What happened to “Colson Praises PETA”?

Let’s keep postings and comments germane to ID.

An excellent idea, Dr. Dembski. Perhaps you could bring things back on topic by posting that list of Intelligent Design predictions you have.

It’s been a month since that post, and the suspense is killing some of us!

Dr Dembski’s ID predictions? Yes, we’re all keen to hear those. After all, one key thing that a scientific theory - like ID so totally is - does is to make testable predictions.

Apologies, Dr. Dembski. My html skills must have taken a wrong turn at Albuquerque. Semprini’s link is working, though.

I’m glad I’m not the only one who has been waiting for this.

Semprini, you should chill a bit on your tone. Rude sarcasm will get you banned very quickly.

I like hearing from evos, so I don’t want to see you go…just take my word as a friend and be a little more polite.

Atom,

Agreed. It has been my experience that the true effectiveness of one’s message is inversely proportional to the sense of cleverness one feels while writing it.

Thank you, Dr. Dembski. You are without peer when it comes to The Argument Regarding Design.

I must say, I was also curious about the TV show you would be on. To be honest, I was hoping it would be one of the more credible programs like Glenn Beck or Bill O’Reilly, and not an America hating liberal windbag like that Olbermann idiot.

I certainly hope you will publish this in the next issue of Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design. When is the next issue coming out, anyway?

“Rude sarcasm will get you banned very quickly.” I’m sure rudeness will get people banned, but I don’t understand why you think this applies to me. After all, ID (despite attempts to brand it as a crude repackaging of creationism) is totally a proper scientific theory, right? And Dr Dembski mentioned specific predictions a month ago.

“ID predicts that … most structures will exhibit function and thus serve a purpose.” Isn’t there another slightly longer-established theory which says that things must serve a purpose to remain in the population?

“Moreover, ID theorists have applied these results to actual biological systems to show that they are unevolvable by Darwinian means.” Please elaborate, Dr Dembski. We are agog.g ag

…but I don’t understand why you think this applies to me. After all, ID (despite attempts to brand it as a crude repackaging of creationism) is totally a proper scientific theory, right? And Dr Dembski mentioned specific predictions a month ago.

(sigh)

I can only do so much.

Dr Dembski: I love the idea of conservation of information, but I’ve been having difficulty demonstrating it. I wrote a program which starts with a letter (’a') and then applies three kinds of random mutations (point, duplication, and deletion).

I’ll show you a quick example…

a
aa (duplication)
ab (point mutation)
aba (duplication of just the first letter - it selects a random range to duplicate)
abb (point)
bb (deletion)
bbbb (duplication)
bdbb (point)
bdbdbb (duplication of the ‘db’)
bdb (deletion of the 3rd, 4th, 5th letters)

It makes a lovely string of characters, but I really feel I’m missing the point - these can’t be informationally equivalent can they? I mean, I haven’t yet found out how to calculate information, but if all these strings are equivalent, won’t any string be?

Venus Mousetrap,
A suggestion, if you will. I think you have a very clever idea, but you are missing the standard darwinist objection. You have no selection. I think you can get somewhere if you figure out a way to have somekind of selection without any intelligent foreknowledge or insight to the process or its conclusion. Perhaps you could start with a small paragraph (100 letters?) and then show it to a child who is just old enough to have moderate reading skills but too young to realize you are testing something. Eight to eleven seems like a good range. Get them to pick a paragraph they like and then do the mutations to it, then have them pick another paragraph and so on. I am very courious to know how this might turn out.

sincerely,
d. grey

I was incomplete.
After you are done, you will probably still notice that there is not any informational difference in the any strings of letters. But ask a poet of Whitman’s caliber to write a string of 100 letters and you will have real information.

d. grey

Interesting. Suppose the next two events are

bdd (point mutation of the b)
bad (point mutation of the middle d)

Now we have a word.

Does this word contain information that the original “a” did not? If so, where did the information come from? If not, why not? Surely “bad” has a different meaning than “a”?

“ID predicts that … most structures will exhibit function and thus serve a purpose.” Isn’t there another slightly longer-established theory which says that things must serve a purpose to remain in the population?
No, Semprini. That one actually predicted junk DNA and vestigial organs.

“It has been my experience that the true effectiveness of one’s message is inversely proportional to the sense of cleverness one feels while writing it.”

Awesome comment. And so true.

So did he feel clever writing it?

What happened? Oh well.

They are not just analogous to humanