life form on Earth may have been a lucky accident, a natural property of carbon and liquid water, a unique circumstance, seeded by comets, or even a Divine Miracle. The Theory of Evolution concerns the diversification of life, not its origin. However, it is known that life did not always exist on Earth, but that once it began, it diversified into a variety of forms.
Ty Harris
No one knows for sure. What we do know is that life on Earth is based in the chemistry of carbon and liquid water. That life did not always exist on Earth, but once it appeared, it diversified through an evolutionary process. That the basic laws of chemistry (though perhaps not the specifics) apply elsewhere in the galaxy. That carbon and water are ubiquitous. That planets suitable for the long-term existence of carbon and liquid water are likely, though the prevelance is yet unknown. That the more scientists discover about biochemistry, e.g. the discovery of self-replicating molecules, the more likely abiogenesis appears to be an inevitable result of certain primordial conditions. But remember; there is no complete theory of abiogenesis.
Ty Harris
As a very careful and thoughtful scientist, it is very doubtful Darwin would support Intelligent Design. There is no evidence of Intelligent Design other than the incredulity that something so complex could have occurred without
DivineIntelligent Intervention.The basic ID claim, as encapsulated in Irreducible Complexity and Universal Probability Bounds, is that step-wise evolution is hugely improbable. But such a claim requires knowing everything about any possible path that evolution could take. It is the claimant that bears the burden of proof. To counter such a claim only requires proposing any reasonable pathway, a just-so story, and not even that. It could simply be that no one knows how certain organs or structures evolved. Why do you think that nearly every modern ID claim refers to processes that are very ancient, that left little evidence, and are at the very limits of observational capability? ID is an appeal to ignorance, yet their own claim requires that they carry to burden of proof. Read Darwin’s statement above more carefully.
Ignoring these faulty ID claims, those that propose the Theory of Evolution also have a burden of proof, and that begins with Common Descent. Only then is it possible to discuss the mechanisms that lead to such a profound divergence from common ancestors.
Ty: “Secondclass- So, to clarify, are you definitly predicting that we will find life, or are you defining an expression of probability with variables that we can plug our own guesses into?”
Sorry, the end of my post got cut off because of a less-than sign. The conclusion is this: If N is the number of planets in the multiverse, and P is the probability of life emerging on a given planet, then higher values of N and/or P render multiple emerges of life more likely than a single emergence, while low values of N and P render a single emergence more likely than multiple emergences. Does that make sense? But it’s really a moot point since we simply don’t know what N and P are.
Ty: “If we can state definitively with such certainty, that mutation and Selection counteract straight probability enough to allow the production of bilological complexity, then we must be able to quantify the resulting “selection-adjusted probability” of life occuring in nature apart from design.”
– It is a simple fact that optimization is achieved more efficiently by evolution than by random trial and error. This is so uncontroversial that very few IDists would think to question it. If you doubt it, try reading up on evolutionary algorithms.
– RM+NS has nothing to do with abiogenesis, so you’re conflating two issues.
– Your insistence that probabilities should be calculable is somewhat naive. If you can’t tell us the odds of it raining in Los Angeles on May 3, then what makes you think that we should be able to calculate the odds of abiogenesis on Earth, much less on planets that we know nothing about?
Steve asked:
“Do we have samples of proteins from early mammals and the first humans? (That’s not a rhetorical question, I really have no idea).”
No, and we wouldn’t need them. The predicted discontinuities would be evident in our inablility to fit the designed proteins into a nested hierarchy that crosses the hypothesized time of design.
“You may be right, but as I see it, there will always be too many oportunities for goalpost moving once the tests had failed.”
Absolutely. This is why ID proponents don’t test any predictions, and instead choose to spin the data of others, while ignoring any data they can’t explain. The irony here is that they lack the faith to test their hypotheses.
“You would have to repeat the exercise for each protein.”
Only for those that were hypothesized to have been designed, along with some negative controls.
———
Lino wrote:
“First, your comments make you come off as a rude and intemperate man.”
Why does correcting your false statements make me rude and intemperate? Does your ad hominem attack successfully divert attention from the fact that the assumptions underlying your conclusion are false, and you can’t admit it while you’re frantically moving the goalposts?
“Is your argument that since ribonuclease is ubiquitous in the biotic world, we’ll probably never know whether ribozymes can arise on their own?”
No, I merely note it as an important difference between the prebiotic and present world that must be kept in mind.
“Is the scenario you’re presenting that the need for templates in an abiotic world is laughable when sophisticated chemical apparati and state of the art stoichiometric techniques would work just as well?”
No, Lino, and your desperate resort to innuendo when your assumptions are exposed as rank falsehoods is tiresome. Since your conclusion depended on your assumption being correct, what happens to your conclusion when your assumption is false? Nothing! That alone shows that you are being intellectually dishonest.
“Why don’t we begin by differentiating between naturally occurring oligonucleotides and artificially synthesized oligonucleotides.”
Why? Is there any chemical difference between them? The difference is yield and purity.
“I’m no expert, but it seems reasonable to believe that naturally occuring oligonucleotides can be up to 20, perhaps, I would think very rarely, 25 nucleotides long.”
Why does that seem reasonable, given your lack of the most basic knowledge?
“Now, the odds of any such string coming together by chance is 1 in 4^25 (th power) using 25 nucleotides as the length.”
That’s irrelevant, because you’re assuming that only a single sequence would work. You have no basis for that assumption, either, but I suspect that you lack the integrity to admit it.
“That corresponds to roughly 4 x 10^18 (th power).”
That’s nice, but totally irrelevant. BTW, I understand the notation without the parenthetical.
“But apparently when you want lengths of 160 to 200 nucleotides, then intervention via sophisticated lab equipment and techniques are needed.”
No, you are making another false assumption. We use the sophisticated techniques for high yield and purity, neither of which are relevant in a prebiotic scenario. The amount of any self-replicating, enzymatic RNA needed is ONE MOLECULE.
Are you arguing that the lengths observed in the lab are not the means of a normal distribution of oligo lengths?
“Perhaps you can enlighten me here, but without a template, as best I can see, the chemical process simply produces oligonucleotides in a random fashion. Is that correct?”
Our synthetic processes? Not at all.
Why do you ask politely for enlightenment, but when enlightenment is delivered and your underlying assumption is exposed as false, you denounce the enlightener as rude and pretend that your conclusion still stands?
————-
tyharris wrote:
“RE John’s comment 116 on my comment 114 : “Everybody from Dembski to Darwin to Dawkins acknowledges this.” OK, you got me.( I thought you hated quote mining?)”
Just as much as I hate quote faking!
“Substitute the phrase “Human Biological Complexity” as Darwin understood it in his day for the phrase “DNA”, and I think you would have a true statement there.”
So what?
“The point I was clearly making in this paragraph was that even Darwin would have acknowledged- (and I think he did)- that evolution cant function purely as a matter of chance. His theory obviously requires the introduction of natural selection as an offset to the problems of probability.”
Again, so what? His theory didn’t need the introduction of NS, as it included it from the start.
“…Congratulations on catching my technical error- which , by the way has little to do with the overall point I was trying to make…”
For future reference, how much of what you post as supporting quotes or evidence, true or false, has little to do with the points you are trying to make?
“…I perused the actual texts of “origin of species” and “descent of man” looking for an exact quote…”
And yet, I offered to help you look at the actual data, and you rudely ignored my offer. Which is more scientifically relevant, Ty–quotes or data?
“…I did come up with these interesting quotes though for you that I thought you might enjoy…”
I have gigabytes of data for you to explore with your own mind, Ty. Are you interested, or are your conclusions religious instead of scientific in nature?
“I wonder- if the chuckster were alive today, and knew everything we now know about the interdependent, interwoven structures and processes of human anatomy-…”
But he’d be interested (unlike you) in the NATURE of the interdependencies we observe, which scream natural selection and drift.
“… given his own statement/ admission regarding irreducible complexity-…”
I’m still waiting for you to define IC, swear on a Bible that you won’t change the definition at all, and name some IC systems. Behe has been debunked on every one of them.
“… would he even believe his own theory?”
Absolutely. He’d marvel at the nested hierarchies that he predicted and diagrammed (did you read Chapter 14?), derived from the DNA and protein sequences he knew nothing about.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/CDhierarchy.html
“If he were still alive, he might be leading the Intelligent Design movement for all we know.”
Not a chance in hell. He’d be mocking anyone who tried to portray multiple, superimposable nested hierarchies (that fit both organisms and their components) as nothing more than “similarity” as ignorant, dishonest, or both.
In fact, that’s exactly what EVERY ID sycophant who replied to your questions at UD about nested hierarchies did, right, Ty?
The ID motto: if you can’t explain it, lie and misrepresent it. There’s still hope for you to reject that un-Christian tactic, although it’s a slim hope.
“He was an intellectual rebel then, who questioned the established orthodoxy of the day, with the evidence he had at hand,…”
Don’t forget the NEW evidence Darwin provided, a point at which your comparison with ID vanishes.
“… and he was willing to bear a lot of insults and reproach for his views.”
And yet because of all the testing of Darwin’s predictions, science embraces his theory, with some important additions and modifications.
“In that sense, he maybe had more in common with Dembski than Dawkins.”
Nope. Darwin and Dawkins published new data. Dembski never will, because underneath all the bluster, he has no real faith, except that a group of rubes will buy whatever drivel he puts in a book.
Ty –
Kudos for running an open mike on a sensitive subject.
In the spirit of college dorm bull sessions, I can also speculate on what might be found out there in the universe, and what it might mean. Kinda fun, I agree, with new data coming in all the time. A space based telescope looking for habitable, life bearing planets – pure science fiction in my youth!
But as you said elsewhere in your essay, the information sciences are much more germane to showing what evolution can and cannot do.
There is a field of genetic algorithms precisely because evolution works. Because it is very practical and useful, there are many researchers trying to understand the limits of how it works.
Genetics was a mystery in Darwin’s time. Abiogenesis is still a mystery in ours, though we closer to understanding it than Darwin was to understanding genetics.
Like ET life, abiogenesis is fascinating to track as working scientists roll back the edge of our ignorance.
If you want to venture back into blog space after the reaction you’ve gotten to this essay, might I suggest chunking your thoughts, not just into paragraphs, but into separate blog entries? That way some of the issues can be teased apart. For example, you try to sum up certain points in an earlier comment. If you broke out each of those in a separate entry, everyone could understand the threads more easily.
Ty, I just downloaded these two books as text files from Project Gutenberg (http://www.gutenberg.org) and can’t find that quote in either of them – or anything close by finding all instances of “conceive” and “universe”.
Did you find this quote by perusing the books as you suggest, or from a web site? Could you give a bit more context?
I found the same quote on a couple of web sites which indicated that it came from “Life and Letters”, but then I didn’t find it in either of those either.
RE: 156 Second Class- Thanks for your comments, and thanks for admitting that evolutionists are unable to put forward an actual specific probability for life occuring- here or elsewhere, because the entire process from the beginning to the end is not known. You are right, I am conflating the issues of abiogenesis and evolution proper, and rightly so I think. If one is to argue for a natuarlistic explanation for the journey of basic particles ( O.K. from COMPOUNDS to concede somebody else’s earlier point… ) to Human DNA, – and argue this in the face of a reasonable probability bound, it’s not enough to just start at the magical, unexplained self-creation of an information processor ( which exists indepently somehow of information itself ). A valid naturalistic explanation has to get us all the way from A to B to prove whether the universal probability bound has been skirted or not. The TOTAL improbability of Human life arising from is the SUM of; A( the odds against abiogenisis- incalculable since nobody has a clue exactly how it supposedly happened ) PLUS B ( the odds against the volume of specific complex information present in human DNA writing itself through natural selection ) PLUS C ( the odds INDEPENDENT of natural selection, against an unknown number of irreducible complexity events occuring by straight-up random chance. ). Add them up, and you have an actual probability for life evolving here, or anywhere else. Since naturalistic explanation advocates cant explain the exact mechanism by which at least two of the three intermediate improbabilities occured, and therefore cant quantify the odds against them occuring, they really have no basis for saying whether naturalistic explanations even conform to universal probability bounds and are even possible. I understand now why it is that I am not getting more specific predictions.I think it’ because ” abiogenesis + natural selection+ random chance = human life ” , is an ill-defined and ill-quantified process with an awful lot of holes in it. Far too many holes for people to be talking about it as such an undispuable fact.
RE 158- Mr. vun Kannon. Thanks for stopping by. I agree that abiogenesis is a mystery. It just seems like it should be less of one, if people who advocate for a naturalistic explanation for Human DNA are going to be so sure that they are correct. As for breaking things up into seperate threads, I am sure it would be better that way but I just havent got time for it. This stuff is all inter-related in some shape, form or fashion anyways, so I figure why not throw the whole mess out on the table and invite people to contribute according to what aspects of the overall matter most interests them, and according to what they have special insights into. People are talking to each other, conflicting ideas are interacting, and hopefully the end result will be a better appreciation by all involved , of opposing viewpoints, even if it could be better organized.
Ty, the probability of human life is
(the probability humans being designed by their designer) MULTIPLIED BY
(the probability of the designer just happening to be there in the first place)
When events rely upon earlier events you need the PRODUCT (not the SUM) of the PROBABILITIES (not the IMPROBABILITIES).
To borrow your argument; If you can’t tell me what the probability of the designer is, you can’t calculate the subsequent probability of humans and have no basis for saying if ID conforms to the universal probability bound (whatever that means — less than some big, big number, I guess)
The PROBABILITY of the designer is TINY, no, smaller, it’s MINISCULE, INFINITESIMAL. It’s CSI would be off the scale. In general, designers design things less complex than themselves. Humans design watches (which are less complex than humans), and airplanes (which are less complex than humans) and TVs (which are less complex than humans).
The designer of us is LESS likely THAN us. That designer has all OF the difficult-to-account-for traits that we have (Love, Music, Creativity, …) but more so, and also the ability to compute how to arrange atoms to achieve the same qualities in meat-based products SUCH as ourselves stating from first principles, which requires CSI of 10 to the power of more than you can think of. By invoking this designer you are simply moving the goalposts AT the expense of increasing the odds IN our favour.
(Please forgive Ironic uppercase shoutyface)
Ty Harris
Of course, no scientist of note has ever claimed to have a complete theory of abiogenesis. But biochemists have empirical reason to believe it is a natural consequence under certain conditions.
Ty Harris
The reference to “reasonable probability bound” is nonsensical. As there is no complete theory of abiogenesis, there is no way to calculate the probability — except to say that no respected scientist claims that complex cells or DNA just spontaneously assembled in a single, incredibly improbable event.
Ty Harris
It can be quite productive to consider just those aspects of nature that concern the evolution of life. The validity of the Theory of Evolution, or Germ Theory, does not depend on knowing the origin of life. Nor does it require knowing the genesis of matter to propose a valid theory of planetary motion. The origin of life is very distant in time, and left very few clues. Fortunately, it doesn’t require knowing everything to be able to reach valid conclusions. Life evolves. Germs cause disease. Planets move under the influence of gravity.
You are still committing argumentum ad ignorantiam. Just because humans don’t know what makes the planets trace complex orbits against the fixed stars doesn’t mean you are scientifically justified in concluding it must be
angels pushing planets on crystal spheresIntelligent Design. Arguing from ignorance leads to the perverse result that the more ignorant people are, the more they invoke Intelligent Design. Don’t know what makes lightning, it must be an angry Sky God. Don’t know what makes the spring come, it must be Zephyros blowing a mild wind from the west. Don’t know what makes people sick, it must be demons. But these are not scientific conclusions.If you don’t know, then you just don’t know. In any case, not knowing everything doesn’t preclude knowing anything. Life evolves.
Ty Harris
But if we limit ourselves to B, the common descent of organisms from humble beginnings, then we can at least understand part of the problem — which is precisely what Darwin did. Just as Agostino Bassi did when he proposed Germ Theory. We don’t toss Germ Theory because we don’t know the origin of germs.
Ty Harris
John wrote:
LD: “First, your comments make you come off as a rude and intemperate man.”
John: “Why does correcting your false statements make me rude and intemperate? Does your ad hominem attack successfully divert attention from the fact that the assumptions underlying your conclusion are false, and you can’t admit it while you’re frantically moving the goalposts?”
First, one exposes, not corrects, false statements. What makes you come across as rude and intemperate are statements such as: “….you can’t admit it while you’re frantically moving the goalposts” [John’s Ad hominem Attack #1]
LD: “Is your argument that since ribonuclease is ubiquitous in the biotic world, we’ll probably never know whether ribozymes can arise on their own?”
John: “No, I merely note it as an important difference between the prebiotic and present world that must be kept in mind.”
As a consequence of this difference, then, the presence of catalytic RNA in the prebiotic milieu is strictly conjectural, is it not?
LD: “Is the scenario you’re presenting that the need for templates in an abiotic world is laughable when sophisticated chemical apparati and state of the art stoichiometric techniques would work just as well?”
John: “No, Lino, and your desperate resort to innuendo when your assumptions are exposed as rank falsehoods is tiresome. Since your conclusion depended on your assumption being correct, what happens to your conclusion when your assumption is false? Nothing! That alone shows that you are being intellectually dishonest.” [John’s Ad Hominem Attack #2]
Have you missed the point of my statement? My use of the word “template” was based on something I read about the supposed RNA-world, by someone considered somewhat expert in the field. Now that you’ve pointed out that RNA sequences can be put together without using a template, that doesn’t invalidate my statement; it only requires that the statement be modified. So, the modified statement is that RNA sequences can be put together either (1) naturally (but only up to some small number of bases), or (2) using a template, or (3) using sophisticated chemical apparati and state of the art stoichiometric techniques. It is highly unlikely that either option (2) or (3) applies to the prebiotic world.
LD: “Why don’t we begin by differentiating between naturally occurring oligonucleotides and artificially synthesized oligonucleotides.”
John: “Why? Is there any chemical difference between them? The difference is yield and purity.”
LD: “I’m no expert, but it seems reasonable to believe that naturally occuring oligonucleotides can be up to 20, perhaps, I would think very rarely, 25 nucleotides long.”
John: “Why does that seem reasonable, given your lack of the most basic knowledge?” [John’s Ad Hominem Attack #3]
LD: “Now, the odds of any such string coming together by chance is 1 in 4^25 (th power) using 25 nucleotides as the length.”
John: That’s irrelevant, because you’re assuming that only a single sequence would work. You have no basis for that assumption, either, but I suspect that you lack the integrity to admit it. [John’s Ad Hominem Attack #4]
Lino: “But apparently when you want lengths of 160 to 200 nucleotides, then intervention via sophisticated lab equipment and techniques are needed.”
John: “No, you are making another false assumption. We use the sophisticated techniques for high yield and purity, neither of which are relevant in a prebiotic scenario. The amount of any self-replicating, enzymatic RNA needed is ONE MOLECULE.”
Your last sentence completely mystifies me. If, in fact, ONE MOLECLE of self-replicating, enymatic RNA existed, then none more would be needed. From this, and from the Wikipedia article that notes that self-replication is brought about only under ‘very specific conditions’, that MOLECULE appears not to exist naturally. Why, then, is it supposed to be present in the prebiotic world? Or are we back to the ribonuclease argument again?
John: “Are you arguing that the lengths observed in the lab are not the means of a normal distribution of oligo lengths?”
Precisely.
Lino: “Perhaps you can enlighten me here, but without a template, as best I can see, the chemical process simply produces oligonucleotides in a random fashion. Is that correct?”
John: “Our synthetic processes? Not at all.”
Are the oligonucleotides produced through chemical synthesis just the same nucleotide repreated over and over? Is there a sequence? If there is a sequence, does the sequence matter? I can’t glean any of this informaton from what I find on line.
John: “Why do you ask politely for enlightenment, but when enlightenment is delivered and your underlying assumption is exposed as false, you denounce the enlightener as rude and pretend that your conclusion still stands?” [John’s Ad Hominem Attack #5]
Five ad hominem attacks: is rude a strong word for such needless denunciations?
I originally stated that if a ribozyme is an enzyme, then it is a protein. I was in error. (You learn something new every day!) However, the existence of ribozymes, in my opinion, does not exclude the necessity of proteins being present in the prebiotic milieu. Is it even possible to think of life coming into existence without proteins first being in place? Is life possible without chromatin, for example? And if proteins are essential to the prebiotic world, then function must also be presumed, as in the case of histones in chromatin.
As to the enlightenment, just because I ask a Frenchman how to say a certain English word in French doesn’t mean I’m obliged to think of him as smarter than me in all other areas.
Lino
Yes. Not only is it possible to “think” about it, but it is quite possible to construct a scientific hypothesis concerning it. More than that, non-protein molecular replicators exist. And once you have replicating molecules, even very poor replicators, then evolutionary processes will begin.
Several problems with your calculations above. 1) You assume a minimum length sufficient for replication. Just because that is the size of known replicators, doesn’t mean that shorter replicators could not exist. 2) You assume that there is only one target and base your probability on that assumption. In fact, there may be a large number of molecules capable of replication. What are the odds of being dealt a winning poker hand? 3) Finally, if RNA is not the answer to historical abiogenesis, that doesn’t mean abiogenesis didn’t occur. Perhaps, it was a network of different molecules of varying length. Perhaps it required a catalyst such as a kaolinite clay. Maybe it required Divine Intervention or was a one-of-a-kind event. Perhaps, we might simply remain ignorant. However, the discovery of self-replicating molecules is an important confirmation of the fundamental hypothesis.
With your calculation, you are apparently trying to “prove” that abiogenesis *could not* have occurred. It is a standard argument in the Intelligent Design movement, and it is faulty for the reasons given. At best, you have shown that one pathway is unlikely, but even that demonstration is fallacious.
Lino wrote:
“First, one exposes, not corrects, false statements.”
I have done both.
“What makes you come across as rude and intemperate are statements such as: “….you can’t admit it while you’re frantically moving the goalposts” [John’s Ad hominem Attack #1]”
Sorry, but there’s nothing ad hominem about it. It is an accurate description of your fallacious, intellectually dishonest debating behavior. This would only be ad hominem if I referred to you instead of your behavior in this specific instance; IOW, for all I know, on every subject except abiogenesis and evolutionary biology, you could be a scrupulously honest person.
“As a consequence of this difference, then, the presence of catalytic RNA in the prebiotic milieu is strictly conjectural, is it not?”
Strictly? Not at all. The experimental evidence supporting it is increasing every day. If you have another definition of “strictly conjectural,” do you consider your hypothesis to be strictly conjectural (we already know that many of the assumptions you misrepresent as facts are)?
“Have you missed the point of my statement? My use of the word “template” was based on something I read about the supposed RNA-world, by someone considered somewhat expert in the field.”
Sorry, but I don’t buy that. You’ve already shown a striking tendency to fabricate data and ignore data you can’t explain in this matter. A nonspecific citation won’t cut it as an excuse.
“Now that you’ve pointed out that RNA sequences can be put together without using a template, that doesn’t invalidate my statement; it only requires that the statement be modified.”
It means that your assumption never supported your conclusion. You started with a conclusion and fabricated the supporting data.
“So, the modified statement is that RNA sequences can be put together either (1) naturally (but only up to some small number of bases), or (2) using a template, or (3) using sophisticated chemical apparati and state of the art stoichiometric techniques. It is highly unlikely that either option (2) or (3) applies to the prebiotic world.”
But to test hypothsized mechanisms in the prebiotic world, 2 and 3 are required to do any analysis of the chemistry.
“John: “Why does that seem reasonable, given your lack of the most basic knowledge?” [John’s Ad Hominem Attack #3]”
Nope. It’s a legitimate question. Why not answer it? Why have a firm opinion when your command of the data is so shallow that you aren’t even aware of highly relevant, famous research from 20 years ago?
John: That’s irrelevant, because you’re assuming that only a single sequence would work. You have no basis for that assumption, either, but I suspect that you lack the integrity to admit it. [John’s Ad Hominem Attack #4]
Yep, that’s an ad hominem, but at least it is stated as a hypothesis. I don’t see you admitting that you had no basis, so it seems to be correct.
“Your last sentence completely mystifies me. If, in fact, ONE MOLECLE of self-replicating, enymatic RNA existed, then none more would be needed.”
Exactly.
“From this, and from the Wikipedia article that notes that self-replication is brought about only under ‘very specific conditions’, that MOLECULE appears not to exist naturally.”
Today. That doesn’t mean that those specific conditions don’t exist somewhere today, or that they didn’t.
“Why, then, is it supposed to be present in the prebiotic world? Or are we back to the ribonuclease argument again?”
It’s not an argument, just a fact that has to be considered. If such RNAs were formed by spontaneous reactions 1000 times every minute today, what would happen to them?
John: “Are you arguing that the lengths observed in the lab are not the means of a normal distribution of oligo lengths?”
“Precisely.”
Interesting. Why wouldn’t the oligo lengths have a normal distribution? Is it intrinsically different from other polymers?
“Are the oligonucleotides produced through chemical synthesis just the same nucleotide repreated over and over?”
No.
“Is there a sequence?”
Yes.
“If there is a sequence, does the sequence matter?”
There wouldn’t be numerous companies that synthesized oligos from specified sequences if the sequences didn’t matter to the buyers.
“I can’t glean any of this informaton from what I find on line.”
That’s not surprising, as you’ve amply demonstrated that you’re not a good gleaner (that’s ad hominem). Were you not capable of clicking on the other links in the page that I directed you to (the difference between RNA and DNA is only relevant enzymatically)? Why does this form have a field for specifying the sequence?
http://www.oligofactory.com/order.htm
“I originally stated that if a ribozyme is an enzyme, then it is a protein. I was in error. (You learn something new every day!)”
Good for you! I try to learn more than one thing. It’s most exciting to learn something no one else has ever learned before.
The problem here is that the falsehood of your assumption (demonstrated 20 years ago in very famous experiments) does nothing to shake your confidence in the conclusion you claimed was based on it.
“However, the existence of ribozymes, in my opinion, does not exclude the necessity of proteins being present in the prebiotic milieu.”
But if you choose to be ignorant of famous, Nobel-winning, 20-year-old research, your opinion is not an informed one.
“Is it even possible to think of life coming into existence without proteins first being in place?”
Absolutely–that’s why Cech won the Nobel Prize. The existence of catalytic RNA answered many questions. Unlike you, we don’t hesitate to reply, “I don’t know” to questions we couldn’t answer at the time, and questions we can’t answer today.
Now, let’s test you. Explain the following phenomena in terms of a) the RNA world hypothesis, and b) intelligent design.
1) RNA plays a central role in DNA replication as a primer.
2) RNA plays a central role in the active site of the ribosome.
3) The ubiquitous ribonucleases (A) are the most stable enzymes known, by at least an order of magnitude–in fact we purify them enzymatically by boiling crude extracts in water.
4) Other, far more labile, ribonucleases exist (IOW, the amazingly stable one is not the only “design” that degrades RNA).
5) One of those other ribonucleases (P) is itself a ribozyme.
“Is life possible without chromatin, for example?”
This is an incredibly ignorant question for someone with firm opinions. Bacteria don’t have chromatin, and they are alive.
“And if proteins are essential to the prebiotic world, then function must also be presumed, as in the case of histones in chromatin.”
Your presumptions are completely wrong. Try answering the questions above, and you’ll see (ad hominem: I predict you won’t). The RNA World hypothesis (not a theory) explains all of them elegantly.
“As to the enlightenment, just because I ask a Frenchman how to say a certain English word in French doesn’t mean I’m obliged to think of him as smarter than me in all other areas.”
But you are obliged to think of him as smarter than you in molecular biology when he shows that he is. You’re also obliged to admit that your arrogant behavior was rude.
John: “Lino wrote:
“First, one exposes, not corrects, false statements.”
I have done both.”
Again, you fail to see the point: you corrected a mis-statement on my part, not a false statement. You, as a matter of course, choose to consistently impugn my intentions and motivations.
LD: “As a consequence of this difference, then, the presence of catalytic RNA in the prebiotic milieu is strictly conjectural, is it not?”
John: “Strictly? Not at all. The experimental evidence supporting it is increasing every day. If you have another definition of “strictly conjectural,” do you consider your hypothesis to be strictly conjectural (we already know that many of the assumptions you misrepresent as facts are)?”
You’ve just stated that there exists experimental evidence “supporting” the presence of prebiotic catalytic RNA. Thus, it has not been proved; it as not been discovered. We’re sealed off from it completely, in fact; this strictly leaves us with conjecture alone. And why the relentless ad hominems? It is tiresome, and rude.
LD: “Have you missed the point of my statement? My use of the word “template” was based on something I read about the supposed RNA-world, by someone considered somewhat expert in the field.”
John: “Sorry, but I don’t buy that. You’ve already shown a striking tendency to fabricate data and ignore data you can’t explain in this matter. A nonspecific citation won’t cut it as an excuse.”
Wikipedia: For “Ribozymes”: “More work needs to be done in this area though, as the polymerase ribozyme does not have enough catalytic prowess: it is able to add up to 14 nucleotides to a primer template in 24 hours until it is decomposed by hydrolysis of the phosphodiester bonds.”
LD: “Now that you’ve pointed out that RNA sequences can be put together without using a template, that doesn’t invalidate my statement; it only requires that the statement be modified.”
John: It means that your assumption never supported your conclusion. You started with a conclusion and fabricated the supporting data.
LD: “So, the modified statement is that RNA sequences can be put together either (1) naturally (but only up to some small number of bases), or (2) using a template, or (3) using sophisticated chemical apparati and state of the art stoichiometric techniques. It is highly unlikely that either option (2) or (3) applies to the prebiotic world.”
John: “But to test hypothsized mechanisms in the prebiotic world, 2 and 3 are required to do any analysis of the chemistry.”
Does this then allow someone to honestly make statements saying that oligonucleotides are synthesized up to 160 to 200 nucletides long, as if, somehow, this represents what RNA could do in a prebiotic environment? You still refuse to say anything about the length of “naturally occurring” oligonucleotide sequences. Why? Is it because they don’t get longer than 20-25 nucleotides in size? You’re tremendously evasive in answering the questions I pose to you.
“John: “Why does that seem reasonable, given your lack of the most basic knowledge?” [John’s Ad Hominem Attack #3]”
John: (in the next post): “Nope. It’s a legitimate question. Why not answer it? Why have a firm opinion when your command of the data is so shallow that you aren’t even aware of highly relevant, famous research from 20 years ago?”
What an interesting question! Tell me, John, why do you have such a “firm opinion” of the likelihood of an RNA-world when, per your admission, we’re effectively sealed off from it. And why am I not entitled to the “firm opinion” that proteins are necessary for life, when there is no known instance of “life” existing WITHOUT the presence of proteins. You stand things on their head.
John: That’s irrelevant, because you’re assuming that only a single sequence would work. You have no basis for that assumption, either, but I suspect that you lack the integrity to admit it. [John’s Ad Hominem Attack #4]
John: (in the next post): “Yep, that’s an ad hominem, but at least it is stated as a hypothesis. I don’t see you admitting that you had no basis, so it seems to be correct.”
Tell me, John, do you have the integrity to admit how many different sequences “work”? Can you count them on your hand? Are they over a hundred? How many are there? You admit later on that the sequence is precise, that is specified. And you know, or should know, full well, that even a hundred different working sequences of oligonucleotide sequence lengths of 160 to 200 does not significantly change the highly improbable nature of such lengths coming together by chance. How intellectually honest are you being?
“From this, and from the Wikipedia article that notes that self-replication is brought about only under ‘very specific conditions’, that MOLECULE appears not to exist naturally.”
John: “Are you arguing that the lengths observed in the lab are not the means of a normal distribution of oligo lengths?”
LD: “Precisely.”
John: “Interesting. Why wouldn’t the oligo lengths have a normal distribution? Is it intrinsically different from other polymers?”
But apparently they do have a normal distribution as found in nature: from 2 up to 25 nucleotides in length. To include lengths that are produced using artificial methods seems odd, to say the least. But this, again, seems to get back to your unwillingness to admit that they do have “natural” lengths.
LD: “Is there a sequence?”
John: “Yes.”
LD: “If there is a sequence, does the sequence matter?”
John: “There wouldn’t be numerous companies that synthesized oligos from specified sequences if the sequences didn’t matter to the buyers.”
Again, the evasiveness. Why can’t you just say “yes”. Why the sarcasm? Is it because in admitting specification you are now allowing in probability arguments not to your liking? Let’s be honest, now.
John: “That’s not surprising, as you’ve amply demonstrated that you’re not a good gleaner (that’s ad hominem). Were you not capable of clicking on the other links in the page that I directed you to (the difference between RNA and DNA is only relevant enzymatically)? Why does this form have a field for specifying the sequence?
http://www.oligofactory.com/order.htm”
I clicked onto the site. It was, frankly, a rather pathetic site with very little information of any kind. Aren’t there any better sites? You know Wikipedia is much more informative than the site you posted.
LD: “However, the existence of ribozymes, in my opinion, does not exclude the necessity of proteins being present in the prebiotic milieu.”
John: “But if you choose to be ignorant of famous, Nobel-winning, 20-year-old research, your opinion is not an informed one.”
Is this your argument?: (1) proteins act as enzymes. (2) catalytic RNA can act as an enzyme. Therefore, (3) proteins aren’t needed for life.
Can you build a bacterial flagellum with RNA?
LD: “Is it even possible to think of life coming into existence without proteins first being in place?”
John: “Absolutely–that’s why Cech won the Nobel Prize. The existence of catalytic RNA answered many questions. Unlike you, we don’t hesitate to reply, “I don’t know” to questions we couldn’t answer at the time, and questions we can’t answer today.”
Well, what about what you do know. You know that there is no instance of “life” existing without the presence of protein. If you therefore want to say that “life” existed before the presence of proteins, then, first, that is completely conjectural (and, of course, there’s nothing really wrong with conjecturing. After all, for exampe, ID is a conjecture that all of biologic life owes its inception to intelligent forces), and, second, that to use the word “life” to represent something that omits something that is essential to what we KNOW as “life”, is to equivocate.
John: “Now, let’s test you. Explain the following phenomena in terms of a) the RNA world hypothesis, and b) intelligent design.
1) RNA plays a central role in DNA replication as a primer.
2) RNA plays a central role in the active site of the riboso
3) The ubiquitous ribonucleases (A) are the most stable enzymes known, by at least an order of magnitude–in fact we purify them enzymatically by boiling crude extracts in water.
4) Other, far more labile, ribonucleases exist (IOW, the amazingly stable one is not the only “design” that degrades RNA).
5) One of those other ribonucleases (P) is itself a ribozyme.”
We know that DNA is transcribed into RNA. RNA in turn produces proteins. Ribosomes are involved in that process. So if DNA wants to (a) control its replication, then the language it will use to control replication will be RNA (Thus, (1) is not surprising.); and (b) if DNA wants to control the production of proteins, again, it will use the language of RNA to control it (Thus, (2) is not a surprise).
As to (3), this seems to be an argument against an RNA-world since nothing seems to destroy that which destroys RNA sequences.
As to (4), this just seems to make the argument for an RNA-world harder.
(5) seems to suggest that RNA enzymatic activity is, at the same time, associated with a chemical structure that is designed to destroy RNA chains. So, if in the RNA-world, RNA is supposed to be the carrier of the information, then the very thing that cleaves the information carrying RNA chains is what provides enzymatic activity. Doesn’t this suggest that something other than RNA is the carrier of information?
LD: “Is life possible without chromatin, for example?”
John: “This is an incredibly ignorant question for someone with firm opinions. Bacteria don’t have chromatin, and they are alive.”
LD: “And if proteins are essential to the prebiotic world, then function must also be presumed, as in the case of histones in chromatin.”
John: “Your presumptions are completely wrong. Try answering the questions above, and you’ll see (ad hominem: I predict you won’t). The RNA World hypothesis (not a theory) explains all of them elegantly.”
You must certainly be aware that bacteria have “histone-like” proteins. Isn’t it disengenous to circumvent my argument by pointing out where it is wrong, while the whole time you know that my statement, properly understood, is correct? What about intellectual honesty?
Why don’t you just invoke the words that you’ve implicitly invoked above as a virtous stance–“I don’t know”–instead of evading the full weight of the question?
LD: “As to the enlightenment, just because I ask a Frenchman how to say a certain English word in French doesn’t mean I’m obliged to think of him as smarter than me in all other areas.”
John: “But you are obliged to think of him as smarter than you in molecular biology when he shows that he is. You’re also obliged to admit that your arrogant behavior was rude.”
I readily admit you know much more about molecular biology than I do. That, alone, however, doesn’t make your “conjecture” correct. In the meantime, intellectual honesty requires you to say that in the “biotic” world–the only one we know, and likely will ever be able to investigate–the statements I’ve made are true.
It is your arrogance that inhibits you from such an admission.
As to your last sentence……..you must be kidding!
Zachriel:
1.) This is not sarcasm; it’s just a way of approaching the gist of what your saying. If you say that adult human beings cannot be any smaller than two feet high, and someone says, “Oh, well, you never know, someone might only get up to 1 ft, 11 inches.” Do you carry the argument all the way down to 1″ tall? IOW, once we move beyond what we know, how do we draw the line?
2.) The “odds” of being dealt a winning poker hand are 1 in 5, if you’re playing with 4 other guys, and 1 in 4, if you’re playing with 3 other guys, etc. IOW, it depends on how many “other guys” you’re competing with. In the case of long-chained proteins, it would be the number of used configurations, divided by the total number of other configurations of the same length. There are 30,000 genes, hence, proteins. What is 3 x 10^4 compared to 22^105?
3.) We know, in fact, that abiogenesis did occur—-otherwise we wouldn’t be talking about it. We also know that evolution took place since we can study fossil history. No one argues that. The argument is over “how” it happened, not that it did.
If someone wins the state lottery six weeks in a row, no one disputes that it “happened”—since, for six weeks in a row, the person turned in a ticket with the numbers that were selected. But I’m sure a lot of people would be wondering if that happened by chance.
Again, this is meant as a respectful reply to a respectful post.
Lino
Yes. Meanwhile, this is your claim.
Lino
Zachriel: 1) You assume a minimum length sufficient for replication. Just because that is the size of known replicators, doesn’t mean that shorter replicators could not exist.
Lino
But your claim depends on the random assembly of long sequences. If replication can occur with shorter lengths, or with networks of shorter molecules, then your claim is misleading due to the implicit assumption. Once replication begins, then longer and more resilient sequences may evolve naturally.
Zachriel: 2) You assume that there is only one target and base your probability on that assumption. In fact, there may be a large number of molecules capable of replication. What are the odds of being dealt a winning poker hand?
Lino
You answered the poker question correctly, but then didn’t apply that knowledge to the problem of genetics. The 30,000 extant genes are the winners after billions of hands. Once you have replicators in a primordial environment, then any pair will beat a king high. And as we don’t know what the shortest replicator might be, or if a network of molecules is capable of replication, or the percentage of possible sequences that might form such replicators, your argument is unsound.
Remember, you are responsible for supporting your own claim. You have claimed that probability prevents the spontaneous origin of life. You base this on faulty assumptions. Orthodox science *suggests* that life on Earth arose spontaneously, but there is no complete theory of abiogenesis, and there is no evidence to indicate it did not happen.
Lino: Impossible (hugely improbable)
Science: Possible (and suggested by the evidence)
The burden is yours to support your own assertions. Your argument is based in faulty assumptions. Science has many reasons to believe that life arose spontaneously, and the more closely we look, the more evidence is found. We could discuss this evidence, but I think you need to reject your previous argument first. Scientists do not suggest any mechanism that is beyond reasonable probability.
Zachriel: 3) Finally, if RNA is not the answer to historical abiogenesis, that doesn’t mean abiogenesis didn’t occur. Perhaps, it was a network of different molecules of varying length. Perhaps it required a catalyst such as a kaolinite clay. Maybe it required Divine Intervention or was a one-of-a-kind event. Perhaps, we might simply remain ignorant. However, the discovery of self-replicating molecules is an important confirmation of the fundamental hypothesis.
Lino
No one knows at this time. However, there is strong evidence it was a natural consequence of conditions on the primordial Earth. Any data you have to contradict this would be welcome. Are you suggesting Intelligent Agency? If so, there is clearly no evidence of this.
“Thus, it has not been proved…”
Nothing in real science is ever considered to be proven. “It has not been proved…,” reeks of pseudoscientific fraud.
“Again, the evasiveness.”
I’m not evading anything. Why did you evade offering a single explanation from either hypothesis in my challenge below? Do you not understand the concept?
“Why can’t you just say “yes”. Why the sarcasm?”
Because you fabricate so much, and it shows your laziness.
“Is it because in admitting specification you are now allowing in probability arguments not to your liking?”
No. In fact, I’ve managed to address one of the most ubiquitous “specification” assumptions underlying the probability arguments (falsely presented as fact) in the process of doing something completely different.
“Let’s be honest, now.”
Unlike you, Lino, I am very honest.
“I clicked onto the site. It was, frankly, a rather pathetic site with very little information of any kind.”
It had relevant information that you simply ignored, because it didn’t feed your biases.
“Aren’t there any better sites?”
Yes. Given your intellectual sloth, though, why bother? You’ll just ignore it.
“You know Wikipedia is much more informative than the site you posted.”
Then why didn’t you realize that we can synthesize specific sequences? BTW, do you check Wikipedia against the primary literature? Does everyone who edits a Wikipedia page know what she/he is talking about?
“Is this your argument?: (1) proteins act as enzymes. (2) catalytic RNA can act as an enzyme. Therefore, (3) proteins aren’t needed for life.”
No, my argument is based on much, much, more than that, as you well know from your dishonest evasion of my challenge to you to explain the data below. Your strategy is fundamentally dishonest: by remaining aggressively ignorant, you can misrepresent arguments as being orders of magnitude more simple than they really are.
“Can you build a bacterial flagellum with RNA?”
No. So what? Are flagellum- mutants lethal, Lino? And which bacterial flagellum are you talking about? Why did your hypothetical designer design more than one, and why don’t you know about it, if flagella are so illustrative?
John: “Now, let’s test you. Explain the following phenomena in terms of a) the RNA world hypothesis, and b) intelligent design.”
Note that you made no attempt to explain anything, Lino.
“1) RNA plays a central role in DNA replication as a primer.
2) RNA plays a central role in the active site of the ribosome.
3) The ubiquitous ribonucleases (A) are the most stable enzymes known, by at least an order of magnitude–in fact we purify them enzymatically by boiling crude extracts in water.
4) Other, far more labile, ribonucleases exist (IOW, the amazingly stable one is not the only “design” that degrades RNA).
5) One of those other ribonucleases (P) is itself a ribozyme.”
“We know that DNA is transcribed into RNA.”
Wow. Your mastery of junior-high-school biology is brilliant, but that’s utterly meaningless in terms of the task of explaining from two different perspectives. Why not mention that RNA is reverse transcribed into DNA? That’s just a 33-year-old Nobel Prize, even older than the other one you had no clue about!
“RNA in turn produces proteins.”
Again, that’s irrelevant. Your task is to EXPLAIN these facts, not recite facts like a shallow 6th-grader. RNA also acts as enzymes. Note that you leave out important facts, Lino. It speaks volumes about your intellectual integrity.
“Ribosomes are involved in that process.”
No kidding. Your problem is that they don’t control it, as you falsely claim below. You fabricate reflexively. Why?
“So if DNA wants…”
DNA doesn’t want anything. Your task was to EXPLAIN each of these facts from two separate sets of assumptions. Are you really this dense?
“… to (a) control its replication, then the language it will use to control replication will be RNA (Thus, (1) is not surprising.);”
The RNA doesn’t “control” replication in any way. Again, whether it surprises you or not is irrelevant. Do you see your total contempt for the scientific method, Lino? You clearly have zero confidence in the ability of any ID hypothesis to explain the existing data, much less to make predictions. How lame can you get?
“… and (b) if DNA wants to control the production of proteins, again, it will use the language of RNA to control it (Thus, (2) is not a surprise).”
Again, irrelevant and wrong. RNA isn’t controlling anything in the ribosome. It is an integral part of the enzyme that catalyzes peptide bond formation.
“As to (3), this seems to be an argument against an RNA-world since nothing seems to destroy that which destroys RNA sequences.”
Lino, facts are not arguments. Can you think of an EXPLANATION for this from the two sets of assumptions? I only can for one–think about the first organism that evolved from the RNA World to make proteins–what would it be competing with?
“As to (4), this just seems to make the argument for an RNA-world harder.”
Irrelevant. You clearly can’t be bothered to explain anything, Lino, which shows that no real thought went into your position. You have your conclusion, and everything you come up with has to be twisted into supporting it, right?
“(5) seems to suggest…”
No, sport. You’re supposed to EXPLAIN it, which you clearly are afraid to do. That’s how we real scientists come up with hypotheses. Then, we use them to predict what we’ll learn in the future. ID proponents do neither activity, which is why ID will never be science, just spin, as you’re doing (very poorly) here.
“… that RNA enzymatic activity is, at the same time, associated with a chemical structure that is designed to destroy RNA chains.”
So, how do you EXPLAIN it as intelligent design? It makes perfect sense as a competitive edge in the RNA World hypothesis.
“So, if in the RNA-world, RNA is supposed to be the carrier of the information,…”
Uh, Lino, RNA is still a carrier of information TODAY. The point of the RNA World is that RNA does everything–information (heredity), catalysis, replication.
“… then the very thing that cleaves the information carrying RNA chains is what provides enzymatic activity. Doesn’t this suggest that something other than RNA is the carrier of information?”
Not at all. It is explained as a relic of competition in the RNA World. The point is that RNA is found right in the middle of every fundamental process that it would have had to mediate in the RNA World.
Now, why didn’t you bother to EXPLAIN any of these facts from an ID perspective, Lino? Because you know you have no hope in hell of doing so? Are your evasions and fabrications respectful, or simply rude?
“You must certainly be aware that bacteria have “histone-like” proteins.”
Yes, I am aware that EUbacteria do. But whether they simply have them doesn’t support your pathetic claim in the least. Are mutants that don’t make those proteins dead, Lino?
Do you understand that I find your serial fabrications to be incredibly rude?
“Isn’t it disengenous to circumvent my argument by pointing out where it is wrong, while the whole time you know that my statement, properly understood, is correct?”
I know that it’s wrong even as you desperately revised it, because HupA HupB double mutants are viable.
“What about intellectual honesty?”
What about it? Does an honest, intelligent person conclude that simply because an organism has a protein, that organism cannot live without it?
“Why don’t you just invoke the words that you’ve implicitly invoked above as a virtous stance–”I don’t know””
Because that would be a lie, Lino. I do know!
“…–instead of evading the full weight of the question?”
I’m not evading anything. I’m attacking your assumptions falsely presented as facts.
“I readily admit you know much more about molecular biology than I do. That, alone, however, doesn’t make your “conjecture” correct.”
I only claim that it is the best explanation for what we know and it makes many testable predictions. Your problem is that you present conjectures as facts that have been known to be false for 15-30 years.
“In the meantime, intellectual honesty requires you to say that in the “biotic” world–the only one we know, and likely will ever be able to investigate–the statements I’ve made are true.”
Which statements? The false claims I’ve called you on are about the biotic world, Lino.
“It is your arrogance that inhibits you from such an admission.”
Sorry, you’re projecting. I don’t claim anything that’s not well-supported by the data, while you make claims that are clearly, directly contradicted by decades-old data. You also fear trying to explain what is known using any hypothesis. You claim that a hypothesis is not supported by the data, when you lack the most superficial familiarity with the relevant (and within that set, the most famous) evidence.
“As to your last sentence……..you must be kidding!”
How so?
John, you seem to have lost control of your senses. End of discussion.
Hello John, now I see where we may be talking “past” each other referencing ID as it relates to theory and hypothesis.
There is an ID theory, and there are hypothesis which are consistent with ID theory.
More on this a little further down this post.
Furthermore, if after I show the scientific nature of ID in this post, you still disagree with me as to the scientific status of ID, then we are just going to have to agree to disagree on that issue. However, I hope that I have been able to at least articulate and explain how ID and my resulting hypothesis below, as well as the ideas I have postulated on my blog, are logically coherent and
consistent ideas with scientific potential. Furthermore, these ideas are a more logically coherent explanation re: cause of information processors than any random, chance occurrences.
CJYman wrote:
“First tell me, is abiogenesis scientific?”
John wrote:
“That’s like asking, “Is gravity scientific?” Events aren’t scientific, Bubba; science is a method that involves constructing hypotheses that make predictions and testing those predictions. Is RESEARCH INTO HYPOTHESIZED MECHANISMS OF abiogenesis scientific? Sure,
because real researchers test hypotheses and generate data. Can you grasp the enormous difference between your nonsensical question and mine?”
Actually, that was the point of the question. Abiogenesis obviously occurred, however we now need a scientific theory to explain HOW.
Now that you’ve answered the above question so gracefully, “Bubba,” we can continue on to the next question: Can you provide a definition of abiogenesis and can you please tell me if my next
assertion has scientific potential? The statement: “information processors can be generated through random, chance processes; thus information processors are not necessarily programmed to arise from a previous information processor.”
CJYman wrote:
“Then, if you actually looked on my blog where I guided the reader (in this case yourself), you would have seen my comments on verification (testability) and falsification of ID THEORY.”
John wrote:
“Sorry, I don’t see any predictions and tests of predictions anywhere on your blog. Mere comments won’t cut it.”
I was discussing verification and falsification, not prediction yet. Do you not want to discuss testability and falsification of ID theory?
Why don’t you first tell me if any hypothesis of creation of information/processing systems by ANY TYPE of random, chance process is scientific? Then, tell me what predictions could be made that are consistent with the random, chance generation of information/processing systems.
In fact, why don’t you fill out your own questionnaire for the above question:
Hypothesis:___________
Prediction:____________
New data you generated/new observations you made:____________
And now, I’m just a little curious. Although I have no qualms with the theory of evolution, can you please define the theory of evolution and fill out your questionnaire one more time in reference to the theory of evolution:
And now I will fill out your questionnaire:
But, before I begin, I would like to provide a couple of definitions:
re: scientific method from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
Essential elements of a scientific method:
-Characterizations (Quantifications, observations, and measurements)
-Hypothesis (theoretical, hypothetical explanations
-Predictions (reasoning including logical deduction from hypothesis and theory)
-Experiments (tests of all of the above)
Data = factual information (as measurements or statistics) used as a basis for reasoning, discussion, or calculation
http://m-w.com/dictionary/data
Statistics = a quantity (as the mean of a sample) that is computed from a sample
http://m-w.com/dictionary/statistics
-ID Theory: Many features of nature are best explained by an intelligent cause because in our experience intelligence is the sole cause of their informational properties. Because ID has been
continually verified by observational statistical data ever since human intelligence began to use language and then even more so when human intelligence began designing computer programs, ID is
a theory as opposed to being merely a hypothesis. It is a theory which provides the framework for other hypotheses to emerge.
(Upon a basic understanding and definition of the key terms [information, information processor, and intelligence], which I discuss on my blog, a further hypothesis arises within ID theory. The hypothesis is: information/processing systems are necessarily programmed to arise from previous information processors. This hypothesis contains the same predictions and potential falsification as ID theory.)
-Statistical Data for ID Theory: If we take the sample of all information processing systems in which we know the cause, 100% so far have had an intelligent cause.
-more verifying observations (data): The only observations (data) we have of probabilities being overcome in a direction where further information is being created is through designed programs.
One way that ID theory, as it relates to biology and evolution, has already been verified is by these evolutionary programs which are intelligently and purposefully designed to converge upon a
solution to a specific problem, through the process of controlled random searches acting within the parameters of fine tuned information. Thus, evolutionary algorithms (which in our experience must be designed with a goal with which to generate and converge information) are one major verification of ID theory.
-A relevant hypothesis: The universe is described as a program resulting from an information processor.
http://web.mit.edu/ist/isnews/v21/n06/210601.html (scroll down to “bits of a bigger picture” – read that section – then read the whole thing)
-Prediction (necessarily arising from ID theory) regarding abiogenesis: Life is a necessary result of and caused by the programming of the information processor which may give rise to our universe (as opposed to life being merely a random, chance, “accidental” occurrence). Of course, millions of dollars are being spent on OOL research and because of the severity of the problem, its gonna take some time to discover if biochemical replicating information processors are a necessary result of the information processor which may give rise to our universe. Discovering if and how life is necessarily caused by the information processor which may give rise to our universe would be further research consistent with ID theory. Here are two peer reviewed published articles discussing abiogenesis and the problem with obtaining an information processor by stochastic processes:
http://home.online.no/%7Ealbvoie/index.cfm
http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2005/04/28/chance_and_necessity_do_not_explain_t
he_
-Prediction (future observation and experiment which will further verify the above hypothesis and ID theory) : ID theory necessarily predicts that information processing systems will not be created by
anything other than a previous information processor and thus life will be verified to be the result of a previous information processor (most likely the information processor which causes the program of
our universe). I suggest a model (computer simulation) to be developed which shows how the universe, or any information processor, can be programmed to produce life (replicating information processors).
-Falsification (future observation and experiment which will negate the above hypothesis and ID theory): ID theory has the potential to be falsified by the production of an information processing system by any means other than being programmed by a previous information processor, thus showing that intelligence would NOT be the SOLE CAUSE OF INFORMATIONAL PROPERTIES. I suggest an experiment (again, a computer simulation) which shows that
information processors can accidentally and randomly self-organize within a program no matter the laws of the system within which the information processor is generated. This will show that any set
of laws can accidentally and randomly generate information processing systems, thus negating the concept of the necessity of previous programming and a previous intelligence to create further
information processing systems.
CJYman wrote:
“Where have I misrepresented assumptions as facts…”
John wrote:
“See your completely unsupported (and dead wrong) quotes about DNA below for a perfect example.”
You’ve told me you work with DNA and I’m sure you understand the basic properties of information, so you are obviously misunderstanding what Dembski’ is saying (‘cause you just brush off what he says as utter baloney), and therefore you aren’t understanding his arguments in favor of ID theory. Tell me, is any sequence of nucleotide bases organized by physical laws of attraction between each nucleotide? I do discuss this at my blog. It is a rather simple concept to grasp and I’m sure you’re just misunderstanding what Dembski is saying.
John wrote:
“What you’re discussing, despite your clueless use of the adjective “scientific,” has nothing to do with science if there aren’t any data.”
The data you are referring to are provided above. Do you have any scientific objections to this?
Furthermore, you seem to be horribly more confused about the adjective “scientific” if you deny that it attempts to explain phenomenon in terms of laws of cause and effect. Do you seriously not believe that scientific theories are scientific because they aim at explaining phenomenon “x” in terms of laws of cause and effect. A law of cause and effect is one which lends itself to testability and repeatability. If there are no laws of nature, then there is no repeatability of phenomenon and thus no science. Therefore, science begins by assuming that there exist laws of cause and effect.
CJYman wrote:
“… as with any other information system. Biological structures are merely the result of the processing of this information.”
John wrote:
“Great! Please rank the cells above, and we’ll talk about how biological information is generated, independent of design vs. evolution.”
I’m not interested in design vs. evolution. I’m an ID evolutionist. I’m interested in the cause of information/processing systems, life, and evolution.
Furthermore, in regards to measuring information, Richard Dawkins explains it well, from http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/crexposed2.htm
“It was Shannon’s insight that information of any kind, no matter what it means, no matter whether it is true or false, and no matter by what physical medium it is carried, can be measured in bits, and is translatable into any other medium of information. The great biologist J B S Haldane used Shannon’s theory to compute the number of bits of information conveyed by a worker bee to her hivemates when she “dances” the location of a food source (about 3 bits to tell about the direction of the food and another 3 bits for the distance of the food). In the same units, I recently calculated that I’d need to set aside 120 megabits of laptop computer memory to store the triumphal opening chords of Richard Strauss’s “Also Sprach Zarathustra” (the “2001” theme) which I wanted to play in the middle of a lecture about evolution. Shannon’s economics enable you to calculate how much modem time it’ll cost you to e-mail the complete text of a book to a publisher in another land. Fifty years after Shannon, the idea of information as a commodity, as measurable and interconvertible as money or energy, has come into its own.
DNA carries information in a very computer-like way, and we can measure the genome’s capacity in bits too, if we wish. DNA doesn’t use a binary code, but a quaternary one. Whereas the unit of
information in the computer is a 1 or a 0, the unit in DNA can be T, A, C or G. If I tell you that a particular location in a DNA sequence is a T, how much information is conveyed from me to you? Begin by measuring the prior uncertainty. How many possibilities are open before the message “T” arrives? Four. How many possibilities remain after it has arrived? One. So you might think the
information transferred is four bits, but actually it is two. Here’s why (assuming that the four letters are equally probable, like the four suits in a pack of cards). Remember that Shannon’s metric is
concerned with the most economical way of conveying the message. Think of it as the number of yes/no questions that you’d have to ask in order to narrow down to certainty, from an initial
uncertainty of four possibilities, assuming that you planned your questions in the most economical way. “Is the mystery letter before D in the alphabet?” No. That narrows it down to T or G, and now
we need only one more question to clinch it. So, by this method of measuring, each “letter” of the DNA has an information capacity of 2 bits.”
CJYman wrote (in regard to a point made on another blog):
“I agree with you.”
John wrote:
“Excellent! Was it wrong for Febble to be banned, then?”
I honestly don’t have an opinion on the issue, since “banning” is not what I am discussing here.
CJYman wrote:
“Now, can you tell me the necessary system which must be in place for the evolution of specific complexity to occur and produce further information, which is what Demski is actually referring to in this case.”
John wrote:
“Necessary? Replication. Sufficient? I don’t know. Why don’t we study a case of information production in real time before we go back billions of years?”
Ok then, let’s start with evolutionary programs. What is necessary for an evolutionary program to work?
Furthermore, replication itself has nothing to do with information PROCESSING. Replication is the COPYING of information so that the system can possibly evolve.
Moreover, since information can not exist if a compatible information processor does not exist, and you’re asking for real time production of information, we need to look at real time production of
information/processing systems. I’ll let you start by providing examples of the production of information/processing systems today.
CJYman wrote (quoting Dembski):
“…The four nucleotide bases are attached to a sugar-phosphate backbone and thus cannot influence each other via bonding affinities.”
John wrote:
“No, actually this is completely, utterly, idiotic. Anyone who has done any basic molecular biology for more than a week or two knows how profoundly stupid this statement is. If this statement is true, single-stranded DNA cannot have any secondary structure.”
CJYman wrote:
“You must have misunderstood what is being stated.”
John wrote:
“Not at all. I work with single-stranded DNA on a daily basis. Has Dembski ever done anything with DNA?”
As far as I understand, Dembski has worked on the mathematics of information/processing systems, which is one category under which life operates.
And, yes you must have misunderstood what is being said. Tell me, is there a pattern between A-C-T-Gs (nucleotide bases) within DNA which is caused by the physical properties of the nucleotide bases? If you would like, we can discuss this aspect at my blog so that we can keep our discussions a little shorter here.
CJYman wrote:
“I am aware of that. Now would you like to discuss the issue at hand and how evolutionary programs are a test of and verify ID.”
John wrote:
“No, because you don’t understand that the point is to make predictions that have the potential to falsify one’s hypothesis. If some data are consistent with one’s hypothesis, that does not justify claiming that the hypothesis is verified.”
I wonder why you refuse to discuss evolutionary programs as a test and potential verification of ID?
I’ll wait to comment on this until you have filled out your own questionnaire which I copied at the beginning of this post.
However, you will note that my above prediction and falsification refer to two computer models … one will show that an information processor can be programmed to produce replicating information
processors thus adding another verification to my hypothesis and ID theory, or the other will show that replicating information processors can randomly generate themselves within a program no matter the laws within the program, thus falsifying my hypothesis and ID theory.
And you are correct to say that continual observations DO NOT EVER PROVE any scientific theory, since scientific theories are never absolutely proven. It is the theory, which can potentially be
falsified, and which has the most verified observations that is the most likely explanation. Since you claim to understand science so well, I’m sure you already realize this.
CJYman wrote:
“Please enlighten me and show me how evolutionary programs are not scientifically verified to be produced by intelligence.”
John wrote:
““Scientifically” means using predictions and data. Show me the data.”
Exactly, so please answer my question with some predictions and data.
On the other hand, I can give you hard data by pulling up evolutionary program after program which are verified to be produced by intelligence. As I have stated on my blog: “One way that ID, as it relates to biology and evolution, has already been verified is by evolutionary programs which are intelligently and purposefully designed to converge upon a solution to a specific problem, through the process of controlled random searches acting within the parameters of fine tuned information.”
CJYman wrote:
“Do we have any hypothesis as to random creation of programs which can undergo evolution.”
John wrote:
“We? I’m not convinced that you know what a hypothesis is, since you clearly don’t know what a theory is.”
Well, then it’s a good thing I’m asking YOU the question. Care to answer it?
CJYman wrote:
“why even bother postulating ACCIDENTAL OCCURENCES for the creation of information processors, when science deals in terms of LAWS of cause and effect? The law of cause and effect that creates information processors are always summed up in terms of laws within a program that results from a previous information processor.”
John wrote:
“By a clue. Science deals with the testing of hypotheses. Hypotheses with long track records of successful predictions are promoted to the status of theory or law. One can do science for a lifetime without ever dealing with a law.”
CJYman wrote:
“So then, according to you, science is NOT the discipline which attempts to explain phenomenon in terms of laws of cause and effect?”
John wrote:
“Science is the discipline THAT attempts to explain phenomenA in terms of cause and effect. “Laws” aren’t a necessary part of the definition.”
Actually, we are saying the exact same thing here. I am referring to “laws” of cause and effect as synonymous with the use of “laws” as in “laws” of nature, therefore defining “laws” as “unbreakable
rules.” The assumption of unbreakable rules (or laws) of cause and effect is the only way that science can proceed. Science ATTEMPTS to set up a law (unbreakable rule) of cause for a specific
effect in question, in the form of a hypothesis or theory. Science is the SEARCH for these laws of cause and effect.
CJYman wrote:
“I think that now would be a excellent time to start defining terms such as “scientific.” Or, just look under “definitions” at my blog.”
John wrote:
“Most of them are so far off that they are laughable. Tell me, CJYman, have you ever even read a single paper from the primary scientific literature?”
It is because I understand some of the basic issues that I am able to propose definitions (that I have derived from scientific papers) in my own words. Have you ever taught a class and urged them to
define terms in their own words so as to prove that they understand the concepts?
So, then you’re not gonna take me up on my challenge? My definitions are open to debate. Let’s begin. If they are so laughable, I’m sure you’ll have no problem laughing them off the blogosphere.
John wrote:
“When were the first data published showing that removal of some so-called “junk DNA” negatively affected fitness?”
This may interest you.
“The research on functions for introns in the cell is reviewed. Darwinists once generally argued that nonprotein coding DNA are relics of once-functioning genes or useless “junk” DNA that strongly argued against design of the genome. The fact that an enormous quantity of cell resources and energy is invested in these putative
vestigial structures, especially in the complex intron splicing mechanism, argues that introns have important biological functions including a means of facilitating genetic diversification. Evidence now exists that introns have many functions, including for
regulation and structural purposes, and that many of the roles now hypothesized for introns are plausible but need further elucidation. The author concluded that the new knowledge related to introns supports the intelligent design world view.”
Click to access PSCF9-01Bergman.pdf
All I have to say re: vestigial organs or junk DNA is “don’t be to fast to jump to the conclusion that something is merely junk or an evolutionary leftover,” however my own argument doesn’t touch this issue. I have provided my view of ID predictions above.
CJYman wrote:
“I’m sure you already understand (since you obviously read my previous post) that information is not defined by physical laws of attraction,…”
John wrote:
“I don’t see how reading your post can be conflated with data.
Do snowflakes have information?”
Huh???? By data you mean observations, right? My post has plenty of observations and some logically coherent ideas to tie these observations together along with a further hypothesis which is consistent with ID theory. But, I’ve already discussed this at the beginning of this post.
And no, snowflakes have absolutely no information content.
Do yourself a favor and read through the “definitions” section under “my view of ID theory” at my blog and pay close attention to “information” and “information processor.”
Actually, before we can continue this discussion, you are going to need to educate yourself on a basic understanding of information and information processing systems. What are they and what do they do and how are they related?
Again, this is explained on my blog.
Or if you would like, I can start re-posting the relevant information here from my blog. Just ask.
AD Hominem: ad hom·i·nem (hŏm’ə-nĕm’, -nəm)
adj.
Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason: Debaters should avoid ad hominem arguments that question their opponents’ motives.
Example:
😉
Stick a fork in him. He’s done!
Lino
Is it even possible to think of life coming into existence without proteins first being in place?
Yes. Meanwhile, this is your claim.
Lino
Now, the odds of any such string coming together by chance is 1 in 4^25 (th power) using 25 nucleotides as the length. That corresponds to roughly 4 x 10^18 (th power). I remember that there are 6.023 x 10^23 molecules/mole, and that a mole of any chemical doesn’t weigh much at all. So, if there were even a relatively small amount of nucleotides in solution, the chances of a nucleotide occurring simply by chance are good. Lo, and behold, they do naturally occur. But apparently when you want lengths of 160 to 200 nucleotides, then intervention via sophisticated lab equipment and techniques are needed.
Zachriel:
1) You assume a minimum length sufficient for replication. Just because that is the size of known replicators, doesn’t mean that shorter replicators could not exist.
My calculations aren’t meant to rule out shorter replicators; quite the opposite.
Zachriel:
But your claim depends on the random assembly of long sequences. If replication can occur with shorter lengths, or with networks of shorter molecules, then your claim is misleading due to the implicit assumption. Once replication begins, then longer and more resilient sequences may evolve naturally.
Yes, they “may evolve naturally”. But, they may not! The fact is that oligos break up after reaching a certain size since the bonding between the ribose sugars is not as strong as those between the de-oxy ribose sugars. If these replicates can “evolve naturally”, then why don’t we see them in the natural state? If appears that oligos can be protected from ribonucleases in the lab, why not conduct an experiment and see just how many long-length oligos show up? Of course, if they don’t show up, then we’re dealing with a very limited informational system.
Zachriel:
You answered the poker question correctly, but then didn’t apply that knowledge to the problem of genetics. The 30,000 extant genes are the winners after billions of hands. Once you have replicators in a primordial environment, then any pair will beat a king high. And as we don’t know what the shortest replicator might be, or if a network of molecules is capable of replication, or the percentage of possible sequences that might form such replicators, your argument is unsound.
It seems to me you’ve applied the poker question wrongly. We’re not dealing here with the World Series of Poker where you have elimination rounds. What do you mean exactly by a “pair will beat a king high”? It’s a cute turn of a phrase, but what does it have to do with reality? This is all guess work. But leaving the guesswork to the one side, I suppose you mean that a coupled length of oligos is better than 5 of a shorter length. However, the information density of coupled lengths of shorter size is not all that high, which is a very important component for biotic forms.
Zachriel:
“Remember, you are responsible for supporting your own claim. You have claimed that probability prevents the spontaneous origin of life.”
That’s what you claim that I claimed. Look back over the things I’ve written and tell me exactly where I said that. I said, “Is it possible to think of life coming into existence without proteins first being in place?” You simply presumed that I was arguing probabilities. Have you given any thought to how cell membranes, flagella, cell structure could come about without proteins? I have.
Zachriel: “Orthodox science *suggests* that life on Earth arose spontaneously, but there is no complete theory of abiogenesis, and there is no evidence to indicate it did not happen.
Lino: Impossible (hugely improbable)
Science: Possible (and suggested by the evidence)”
Orthodox science? Do you mean the Miller-Urey experiment? Here’s what an RNA-world scientist said about it: From Wikipedia: “A.G. Cairns-Smith in 1982 criticized writers for exaggerating the implications of the Miller-Urey experiment. He argued that the experiment showed, not the possibility that nucleic acids preceded life, but its implausibility. He claimed that the process of constructing nucleic acids would require 18 distinct conditions and events that would have to occur continually over millions of years in order to build up the required quantities.
One of the leading researchers into RNA world models:
“ The most reasonable assumption is that life did not start with RNA …. The transition to an RNA world, like the origins of life in general, is fraught with uncertainty and is plagued by a lack of experimental data. ”
— Gerald Joyce, 1989”
Zachriel: “The burden is yours to support your own assertions. Your argument is based in faulty assumptions. Science has many reasons to believe that life arose spontaneously, and the more closely we look, the more evidence is found. We could discuss this evidence, but I think you need to reject your previous argument first. Scientists do not suggest any mechanism that is beyond reasonable probability.”
We KNOW that life and proteins are synonymous. If I’m arguing that, why would you call that an assertion? It is you, not me, that has to “support your assertions”. You’re the one asserting that an life began in an RNA-world.
Science once before proposed that life arises spontaneously. But it seems that Louis Pasteur put the kabosh on that notion. So, when you say that “scientists do not suggest any mechanism that is beyond reasonable probability”, I can only conclude you’ve forgotten this inconvenient fact.
Zachriel:
“No one knows at this time. However, there is strong evidence it was a natural consequence of conditions on the primordial Earth. Any data you have to contradict this would be welcome. Are you suggesting Intelligent Agency? If so, there is clearly no evidence of this.”
When you say that “no one knows at this time”, are you saying that the incidence of life didn’t occur, or, are you saying that life is clearly the handiwork of God? Look at the fossil record: there is no life, then there is life. Abiogenesis is a fact. (Panspermia solves no problems whatsoever. It only pushes the questions back to another part of the universe,w hile the questions themselves remain unanswered. IOW, abiogenesis occurred somewhere else.)
And you have it backwards concerning the strong evidence that’s out there: Is there any data you have to prove that abiogenesis “was a natural consequence of conditions on the primoridal Earth.?” We know it happened. We don’t know how it happened.
As to the invocation of Intelligent Agency: I have two questions.
First, Samson, in the Old Testament, pulled down the pillars of the Philistines temple. Was Divine power involved? Second, when Samson’s hair was sheared, he lost his power: would you conclude, scientifically, that his hair was supplying power to his muscles? These are very serious questions, implying the limits of science.
I’m not questioning his motives. I’m questioning his sanity.
Yes, only an insane person would challenge an incredibly ignorant man who is certain that early life required protein (an extrapolation), using chromatin as a phony example of proteins that are necessary for life, then desperately moving the goalposts to point out that bacteria have histone-like proteins, and then claiming that the person who corrects his misrepresentation by pointing out that bacteria that don’t make those proteins aren’t dead is somehow being disingenous and that he’s still right.
Lino, I suggest that you show our exchange to someone whom you trust who is agnostic on ID.
Just to take another example of your arrogant ignorance off of Z’s plate, you wrote:
“Orthodox science? Do you mean the Miller-Urey experiment?”
No, Lino, if you cared anything about the actual evidence, you’d take the time to learn that there have been hundreds of papers published since that built on that experiment. Attacking a 54-year-old experiment as though nothing has been done since just shows the weakness of your position. Hell, even Wikipedia shows the ignorance of that stale popcorn fart of a response. Doesn’t your ignorance of relevant 35-, 20-, and 10-year-old experiments (whose results trashed your extrapolations) suggest that citing a 54-year-old experiment isn’t the sharpest rhetorical move?
Is every one of your responses as reflexive as the truly insane idea that no data have been generated in this field in the last 54 years? (It’s nothing like ID, from which no data have been generated in 150 years.)
My challenge stands unanswered: offer an ID hypothesis that explains why highly-conserved RNA relics are found in the middle of the most essential biological functions.
Zachriel: “The burden is yours to support your own assertions. Your argument is based in faulty assumptions. Science has many reasons to believe that life arose spontaneously, and the more closely we look, the more evidence is found. We could discuss this evidence, but I think you need to reject your previous argument first. Scientists do not suggest any mechanism that is beyond reasonable probability.”
Lino
You’re assuming your conclusions. We KNOW that extant life utilizes proteins. We also KNOW that life is the result of a long period of evolutionary development, and the distinction between the genotype and the phenotype may have evolved as well.
Lino
You may be confused. The incredible fact is that RNA is capable of self-replication. However, I am not arguing that life began as an RNA-world. As I stated above, “if RNA is not the answer to historical abiogenesis, that doesn’t mean abiogenesis didn’t occur. Perhaps, it was a network of different molecules of varying length. Perhaps it required a catalyst such as a kaolinite clay. Maybe it required Divine Intervention or was a one-of-a-kind event. Perhaps, we might simply remain ignorant. However, the discovery of self-replicating molecules is an important confirmation of the fundamental hypothesis.
Lino
That is “apparently” a claim.
Lino
Or a network of shorter replicators, segregated by naturally occurring lipid membranes, or in contact with a natural catalytic clay, or any of a number of possibilities. You stated that longer nucleotides “apparently” required agency. This is again presupposing the conclusion. Just because no one knows how longer sequences might spontaneously assemble doesn’t mean it isn’t a real possibility. It may require a catalyst, or be spread across several molecules.
There is not enough data to reach any valid conclusions concerning abiogenesis at this time. However, the closer scientists look, the more spontaneous abiogenesis appears as a real possibility. If you are merely speculating, then I have no objection. If you are trying to make a specific claim, then please be clear. Are saying that spontaneous abiogenesis is precluded by the available evidence?
CJYman
I see you use this term a lot. But what is “information”? What is a “processing system”?
CJYman quoting Dawkins
Shannon Information. Ok, so we know what you mean by information. Which has more Shannon Information, a Shakespearan play or a random sequence of the same length?
John, you’re completely incapable of an intelligent discussion. And, you’re dishonest. And, you’re an intellectual bully. And, you’re rabid to the point of mental exhaustion. Your latest spew is full of nonsense, but I’m not going to bother pointing it out to you. It is written that only a fool argues with a mad man.
Lino
We don’t know *exactly* how it happened, but we have quite a few clues. Note that all living processes are consistent with a chemical explanation. Note also that extant life derived naturally from more primitive forms. Note also that there are a number of plausible mechanisms for the formation of lipid membranes. Finally, the discovery of self-replicating molecules demonstrates that spontaneous abiogenesis is a strong possibility.
Does this *prove” RNA-world? No. There are a variety of other possibilities that I have already touched on. But all the evidence points to spontaneous abiogenesis, and none points to intelligent agency. Did you think otherwise? Are you willing to make an explicit claim?
Lino
Even accepting the historical existence of Samson, there is no scientific evidence in support of Divine Intervention. However, as Samson saw the loss of his hair as symbolic of his broken faith, the explanation may have a valid spiritual and poetic dimension. But that’s not a scientific question.
I’m skipping your first response since, given this response, I don’t see much distance between your position and mine. Your position is, of course, conjectural since we’re not in a position to revisit what is being speculated about; but with your proper caveats, this kind of conjecture is certainly permissible, and even possibly helpful.
Your response is perfectly reasonable; yet, it pinpoints the limits of science since, if it is true that God, through Divine Intervention, gave Samson his strength in such a way as to be connected to the length of his hair, then science is completely incapable of “proving” that. But, despite that, this is exactly what happened, and “science” couldn’t detect it, though we, as subjects, can.
Got to go…..
Lino dug himself in deeper:
“John, you’re completely incapable of an intelligent discussion.”
Without providing any evidence, you just look silly claiming that.
“And, you’re dishonest.”
Point out an instance of dishonesty, then. We all know that you can’t.
“And, you’re an intellectual bully.”
Why shouldn’t I be aggressive and persistent when someone as ignorant as you attacks my profession, using assumptions presented as fact, and falsely accuses me of being disingenous and dishonest?
“And, you’re rabid to the point of mental exhaustion.”
I’m not the one who is mentally exhausted.
“Your latest spew is full of nonsense, but I’m not going to bother pointing it out to you.”
Translation: you can’t point out any nonsense in my writing. You’ve made three posts commenting on it, and not one of them has a shred of intellectual content.
“It is written that only a fool argues with a mad man.”
Then why are you still arguing with me while claiming that I am insane?
Lino
Then you should dispense with the faulty scientific arguments. A lot of people who insist upon conflating their religion with science are forced to accuse scientists of being either fools or liars, and that some sort of conspiracy permeates the scientific community from geology to molecular genetics. The truth does matter. Whether you accept the science or not, the vast majority of scientists report their findings honestly, and they deserve to be supported in this.
NATIONAL ACADEMY of SCIENCES: “The theory of evolution has become the central unifying concept of biology and is a critical component of many related scientific disciplines. In contrast, the claims of creation science lack empirical support and cannot be meaningfully tested.“
CJYman wrote:
“Hello John, now I see where we may be talking “past” each other referencing ID as it relates to theory and hypothesis.”
Yes, particularly since you refuse to abide by the accepted scientific definition of “theory.”
“There is an ID theory, and there are hypothesis which are consistent with ID theory.”
No, a theory has a track record of successful predictions. ID has no track record, and no one intends to attempt to test it so as to provide a track record.
“…Furthermore, these ideas are a more logically coherent explanation re: cause of information processors than any random, chance occurrences.”
Here’s an example of sophistry: your use of “random” and “chance.” In evolutionary theory, the random events (mutations) are qualified as random WITH RESPECT TO FITNESS. They are decidedly nonrandom wrt:
1) where they occur in the genome
2) what one base mutates to (transitions are far more likely than transversions)
3) larger events (CAG repeats expand far more often than they contract, deletions are far more frequent than inversions, etc.
IOW, trying to blow this off as general randomness is sophistry.
CJYman wrote:
“First tell me, is abiogenesis scientific?”
“Actually, that was the point of the question. Abiogenesis obviously occurred, however we now need a scientific theory to explain HOW.”
If that was the point of the question, you should have phrased it to indicate that.
“Now that you’ve answered the above question so gracefully, “Bubba,” we can continue on to the next question: Can you provide a definition of abiogenesis and can you please tell me if my next
assertion has scientific potential?”
Assertions don’t have scientific potential. Hypotheses only have scientific potential if they make predictions about observations that you:
1) have not yet made; and
2) have some concrete intention of attempting to make in the near future.
“The statement: “information processors can be generated through random, chance processes; thus information processors are not necessarily programmed to arise from a previous information processor.””
Is gibberish, because it contains too many ill-defined terms.
CJYman wrote:
“Then, if you actually looked on my blog where I guided the reader (in this case yourself), you would have seen my comments on verification (testability) and falsification of ID THEORY.”
John wrote:
“Sorry, I don’t see any predictions and tests of predictions anywhere on your blog. Mere comments won’t cut it.”
“I was discussing verification and falsification, not prediction yet.”
Prediction is a necessary component of testability.
“Do you not want to discuss testability and falsification of ID theory?”
No, because there is no ID theory. If there was an ID theory, BY DEFINITION you’d be able to point to a long track record of successful predictions.
“And now, I’m just a little curious. Although I have no qualms with the theory of evolution,…”
To which specific theory do you refer? Neutral theory? Drift?
“… can you please define the theory of evolution and fill out your questionnaire one more time in reference to the theory of evolution:”
There are many hypotheses and theories that make up evolutionary theory (a collective term), so your request is meaningless.
“re: scientific method from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
Essential elements of a scientific method:
-Characterizations (Quantifications, observations, and measurements)
-Hypothesis (theoretical, hypothetical explanations
-Predictions (reasoning including logical deduction from hypothesis and theory)”
This is incomplete; the predictions have to be about actual observations from experiments or other means.
“-Experiments (tests of all of the above)”
Experiments are sufficient, but not necessary. Experiments are a subset of observations.
“-ID Theory: Many features of nature are best explained by an intelligent cause…”
Pure sophistry. All theories are explanations, but not all explanations are theories. If you believe what you wrote above, offer an ID hypothesis that explains the role of a highly-conserved RNAs in translation.
“… because in our experience intelligence is the sole cause of their informational properties.”
The conclusion doesn’t follow from the premise, particularly since you can’t name a set of intelligently-designed objects that:
1) fit into a single nested hierarchy; and
2) whose components fit into a single nested hierarchy superimposable on the nested hierarchy of the objects of which they are composed.
Since nested (containment) hierarchies are mathematical descriptions of the relationships between the informational content of living things, if you can’t do so, your premise is false.
“Because ID has been continually verified by observational statistical data…”
Sorry, Bubba, but this is just a fantasy. In real science, we talk about hypotheses explaining everything that is already known (weak, but necessary, and not met by any ID hypothesis AFAIK) and correct predictions SUPPORTING (stronger than explanation, but not sufficient) the hypothesis.
ID doesn’t accomplish the former (because no ID “theorist” ever addresses the partially-redundant NATURE of most biological complexity) and doesn’t even attempt the latter, your claim that it has been “verified” is preposterous.
“… ever since human intelligence began to use language and then even more so when human intelligence began designing computer programs, …”
CJYman, you know this is a fraud. If you didn’t, you would be citing evidence.
“ID is a theory as opposed to being merely a hypothesis.”
No. The term theory is reserved for those hypotheses that have a LONG track record of successful PREDICTIONS. The notion of ID has ZERO record of successful predictions. None. Nada. Zip. Calling it a theory is simply a lie.
” It is a theory which provides the framework for other hypotheses to emerge.”
Pure sophistry.
“-Statistical Data for ID Theory: If we take the sample of all information processing systems in which we know the cause, 100% so far have had an intelligent cause.”
We know the cause of increased information in the adaptive immune system, don’t we?
“One way that ID theory, as it relates to biology and evolution, has already been verified is by these evolutionary programs which are intelligently and purposefully designed to converge upon a
solution to a specific problem, through the process of controlled random searches acting within the parameters of fine tuned information. Thus, evolutionary algorithms (which in our experience must be designed with a goal with which to generate and converge information) are one major verification of ID theory.”
Pure hooey. You can’t offer a specific experimental result or observation predicted by your phony theory, CJYman.
“-A relevant hypothesis: The universe is described as a program resulting from an information processor.”
No, that’s a description, not a hypothesis.
“-Prediction (necessarily arising from ID theory) regarding abiogenesis: Life is a necessary result of and caused by the programming of the information processor which may give rise to our universe (as opposed to life being merely a random, chance, “accidental” occurrence).”
No, Bubba, that’s a hypothesis, not a prediction.
“Discovering if and how life is necessarily caused by the information processor which may give rise to our universe would be further research consistent with ID theory.”
If you can’t conceive of an observation that would falsify your hypothesis, it ain’t scientific. You’re engaging in what Feynman described as “cargo cult science.”
“Here are two peer reviewed published articles discussing abiogenesis…”
Discussions don’t make it scientific; nor does peer review. The key is that you can’t point to any DATA (primary scientific literature).
“-Prediction (future observation and experiment which will further verify the above hypothesis and ID theory) : ID theory necessarily predicts that information processing systems will not be created by
anything other than a previous information processor…”
No, that’s a hypothesis. Scientific predictions have much more specificity. You’re building the signal fires at the end of your island’s runway, but that’s not what caused the planes to arrive and deliver goodies:
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/cargocul.htm
“…I suggest a model (computer simulation) to be developed…”
If you were scientific, you’d propose the model; you wouldn’t be cowardly and use the passive voice like you did.
“…-Falsification (future observation and experiment which will negate the above hypothesis and ID theory):…I suggest an experiment (again, a computer simulation)…”
Computer simulations aren’t experiments. Computer simulations are used to refine models and hypotheses.
And if you had any faith in your hypothesis, you would DO a computer simulation, not suggest one. Here’s an exercise for you: show me a single peer-reviewed paper in which anyone simply suggests a computer simulation without doing one.
“You’ve told me you work with DNA and I’m sure you understand the basic properties of information, so you are obviously misunderstanding what Dembski’ is saying (‘cause you just brush off what he says as utter baloney),…”
The falsification of Dembski’s idiotic claim has nothing to do with any abstract concept of information. He simply claims that the structure of DNA precludes intra-strand constraints on sequence. It’s simply, totally, empirically wrong. There are huge numbers of sequences that are nonfunctional because of intra-strand interactions.
Now, if you had a speck of faith in your position, you’d demand data, instead of simply claiming that I misunderstand a guy who’s never done anything to DNA using his own hands. Dembski is ignorant of the most basic aspects of biology and biochemistry, so offering him as an authority is blatantly fallacious.
Hypothesis: you have no faith in your position
Prediction: you will resort to appeals to authority instead of demanding data:
Observation: up to you…
“… and therefore you aren’t understanding his arguments in favor of ID theory.”
Your response is ludcrous.
“Tell me, is any sequence of nucleotide bases organized by physical laws of attraction between each nucleotide?”
Straw man, and a lame one. The idiotic statement I am challenging is this one: “In other words, there is complete freedom in the sequencing possibilities of the nucleotide bases.”
Therefore, to demonstrate that the statement is false, all I must do is demonstrate that there is NOT complete freedom. Your specification of EACH nucleotide is completely bogus, and I suspect that you know that.
“I do discuss this at my blog.”
You don’t discuss data at your blog. You conflate hypothesis with theory, and prediction with hypothesis. Your blog is incoherent.
“It is a rather simple concept to grasp and I’m sure you’re just misunderstanding what Dembski is saying.”
No, you and Dembski are just massively ignorant of basic molecular biology and biophysics.
“The data you are referring to are provided above. Do you have any scientific objections to this?”
You have provided no data whatsoever above.
“Furthermore, you seem to be horribly more confused about the adjective “scientific” if you deny that it attempts to explain phenomenon in terms of laws of cause and effect. Do you seriously not believe that scientific theories are scientific because they aim at explaining phenomenon “x” in terms of laws of cause and effect.”
No, I pointed out that one can do a lifetime of science without invoking a single law. My objection is specifically to your use of the term “laws.”
“A law of cause and effect is one which lends itself to testability and repeatability.”
Correct. More importantly, it already has been repeatedly tested.
“If there are no laws of nature,…”
Try reading what I actually wrote. I’m not denying that there are laws, I’m denying that laws aren’t NECESSARILY involved in all scientific matters. Can you grasp this elementary concept?
John wrote:
“Great! Please rank the cells above, and we’ll talk about how biological information is generated, independent of design vs. evolution.”
“I’m not interested in design vs. evolution.”
CJYman, if you can’t read before responding, we can’t have a rational discussion. I offered you a test case INDEPENDENT of design vs. evolution, so saying that you aren’t interested in design vs. evolution represents a real lack of reading comprehension.
“I’m an ID evolutionist. I’m interested in the cause of information/processing systems, life, and evolution.”
That’s why I offered you a case *independent* of ID vs. evolution. I hypothesize that you aren’t really interested, which predicts that you won’t take up the example I offered. Is my hypothesis supported by observation?
“Furthermore, in regards to measuring information,…”
So, you said that you could measure genomic information. I only demand *relative* measurements of informational content of genomes of the following cells from a single human being, you:
1) One of your macrophages
2) One of your immature B lymphocytes that has not undergone V(D)J recombination
3) One of your mature B lymphocytes that has undergone V(D)J recombination in one allele, but not the other, and is secreting an antibody against the last rhinovirus that infected you
4) One of your mature B lymphocytes that has undergone V(D)J recombination in both alleles, and is secreting an antibody against the last rhinovirus that infected you
5) One of your mature B lymphocytes that has undergone V(D)J recombination in one allele, but not the other, but makes no functional antibody
6) One of your mature B lymphocytes that has undergone V(D)J recombination in both alleles, but makes no functional antibody.
“DNA carries information in a very computer-like way, and we can measure the genome’s capacity in bits too, if we wish.”
Good–then rank the cells I listed above by genomic capacity.
John wrote:
“Necessary? Replication. Sufficient? I don’t know. Why don’t we study a case of information production in real time before we go back billions of years?”
“Ok then, let’s start with evolutionary programs. What is necessary for an evolutionary program to work?”
I offered a case independent of evolution. Didn’t you just say you weren’t interested in evolution vs. ID?
“…I’ll let you start by providing examples of the production of information/processing systems today.”
See above.
“And, yes you must have misunderstood what is being said.”
Why, because you’re so sure that you and Dembski understand moleclar biology better than molecular biologists? How arrogant can you get, Bubba?
“Tell me, is there a pattern between A-C-T-Gs (nucleotide bases) within DNA which is caused by the physical properties of the nucleotide bases? If you would like, we can discuss this aspect at my blog so that we can keep our discussions a little shorter here.”
See above. If you’d like, just post Dembski’s claims without any goalpost-moving and I’ll address them there.
“I wonder why you refuse to discuss evolutionary programs as a test and potential verification of ID?”
I wonder why you completely misrepresented my test case and said that we should discuss something addressed by my test case.
“However, you will note that my above prediction and falsification refer to two computer models …”
Computer models don’t test predictions. They are used to refine models.
“And you are correct to say that continual observations DO NOT EVER PROVE any scientific theory, since scientific theories are never absolutely proven.”
And therefore the corollary to that is that anyone who uses proof as a criterion is either dishonest or does not understand scientific epistemology.
“It is the theory, which can potentially be
falsified, and which has the most verified observations that is the most likely explanation.”
Only if the observations were predicted by the theory before they were observed.
“On the other hand, I can give you hard data by pulling up evolutionary program after program which are verified to be produced by intelligence.”
I suspect that you’ve never looked at any data.
“As I have stated on my blog:…”
What you state on your blog is not evidence.
“So then, according to you, science is NOT the discipline which attempts to explain phenomenon in terms of laws of cause and effect?”
Straw man. Simply delete “laws of” and I agree with the statement.
John wrote:
“Most of them are so far off that they are laughable. Tell me, CJYman, have you ever even read a single paper from the primary scientific literature?”
“It is because I understand some of the basic issues that I am able to propose definitions (that I have derived from scientific papers) in my own words.”
Evasion noted. How can you be scientific if you ignore the data?
John wrote:
“When were the first data published showing that removal of some so-called “junk DNA” negatively affected fitness?”
“This may interest you.”
Not really. A date from you would interest me, not creationist straw man arguments. If you don’t have a date, that is evidence of dishonesty on your part.
“The research on functions for introns in the cell is reviewed. Darwinists once generally argued that nonprotein coding DNA are relics of once-functioning genes or useless “junk” DNA…”
This is simply a lie. Only a profoundly ignorant and/or dishonest person would conflate introns with pseudogenes.
“All I have to say re: vestigial organs or junk DNA is “don’t be to fast to jump to the conclusion that something is merely junk or an evolutionary leftover,””
We haven’t, which you would know if you had made an honest attempt to answer my question instead of quoting pure hooey.
“And no, snowflakes have absolutely no information content.”
Really? If you were explaining to me that two snowflakes had different structures, how would you convey their differences without any information to me?
With regards to Samson, it would be like someone claiming that there exists a significant and scientifically demonstrable energy pathway between a Rabbi’s beard and his biceps. Scientists from a number of relevant specialties say that there is no such evidence. The Beardist would insist otherwise, argue endlessly, lobby politically, blather on blogs, point to any shred of evidence (On the Thermodynamics of Burning Hair by Albert J Eisenstein in the Annals of Hair and Follicles) to support their view, and believe forevermore that scientists are either fools or liars and the scientific community is comprised of a vast materialist conspiracy. Of course, Beardists would never conduct any scientific observations to support their claims, but a couple of bearded scientists would sell lots of books to the popular press.
Eppur si muove.
CJYman: “Actually, before we can continue this discussion, you are going to need to educate yourself on a basic understanding of information and information processing systems. What are they and what do they do and how are they related?”
From the looks of your site, you seem to be referring to your own custom understanding of information. Information models that are actually used in math and engineering (Shannon and algorithmic) don’t support your position at all.
Zachriel
You were doing so well, Zachriel, and this declaration of war. Your true colors are showing.
Point out the faulty argument, my friend.
As to your rant about my motivations, who the hell do you think you are? You don’t know me from Adam. Where do you get off imputing motives?
And I suppose you say the “vast majority of scientists” report their findings honestly” because we know for a fact that when it came to stem cells, they were less than honest.
Zachriel
and so on, and so on.
Tell me, Dr. Brilliance, what is a miracle?
Lino
Lino
Lino: But apparently when you want lengths of 160 to 200 nucleotides, then intervention via sophisticated lab equipment and techniques are needed.
That is “apparently” a claim. I then asked for clarification. You responded with when Samson’s hair was sheared, he lost his power: would you conclude, scientifically, that his hair was supplying power to his muscles? These are very serious questions, implying the limits of science.
Though a bit indirect as a response, I agree that your questions would help describe the limits of scientific investigation, which is why I answered. A scientist could honestly and emphatically state that there is no scientific evidence that hair supplies power (a technical term in physics) to the muscles in humans, and that there is substantial evidence indicating otherwise.
Then I asked for clarification. Are saying that spontaneous abiogenesis is precluded by the available scientific evidence? I never heard the answer.
Lino
I didn’t impute your motives. I did say you should abandon your faulty arguments. I also mentioned that there are “a lot of people” who accuse scientists of being fools or liars because these people don’t understand what constitutes a valid scientific assertions. These sorry souls then often rant about conspiracies. I then called upon *you* to support the vast majority of scientists who honestly report the results of their scientific investigations. That hardly imputes your motives.
Lino
I see. Do you then believe that the vast majority of biologists, geologists, paleontologists, geneticists, ecologists, anatomists, botanists, systematists, and microbiologists are dishonest about what they keep saying is the central unifying theory of life?
Lino
A miracle is Divine Intervention, often but not always a violation of natural laws.
Zachriel
This is a complete mischaracterization of the discussion we’ve had on this board. The “claim” I made, is in no way wrong. Please point out the error(s).
As to the NAS, that is nothing more than “consensus” science. Consensus science once said the sun went around the earth. Consensus science once said that the dimensions of the universe were absolute. Is there a point you’re trying to make in all of this?
Can you please explain how a miracle can happen without laws of nature being violated?
Now, it’s easy to see why others become exasperated with you.
You say, “This is a complete mischaracterization of the discussion we’ve had on this board.
Yet, when I ask you for clarification you avoid answering. Lino, I asked you three times now. Are saying that spontaneous abiogenesis is precluded by the available scientific evidence?
CJYman
Really? So at last someone is going to clarify what is meant by ‘ID theory?
Ah! Just as I thought. Another person who is confident in their views on science but doesn’t even know what is meant by a theory.
A scientific theory is an explanation, or suite of explanations, for a set of observations. Predictions have been made and validated, which turns it from a hypothesis to a theory, and other predictions can also be made that could potentially be shown to be false. In other words, a theory is falsifiable.
I can’t think of any predictions that could possibly be made from “Many features of nature are best explained by an intelligent cause”. Can you?
What experiment could you do that might, potentially, cause you to conclude that ID was not true? All that has been done so far has been along the lines of ‘By golly, that looks complicated. It must be designed.’
To be a hypothesis, it must be falsifiable. What experiment do you propose doing that could possibly show that an information processing system was not programmed to arise from previous information processors? When can we expect the results?
BTW: What are the informational properties of a mitochondrion or, to use the ID favourite, a bacterial flagellum (pick a flagellum, any flagellum, out of the score of different ones that are available).
You also avoided answering this relevant question: Do you then believe that the vast majority of biologists, geologists, paleontologists, geneticists, ecologists, anatomists, botanists, systematists, and microbiologists are dishonest about what they keep saying is the central unifying theory of life?
You did clearly state that you “don’t accept Natural Selection“, which is quite ironic as Natural Selection can be directly observed in a variety of settings.
Zachriel, you have failed to reply to my demand: You claim that what I wrote concerning oligos of lengths 160 to 200 nucleotides was “faulty”. Please point out where that is faulty.
When you have answered, then I will answer to your request.
And, again, who the hell do you think you are? I exasperate people. Keep your opinions to yourself. Who cares what your reaction is? But, of course, it is within your character to pontificate and to be arrogant, and so the need to express these kinds of opinions. Quite unbecoming.
As to your latter comment, you’re mischaracterizing what I said. And not for the first, or second, time.
Lino
Lino
Returning to topic…
Each of your probability claims are based on faulty assumptions. When making claims, it is considered reasonable to answer requests for clarification.
Lino
Request for clarification: Are saying that spontaneous abiogenesis is precluded by the available scientific evidence? Are you attempting to provide an argument that spontaneous abiogenesis is not scientifically plausible?
I raised three objections to your conclusion that it would take intelligent intervention. 1) You assume a minimum length sufficient for replication. If a shorter length begins replication, then longer lengths may follow through evolutionary processes. 2) You assume only one target. There is no way to calculate the number of possible sequences of a given length that might be capable of replication. 3) The assumption that replication began with an RNA sequence may not be correct. There are a variety of other plausible mechanisms, including some perhaps not yet considered. It may require a number of related molecules. Or it might require a long sequence, but one that is not well-specified. It may require a catalyst. It may require segregation. And even a poor replicator will begin the evolutionary process. No one claims to know the details, so multiplying numbers together just generates more numbers, but little insight.
Lino
That is incorrect. It would not be “used configurations”, but “usable configurations”. And we know that the usable configurations is much much higher than the used configurations. Nor do we know all the possible usable configurations, or even their order of magnitude. Hence, your calcuations are meaningless.
Lino
Your assertion is telling and indicates you have not made a real attempt to understand the science concerning spontaneous abiogenesis. You assume your conclusions. We KNOW that extant life utilizes proteins. We also KNOW that life is the result of a long period of evolutionary development, and the distinction between the genotype and the phenotype may have evolved as well.
Zachriel: As to the quote about which you are now asking for clarification, you’ll notice that you’ve switched one quote for another. Is that how the discussion is going to take place: first you ask about one quote, and when I ask for a clarification, then you simply substitute another quote for it.
So, again, what is “faulty” about this quote:
“But apparently when you want lengths of 160 to 200 nucleotides, then intervention via sophisticated lab equipment and techniques are needed.”
Please answer my request. As I said above: “When you have answered, then I will answer to your request.”
Lino wrote:
“So, again, what is “faulty” about this quote:
“But apparently when you want lengths of 160 to 200 nucleotides, then intervention via sophisticated lab equipment and techniques are needed.””
I already addressed it, Lino. The intervention is only needed if you want sufficient purity and yield to allow you to do experiments and analyses in the lab. The number of self-replicating RNA molecules needed to start life is precisely 1.
I tried to explain it to you, but you are resistant to reason, elementary statistics, and elementary polymer chemistry:
John: “Interesting. Why wouldn’t the oligo lengths have a normal distribution? Is it intrinsically different from other polymers?”
“But apparently they do have a normal distribution as found in nature: from 2 up to 25 nucleotides in length.”
Uh, Lino, “2 up to 25 nucleotides” is not a description of a normal distribution. Since the high figure of 25 had to have been measured, it would have been a long way from the actual maximum of a normal distribution. It’s even covered pretty well in your ultimate source, Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution
“To include lengths that are produced using artificial methods seems odd, to say the least.”
But, of course, you were wrong again, because I was doing no such thing.
“But this, again, seems to get back to your unwillingness to admit that they do have “natural” lengths.”
I was asking you why the natural lengths wouldn’t be arranged in a normal distribution, and how you decided that our ability to measure the maximum length would extend to single molecules, the minimum amount necessary for self-replication. Clearly, you can’t answer the question.
I realize that you will try and characterize the important distinction between what we are able to measure and what actually is the case as insane, but so it goes.
Lino
There’s no real way to tell because you refuse to explain yourself. You appear to move from making an argument based on random assembly of nucleotides (which has little to do with the actual probability which is determined by the mechanism of synthesis), to the difficulty of creating long sequences in environments that might resemble prebiotic conditions (knowledge of which is still very tentative).
Zachriel: please answer the question.
Sorry, Lino. It’s not my job to explain or defend your position. Please reread my replies, including the latest. If you wish to rephrase your argument, that would be a reasonable response. Otherwise, I don’t understand what your purpose in continuing might be.
You said I made a claim. You put into print the claim. Then you said it was faulty. When I ask you to point out what is faulty with it, you won’t respond.
Why?
I have responded several times. I have asked for clarification several times. I have asked for a restatement of your argument.
I thought you had intended to communicate ideas. I apologize for the misunderstanding.
Returning to Ty’s topic:
Ty Harris
It’s not due to the Darwin or the Theory of Evolution that people have existential angst.
MacBeth
The observable fact, known since antiquity, is that people are worm meat. In other words, it is not science that gives people a vision of a meaningless material world. Rather, people know that their hopes and dreams will be lost to the material world in the mists of time. Even the mightiest Pharoah,
Don’t blame science. Science merely studies the processes of the natural world, including worms — and lighted fools.
To all who have commented here, and participated in the discussion… This will probably be my last comment on this thread, unless some new and unexpected argument or idea is put forward that I just cant avoid adressing. I think most of the main points and ideas have been put forward by both sides at this point. I would just like to say thanks to everybody. I think there have been some smart commenters on both sides. While our conclusions may be different, we obviously all share a deep,common interest in the topics and fundamental questions being disussed here. I am somewhat new to interacting with people on-line, at least as it pertains to discussing such controversial topics. I was genuinely surprised at the fact that some people talk to others in an online setting, in a very much different manner than they would probably talk to somebody in-person. I have a possible explanation for this. I think that there is an inverse relationship between the willingness of a person to use abusive and insulting language, and the liklihood of that person recieving a knuck-sandwhich from the target of said abuse who is not physically present. I will call this theory “Ty’s Law of Internet Civility” ( but only if the verifiable experimental data bears this out, John ). All in all, perhaps the semi-ananymous forum of the internet has a few virtues. To the extent that people ” let it all hang out”, we gain a better understanding of people’s actual thought processes, and sometimes can gain insight into their underlying motivations from the unrestrained candor which would be impossible in polite company. It’ll take some getting used to. At any rate, a few final thoughts- Although the conventional wisdom is that the ID versus Evolution debate is a clash between science and religion, this whole experience has suggested to me that this isnt really the case. Once upon a time it may have been so, but to the extent that we now can look at biological complexity from the standpoint of INFORMATION, that has all changed. Design now has AT LEAST as solid a foundation as Evolution does, in explaining the creation of the vast volumes of complex specified information that is present in human DNA. We are looking inside Darwin’s ” Black Box ” now, and it has opened up a whole new can of worms that the established scientific orthodoxy probably does NOT want opened. Prior to this discussion, I didnt actually realize just how many holes evolutionary theory has in it. I mean, seeing as how evolution advocates are so sure of themselves that they are willing to kick ID advocates completely out of all public classrooms for scientific heresy, I would have thought that they would have had a clearer, and more well-defined explanation for the actual PROCESS they are claiming took place to create human biological complexity. Apparently, however, I can sum up naturalistic advocate’s explanation for how we got from particles to an information processor as follows.. ” We havent got the slightest idea. It’s never been explained, observed, proved, modeled, or duplicated. BUT, we know it happened, because otherwise, we would be wrong, and that isnt possible.” Also, it has never been demonstarted that an information processor CAN spontaneously arise, independent of the information it is designed to process. One would think that ANY naturalistic explanation for life has to account for this, and yet this basic, essential, fundamental process is a total mystery to everybody. I’m shocked at this, and the atitude of utter, infallible certainty on the part of evolutionary advocates, in the face of admitted ignorance on the matter of abiogenesis speaks more to trust in ideology, than it does to a willingness to seek truth. The afformentioned mystery-process is just one of three huge, unanswered probability obstacles that ID advocates seem to have raised. The second is the question of how EXACTLY we got from a blank information processor TO human complexity. The old, tired arguments about monkeys at typewriters, and METHINKSITISLIKEAWEASLE have been bandied about here, but the fundamental question that remains unanswered by evolutionist advocates is- at what point IS design inferrable in complex, specified information? You may revile Dembski, and question his conclusions , but that question is really the fundamental essence of his arguments. We can argue where the line between chance and design lies, but surely it exists, and considering where we started, and where we have wound up, surely evolutionary theory SHOULD be viewed within the context of SOME probability bounds, should it not? You might disagree with dembski’s assertions as to what those boundaries are, but the subject of design inference in information HAS to be germain to the basic problems discussed here, in fact, I think it’s the ESSENCE of the matter. Furthermore, to the extent that such arguments are confined to information, complexity, statistics, and math – and dont endorse any particular religion- they really do deserve to be presented in schools right along with naturalistic explanations for human origins. Biology within the context of information complexity is not going away- in fact, we have crossed a threshold as a species in terms of advances Information Science that is going to fundamentally change our lives than any other factor in the centuries to come. I predict that in the context of this new way of looking at EVERYTHING, Intelligent Design is going to grow in popularity and stregth, not go away, as some would wish. The third obvious probability obstacle to a purely naturalistic explanation for life is Irreducible Complexity. Darwin himself admitted that his theories break down ” absolutely ” in the face of biological structures and processes which cannot be explained by small, sucessive changes. When one considers the interwoven, interdependent stuctures and sub-structures, and all of the interwoven, mutually-supporting, interdependent processes, and sub-processes functioning in human biology, Random Mutation and Natural Selection utterly break down as Darwin said they did, and the whole matter gets thrown back to the straight-probability of many structures and processes leaping themselves into existence all at once. That “cold shudder” darwin got when he considered the structure of the eye, was a subconscious realization on his part that RM+NS ultimatly may not get us there, apart from design. I think that his fear and intuition has turned out to be right. For what it’s worth, nobody with an IQ larger than his shoe size denies that RM+NS functions as an essential part of life to adapt, to improve, and to survive. And also, it’s fair to give arguments for nested heirarchies, and implied common descent their due. They just dont seem to be able to be able to account alone for life apart from design. Which is why I think that evolution functions within the context of design, and why I think that Science/Evolution and God/Mataphysics are not mutually exlusive things. I think that RM+NS is probably just the process by which God goes about his business. It’s his way, and I think that Science and God CAN be complementary, and I believe that they are. I think that a fundamental error is being made by scientists when they reject Intelligent Design soley on the following basis- ” ANY theory in which a non-naturalistic power is inferred or implicated MUST be rejected as false, because science can only rely on naturalistic explanations.” The problem with this attitude is that what do you do when naturalistic observations and arguments such as mathematical analysis of information complexity point towards design, and to a higher power? Or in other words, what do you do when Science POINTS to God? I am not saying that science should be driven by religion, but neither do I think that science must be God’s mortal enemy. What I am saying is that Science should follow the facts WHEREVER they lead, and if that be to God, then so be it. Science is best when it seeks truth. And the essential neccesity in the search for truth , is the willingness to see what you see, not what you want to see. Preconceived notions, and “off-limits” ideas are NOT compatible with a seeking after truth. Truth and Discovery inevitably take us to places where we arent comfortable or familiar. That’s the Joy and the Mystery of the seeking. I watched the movie ” Contact” tonight before sitting down to catch up on reading everybody’s comments. ( I hadnt seen it in years.) If anybody out there hasnt seen it, do yourself a favor and go buy or rent it. ( and for that matter, read the book first, which is even better than the movie )It has a lot to do with a lot of the questions we have been discussing here, and you would all probably enjoy it. Personally, I really appreciate the themes that Carl Sagan adressed about the potentially complementary relationship between Faith,Spirituality, and Science. This is especially poigniant since Carl Sagan was an Evolutionist.You have the charachter of Palmer Joss- who represents faith and spirituality, interacting with Ellie Arroway, a scientist who lives her life only withinin the context of rationality. They both challenge, compliment, and complete each other. Which brings me to a final comment for the night- to Zachriel. I think that Science and Spirituality can co-exist peacefully. Certainly it’s possible for those of us who consider our minds and our spirits to be complimentary parts that together inhabit our physical structures. If we look at life as only a physical, naturalistic process,- as perhaps you do- then truly, we must despair. I think I do feel your despair. Even with faith, I feel despair at this point in my life at the works of Ozymandias. His unstoppable, damnable march is overtaking people,places, and things that I hold near and dear, and can never be restored to this mortal coil. I can only imagine how you must feel when you look at life from your viewpoint. All I can say is that- all science and logical argument aside now- I have an intrinsic, spiritual belief that my life – that OUR lives- have more purpose and signifigance than mere naturalistic procreation and survival-of-the-fittest. Our life experiences have been different. Maybe God has never blessed you with anything that would make you feel that this is the case. Or maybe there is beauty and spiritual signifigance all around you that you dont want to acknowlege. I dont know you well enough to say. I, for one, HAVE been blessed with some life experiences that could never be explained or viewed within the context of pure naturalistic particle interactions.Not by a long shot. I hope you find something in life that you can attach a spiritual signifigance to beyond mere procreation- and that you find a meaning as a part of something bigger than yourself in a metaphysical sense. I wish you True Love , my freind, for once you feel that fire in your soul and in your veins, you’ll never again consider youself a soul-less collection of randomly mutated particles, and the world will change irrevocably. I’ll trade your very good quote with two of my own- also on the subject of worm-meat, and on the metaphysical signifigant of fleeting lives. They were both favorites of my Dad, and he would quote them from memory when I was a kid, along with many other verses of poetry that he knew by heart-
” In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.
We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow
Loved, and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders Fields.
Take up our quarrel with the foe;
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.”
”
By the rude bridge that arched the flood,
Their flag to April’s breeze unfurled,
Here once embattled farmers stood
And fired the shot heard round the world.
The foe long since in silence slept;
Alike the conquerer silent sleeps
And time the ruined bridge has swept
Down the dark stream which seaward creeps.
On this green bank, by this soft stream,
We set today a votive stone;
That memory may their deed redeem,
When, like our sires, our sons are gone.
Spirit, that made those heroes dare
To die, and leave their children free,
Bid Time and Nature gently spare
The shaft we raise to them and thee.”
Good Luck, and Good Night- Ty
Ty Harris
I appreciate the opportunity to comment. If you further this discussion on other threads, you might try breaking down the discussion down into parts.
Ty Harris
Again, Ty Harris, I appreciate the opportunity to comment. I strongly suggest that you try to understand why the vast majority of biologists sincerely believe, based on the evidence that the Theory of Evolution is crucial to understanding the history and nature of life on Earth.
I would hope that we all gained something from our discussions.
NATIONAL ACADEMY of SCIENCES: “The theory of evolution has become the central unifying concept of biology and is a critical component of many related scientific disciplines. In contrast, the claims of creation science lack empirical support and cannot be meaningfully tested.”
http://books.nap.edu/html/creationism/
Ty,
If you want to know why conversations on this subject sometimes deteriorate and become “uncivil,” I suggest that you start at the top of this thread and read to the end. You don’t get it, and even after the huge holes in your arguments have been pointed out to you, you go back to writing the same inane, dishonest, disjointed, meandering fluff.
You said,
If you had been reading and paying attention, there’s no way you could say something so silly. Contrary to your paranoid belief that scientists are afraid of ID, ID has been done to death by scientists. It has been duly considered and rejected, not only by scientists, but by a conservative Republican federal judge, who ruled (based on the evidence that ID is not science.
Furthermore, the man behind the woefully inadequate concept of CSI has been duly refuted not only by scientists, but by mathematicians. CSI isn’t a “black box,” it’s an empty box.
No. Maybe you despair, but you have no good reason to project that onto anyone else. It’s your hangup, and it keeps you from being rational. The whole idea that naturalism means that people have no moral compass is ridiculous, and your suggestion that I’m immoral, ipso facto, just because I don’t believe in your fantasies is part of what gets people riled up. I try to do the right thing because it’s the right thing, and not because I’m afraid that some Hairy Thunderer will smite me if i don’t.
You have been “blessed” with experiences that you can’t explain in materialistic terms, so that means that they must be of supernatural origin? Did you really mean to say that? Anything that you personally can’t explain must be supernatural? How far do you think that science would have proceeded if that mode of thinking were adopted by scientists? Your personal incredulity means nothing with respect to whether or not anything that’s currently without explanation will ever be explained, and you’ve demonstrated enough general ignorance of science to make me believe that what you don’t understand is mostly due to willful ignorance.
That is not true. It’s a quote mine. Darwin did not say that his theory had broken down in the face of the evidence but that it would break down if such evidence could be found, but that so far, he hadn’t come across any.
(My Bold)
The stuff about the eye also comes from a quote mine. Darwin didn’t experience a “cold shudder” as you claim, but was merely putting forward a rhetorical argument which he immediately answered.
I suspect you are doing this deliberately in order to provoke an angry response – “Darwinist get angry at us” seems to be the nearest thing to an argument the ID/Creationist side has. And I mean that in a disappointed way, not in an angry way.
My previous post is caught in the moderation queue (as it includes several links). But I want to respond to just this one point.
Ty Harris
steve_h
It’s worth pointing out that to meet Darwin’s challenge, it isn’t enough to merely find a structure “which cannot be explained”. That lack may be just an indication of human scientific limitations or knowledge. Rather, it requires a demonstration that it “could not possibly” have arisen via incremental change. The argument of “irreducible complexity” is nothing new, and is no more than what Darwin suggested.
It just occurred to me that the title of your essay post reveals your bias. “Evolution” and “Intelligent Design” aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive concepts, otherwise there would be no theistic evolutionists. Do you deny evolution completely, or do you acknowledge the abundant evidence for it, but believe it to be “guided” by a supernatural force?
Ty wrote:
“I think that there is an inverse relationship between the willingness of a person to use abusive and insulting language, and the liklihood of that person recieving a knuck-sandwhich from the target of said abuse who is not physically present. I will call this theory “Ty’s Law of Internet Civility” ( but only if the verifiable experimental data bears this out, John ).”
I agree. I suggest that you review the abusive and dishonest things you wrote about the underpinnings of all of biology, and ask yourself whether you would walk into my lab and lecture us from a position of aggressive ignorance, spewing BS about evolution being random chance and misrepresenting Darwin when you’ve clearly never read him. If you’d like, you can bring Dembski along, but I don’t think that he would be able to protect you from the knuckle sandwiches we’d offer you, as he looks far more geeky than 99% of the real scientists I know.
“All in all, perhaps the semi-ananymous forum of the internet has a few virtues. To the extent that people ” let it all hang out”, we gain a better understanding of people’s actual thought processes,…”
Yes, I understand that you don’t look at any data before drawing sweeping conclusions, and that you will quote-mine instead of thinking for yourself, and you will even fabricate quotes. Not much thinking there!
“Design now has AT LEAST as solid a foundation as Evolution does,…”
No, Ty. If ID had a solid foundation, people would be using it to generate data. No one is doing so.
“…We are looking inside Darwin’s ” Black Box ” now, and it has opened up a whole new can of worms that the established scientific orthodoxy probably does NOT want opened.”
YOU are the one who doesn’t want to open the box (look at the data), not us, Ty. You’re projecting, and it’s not psychologically healthy.
“…Apparently, however, I can sum up naturalistic advocate’s explanation for how we got from particles to an information processor as follows.. ” We havent got the slightest idea.”
You’re lying, Ty. We have lots of ideas, many more than you do. Moreover, we test our ideas against reality.
“You may revile Dembski, and question his conclusions ,…”
You forgot the biggest problem, Ty–Dembski’s assumptions are the problem, and he has no real grasp on probability, either. Given those problems, his conclusions are laughable.
“…I predict that in the context of this new way of looking at EVERYTHING, Intelligent Design is going to grow in popularity and stregth, not go away, as some would wish.”
Its strength has plummeted since the Dover trial, and its popularity will not increase.
“The third obvious probability obstacle to a purely naturalistic explanation for life is Irreducible Complexity. Darwin himself admitted that his theories break down ” absolutely ” in the face of biological structures and processes which cannot be explained by small, sucessive changes.”
How nice. A misrepresentation of Darwin as a parting gift. That’s predictable.
Here’s two questions for you to think about, Ty:
1) Why have no data ever been produced from the testing of an ID hypothesis?
2) If evolutionary theory is so bad, why do you have to concoct gross misrepresentations of it to attack it?
3) How can YOU be sure of anything if you lack the courage to confront the actual data?
“When one considers the interwoven, interdependent stuctures and sub-structures, and all of the interwoven, mutually-supporting, interdependent processes, and sub-processes functioning in human biology, Random Mutation and Natural Selection utterly break down as Darwin said they did,…”
I deal with them every day, and you know next to nothing about them. Everything we know and learn screams that they arose via evolution, not design.
“….And also, it’s fair to give arguments for nested heirarchies,…”
But is it fair to lie and pretend that NHs are mere similarity, as virtually everyone on your side does?
“…I watched the movie ” Contact” tonight before sitting down to catch up on reading everybody’s comments.”
Maybe you should look at reality (the data) instead of fiction.
There aren’t too many bloggers who can say that their first post got over 200 comments, but it got awfully quiet in here all of a sudden.
214 Jim- Hi. The reason it has gotten quiet all of a sudden is that I have been very, very busy at work lately, and I am too exhausted at night to go onto other forums and stir up a bunch of arguments like I did when I first wrote this post. That is what generated most of the traffic. I really do appreciate the fact that you all thought to come here and comment. The essay has actually had over 2,100 views, which is fairly respectable for a first post, or so I have been told by a few people who know about such things. Clearly the topic is highly controversial, based on the vociferousness of some of the responses, and I am sure that accounts for the out-of-proportion interest. I think the key to getting lots of interest in a blog is to advocate highly controversial opinions, and to then blatantly throw those opinions in the faces of people who cannot tolerate or countenance them. I could probably get 500 comments tomorrow if I posted an entry entitled ” 10 reasons why George W. Bush is a Genius”, and then went to a couple of liberal blogs daring them to refute that. Other than the fact that I have been busy at work, another reason I havent been getting into the comment-exchanges going on recently is that I really dont enjoy an un-civil discussion, and that’s what I see here now. Every other word out of certain people’s mouths seems to be a variation on the words “liar” or “ignorant”, in reference to anybody who disagrees with them. This habit is both intellectually weak, and quite frankly, wearisome. If everybody would confine themselves to actual on-topic comments and arguments, without the constant hate ad-homenim, and the questioning of people’s intelligence, honesty, and motives, I would be more likely to think it worth my time to speak. I enjoy mutually respectful, constuctive, and pleasant conversations. If I wanted to enjoy the intellectual equivilant of monkeys flinging poo at each other, I would just visit the zoo. As things currently stand, I have been called dishonest and ignorant so many times in these comments, and on other sites, that the enjoyment of the discussion has kind of wore off. Accordingly, I have just been sitting back and letting lino suffer some of the abuse and insults for a while. I have been reading everybody’s comments, for what it’s worth. Although I wont return any insults because I’m trying to be better than that, I will offer an on-topic response to your comment about whether or not I deny evolution completely… the answer is no. That would foolish, even for an ignorant liar like myself . Yes, I also believe in God, or – in the context of this topic- a designer. You are correct, evolution and ID are not neccesarily mutually exclusive. I raised 3 probabalistic arguments in post #205 which I believe argue strongly for evolution as a natural process, but NOT as a theory which can- as of now- clearly account for how we got all the way from particles to DNA. Evidence for evolution as an adaptive process is abudant, but you guys do NOT have a clear and exact naturalistic explanation for how those probabilistic hurdles were overcome, or for how we got from “A” to “B”, and until you do, then – even setting aside the metaphysical and philisophical arguments for the existence of a Creator- ID advocates have every right and reason to question the validity of your theory of evolution – at least as a complete explanation for life as we know it , apart from design( not as an adaptive process, which is proven and valid. ) To your comments about my basically equating pure naturalism with immorality, I’ll confirm that that is what I am saying. If the only true reason for, and foundation of, a human conscience is survival-of-the-fittest, then any spiritual or moral code is invalidated and without credence- a complete, deluded fantasy, and we should just do whatever we feel like, to anybody we please, to get as much for ourselves as we can. If you are just a grouping of replicating particles, and I am but a collection of soulesss protiens, then there IS no right and wrong. What would be the basis for it? Everything is dust in the wind, nothing we do has any signifigance beyond pro-creation, and anything you decide to call right or wrong is just delusion dancing in the face a pointless, purposeless physical process. These ARE the philisophical and moral implications of a purely naturalistic view of life. If you cant live with the consequences of a God-less world-view, then maybe you should re-evaluate your position and consider switching sides. Listen to your feelings. Renounce the Dark Side of the Force and Join us, young Jedi!
Another on-topic comment for you- I will fling the following gauntlet down once again, and dare anybody to pick it up. Would one of you evolutionary geniuses please enlighten us poor, ignorant, dishonest IDer’s with an answer to the basic questions that lie at the heart of William Demski’s arguments? If he’s such an idiot, then you all should have no problem answering them….Riddle me this- At what point CAN design be reasonably inferred in any collection of complex, specified information? Beyond what probability bound can chance be definitley precluded in an assemblage of such information? I submit to you that Dembski is NOT stupid. He is just raising fundamental, obvious,inconvenient, impertinent and irritating questions that have a right to be asked of theory with obvious problems, unclear and unexact specifications, and apparently unsurmountable probabilistic obstacles. These questions elicit such emotional responses from some people because they keenly strike home, at the gaps and weaknesses in evolutionary theory – which many have an obvious ideological investment in. The emotion and ad-homenim I have seen here is in no way compatible with people holding an objective, confident, and rational position, and it all only serves to make me feel a lot better about where I am standing.
I have been sent by the thought police of the MySpace R + P to re-educate you. Do not be afraid. It wont hurt a bit. 🙂
I do a little math. In this case, I would use the term “small but finite” to describe the amount of actual truth in your post. So, I ask myself, what is this man’s agenda? Does he have an actual curiosity, or does he wish to merely preach? On balance, the degree of emotion is positive, so I shall respond in kind. Let’s answer the big questions first.
I prove god. I assume you are a religious sort, so your faith is hereby validated. If you are not, then you want no further explanation.
I do not prove religion. I act on no greater or no less authority than being a member of Humanity. I am not here to dictate, rant, mislead, propagate an agenda, nor appeal to emotion. I am merely here to educate.
The purpose of life in a purposeless universe is to maximize entropy.
To draw the Mandelbrot Set by hand would probably take to the “heat death” of the universe as well. Or, I used seventeen lines of code.
Statistical analysis is for statisticians and housewives who need to be reassured that the crime rate is really falling. Never accept a statistic without knowledge of its variables.
Evolution is merely a theory in the scientific sense. Evolutionists do not believe in evolution as a religion to justify a purposeless existence, they accept evolution as a framework for a structure being built. Like a structure during construction, if there’s a flaw in the foundation, the structure will be demolished.
Generally. There are some who want to preach on both sides of the issue. There are some who will insist on being right regardless of conflicting evidence. There are some who care more for their ego than for the science. Allow me to speak humbly for the real “truth” behind scientific endeavor.
Science provides for the best possible theory that explains the widest available experimental evidence. Hypothesis leads to experimentation leads to theory leads to verification. Meaning a theory becomes validated, until such a time as it becomes unvalidated.
Terms like “fact” and “truth” are not absolute. Many imply that they are when the possibility of them being otherwise is vanishingly small. Some, unfortunately, use these terms to justify their opinion over what the science may otherwise indicate. I accept nothing as fact. Everything is relative and temporary. The alternative leads to false security. Personally, being wrong is merely another opportunity to learn.
Scientific law almost always refers to a single equation. As in one. As in Evolution will never be law. Or, as close to the possibility of never…
Speaking for science, always verify. Always question. Never be afraid to say, ” I do not understand.” A true scientist has an inherent love of knowledge that such statements bring joy. The only thing to fear from science occurs when one thinks one has all the answers. Such as when I read there is Evolution, or there is Intelligent Design… because there are other alternatives. I know of a middle ground that looks promising.
Speaking as a fellow human, always ask yourself, what is the agenda? In your post, the use of emotional language illuminated yours. My present knowledge of ID is limited. Exposure to much of the Creationism literature indicates a desire to entangle church and state more than to forward knowledge. Many people want to introduce god into the equation only to turn around and speak for god. Many people speak religion when they speak of god. God is not religion. Religion is not Christianity.
Speaking for god…
No one really wants that to happen. Do not believe otherwise. Looking for proof of god is dangerous business. Knowledge of god invalidates will.
To summarize: What if nothing matters and all has no meaning? Appreciate the awareness of possibility. In a universe where everything is possible, nothing isn’t.
Lino-
“Servant of God, well done; well hast thou fought
the better fight, who single hast maintained
against revolted multitudes the cause
of truth, in word mightier than they in arms;
and for the testimony of truth hast borne
universal reproach, far worse to bear
than violence; for this was all thy care
to stand approved in sight of God, though worlds
judged thee perverse”
-John Milton, Paradise Lost
Ty Harris
You’re getting way ahead of yourself, Ty. Perhaps instead of taking Dembski’s word for it, you should do a little studying. Below is a link to a 2003 paper by mathemetician Jeffrey Shallit and biologist Wesley Elsberry that eloquently demonstrates the lameness of Dembski’s contentions with regard to CSI and other things. If you want to have a discussion, the least you can do is come prepared. Read the paper, and come back to us with your specific complaints–tell us where Shallit and Elsberry have gone wrong.
Click to access eandsdembski.pdf
Ty wrote:
“Another on-topic comment for you- I will fling the following gauntlet down once again, and dare anybody to pick it up. Would one of you evolutionary geniuses please enlighten us poor, ignorant, dishonest IDer’s with an answer to the basic questions that lie at the heart of William Demski’s arguments?”
The assumptions underlying his arguments are idiotic. His understanding of statistics is absent, even if his assumptions were valid. If Dembski himself had any confidence in his arguments, he’d construct and test hypotheses, producing real data.
“If he’s such an idiot, then you all should have no problem answering them…”
Here’s an example. Dembski assumes, but misrepresents this assumption as fact:
Click to access 2005.03.Searching_Large_Spaces.pdf
Ty, show me the EVIDENCE that suggests that IF there was a random search, it covered a significant amount of “sequence space.” IOW, if we find most of the proteins found in living things to be highly concentrated in sequence space, Dembski’s whole premise is a joke.
Now, Ty, are you claiming that no one has ever looked to see how much of sequence space is occupied?
“Riddle me this- At what point CAN design be reasonably inferred in any collection of complex, specified information?”
When design hypotheses successfully predict new observations, and those predictions conflict with predictions from nondesign hypotheses.
“…I submit to you that Dembski is NOT stupid.”
I submit that he is incredibly ignorant about biology, as well as incredibly dishonest, because he does not label his assumptions as assumptions.
“He is just raising fundamental, obvious,inconvenient, impertinent and irritating questions that have a right to be asked of theory with obvious problems, unclear and unexact specifications, and apparently unsurmountable probabilistic obstacles.”
He’s not doing science if he is afraid to test hypotheses.
“These questions elicit such emotional responses from some people because they keenly strike home, at the gaps and weaknesses in evolutionary theory – which many have an obvious ideological investment in.”
They elicit contempt because they are so clearly ignorant and dishonest to anyone who looks at real evidence, which you’ve never done, Ty. People who have faith in their hypotheses are eager to test them in the most rigorous way possible. Neither Dembski nor you have sufficient faith in design to put it to any real test.
Greetings, Fellow Traveler:
After aiding in your re-education the night previous, I wandered virtuality to aid in mine.
As science, there is nothing within ID. I have read of Dembski repeatedly being intellectually dishonest in his use of stastics and his invention of language.
As philosophy, it has merit. Seeing intelligence behind the design works as a viewpoint where it fails as scientific theory, where it cannot be neither falsified nor used for prediction. And this link from above raises an interesting point.
Evolution still remains the best working theory for life’s happenings at this time. Of course, its ability to predict is severly hampered by the time scales involved. As computational power increases and biological models made, this should change.
As for abiogenesis, I have always felt that life was the point. That the cosmic cards were stacked in our favor, but more as an emergent design than a programmed one. This idea walks the middle ground.
And this take illustrates a clear problem with science. The research of the evening indicates the Big Bang is standard fare for a mere three supported observations. But I have traveled far since last here, and found many theories and speculations. Even if it is wrong, a line must be drawn between the “mainstream” from the “fringe” in the world of science. But, sometimes the truth may arrive from left field.
Finally, proving god should never be a motivation for one of faith.
Take care. 🙂
John- When I flung the gauntlet down, ( At what point CAN design be resonably inferred in any collection of complex, specified information? ) , I was hoping you would pick it up and give me a straight answer to the question. You, on the other hand, have danced an irish jig around the gauntlet, and evaded a direct and specific answer. You’r obviously a smart guy, so please- after all the abuse you have heaped on Dembski and his supporters- can you not do him the courtesy of actually thinking about it, and giving a more direct and specific answer to the basic argument that underlies most of what he is saying? I suspect that the reason you are evading the question is that you would NEVER, under ANY circumstances, acknowledge inferred design in ANY collection of complex, specified information, no matter HOW ridiculous or impossible the improbabilities get. Am I correct in that assumption? And if so, is that objective rationality, or is it ideology? If you look under your microscope tomorrow, and found the following note coded in the DNA helix- ” Dear John- Hi- Since you doubt me, I just wanted to drop you a line to PERSONALLY let you know I exist. Dembski is right and you are wrong.- Sincerely, God”- would you chalk it up to Random Mutation and Natural Selection? I suspect that you actually might. And perhaps you would be right to do so, since that brief information sequence is INFINITLEY more likely to actually OCCUR than the assemblage of complex, specified information which translates in the genetic code to form human biological complexity. Is it not? The above example is ridiculous, of course, but it WOULD be entirely consistent with your unwillingness to acknowledge any inferred design in complex, specified information ever.
As regards your assertion that I am not willing to put ID to the test, all I can say is that you are wrong about that. ” Let the winds of doctrine blow” my freind. I am sure truth will come out in the wash when all is said and done, and I can live with it. I’m not the one who is on a holy crusade to drive every last IDer out of every last corner of academia, and to deny them the ability to DO any research. The more research the better.It’s not as though we have all the data we will ever have on the subject, is it? We are just taking our first steps as a species into an understanding of the real nature of life and of our origins. I think that you yourself have admitted that advocates for naturalistic origins havent actually got a clear idea of how we got from basic elements and compounds to an information processor, and thence, to Human DNA complexity. You have some speculations as to how it MIGHT have happened, but it’s not as though youve’ got it all locked up, is it? There is still plenty of opportunity for the notion of purely natuaralistic human origins to fail. In time- perhaps long after we are gone- your side maybewill be able to model, duplicate, and demonstrate exactly how it all happened- from A to B. If they ever do, then perhaps your condescending certitude that you are right will be justified. But you are not there yet, and “it aint over ’till the fat lady sings”. It’s equally likely, that 500 years from now, in the context of new data and a VASTLY improved understanding of the actual nature of the genetic code, it MAY be that scientists conclude that design IS inferrable and discernable in the information as they come to know it. Mere UNDERSTANDING and full SPECIFICATION of the genetic code, achieved by scientists in the centuries to come,- irrespective of their opinions regarding Design Versus Darwinism- will contribute to BOTH sides’ better understanding of this matter. People may stand on the shoulders of your own research someday to prove you wrong about all of this. The body of knowledge will grow, whether Dembski personally contributes to it or not, and we dont know exactly where that will all lead. It may well turn out that your side will NEVER be able to model abiogenesis or specifically explain the exact steps that RM+NS uses to overcome irreducible complexity because IT DIDNT HAPPEN THE WAY YOU SAY IT DID. The process you are so prematurely certain of, may not be reproducible or specifiable because they may actually be impossible. What then? If we eliminate the possibility of spontaneous abiogenesis, and information processors arising independent of the information they are designed to process, then- to paraphrase Sherlock Holmes- ” When we eliminate all other possibilities, whatever remains- however unlikely it may be- is the truth.” If, in the long-run, your side fails utterly to bridge the gaps from compounds to spontaneously-arisen information processors, and a FULL understanding of genetic code actually does support the existence of irreducible complexity, Design may wind up as a grudgingly-acknowledged liklihood – complimentary to, and co-existent with the adaptive processes of RM+NS. There is a lot still to be learned, and it’s only reasonable for both of us to acknowledge that we could be wrong in the long-run. We do NOT know everything yet. For what it’s worth, your demands for actual research, and testable hypotheses in support of ID are fair and valid. Dembski deserves every kick in the ass you have given him on this, in the same way that I deserve every fat-joke I have ever been the subject of. In the face of fair criticism, I need to go on a diet, and Dembski needs to produce research. Are you happy that I have conceded you a point?
Moving on, let me ask you something- is it valid, in your opinion, to view biological complexity within the context of information science? And if so, are postulations, arguments, and theories put forward in that field,- which may deal more with reasoning, logical proof, statistical analysis, and mathematics- as opposed to test-tubes, beakers, and pipettes- acceptable to you AS valid science? I mean, the guy who recently solved Fermats Last Theorum, never did any actual experiments per-say- does that make him wrong? Einstein never actually experimentally tested relativity by flying to Alpha Centauri and back with a stop-watch. Is logical proof and mathematical argument- HOWEVER sound it may be, ever going to satisfy a biologist or genetist proper? And does the lack of PHYSICAL experimental verification neccesarily mean that an argument or theory put forward on Biological complexity WITHIN the context of information science-is wrong or unworthy? I have a feeling I am going to get a lecture on the scientific method as a reward for asking that, but generally speaking, do you consider experimentally unverifiable mathematical arguments and logical proofs to be scientifically valid or potentially true? Are such things compatible with biology as a science, without experimental verification? If not, is the solution to Fermat’s Last Theorum invalid or unscientific, since it exists only on the theoretical, as opposed to the physical?
A final thought – I realize that you are strongly biased towards a purely naturalistic explanation for human origins. I dont mean that in a bad way, but mean only to say that you have looked at the data, and have drawn those conclusions- more power to you, I would say.( I benefit in no way form changing your mind. ) Do you consider yourself objective enough that you would be willing to change your mind and your stance on ID if you were faced with data that tended to support Design as being co-existent with evolutionary processes? I know you are certain that RM+NS are real processes- ( how could it be otherwise, given your field? ), but are you at all open to the possibility of Design being inferred and supported in the areas of naturalistic evolutionary processes that you arent yet so sure about yet, specification-wise? (IE. abiogenesis and spontaneous information processors ) If so, then I have a challenge, and a thought experiment for you- if you were to step back, with no preconcieved notions- and objectively look at ID versus evolution- given your first-hand knowledge of biological complexity-how would you go about proving your current stance on ID WRONG? True objectivity demands this kind of thinking from somebody like you, because you are obviously uniquely qualified to do it- ( IE. play devil’s advocate and try to prove yourself wrong). I would liken this to a truly objective Homocide detective’s willingness and eagerness to spend as much time and effort looking for evidence to exculpate his prime suspect as he is willing to spend time and effort proving him guilty. If the TRUTH is the goal, then you should spend as much effort trying to prove yourself wrong, as you do trying to prove yourself right. So, just out of pure curiosity on my part, what would change your mind, and what would prove you wrong? In the context of biological complexity as information- ( getting back to the flung gauntlet )- what would cause YOU PERSONALLY to inferr design in anything? It seems to me that a direct and specific answer to that question is the beginning of a willingness to prove yourself wrong if you can. – Sincerely, Ty
Ty Harris
Hmm. No edit capability. In the previous post, the first blockquote was not closed. My text starts with “Complex Specied Information is an ill-defined concept.”
By the way, there is no bitmap image of the Mona Lisa in the E.coli genome.
What if someone hid a Mona Lisa in a genome?
Would we be able to find her?
Could we tell by the way she smiles?
http://www.zachriel.com/monalisa/
Ty: “John- When I flung the gauntlet down, ( At what point CAN design be resonably inferred in any collection of complex, specified information? ) , I was hoping you would pick it up and give me a straight answer to the question. You, on the other hand, have danced an irish jig around the gauntlet, and evaded a direct and specific answer.”
I’ll give you a direct and specific answer. Design can be reasonably inferred in a collection of complex, specified information when:
1) Somebody comes up with a consistent, objective, operational definition of CSI, and
2) Somebody comes up with a consistent, objective, operational definition of “design”, and
3) Somebody comes up with a valid logical argument linking a threshold of CSI with design, and
4) The phenomenon in question is shown to meet that CSI threshold.
None of those conditions has ever been met.
Ty: “And perhaps you would be right to do so, since that brief information sequence is INFINITLEY more likely to actually OCCUR than the assemblage of complex, specified information which translates in the genetic code to form human biological complexity.”
Bald assertion. You have no idea what the probability of human (or something equally complex) evolution is.
Ty wrote:
“You, on the other hand, have danced an irish jig around the gauntlet, and evaded a direct and specific answer.”
What the hell are you talking about? Go look at my comment of 20 Apr, when I directly, specifically, and clearly wrote, “When design hypotheses successfully predict new observations, and those predictions conflict with predictions from nondesign hypotheses.”
That ain’t dancing, Bubba.
“…can you not do him the courtesy of actually thinking about it, and giving a more direct and specific answer to the basic argument that underlies most of what he is saying?”
What’s wrong with my answer? And as for what underlies Dembski’s hooey, his assumptions about sequence space are at odds with reality, as I explained in detail (and you ignored) above.
“I suspect that the reason you are evading the question…”
Ty, you are simply lying. I answered the question directly. If you don’t like my answer, then explain why, but don’t lie and claim that I evaded it.
“If you look under your microscope tomorrow, and found the following note coded in the DNA helix-…”
Ty, one can’t see anything coded in DNA in a microscope. LEARN SOMETHING before pontificating, OK?
“The above example is ridiculous, of course, but it WOULD be entirely consistent with your unwillingness to acknowledge any inferred design in complex, specified information ever.”
You’re lying, Ty. I clearly explained my criteria to you, and you ignored my answer.
“As regards your assertion that I am not willing to put ID to the test, all I can say is that you are wrong about that.”
Then what are you doing empirically? I offered to walk you through the evidence, but you ignored my offer, just as you ignored my clear answer to your question.
“I’m not the one who is on a holy crusade to drive every last IDer out of every last corner of academia, and to deny them the ability to DO any research.”
I’m not doing that. I’m asking why they don’t DO any research given the massive resources that they have.
“The more research the better.”
Then why don’t you ask Dembski and Behe why they don’t do any research (in this case, defined as generating new data from testing an ID hypothesis)?
“It’s not as though we have all the data we will ever have on the subject, is it?”
We have ZERO data from tests of ID hypotheses by ID promoters. We have mountains of data from tests of evolutionary theory, but you’re afraid to look at them.
“…The body of knowledge will grow, whether Dembski personally contributes to it or not, and we dont know exactly where that will all lead.”
There is no knowledge that has been produced from testing an ID hypothesis. Therefore, I predict that decades in the future, there will still be none, but rubes like you will still be fooled by con men like Dembski.
“For what it’s worth, your demands for actual research, and testable hypotheses in support of ID are fair and valid. Dembski deserves every kick in the ass you have given him on this, in the same way that I deserve every fat-joke I have ever been the subject of. In the face of fair criticism, I need to go on a diet, and Dembski needs to produce research. Are you happy that I have conceded you a point?”
It’s about time! What does the failure to produce data say about Dembski’s faith in his hypotheses?
“Moving on, let me ask you something- is it valid, in your opinion, to view biological complexity within the context of information science?”
Absolutely, which is why I offered to walk you through sequence analysis in that very context! But you ignored my offer.
“And if so, are postulations, arguments, and theories put forward in that field,- which may deal more with reasoning, logical proof, statistical analysis, and mathematics- as opposed to test-tubes, beakers, and pipettes- acceptable to you AS valid science?”
Only if predictions are made and tested.
“I mean, the guy who recently solved Fermats Last Theorum, never did any actual experiments per-say- does that make him wrong?”
That makes him a mathematician, not a biologist.
“Einstein never actually experimentally tested relativity by flying to Alpha Centauri and back with a stop-watch.”
But he made predictions that were tested by others shortly thereafter, something Dembski is afraid to do. Unlike Dembski, Einstein had another job. Dembski has no excuse.
“Is logical proof and mathematical argument- HOWEVER sound it may be, ever going to satisfy a biologist or genetist proper?”
Not unless predictions are made and tested, as they were with Einstein. Your analogy fails miserably.
“And does the lack of PHYSICAL experimental verification neccesarily mean that an argument or theory put forward on Biological complexity WITHIN the context of information science-is wrong or unworthy?”
The lack of predictions is what makes it pseudoscience.
“I have a feeling I am going to get a lecture on the scientific method as a reward for asking that, but generally speaking, do you consider experimentally unverifiable mathematical arguments and logical proofs to be scientifically valid or potentially true?”
No and yes.
“…you have looked at the data, and have drawn those conclusions- more power to you, I would say.( I benefit in no way form changing your mind. )”
And you haven’t looked at the data.
“Do you consider yourself objective enough that you would be willing to change your mind and your stance on ID if you were faced with data that tended to support Design as being co-existent with evolutionary processes?”
I already answered that on 20 April, in the comment you claimed was evasive.
“…if you were to step back, with no preconcieved notions- and objectively look at ID versus evolution- given your first-hand knowledge of biological complexity-how would you go about proving your current stance on ID WRONG?”
I’d have to ignore all the data, I suppose. 😉
“True objectivity demands this kind of thinking from somebody like you, because you are obviously uniquely qualified to do it- ( IE. play devil’s advocate and try to prove yourself wrong).”
It’s my duty as a scientist. None of the data are consistent with ID, which is why ID propagandists avoid the data in favor of deception via quote mining.
“I would liken this to a truly objective Homocide detective’s willingness and eagerness to spend as much time and effort looking for evidence to exculpate his prime suspect as he is willing to spend time and effort proving him guilty. If the TRUTH is the goal, then you should spend as much effort trying to prove yourself wrong, as you do trying to prove yourself right. So, just out of pure curiosity on my part, what would change your mind, and what would prove you wrong?”
If I couldn’t put sequences into nested hierarchies that were superimposable on the nested hierarchies of the organisms that contain them.
Vengis X- Hi. I wrote a lengthy response to your comments, but just as I was about to submit it, my internet crashed, and it was lost. Apparently wordpress saves posts automatically and periodically, but not comments. Therefore, my brilliant missive is lost irrevocably, and you will have to make due with a summation. Since I tend to run a bit long anyways, some would call that a good thing.
Regarding my “re-education”, I am sorry to report that I havent had all the impertenance beaten out of me yet. It may happen eventually, but as of right now, I have yet to be assimilated into the borg collective. Resistance may be futile, but I persist nevertheless. ( If I was as internet savvy as you, I would have inserted one of those little smiley faces at this point.)
Regarding your statement that my post contained some “small finite truth”, all I can do is say “gee, thanks”. This is a tough crowd, and I guess that’s as close to a compliment as I can ever expect from this bunch. I’ll take what praise I can get.
Regarding your statement that there are no such things as absolute truth or facts, I am afraid I cant agree. I think it would be more accurate to say that our ability to PERCIEVE truth or facts is sometimes flawed and insufficient. That doesnt mean that truth and facts dont exist however. Without a critical epistemological system founded upon certain conventions for discerning facts and truth, it would be impossible to actually establish or understand ANYTHING. Surely there are facts. I mean, 2+2=4. That’s true. 2+2=5 is false. Either there is a God or there isnt. We might not know the answer, but there IS an answer.
Regarding your statement that I want to entangle church and state, please dont assume that. Nothing could be more untrue. The worst form of government in the world is theocracy. I like a strong secular government that does not endorse any particular religion and that doesnt allow anyone to be subjected to any sort of religious coercion. By the same token, I want a government that protects the rights of all religios to be practiced peacfully. Here is what I want- to the extent that biological complexity can be viewed as information, and to the extent that reasonable argument can be made for the inferrence of design IN complex specified information, I want that possibility to be presented as an alternative to a purely naturalistic explanation for human origins. As long as no attempt to is made to endorse a particular religion, or to impute particular traits to the inferred designer along religious lines, there is no danger of religious indoctrination. Considering that evolutionists have no clue whatsoever how abiogenesis occured, and can offer no explanation of how information processors like DNA can spontaneously arise independently of the information they are designed to process, it seems unfair and unreasonable to give such an illexplained and non-specified theory as evolution sole, exclusive pre-eminence in the classroom. When they fill up all of the apalling gaps in their theory/ guess as to how life arose, then maybe they can stake a claim to monopoly status, but they dont deserve it now.
Regarding my agenda; I admit that I am biased in my views. Everybody is I suppose. That doesnt make me wrong. I am an advocate for intelligent design. Further, I admit that my belief in a God/ Creator/ Designer is not totally based on science. There are metaphysical and spiritual reasons as well. But despite that fact, I dont think that that precludes the ability to offer rational, non-metaphysical arguments for Intelligent design. Information science and mathematical probability are not emotion-based. If my belief in ID was soley faith-based, I wouldnt have bothered with the post. It’s impossible to argue faith. I expressed my opinions. I had a discussion with some people about the matter. I learned a few things. Maybe I even made a point or two that caused somebody to think about something they had never thought of before. Other than that, there is no agenda beyond a desire for truth and for the free expression of ideas.
Your statement about considering sources is like a personal law to me. Like you , I am skeptical about people who claim to know it all- especially when their half-concocted theories have more holes in them swiss cheese. Another thing that immediatley sets off my BS detector is when people advocating for one idea or another choose to try and exclude or silence opposing ideas, as opposed to competing with them in the marketplace of ideas. People who have a need to do that betray their own lack of confidence in the strength of their ideas. People who resort to ad homenim instead of adressing a person’s arguments directly also earn skepticism from me. Like Micheal Chrichton, “Science as Consensus” seems dangerous to me. Here is a good link on that.
http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote04.html
Regarding your own re-education, in the course of your studies, I hope you made it over to :
http://www.uncommondescent.com/
As you said, you have to consider your sources. If you want to judge Dembski and his ideas fairly, you have to view them as-is, not through the prism of people who hate him. The anger and vitriol displayed by some of the commenters here should raise skepticism in you as to the actual objectivity of the haters. These attitudes are less compatible with rationality than they are with ideology.
Regarding proof of God. Fair enough. But to paraphrase Sherlock Holmes- ” If you remove all other possibilities, what remains, no matter how improbable, is the truth.” Either human beings came about as a result of a purely naturalistic process, or they didnt. If we cant get from particles to an information processor, through irreducible complexity, to human biological complexity by random mutations, then that leaves design. I’ll leave the matter of the nature of the designer as a seperate discussion not germain to science, but to simply get to the fact of a designer, by the elimination of spontaneous abiogenesis as a valid explanation for human origins is something at least, if not proof of God.
Regarding statistics… I dont think you give it it’s fair due. It’s good for predicting things with a high degree of reliability, and it’s good for determining whether or not a given event is likely to occur or not, independent of design. If you win powerball 5 times in a row, playingthe same numbers, it’s a fair bet that it wasnt a case of random chance. Probability can even eliminate the possibility of certain things happening at all- in a finite universe anyways.
Regarding your statement that “in a universe where everything is possible, nothing isnt.”The truth of that statement is self-evident. The problem is that the universe isnt infinite, and therefore not everything is possible. We know with a high degree of certainty the actual age of theunivers, it’s size, and the nature/ amount of it’s constituent components, as well as the general sequence and timeframe in which those components congealed to bring forth the little clod of dirt and water we call home. There is a very limited window of opportunity that life had to arise by naturalistic processes- if it did. If you accept a non-infintite universe, then you should accept SOME reasonable probability bounds, and it is therefore possible to say that some things ARE NOT possible if their unliklihood exceeds those bounds. Of course, if the universe IS infinite, then Douglas Adams had it right when he said that in an infinite universe, anything that is possible, no matter how improbable, is actually inevitable. We are then left with planets where talking screwdrivers and mattresses are the dominant evolved lifeform. If the universe is infinite, then they ARE out there.
I disagree that science can have nothing to do with ID. To the extent that biological complexity becomes viewed more and more as information, then information science, probability,and mathematics bear more and more upon the question of inferred design in genetic complexity and proposed abiogenesis processes. Furthermore, the point of the original post was that new data- real, actual scientifically measurable data- is about to come to light as to the actual validity of purely naturalistic theories about human origins. If evolution and naturalistic processes CAN create life, spontaneous information processors, and apparent irreducible complexity anywhere the conditions neccesary for life exist, then we are going to know in very short order whether that statement is true or not. Astronomical observationn and spectrographical analysis of extra-solar planets in the next 100- 300 years is going to give us a REAL clear idea as to how rare life really is, and a pretty clear idea of whether it truly does happen spontaneously where proper conditions exist. This is science. This is observation. This is the actual TESTING of whether the claimed theory of evolution really does go forth elswhere, as it should if it is truly a natural process, or if life here on earth is unique.
In fact, as I was logging on, I read on drudge report just TODAY, that they have found an earth-like planet only 20.5 light years from here! The implications for this discovery are obvious to the debate taking place here, and it’s only the beginning of what is to come very soon… Here’s the link…
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/technology/technology.html?in_article_id=450467&in_page_id=1965
Anyways, thanks for stopping by, and for not calling me a liar or saying I am ignorant. It’s nice to meet somebody capable of having a discussion without being hateful aor abusive. I knew all along it was possible.
I had a really neat quote for you pertaining to your “infinite possibilities” statement regarding a thought experiment called “Schrodingers Cat” . It pertained to the possibility of quantum reality, and is pretty neat. Unfortunatly, it took me a good 20 minutes to type the thing right before my computer crashed, and I am not inclined to do it again right now. Maybe next time… – Ty
Ty Harris
I believe Vengis X was talking in the context of science. Notions of absolute truth do apply in other fields, such as logic.
Ty Harris
All scientific conclusions are considered tentative and subject to revision in the light of new information. E.g. when Galileo insisted that the Earth moves, it was in the context of honest reporting of his investigations. The truth is God could have made the universe on Thursday complete with our memories and history books, but the science indicates that the Earth is much older.
Ty Harris
As the view that biological complexity leads to a scientific inference of design is fallacious, this would not belong in the science classroom.
Ty Harris
“No clue” is incorrect. This has been pointed out to you before. However, there is no complete theory of abiogenesis. I suppose you could plug God into the shrinking Gap, but why you would want to worship and ever-shrinking God, I wouldn’t know. But even then, it wouldn’t represent a valid scientific inference, nor would it impact the Theory of Evolution. This has also been pointed out to you before.
Ty Harris
Yet bioinformatics strongly supports the Theory of Evolution.
Ty Harris
Dembski, Behe, et al. have every opportunity to express their opinion. But they offer nothing convincing, and no data whatsoever.
Ty Harris
False dichotomy.
Ty Harris
This is one of the biggest fallacies in the ID Movement. If there is a designer, then his nature is of critical importance for further investigation. In fact, all investigations of actual design make an attempt to gather information on artifacts, artisans, their art, and the connections between these aspects.
Ty Harris
Sure it can. Any time Creationists have proposed a valid hypothesis, the evidence has falsified it. That’s why the modern ID Movement refuses to be specific, or speculates at the edges of empirical knowledge.
Ty Harris
I think Dembski has been given a fair shake. I notice that you haven’t responded to my challenge in #217 above: read the Shallit/Elsberry paper, and tell us what you think. For your convenience, I’ll reproduce the link here:
Click to access eandsdembski.pdf
Ty wrote:
“For what it’s worth, your demands for actual research, and testable hypotheses in support of ID are fair and valid. Dembski deserves every kick in the ass you have given him on this, in the same way that I deserve every fat-joke I have ever been the subject of. In the face of fair criticism, I need to go on a diet, and Dembski needs to produce research.”
This deserves more attention. To be more specific, what Dembski needs to produce is not merely vague “research,” but new data from tests of his own hypotheses.
Since you agree that Dembski deserves to be kicked in the ass for his intellectual cowardice, I don’t understand why you continue to use the semantic framing (“the design inference”) that he uses to obfuscate.
IOW, why use the term “inference,” Ty? Science is full of inferences. What sets real scientists apart is that they make and test predictions of these inferences. All hypotheses are inferences, but not all inferences are hypotheses.
Dembski uses “inference” instead of “hypothesis” because he is trying to deny that he is afraid to test his hypotheses. He has no faith.
arcoxia
This is a great article. I am new to your blog and i like what I see. I look forward to your future work.thanks for the tips. arcoxia if i made this at the beginning all the things were much easier.
Another four days of crickets chirping. Being unwilling to let Mr. Harris off the hook for his ignorant blathering, I’ll once again bring up the Shallit/Elsberry paper referred to twice above, which Harris has thus far ignored. I just ran across a comment at the old, pre-Scienceblogs Pharyngula, wherein Shallit was commenting on a post about DI poseur George Gilder. Shallit said,
Since that comment was written in 2004, and it’s now 2007, we’re still awaiting a substantive response from Dembski.
How about it, Ty? Have you read the paper? Where’s the beef?
Tag didn’t take; the URL for the Shallit comment is
here: http://tinyurl.com/23dtzb
Gentlemen- Sorry for the delayed response. Work has really been taking it’s toll on me lately, and it’s hard to argue when you are utterly exhausted. It is now Sunday AM, and I have had 15 hrs of sleep, so I am ready now to favor you all with my devestating logic and insurmountable argumentative powers. ( Insert litlle smiley face thing here .)
RE: #222 Zachriel’s comment about there being no bitmap image of Mona Lisa on a Genome. Question- If there was, would you infer design, or random mutation? Because I would submit to you that while a mere IMAGE of a person would be pretty darned unlikely to come about by chance, the odds are infinitly less likely that the instruction set and complex specified information neccesary to build a REAL person would ever be written on a genome without the intervention of design. And yet they ARE written in the genetic code, and according to you, they were written there by self-organization. The “Mona Lisa painting”, you say? How about “Mona Lisa the actual PERSON” that the painting was made OF? THAT is what is written on the genome. Pretty hard to ascribe that instruction-set to random naturalistic particle interactions, wouldnt you say?
RE: #226 Jim’s suggestion that I add Shallit and Ellsberry to the large stack of reading material I currently have been assigned by evolution advocates… There’s enough information and opinion on this matter on the internet to fill up several life-times. I’ll get to it as soon as I can. I’m a busy guy. As I suggested in an earlier comment, I will try to assimilate all of the requested reading to the extent reasonably possible, and perhaps re-engage this discussion with some of you at a later time. It’s hard to argue with a lot of people at once,and to give fair consideration and research to each and every point put forward by everybody when you have to work for a living. I do appreciate your suggestions and contributions , Jim.
RE: #227 John asks “Why Inference”, and then speaks reasonably and informatively about the difference between “hypothesis” and “inference”. My first thought, upon reading this, was that I don’t want to get drawn into a ten-page quibble-fest over the use of terms, like I have seen in some of the earlier comment-exchanges here. But upon further consideration, I have decided that this isnt quibbling or sniping. It’s a direct, simple question that goes right to the heart of the matter of the whole debate. Sometimes the simplest questions can be the most profound. So – to adress the matter head-on… My copy of Webster’s Student Dictionary defines inference as; “to deduce from, to imply/to hint, conclusion/deduction”. Since “deduction” is referred to twice to define inference, I looked that up too; “to conclude from examining evidence”. It seems to me that both sides of this debate are engaging in inference. Dembski is just honest enough to admit it. In a sense, we are all trying to conduct a reverse-homicide investigation ( ie. attempting to deduce from evidence, the beginning of life rather than the ending of life ). NOBODY was present for the beginning of life, and NOBODY was around to see it develop, or change, or grow over the long millenia. There was NO direct observation of the alleged naturalistic process from start to finish. Indeed a complete, specific theory of how it all supposedly happened has never even been put forward. The exact process by which we supposedly self-organized from particles to DNA has never been reproduced experimentally, never been directly observed, and never even been exactly modeled or specifically explained. BOTH sides of the debate are SOLIDLY in the realm of inferrence, as opposed to direct observation of the processes/occurences in question. The fact is we have all just arrived at the “scene of the crime”, LONG after the fact, and are all attempting to define a sequence of events that NOBODY was present for. Direct observation is impossible ( on earth at least ) of events which occured long ago. All evolutionists and ID advocates can do is to look at what we have here ( HOWEVER it got here ), and try to explain it within a viewpoint or plausible theory. This whole subject is nothing but inference.
I dont think that Dembski is afraid to test his hypothesis. He certainly doesnt strike me as being a coward. I mean, he HAS stood up and put forward some very controversial arguments and ideas, and suffered a great deal of abuse and scorn for his trouble. If he was looking for the easy path in life, because he was too scared to face the heat, I can sure think of easier ways to achieve this. I think the problem is that the “proof” you want is perhaps not even possible. Again, nobody was there for the beginning of life, and nobody has exactly specified how naturalistic forces have, or could-have, created life independent of design. It’s all about inference on both sides. If anything, the onus surely lies on the naturalistic advocates to explain, model, and reproduce the alleged process by which life self-organizes, since YOU are the ones who claim to wear the mantle of indisputable scientific fact. So where is this explanation, this reproduction, this exact specification of the theory you espouse so vociferously? You cant produce it any more than Dembski can produce proof of Design. Apply the same criteria and standards to your own theories that you demand of Dembski, and get back to us when you can explain or specify exactly how “the crime” exactly took place. Dembski says it was Professor Plum in the study with the Candlestick. You say it was Colonel Mustard in the Kitchen with the Revolver. Both of you werent present, and both of you are inferring.
Your demands for testable hypotheses from Dembski got me thinking about how he even COULD prove his point to your satisfaction. His field is Mathematics. Yours is ( presumably ) biology. To the extent that biological complexity can now be veiwed from the standpoint of information, it seems to me that we now have an overlapping of fields, where perhaps the mode and methods of “Proving” a hypothesis are a little different, and perhaps this contributes to friction. When you move the debate into the realm of math, statistics, probability, and information science, and out of the realm of test-tubes, pipettes, and beakers, you neccesarily are moving out of the physical and into the theoretical. Does a lack of physical experimentation neccesarily mean that an abstract theory is wrong? Of course not. It just means that we have to look at the evidence and infer the liklihood of both theories ( Naturalistic and Design ) being correct. In neither case, does direct observation of long-past events seem possible here on earth. To bring in the example of Fermats last Theorum again, everybody seems to agree it’s been solved, but what physical experiment could prove it persay, I don’t know. Dembski is basically looking at biological information and is proposing that design is inferrable in said information based on his calculation of universal probability bounds in a finite universe, and the statistical unliklihood of life’s instruction set self-organizing independent of design. Are his calculations correct? I dont know. He says that 10 to the 150th power represents a universal probability bound beyond which chance is defintitly precluded in the assemblage of complex, specified information. I have also heard 10 to the 50th power, and 10 to the 10nth to the 123rd power. Which is right? I have no idea. As a betting man though, I dont’ care whether the odds are eighty thousand buzillion to one against, or eighteen million gazillion against. Either way, it’s pretty damned improbable, and my money is on Design. You look at the same odds and place your bet on Self-Organization. I wish you lots of luck, because you’ll be needing it. So, within the context of the current debate, how does a theory like Intelligent Design “Prove” itself correct beyond all doubt? Maybe it doesnt. Maybe the best it can do is to define the alternative- naturalistic self-organization- as so improbable as to be near-impossible. How can that be achieved? Well, firstly , to the extent that ANY research into the genetic code contributes to further specification, quantification, and funtional explanation of genetic instructions and the physical structures and processes it translates into in biology, we move closer to an exact specification of what we actually HAVE before us in terms of information complexity. If you want to calculate the odds of a structure or process “poofing” itself into existence by self-organization over any amount of time, then the first thing you need is an exact specification of the information itself. A few hundred years of research should get us there, and a more exact specification of the actual probability of that information self-organizing should be possible based on that knowledge. It’s reasonable to assume that our knowledge of the uiniverse, it’s age, and the time-frame that evolutionary self-organization had to occur will grow as well. You take a well-defined assemblage of complex, specified information, and you take an exact knowledge of the time and conditions available for it to self-organize, and theoretically, it should be possible to put the whole idea as close to the concept of “impossible” as can be. To have ABSOLUTE PROOF of design, I suppose you would have to have somebody come out with a peer-reviewed mathematical proof defining EXACTLY where the boundary between improbable and impossible lies when dealing with inference of design in complex, specified information. Even if such a proof were put forward, I am not sure how it could be experimentally duplicated in a lab or anything like that, given the crazy, ridiculous numbers and time involved. It seems to me that the closest thing to a lab experiment or a predictable hypothesis that either side of this debate can point to for “proof” is the unfolding universe itself. All the data on life’s self-organization ( or non-existence ) that you could ever want , is out there just waiting for us to collect it. There are billions and billions and billions of “M-class planets ” out there in the universe where the conditions neccesary for for life exist, and presumably that life- if it exists- would be observable at all stages of development. If life DOES self-organize as a purely natuaralistic process, and the only thing required for it to happen is time, and the right ingredients, then that process should be directly observable in the next few hundred years. If it is, then I suppose, you win. If we look at a trillion habitable worlds and find no evidence of life or of evolution, then probability trumps RM+NS and WE win. In either case, I suppose it’s still inference, but analysis of real, observable data on extra-solar life – be it in the negative , or in the positive- seems to be the only true way that we can move more away from inference of something that has already occured, to direct observation of something that is ( or is not ) CURRENTLY occuring in the observable, physical universe. I think that’s about as close to “proof” as either of us is ever going to get.
Ty said:
In the 19th century, this argument might have gone, “So where is your proof of the existence of atoms? Have you ever seen one? Ha ha, you haven’t have you? This means that my no-atom hypothesis is just as good as yours.”
Do you not see the folly? Do you understand that there has been active research going on on the subject, research being done by scientists? What research are ID advocates doing? What have they contributed to the body of knowledge in biology, or information theory, or anything else besides religious apologetics?
Ty Harris, again:
This paragraph is so full of nothing that it’s hard to believe that a person who can write actually wrote it. I’ll just offer one hint at your failure to think about any of this: Let’s suppose that we do find some form of life out there somewhere. What would prevent you, or Dembski, or anyone else from claiming it was designed? That’s the great thing about “POOF!” It can be used to explain anything.
Ty Harris
If we looked at the stars and saw Greek Gods, would we be justified in making a scientific inference of design?
Ty Harris
The existence of a (statistically significant) Mona Lisa would indicate *abstraction*. But an examination of genomes reveals their evolutionary origins. There is no evidence of such abstraction in genomes. There is no evidence of design.
Ty Harris
We look at a fossils of T. Rex. We infer that they ate meat, had sex, laid eggs. We infer that dinosaurs lived and roamed the Earth. It doesn’t take a time machine. Intelligent Design is not an inference, but an unsupported claim.
Ty Harris
Argument is not a scientific test. Hypothesis, a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences.
Ty Harris
Dembski has failed to convince the mathematical community just as he has failed to convince the scientific community.
Ty Harris
Don’t conflate Theorem and Theory. Fermat’s Last Theorem does not make any claims about the natural world.
Ty Harris
The calculations are based on bogus assumptions. But, then you proceed to argue as if they are correct.
Ty Harris
What specific empirical implications can we specify due to the assumption of Intelligent Design? What do we look for? What measurements do we make?
Ty Harris
This is a scientific test of the Theory of Evolution. It starts with a hypothesis, that land vertebrates descended from fish about 375 million years ago. So, you talk to your friends, the geologists, to find the appropriate strata for a meandering tropical stream during the Devonian, and they say to take a hike out into the arctic wastelands and spend a few years digging in the tundra. If you find a fossil organism that doesn’t fit the nested hierarchy of descent, then you have a potential falsification of the Theory of Evolution. If you find a fish with a functional wrist and a mobile neck, then they might let you spend more years digging in arctic tundra. Fun!
Jim- RE: Comment#234- “My paragraph is so full of nothing that it’s hard to believe a person who can write actually wrote it”? Perhaps my paragraph wasnt written by somebody who can write then. Maybe it self-organized itself by random mutation and natural selection, independent of any designer. Why not? It’s a hell of a lot more likely than human genetic information writing itself, and you believe that to be true. But seriously, why do you feel it neccesary to preface so many of your remarks with personal insults? Have you ever considered that your tendency towards ad homenim says more about you and your lack of confidence in your OWN arguments, than it does about me or anything I am saying? If I am so stupid, as you have suggested now many, many times, then why do you bother even commenting here? If you cant be civil, then take your bag of insults and go darken somebody else’s doorstep. Maybe you should get some counseling for your anger. Your constant personal attacks dont’ speak well of you, and your emotional agressiveness tends to call into question the objectivity and rationality of the position you are trying to defend.
Insults aside ( again ) -regarding the SUBSTANCE of your comment, nothing prevents anybody from claiming anything, but surely, if abiogenesis and evolution function to create self-organizing life from basic particles on a thousand other worlds, and the only thing those places have in common are environmental factors, then I will acknowledge that naturalistic processes alone can create complex life. I have no power over what anybody else will or will not say. What else do you want from me? If spontaneous self-organization of life DOES go forward on thousands of other worlds where the correct ingredients exist, then presumably you may be able to fill in some of the appalling gaps in the theory that you put forward as indisputable scientific fact. Maybe by looking at the early stages of evolution, you will be able to put forth an actual model of how we got from particles to a self-organized information processor. If, on the other hand, we look at a trillion habitable worlds, and there IS no life, would you not agree that that would throw a bit of a monkey wrench into your unproven theory of life arising by naturalistic causes alone? I mean, if all of the ingredients are there, and there is plenty of time for the alleged, unspecified process to occur, and life does NOT then arise, then that would support ID’s side of the debate, would it not? Although you may find this statement to be profoundly stupid for some reason, it seems obvious and clear to ME that the prescence or non-existence of extra-solar life bears heavily on the ID versus Evolution debate. If you dont agree, well, you are entitled to your opinion, and unlike you, I wont question your intelligence and your integrity for holding that opinion. Since I am willing to step up and admit that I would be wrong , when and if extra-solar life is discovered- are you equally intellectually honest enough to say here and now, that if we look at ten thousand habitable worlds where evolution SHOULD have produced life and it didnt, that YOU would be wrong? I’m willing to admit that the data says what it says. Are you? Or are the implications of a designer too scary for you? The problem is that you are very premature in claiming as scientific fact, the existence of a purely naturalistic process for self-organizing life when you are working with a data set of one ( earth ), and you have no clear idea of how your alleged naturalistic process even occured to a large extent. Does that alone mean that you are wrong? No. But it does mean that you need to get off your high-horse and admit that you are inferring at best, in the abscence of unobservable, unspecified processes that you are claiming as fact. Why are you so resistant to the idea that extra-solar life’s existence or non-existence is going to settle this argument someday? It seems like a reasonable proposition to me.
RE: your comment #233 comparing naturalistic explanations for life to the theory of atoms. Please. Let’s not compare an idea that is proven, directly observable, testable, modeled, specified, and reproducable, with an idea that is none of these things- unspecified, full of gaps, unobserved, unreproduced, unmodeled and unproven. Apples and oranges? More like apples and cinder blocks. Try a better analogy next time.
Ty,
I’ll admit that I was waffling on this for a while, but now I’m proud to announce that you are the recipient of a major award.
Congratulations–it’s well deserved.
Ty Harris
Not knowing everything does not mean not knowing anything. Yes, when we examine trillions of other worlds, we will know more than we know now. However, we already know — with reasonable scientific certainty — that dinosaurs once roamed the earth.
Ty Harris
Atomic Theory is based on inference. You really need to understand how the scientific method works. Let’s start with Mendeleev. He wrote the properties of the known elements on cards. He then arranged the cards according to their various properties, and in effect, created the first periodic table. There were gaps in the table, and he *hypothesized* the existence of heretofore unknown elements. The confirmation of the existence these elements strengthened the case for the proposed symmetry.
Experiments with gases showed the elements would only chemically combine in certain proportions. It was *hypothesized* that this was due to particulate properties of matter (atoms). Einstein looked at Brownian Motion and made a statistical argument that the motion was due to the random action of molecules impacting the larger particles in suspension. From this, he not only could infer the actual (rather than merely theoretical) existence of atoms, but their approximate size.
The Scientific Method: Hypothesis, prediction, observation, validation, repeat.
C’mon. I can state intelligent design theory in one (admittedly long) sentence:
That’s the “best explanation” to which IDists wish us to default.
Ty wrote:
“It seems to me that both sides of this debate are engaging in inference.”
Yes, Ty, this is why I wrote, “Science is full of inferences. What sets real scientists apart is that they make and test predictions of these inferences. All hypotheses are inferences, but not all inferences are hypotheses.” What could be more clear than that? It obviously wasn’t clear enough for you!
“Dembski is just honest enough to admit it.”
Dembski’s fundamental dishonesty is that he is afraid to test his inferences. He has no faith, and he is a coward.
“In a sense, we are all trying to conduct a reverse-homicide investigation ( ie. attempting to deduce from evidence, the beginning of life rather than the ending of life ).”
Most of us biologists are attempting to deduce how life works, but not Dembski. Modern evolutionary theory informs virtually everything we do, including medical research.
“…There was NO direct observation of the alleged naturalistic process from start to finish.”
But you CAN watch how variation (random only wrt fitness) and selection can produce information IN REAL TIME, in your own body. Of course, this process is generally ignored by cherrypicking creationists and IDers.
“The exact process by which we supposedly self-organized from particles to DNA has never been reproduced experimentally,…”
Major components of it have been reproduced experimentally, but you’re ignorant of the data.
“…BOTH sides of the debate are SOLIDLY in the realm of inferrence, as opposed to direct observation of the processes/occurences in question.”
Wrong. Real scientists move beyond inference and test predictions. Cowards stop at inference.
“…Direct observation is impossible ( on earth at least ) of events which occured long ago.”
It doesn’t matter when the events occurred; what matters is that we have the courage and faith to make predictions about evidence that is not yet available.
NO ONE on your “side” makes or tests such predictions. That’s powerful evidence to allow one to infer that they are dishonest and/or cowardly, and to predict that they will fail to make or test predictions in the future, instead resorting to arguments from authority or cherrypicking evidence after others do the real work of producing it.
“This whole subject is nothing but inference.”
You’re lying again. We go beyond inference by making and testing predictions. That’s why science is so powerful.
“I dont think that Dembski is afraid to test his hypothesis.”
How much are you willing to bet?
“He certainly doesnt strike me as being a coward.”
He strikes me as being both dishonest and cowardly.
“I mean, he HAS stood up and put forward some very controversial arguments and ideas, and suffered a great deal of abuse and scorn for his trouble.”
It’s a lot less work than what we real scientists do.
“If he was looking for the easy path in life, because he was too scared to face the heat, I can sure think of easier ways to achieve this. I think the problem is that the “proof” you want is perhaps not even possible.”
I think you’re full of it. Science doesn’t deal in proof, Bubba. It deals in making and testing predictions. Pseudoscientific frauds like Dembski have not made predictions in the past, and they will not make them in the future.
“It’s all about inference on both sides.”
Repeating your lie doesn’t make it true. We make and test predictions. Your side is afraid to do that.
“So where is this explanation, this reproduction, this exact specification of the theory you espouse so vociferously?”
In the primary literature, where you fear to tread.
“Your demands for testable hypotheses from Dembski got me thinking about how he even COULD prove his point to your satisfaction.”
Straw man. I don’t demand proof, just making and testing predictions. You can lie all you want, but that’s where the bar has been the whole time.
“His field is Mathematics. Yours is ( presumably ) biology. To the extent that biological complexity can now be veiwed from the standpoint of information, it seems to me that we now have an overlapping of fields, where perhaps the mode and methods of “Proving” a hypothesis are a little different, and perhaps this contributes to friction.”
You’re full of it. If you disagree, please name five mathematicians who endorse Dembski’s drivel. If you even name one, I’ll respond with five biologists who have contributed more to mathematics than Dembski has.
” When you move the debate into the realm of math, statistics, probability, and information science, and out of the realm of test-tubes, pipettes, and beakers, you neccesarily are moving out of the physical and into the theoretical.”
Sorry, Ty, but we molecular biologists are firmly in the realm of math, statistics, probability, and information science already. You lose.
“Does a lack of physical experimentation neccesarily mean that an abstract theory is wrong? Of course not.”
A lack of predictions means that there’s no theory, because theories necessarily have a long, successful track record of predictions.
“It just means that we have to look at the evidence and infer the liklihood of both theories ( Naturalistic and Design ) being correct.”
You’re lying again. We have gigabytes of data that fit predictions made by Darwin long ago. You just ignore the data because you are lazy and/or dishonest. Science isn’t something you do from your armchair.
Please see my comment on hate, fear, ad-homenim, and science-by-consensus at:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/off-topic/father-of-climatology-calls-manmade-global-warming-absurd/
The only reason professor Bryson can dare to take a position of this sort is because he is in his eighties with an unassailable reputation. If he was a student studying meteorology and started spouting heresy of this sort, he would be taking his academic and professional career in his hands. Anybody who talks like this definitly won’t be getting a job at the Weather Channel alongside the likes of Dr. Heidi Goebbles-Cullen.
Ty wrote:
“The only reason professor Bryson can dare to take a position of this sort is because he is in his eighties with an unassailable reputation.”
Buy yourself a clue, Ty. In science, all appeals to authority are fallacious, and all arguments must depend on data. You denialists have to resort to appeals to authority because you have no data to support your position. Linus Pauling won a Nobel Prize, but he was still wrong about Vitamin C, because the data didn’t support his position.
Tell me, Ty, of all the published papers on global temperature, what number show temperatures declining?
I find it amusingly ironic that Ty complains about Paleyists and climate-change deniers being unfairly treated by mainstream scientists, and does so on UD, which is famous for censoring dissenting viewpoints.
Why would we call you a liar, Ty? Let’s use a few of your claims from the UD thread you linked to as examples:
Ty Harris:
It’s been pointed out to you in this very thread that while there is no definite answer to the question of how life originated, there is research being done on the subject by scientists, and there is no work being done on the question by Dembski or any other ID advocate. Who is glossing things over?
Ty Harris:
There is no such circumventing going on, and you know it. The idea of IC was addressed and left for dead not long after Behe proposed it. As was pointed out to Behe at Dover, there is lots of research that shows how so-called IC systems are not IC. So much so that Behe complained about how heavy the stack of papers and articles was when he was presented with them on the witness stand.
Ty Harris:
It’s been pointed out to you, in this thread, that Dembski’s CSI idea is a non-starter, and Dembski himself has never adequately explained how it’s unequivocally identified, or how his egregiously dumb Explanatory Filter is supposed to work. I personally pointed you to an article on the subject and invited you to read it and come back with your specific objections, but all you do is hand-wave some more. Of course, I also pointed out on my own blog how you have admitted that all of this is over your head, and how you’re “probably” not qualified to comment.
Ty Harris:
Once again, it’s been pointed out to you that if we had knowledge of “a trillion habitable worlds” and that knowledge indicated that no life was present on them, or ever had been, it might present a problem. But it’s all idle speculation at this point, Ty. We don’t have that knowledge, so there’s no point in attempting to construct probability models. You’re confusing science with Paleyism, Ty. Paleyists have no problem with computing probability in the absence of data, by science doesn’t work like that.
Ty Harris:
You are a sniveling prevaricating cretin. Add that your stupid list. Disagreement is welcome, but if you want to eat at the adult table, you’d better come prepared. Once you’ve made a false statement, and it’s been pointed out to you that it’s false, you cross the line from simple ignoramus to stinkin’ liar when you keep repeating it. Let’s not forget that you said that Dembski’s stuff was over your head and you said that you probably aren’t qualified to comment. You. Moron.
Jim wrote to Ty:
“There is no such circumventing going on, and you know it. The idea of IC was addressed and left for dead not long after Behe proposed it. As was pointed out to Behe at Dover, there is lots of research that shows how so-called IC systems are not IC.”
Just to pile on and make Ty’s lie even more egregious, modern evolutionary theory PREDICTS the evolution of mechanisms that meet Behe’s multiple definitions of IC.
Greetings, fellow traveler,
My apologies for not replying sooner…
I actually like Dembski, but I feel that he is being used either willingly or not by those who which to see Creationism taught as science. It is not, and neither is ID… and, no, I don’t usually just one person’s word, or one group’s, unless, of course, I’m just being anal. 🙂
Over five days of very little sleep I went through at least twenty sites on both sides of the issue, and read more than a hundred pages… the idea was actually kind of intriguing at first… until it became insidious. And actually, I read far more pages in support of ID than against, which is how I gained such apathy for the concept. It is not science, and should never become science… if it does, well, it is the end times. 😉
Seriously, though, I was going to blog it up as Dembski as false prophet ushering in the last age of man… but I misplaced my faith. Not of god, but of man. We all want to believe, in something… whether it be an eternal reward for a righteous life, to see that justice will be done… or that one may recycle enough beer cans for another rock… I want to believe in science. I want to believe that scientists can somehow be above to hopes and follies of we, the common rabble… and continue to make good science, because science is good for all, regardless of faith. But after reading blogs, forum posts, and e-mails, I grew discouraged… these men and women of enlightenment, of scholarly endeavor… misled… because they want to believe. And, in uncovering this dark shadow spreading across the ivory tower, I returned to the land of MySpace R + P, and tried on three separate occasions to form a discussion on just how sinister and dishonest ID really is, and got no where… which is just another sign.
So I have decided to move forward, and do that divinely inspired task for which I was placed on Earth to accomplish, namely, to sing of my hopelessly, unending love of Gwyneth Paltrow on Youtube with industrial metal… and the world’s going to have to take care of itself.
But before I go…
The only truth is that there is no truth. And not even then. Consider the sun… we can use its light to see, but if we stare, we shall see know more. We are not wired for certainty, for better or for worse, and our path trough the tangled jungle of human interaction and selfish desire is never an single line, but two… there is of necessity two sides of a road… and both paths will lead home… but one may be an awfully long side trip.
2+2 does not equal 4 when searching for truth. It actually takes something like 138 separate axioms to be able to write “2+2=4,” and feel as if a “fact” was conveyed… axiom basically meaning assuming stuff, like the sun will shine, the days will turn… that god really does care. Making assumptions would not be nearly such the dangerous proposition it is without being paradoxically necessary.
The words, “intelligent, design, complex specified information, and irreducible complexity” need to be properly defined before being bandied about. A task which many proponents of ID suspiciously avoid. The paper linked above mentions this, and even offers a potential solution, but it also severs any link with which ID can claim a scientific basis; it fails in the realm of mathematics, and it falls to dust… just like digging up a T-Rex with a belly full of Fred Flintstone would do it for evolution. I also found another paper on an unrelated search while thinking on emergence… if you can interpret the language involver with some of this higher level math, it looks pretty clear that ID is smoke and mirrors… but a warning bell should ring just by listening to those in favor of “ID theory” justify how it became a “theory” in the first place… I have nothing against you, personally… and if I had to read and re-read these papers and think about it for an hour or two to see that ID is a lie when I studied math in college… but what it comes down to, is basically the same double-sided sword that cut so many creationists. Just as it may be shown that far from preventing the generation of life, entropy may have demanded it… not having intelligence whitten in the code may have demanded that it become emergent in the actual application…
“Designing a set of axioms of sufficient complexity and transformation rules carries incomputability as a natural consequence, that is, it implies incomputability. In other words, it seems impossible to conceive computation without incomputability.”
from
Emergence and Computability
Fabio Boschetti — Research Scientist
Randall Gray — Modeller
CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research
GPO Box 1538, Hobart Tasmania, 7000
Randall.Gray@csiro.au
Fabio.Boschetti@csiro.au
This is part of what makes ID dangerous. Being of scientific bent, and honest, I will say that it may never even be able to “prove” that ID is a fraud, an admission that some will see as a “proof” diametrically imposed from what I intend…
Rather, let me make the case for evolution. The science requires that, if I were an evolutionary biologist, I would of necessity think of things like “natural selection,” and “reduction,” but the science does not do itself. Just like I can choose to believe in god, I can choose to believe in god’s work, and work in biology with the hope that I find “the Flintstone in the Rex” that brings evolution a tumbling down… and as long as I experiment in the manner taught, objectively, I can still do good science. Science requires a way of though for what you think with your mind while the mind guides the hands, and the eyes observing, the experimentation. But science can say nothing of what I speak in my heart…
Maybe Ill organize all this stuff I found, reiterate all these comments I have heard, and write a fat ol’ blog about false prophet Dembski, but probably not. I’d much rather pine over Gwyneth and make a fool of myself on the stage of the world… so you see, I cannot really say just how much intelligence is involved with this at least design but that reminds me, probably the best argument against ID is it’s own. If we accept that “limits of computability” require an outside agent, we may just stop looking, which would lead to end of learning…whereas accepting “limits of computability” as merely being “limits of computability,” we may be able to find the answer to these questions not as an answer in the traditional sense, but rather the Hole” left in the questions surrounding it. I think that’s kinda the way they found the W boson….
Well, I gotta go… almost time to go to work, and usually I like to lie down before actually “getting up”….
Peace. 🙂
Jim- RE: Comment #243
“Sniveling, prevaricating cretin”?
“ignoramus”?
“stinkin’ liar”?
“moron”?
Great to know that we got so much from this discussion. Your brilliant comments prove that it was all worth it ( sarcasm )… I wrote that post at uncommon descent to illustrate graphically, how many evolutionists are prone to respond to civil, reasoned debate and dissent from their positions with blatant ad homenim and viscious hatred. Such behavior is obviously more indicative of emotional attachment to a threatened ideology than indicative of anything resembing rational objectivity and a search for truth. And your response to that post is to call me names? Thanks for making my day. I got a really good laugh out of that… Are you really incapable of seeing that you are only making my point for me? Do you not see that your tendency towards taking a serious subject and flinging the intellectual equivilant of monkey-poo at it, only serves to undermine yourself and the viewpoint you advocate for? It’s obvious by your persistence in this that you and John both fail to see that you merely serve , by your conduct, to splendidly illustrate the truth of everything I have said about evolutionists. This situation reminds me of the guy over in the Netherlands who recently made a public statement to the effect of – ” islam is a religion of intolerance and hate.” He was subsequently murdered by an angry muslim who felt the need to silence him because he couldnt tolerate his viewpoint. The irony, of course, is so thick that you can cut it with a knife, but the islamists- of course- just can’t see it. Just out of curiosity- in the above example, who won the argument about the true nature ofIslam in your mind, and who do you think holds the intellectual and moral high ground here- the skeptic who doesnt believe in a purely naturalistic explanation for human life, or the idealogue who defends that notion with silly insults?
Regarding your statements about uncommon- descent as an exclusive forum, I dont speak for them, but I can see their reasoning. I gave you totally free reign here. I didnt’ restrict you or censor you in any way. I gave you the opportunity to conduct yourself properly, and look what happened. I gave you some rope, and you proceeded to hang yourself with it. Honestly, considering the way your side consistently lowers the quality of any serious discussion with all of the insults etc., and considering that the darwinist-secular-progressive-atheist alliance that dominates virtually all of tenured academia has literally sued, black-balled, silenced, and excluded Design out of practically every academic classroom in the country, I would have to say that ID is entitled to ONE forum where it’s ideas can be presented without being shouted down by an angry mob of darwinist villagers with pitchforks and torches. If they were to let your sort into UD, it would quickly devolve into a poo-flinging forum. Your obcessive hatred for UD, when your side has managed to silence nearly every OTHER academic opportunity for ID to be presented fairly, merely illustrates the profound truth of the quote I made in my original essay about secular-progressive intolerance. ” EVERY spark of dissent must be extinguished with buckets of bile.” Truer words were never spoken.
Sometimes, when I am in need of amusement and humor, I head over to one of your favored cyber-haunts and lurk ( anti-evolution forum ). I really enjoy watching the darwinist crowd letting all of their brilliance hang out on display. Intelligent Design is dispatched into intellectual oblivion there by such clever expedients as making fun of dave Scot’s physique, my intelligence, and by the highly original and witty tactic of calling people by funny names – ” dave-tard.” With un-assailable arguments like these, ID is really in trouble now! I was GREATLY entertained by one commenter’s thrilled enthusiasm that the list of juvenile insults I posted at UD had made it onto “Dembski’s own blog”, as though this represented some kind of intellectual triumph for your crowd, rather than a litany of shame to be hung around the necks of irrational and angry evolutionists. Just to set the record straight- the post was intended to expose shameful behavior. Apparently this backfired by giving your side something to be proud of. The humerous irony apparently never stops in the ID versus evolution debate.
Regarding your statement that my arguments can be basically charachterized as “hand-waving”, if I persist in them after one of you has already ” pointed out to me that it’s false.”… do you really not see how simplistic and self-serving that statement is? Who made you the uber-arbiter of what is true, and what is false, Jim? I disagree with many of YOUR arguments and conclusions, which I believe to be false. So now that I have “pointed out” to you that you are wrong, and that your arguments are “false” ( because I say so, by your reasoning ), you no longer have any right to make those arguments, correct? Not now that the error of your ways has been explained to you, I am now justified in calling you names like “moron”, right? If your rationalizations for name-calling are to be adopted as the new standard for civil discussion, then anybody , anywhere who disagrees with somebody else, has merely to “point out” that what somebody is saying “is false”, and then let the poo-flinging begin…Needless to say, I dont agree with your rationalizations for inappropriate behior, or the manner in which you conduct yourself.
Regarding your ( continuing) statements that I lie and prevaricate, I just don’t see how the UD post is remotely reconcileable with that viewpoint. For one thing, the vast majority of that post was a verbatim littany of insults and ad homenim , a lot of which ARE YOUR OWN WORDS.This being the case, surely you aren’t questioning the veracity or accuracy of summary point 5 ( ” anybody who disagrees with their positions is a stupid, in-bred, religiously -indoctrinated bumpkin. Anybody who disagrees with them is unqualified to speak, ignorant, intellectually dishonest, cowardly, and a liar.” ) Considering that this statement is pulled practically verbatim from the responses I got for posting a pro-ID essay, surely this charachterization is accurate. Does this, or does this not accurately reflect your sides’ view of ID’er’s generally speaking? It seems to me, that summary point 5 could just as easily have been written by you, John, or by Dawkins himself.
Proceeding point, by point, to summary-point 4 from the UD post- thank you for your grudging, grumpy admission that if life does NOT spontaneously self-organize by naturalistic processes on worlds outside our solar-system when it SHOULD arise- according to your theories- then it would be “a problem”. I agree that it would be a problem, and I will go further and state that it already IS ” a problem.” I stated…” SETI should be tuning in to the bar scene from star-wars, and all we are getting is static.” What is untrue or prevaricated in point 4? If I understand your position correctly, you believe that life arose as a purely naturalistic process, independent of design, and that all life requires to self-asemble is time and the correct environmental factors. Is this a correct and factual understanding of what you are advocating, or isn’t it? If I have misrepresented your position, please correct me. If that statement IS accurate, then it seems to me that to the extent that extra-solar life IS found wherever environmental condidtions dictate that it SHOULD be found, your position is bolstered. To the extent that it is NOT found where your theories neccesarily predict that it should be, then MY viewpoint is bolstered. I fail to see how critical data that can potentially prove or falsify your sweeping assertions about life’s origins can be considered “idle speculation”. Given the vastness of the universe and of our galaxy, and our newfound knowledge of the abundance and prevolance of extra-solar planets, it seems obvious that your alleged naturalistic process has been given AMPLE opportunity to proceed in millions, if not billions of extra-solar settings. The galaxy should be TEEMING with all manner of life if your naturalistic self-organization process is factual, and yet SETI has laid a big, fat goose-egg so far, which already doesnt’ bode well for your naturalistic viewpoint, does it? You want research? You want data? It’s coming, and I predict that it’s going to send you right back to the drawing board ala’ Wile E. Coyote with his ACME rocket-assisted roller-skate scheme to catch the road-runner ( which always had a much better chance of working-out than your purely naturalistic explanations for human biological complexity in my opinion.) There is no prevarication or sniveling in point 4. Only unequivocal truth.
Regarding point 3. ( Probabilistic limits ) I have merely stated where- I think- we disagree, and tried to accurately frame that fundamental difference of opinion. I have tried, in a very direct and pointed fashion to get you folks to specify the exact point at which improbability becomes impossibility, and havent had any luck. If I was you, I would be afraid of acknowledging any sort of universal probability boundary too, because your theory – at best- takes probability to it’s absolute limit ( and I would say beyond that limit. ) Admission of any sort of limit on probability by your side, would neccesarily set up a starting-point for the potential falsification of naturalistic theory. If we could ever get you guys to ackowledge a limit to probabilistic plausibility, and we could also ever get you to actually specify the exact bilological process or pathway by which a pile of rocks became an information processor and thence became a man ( which you will never provide because you havent’ a clue how it happened- perhaps because it DIDNT happen ), we could then perhaps compare a fact-based probability calculation of the steps in your unspecified, alleged process occuring , with the actual limits of plausible improbability and see if your idea even has a chance. So- question- do you, or do you not acknowledge a universal probability bound as pertains to complex, specified information assembling itself by chance in a finite universe? I thought I had accurately stated that your side does not acknowledge such a boundary. If you do, then please specify a number. Dembski- who you accuse of equivocation- has thrown down the gauntlet on the table with a resounding thud , and an exact number. He has then proceeded to reasonably and logically apply his probabilistic limits to specified, complex information which is the basis of biological complexity. I have read his stuff, and he seems pretty straightforward to me. I just dont see the logical flaws or lack of clarity that you seem to complain of. At any rate, while we may disagree over his conclusions and/or calculations, did I not accurately portray the disagreement over probability bounds in point 3? Are you making a specific prediction regarding probabilistic limitations in CSI that I am not giving you credit for, or do you in fact , deny such limits?
Regarding summary point number 2 of my allegedly prevaricating UD post, ( Irreducible complexity )…
I stated that your side has circumvented the obstacle of IC by ” simply not acknowledgeing that such a thing exists. ” Again, I think I have stated where a fundamental disagreement between our two camps lies. Is that statement factually accurate, or isnt it? Do you acknowledge the existence of irreducible complexity in human biological complexity, or don’t you? I was under the impression that you dont’. I believe that such complexity DOES exist. I thought that you did’nt. Darwin himself even acknowledged that IC doomed his theory if structures or processes incapable of self-assembly by ” small, sucessive steps” were ever demonstrated, and despite what you say, I think that Behe makes a damned good case that IC exists. I just re-read the afterword to his 10nth anniversay edition of “Darwin’s Black Box”, and he doesnt seem to be backing down. In fact, since he proposed IC, research has only made the case for MORE complexity being present in human biology and genetic instructions than he originally was working with when he made his assertions about IC – not less. We arent even close to a full quantification or specification of biological information, complexity, or function, and the more we learn and quantify, and specify, the worse it gets for your side to explain within the context of “small, sucessive steps” how it all came to pass as a naturalistic, unguided process. Your task grows more daunting with each passing day, in the face of mounting complexity. I understand that you guys are trying to change ” irreducible complexity” to mere “preposterously improbable complexity” by leaving the direct “small sucessive steps” path and venturing into indirect, highly unlikely hypothetical pathways to systems that obviously manifest interdependent, interwoven component- dependencies, but the more you do that, you are straying away from the absolutely critical component of naturalistic theory without which you cannot possibly prevail- ie, the “small, sucessive steps ” of RM+NS. By venturing into the realm of straight probability and chance with these wildly unlikely scenarios of non-direct pathways and multiple, simultaneous, unrelated beneficial mutations, which are neccesary to avoid IC, you are walking into Demski’s world where he is waiting for you with his big probability sledgehammer. EVERYBODY from Dawkins to Dembski agrees that chance cant’ get us where you are trying to take us, and yet chance is all you have when you leave your “small, sucessive steps” path to go into the probabilistic wilderness in search of a way around IC. I think that ” circumvention ” is EXACTLY what is going on here, and I think that biological component interdependency IS manifestly obvious, despite your dismissal of this insurmountable obstacle with a wave of your hand. At any rate, we may disagree on whether IC exists, but is my statement in point 2 that your side believes it DOESNT exist, and IDer’s DO believe it exists, an acurate statement or not? I thought it was an accurate framing of our fundamental disagreement.
Regarding summary point 1- ( abiogenesis ), I stated that your side has ” no clue whatsoever how we got from a pile of rocks to an information processor CAPABLE of adaptation and evolution.” Your reassuring statement that scientists are working on it gives me a warm, fuzzy feeling inside. It’s great to know that you guys are on-the-job, but before you make it your business to go around calling people who disagree with your appallingly unspecified swiss-cheese of a theory a MORON, and declaring your absolute right to academic hegemony in all classrooms everywhere, dont you think that you should have maybe have worked out how it is that your alleged naturalistic process actually OCCURED? Don’t you think that the tiny matter of HOW your pile of rocks self-assembled into an information processor , should be adressed BEFORE you unleash all of your condescencion upon Design advocates like myself? Or am I asking too much? When you get it figured out, by all means, get back to me. As for Demski’s obligation to do research on the matter, let me see if I have this straight- he’s supposed to do research to prove that a process which he says DIDNT happen, didnt happen? To paraphrase Behe, if we are walking in a desert, and we come upon a watch buried in the sand, the logical, sensible, DEFAULT inference of an objective observer is that the watch was designed machine, because it is irreducibly complex, and because it is obviously designed to serve a purpose. If YOU choose to venture the implausible assertion that the watch self-organized by random mutation and natural selection, then the burden lies on YOU to produce proof of how your bold theory came about, not on me to disprove your interesting notion. If you cant’ specify how it happened, then you’ve got no right to condescend to me or anybody else who is rightly skeptical of your unproven, unspecified, highly implausible scheme. When John produces abiogenesis in his lab, I will personally fly to stockholm to attend his Nobel ceremony and congratulate him on his achievement, but until then, get off your high-horse. Your condescension is not justified.
I left out one crucial summary point in the UD post that I should have included, and since you have somewhat annoyed me with your sniveling prevarication comments, I will go ahead and present it now- Point 6: ” People who advocate the position that humanity is the result of purely naturalistic processes, neccesarily advocate a human condition in which no moral code other than survival of the fittest is valid. If the only signifigance of all human activity and existence lies within the context of procreation and natural selection, then ALL morality, spirituality, and purpose is mere pretension.” I know this statement bothers you, because you want to have your cake and eat it too. You want to say that your naturalistic advocation is somehow compatible with minimal standards of behavior and morality, but it isnt, and I can’t allow you to serenely stand on the inherant contradiction. You can have a Design-based worldview where we have purpose and morality beyond mere survival, or you can have a Naturalistic-based worldview where we are random conglomerations of in-animate matter and right and wrong do not exist. You cant have them both. These are the inescapable philisophical and metaphysical implications of naturalistic theory, and if you are going to stand on that theory, then I insist that you lie in the philisophical bed you have made for yourself. Personally, I reject your naturalistic theory completely, both as science, and as a metaphysical worldview completely incompatible with morality or purpose. Point 6 is God’s own truth, and there isnt the slightest prevarication anywhere in it.
To sum up the summations, in a totally non-sniveling manner;
1. You insist that your proposed naturalistic process is scientific fact, as opposed to my viewpoint being mere ideology, despite the fact that you cant even specify how your alleged process actually occured. It is william Dembski’s obligation to do research proving that your unproven, unspecified process DIDNT occur.
2. You dont’ ackowledge irreducible complexity in human biological complexity, preferring instead, a theory of mere “preposterously improbable complexity” whereby interwoven, interdependent system components are simultaneously produced by probabilisticly implausible pathways that RM+NS was designed to avoid in the first place. Now that RM+NS cant get you where you need to go, you are willing to stray off the “small, sucessive steps” path to get around IC, and Dembski, Behe et al, are ( rightly ) not having it.
3. You dont accept boundaries to probability in our finite universe, or if you do, you wont specify them, because such limts would represent potential falsification of your theories in the face of growing specification of complexity in biological information. You don’t acknowledge Design being inherant in ANY assemblage of complex, specified information that I am aware of, despite the fact that arguments for such inference are wholly logical and mathematically reasonable.
4. You acknowledge that the nonexistence of extra-solar life where naturalistic theory predicts that it should exist, would be a problem, but you consider SETI’s initial data, and the astronomical data which is just around the corner ( that is going to prove or falsify your theory once and for all ) to be
idle speculation.
5. You think that anybody who is skeptical of your half-baked, unproven naturalistic theories is a moron- especially me.
6. You are content with a purely naturalistic viewpoint wherein human purpose and signifigance are limited to survival of the fittest and procreation. You accept a worldview that is incompatible with any sort of spirituality or morality apart from these limited natural-selection purposes.
In contrast,
1. I believe that neither I, nor my loved-ones arose spontaneously from a pile of rocks. I dont care if this audacious assertion bothers you, or if you think I am stupid for holding this opinion. Nor do I feel the need to show you research to prove to you that your implausible, preposterous notion that I DID evolve from a pile of rocks, is false. YOU are the one with an interesting, and highly un-likely notion to prove. MY assertion, on the other hand, seems reasonable by default.
2. I look at the most complex machine in the universe – a human being- and the instruction set that generated it, and boldly assert that the machine didnt create itself, and that the instruction code didnt write itself. And I feel prety good about that position, despite what you say.
3. I think that there ARE limits to probabilistic plausibility in a finite universe, and although I think Douglas Adams was one of the best authors ever, I don’t actually believe in screwdriver trees, and talking mattresses which are the inevitable consequences of merely-improbable scenarios in an universe with no probability limits. Presented with a choice of ; A) the MOST LIKELY scenario, in which the greatest assmeblage of CSI known to man had an author, and B) the LEAST LIKELY scenario ever invented by the mind of man, in which said CSI authored itself, I choose the former, and say to advocates of the latter- “good luck, you’ll need it.”
4. I think that SETI’s results so far are just the beginning of a vast, definitive data-set that space-based astronomy is going to yeild which are going to absolutely falsify naturalistic theory. At the very least, I think that chance is implicated in IC scenarios that RM+ NS cant overcome to the extent that at the VERY least, Ward and Greenleas’ rare earth hypothesis is correct, and most likely, to the extent that we are alone in the universe. If I am proven wrong, then I’ll change my tune. I just hope naturalistic advocates are so honest, and will revise THEIR viewpoints, if the data comes back in the negative, and their alleged natuaralistic processes are shown to have no basis in reality whatsoever.
5. Your insults bounce right off of me, because I wear the teflon armor of truth. Having taken intelligence tests, I have no real conscerns that your “moron” comments have any validity, and I know my own heart and conscience well enough to not be bothered by those who question my motives or honesty. And as far as all of the alleged fear and cowardice that I am supposedly guilty of for advocating ID, those who know me all-too-well can attest to the fact that my inexplicable and seemingly total lack of well-justified fear has nearly gotten me killed a hundred times over. If there is any allegation that I can pretty well dismiss, it’s that one. So, despite all of the Stupid-Wicked-Ignorant-Insane comments, I actually feel fine about myself, and my positions and I wear your scorn as a badge of honor.
6. I completely reject a purely naturalistic view of the human condition. I am more than a random conglomeration of inanimate matter, despite what you say. More people agree with me, than they do with you, but I wouldnt care if I was totally alone in that assertion. My life has more signifigance than natural selection and procreation. Morality is not a pretencious, abstract construct as naturalistic advocates and Jeffery Dahmer would have it. Spirituality, Truth, Love, and Beauty arent imaginary. They exist. They matter. Right and Wrong are real things, and they have nothing to do with survival of the fittest. I’ve been blessed with an overflowing cup of glory and love here in God’s beautiful creation, and nothing that anybody says will cause me to throw all that in the wind and say that none of it matters. It does matter. To those who are willing to stand on a dust-in-the-wind view of life, all I can say is that I truly wish you something better than that someday, and I hope you find it. God Bless You.
Vengis- RE: comment 245-
I can’t say I agree with the notion of entropy demanding the emergence of life. That seems counter-intuitive to say the least. I think that this assertion proves that ANYTHING can seem plausible when you consider truth to be a relative thing. I am just curious- if even a fundamental assertion like 2+2=4 is in question for you, then what basis did you use for dicserning truth in the course of your research? With no epistimological foundation for gleaning truth from falsehood in the course of choosing a viewpoint, what is the basis for claiming ANYTHING one way or the other? In the abscence of a non-relative truth-discernment system, then doesnt it seem likely that you reached your conclusions based on pre-concieved notions that caused you to see what you wanted to see? What else would explain your ability to conclude in the abscence of any basis for concusion-forming? I think I was right when I ventured a guess in an earlier post, that you would enjoy the schrodinger’s cat thought experiment. ( Your original post immediatly caused it to come to mind, as up-your alley.) And to be honest, I used to have my feet a bit off the ground in my earlier days as well, and I still enjoy such things. We probably have a few things in common in our outlooks on life, believe it or not, although we seem to have reached differing conclusions on this matter. I’ll post schrodenger below, since it somehow wound up in my comment filter from an earlier post that I had thought was lost. This way, I wont have to re-type it. I hope you enjoy it. Also, if you like relativistic philosophy, I reccomend Nietsche. His works are available at several online literature sites. I used to think along these lines, but in the end, such notions just seemed to lead to pointless flights of fancy which lead nowhere, and don’t really seem compatible with the notion of objective truth which I do now believe in. It’s our ability to PERCIEVE truth that sometimes is questionable to me, not the existence of truth itself. At any rate, I am willing to take a FEW things on faith now, I suppose. It’s hard, and somewhat futile, to go through life with the notion of relative truth and the possibility that we are figments of our own imaginations.
Regarding Gwenneth, remember that mere celebrity doesnt make her any more or less of a real person. She puts her pants on one leg at a time, just like you and me. Maybe she isnt actually un-attainable, have you considered that? If you are sincere, and arent just kidding around, then send her a letter and a picture. Who knows, maybe something will develop ( a correspondance leading to who-knows-what ), if you have anything in common. I have actually seen much stranger things really happen in this life, than that, believe it or not. If you feel so strongly about her, then you should be willing to risk dissapointment, and take a chance. Good luck, and get some sleep. -Ty
RE: Promised Shcrodenger thought experiment
I just checked my spam filter,and the damned thing has vanished again- IT WAS JUST THERE! Sigh…Maybe I have slipped into one of the infinite branches of quantum reality where that post actually DOESNT exist, ( which schrodenger actually predicts. ) I give up for now.
How it’s possible to write so many words without actually saying anything, I’ll never know, but let me just give one example of your failure to understand a basic point (this one having to do with probability). You said,
“Improbability” and “impossibility” are mutually exclusive concepts. Something that is improbable has a relatively small chance of happening, while something that’s impossible has no chance. As I explained to you in an earlier post, before something can be correctly characterized as “improbable,” we have to know that it’s possible. Because our knowledge of the beginning of life is incomplete, we have no immediate way of knowing whether abiogenesis is improbable or impossible. The best guess is on the former case, and there are scientists doing research on the subject. Your side is like a guy who goes to the racetrack, picks a horse to win, and then wants the cashier to pay him before the race is run.
Ty Harris
You do need to get out more, Ty. Why do you presume that morality has its basis in religion (or belief in an unnamed Designer)? You seem to be as ignorant of history as you are of science. Are you saying that the only reason you act morally is out of fear of retribution from the Hairy Thunderer? I act morally because it’s the right thing to do, and it’s the way that society holds itself together. No magic necessary. I get a kick out of all of the religious moralists who admit that they’re such awful people, and only love their neighbors because they’re afraid of the Lake of Fire. Nice people.
Think it might be time to take the last “s” off of “Essays” in your blog title, Ty?
Ty Harris
I think I might have asked this question before, but let’s try again. Let’s suppose that we do develop compelling evidence, or even proof, that there is life elsewhere in the universe. What’s to stop IDists from just claiming “POOF!” to account for it? You do realize that that’s what would happen , don’t you? “POOF!” is great. You can use it to “prove” anything.
Humans are *not* a “random conglomeration of inanimate matter“.
I have read this entire thread. You have shown yourself unwilling to consider alternative viewpoints. This is not meant as an insult, but as an observation. Consider that after hundreds of comments, you are still presenting a strawman argument that anyone is claiming that people are “random conglomerations of inanimate matter“.
Jim- RE: Comment 251 ( time to take the “s” off of essays )
Your point is most emphatically conceded. Stay tuned. Just to explain myself and the delay- When I first posted the Intelligent Design essay, I was actually expecting to get about 2 or 3 comments ( if any ), and I figured that those would be primarily from friends and relatives. I did’nt suspect that so many people would wind-up reading my words, or that so many people would care -one way or the other- about anything I had to say on this topic, or on any other topic for that matter
( By the way- what an interesting time we live in… to think that we can now engage in a conversation at the touch-of-a-button with people from all over the world who share a common interest in anything at all. We live in a brave new era of free-flowing information and ideas , that few, if any, could have envisioned even twenty years ago. Bill Gates has certainly left a great legacy to this world. I am sure that the internet is going to change a lot of things in this world for the better in the years to come….)
At any rate, once this completely-unexpected debate got underway, I decided to let the comment-fest continue because I thought the topic was important ( even if my essay was’nt ), and that it deserved the attention it got. Also, I found the discussion personally interesting and enriching. I know you think that I have learned nothing here, just because I havent changed my intitial stance, but really that’s not the case. It has been quite informative and has caused me to consider a lot of things. Also, it has opened up avenues of further research and consideration.A good thing that could possibly come of this discussion thread is that it may very well enlighten others out there- in fact, I suspect it already has . I think that if somebody were to be surfing the web , and was approaching the question of ID versus evolution for the first time, and were to find their way to the comments section of this post, they would get a pretty good sampling and representation of the basic points that form the basis of both positions, being put-forth by some fairly eloquent advocates on both sides. I think that’s a good thing, and aside from an intrinsic interest in basic fairness, it’s a primary reason why I didnt censor, edit, or ban anybody, no matter what their opinion. What resulted was a fairly good assemblage of information, and debate points for anybody interested in the subject matter. So even if we didnt change each other’s minds here, at least we left a tiny legacy in cyberspace that might inform and benefit somebody else someday… Generally, I was impressed by the substance of the arguments and positions put forward by all, ( and I especially liked some of the off-the-wall propositions put forward by the non-partisans ). I was a little dismayed by the disrespectful tone and personal attacks that some felt it neccesary to resort to, but perhaps the ettiquette is just different on the internet. As for myself, I try to remember that there is a real person on the other side of the screen reading what I am typing, and I try not to say things that I wouldnt say if I was sitting across from that person at the dinner table discussing something. ( For instance, I might say that your opinion is wrong, but I wouldnt call you a moron. ) At any rate, There will be another post up this weekend most-likely- next weekend at the latest. It wont be nearly as controversial, however, and I don’t plan on doing much in the way of blog-promotion like I did with this first essay, so I am figuring on about 10 views and 2 or 3 comments on essay number two , as opposed to the 3000 views and 250 comments I ( amazingly ) got on essay number one. Hopefully you, John, and Zachriel will comment on essay two as well. I am sure it will be a much nicer discussion.
For the record, ( if anybody cares ), my plan for this blog was never to generate a daily stream-of-consciousness pertaining to every little thing that pops into my head, as some like to do. I find that sort of thing inane and un-interesting. I dont’ think that anybody paticularly cares about my daily coming and goings, or wants my day-by-day commentary on my life. What I planned to do with this blog, is to take maybe 20 major topics that interest me, and generate an essay on them basically comprising – 1. My thoughts on the subject generally speaking ( hopefully with a point or two that not everybody has thought of ), 2. arguments for a specific position or course of action, 3. predictions and possibilities in the given field or area of discussion, and 4. several questions thrown on the table for debate and comment, for anybody who wanders by my blog.
Since I dont think that the world is waiting with baited breath for my opinions on things, I dont feel a particular sense of urgency in terms of essay production. If I WERE to feel such pressure, it would cease to be fun, and I would lose interest. I plan to submit about one essay a month into cyberspace for anybody’s consideration. I feel quality is more important than quantity, and It’s important to me that I have at least one angle or viewpoint on every subject I approach that will be a little bit novel and unique to most people. I think that the only really unique “angle” present in my first essay was the inclusion of the astronomical possibilities as it relates ( potentially ) to the ID versus Evolution question. Most people walking the earth today are totally un-aware of just how ( nearly- ) unlimited the possibilities are for space-based interferometric astronomy and never consider what it could mean for all of us someday soon . When I first read about space-based interferometers and the fact that it may be possible to create a telescope with near-perfect resolution ( no atmosperic impediments in space ) and a virtual lense of thousands of kilometers, I realized that eventually this is going to change everything for humanity, in terms of our fundamental understanding of our place and signifigance in the universe. My mind has been totally boggled by the photographs taken by Hubble, even with it’s measly meter-wide lense, and the idea that we are literally going to be able to look down on planets just like our earth in other GALAXIES, with clear enough resolution to distinguish things the size of cars or houses , if we can get a big enough interferometer array up, is one of the neatest, and most exciting things I have ever heard. It’s probably one of the most signifigant things our species will ever have an opportunity to acheive before we also go the way of the dinosaurs. The implications for the ID versus evolution debate seem obvious to me, at least, if not so much to others.
Regarding your statement that if we find life on other planets, IDer’s will just say that God made that life as well, I have already adressed that. I can’t control what other people may say. But, I have said that I, at least, when confronted with evidence that life DOES spontaneously arise WHEREVER environmental conditions permit it to, will change my tune. That would be evidence that a purely naturalistic process is very, very plausible. If, however, we look at a trillion other worlds where life SHOULD have arisen, and it simply didnt’, then YOU will have to re-think your own position if you hold yourself to the same standards of intellectual honesty that you demand of me. At any rate, this data probably wont come in, in our lifetimes. But if you have grand-children, they might have to re-consider the ID versus evolution question in a new light, in the context of hard data about the prevolance of life in the universe that we just don’t have now, with our data-set of one. The good news is that our opinions and predictions are now duly noted on the internet, and 100 years from now, our descendants will have the opportunity to log on and see what a genius/idiot granddad was, when we are proven right or or wrong posthumously. ( I am putting it in my will that I want this blog, AND the comments section, maintained and preserved indefinitly, so that SOMEDAY, one of us can be declared the winner of this little debate , when mankind eventually settles this matter once and for all! )
Essay number two will relate to the future of manned and unmanned space exploration, and I will advocate for a totally new paradigm, and for a RADICALLY different approach that stands a much better chance to get us- as a species- to a point where a massive space-based interferometer is something besides wishful thinking. ( The road we are on now may very well never take us there. ) My viewpoint will contain at least one radical and rarely-considered approach that most people have never even heard of. I know that I mentioned in an earlier comment that I wanted to do my next essay on a proposed societal shift in education away from public administration of schools to a publicly funded, privately administrated parent-choice based approach, but that can wait. For one thing, it’s a poor seqway from essay number one, and for another thing, really, it’s already manifestly obvious WITHOUT any need of comment from myself, what needs to happen to transmute our failed, under-acheiving public schools into institutions that provides excellence for ALL students regardless of soci-economic backround. The answer is public funding of privately administered schools that COMPETE for the privelege of educating each child, and COMPETE for the equally-distributed voucher funds that parents would be free to spend wherever they feel their kid will get the best education. Objectivley speaking, there is no denying that this would produce superior results, and that it would be fundamentally more fair if the kids in Detroit’s inner-city had the same educational opportunities as the kids of the rich and powerful Washington elite do. ( They send THEIR kids to private schools, while insisting that the poor and the middle-class shouldnt have that same choice. ) Choice and competition is the only answer, but it just cant happen because of political interests and politicians who put their own importance ahead of children’s education. That’s the sad fact, and it depresses me. Furthermore, me complaining about it online isnt going to change it, so I guess I will save that topic for later maybe , and focus on something else that is exciting, and has real possibilities.
Lastly, I must admit that another reason the comment-fest on essay number one has continued so long, is that I HATE TO GIVE YOU GUYS THE LAST WORD! I don’t want you to think that I quit, and that you have prevailed in our debate because I have no more responses to your indefatigable arguments. However, as a good host and moderator, I suppose it WOULD be the polite thing to do, to give the opposition the last word. So… I give the last word to you gentlemen, as much as it pains me to do so….
Open Question for All-
Are there any essay-requests?
Are there any particular topics, other than evolution, that any of YOU would like me to adress, take a position on, and open a discussion/debate on? I have a feeling that John at least, would love to clobber me over the head on the global-warming question. For what it’s worth, I am a conservative Republican on most issues, which is probably a minority view-point in the blogosphere. Are there any political, philosophical, or current-event topics that people such as myself usually advocate for, that you would like to challenge me to defend? Just please don’t ask me to defend George W. Bush too much. Even as a die-hard member of the G.O.P ( cut me, and I bleed Republican ), I often find it hard to defend the guy. I think that the primary reason he got elected ( other than the fact that his old-man was a man of principle, intelligence, and integrity ), is that after 8 years of lies, corruption, ( treason? ), weasle-words, presidential debauchery, and a national debate on what the meaning of the word “is” is, people just wanted somebody who was more-or-less morally upright, and who said what they meant, and meant what they said. Bush does have those traits, but unfortunately, it is now apparent that it takes more than just being a nice guy, having a good pedigree, and having your heart in the right place, to be an effective leader of the free world. I have never seen such incompetence, and indiference in my entire life, so I may as well get that out in the open, up-front. The G.O.P. has a lot of good ideas, positions and view-points, but I have to admit that our party isnt being particularly well-represented at the moment, and that this poor representation has made some absolutely disasterous policy decisions, and has lost a lot of opportunities to take action on important issues that just can’t wait. I will, therefore, argue primarily, on behalf what I consider to be good ideas and positions, rather than be a party-hack who defends people who are basically indefensible.
“yet SETI has laid a big, fat goose-egg so far, which already doesn’t bode well for your naturalistic viewpoint, does it?”
Silly strawman.
Of course there is the Fermi paradox:
http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/F/FermiPar.html
Or – one of the factors in the Drake equation is the lifetime of a technological civilization – with so many ignoramuses like you and finite resources, the human race will destroy itself and go back to subsistence farming in less than ten thousand years – a cosmic blink of an eye in a universe that’s 13+ billion years old.
[…] https://tyharris.wordpress.com/2007/03/27/evolution-versus-intelligent-design-astronomy-may-soon-sett… […]
[…] https://tyharris.wordpress.com/2007/03/27/evolution-versus-intelligent-design-astronomy-may-soon-sett… […]
[…] https://tyharris.wordpress.com/2007/03/27/evolution-versus-intelligent-design-astronomy-may-soon-sett… […]
Square water melons and genetically engineered food are samples that once in a while, life is created. Not a proof, but a plausibility.
[…] https://tyharris.wordpress.com/2007/03/27/evolution-versus-intelligent-design-astronomy-may-soon-sett… […]
You’ve got a great blog here! would you like to create some invite posts on my website?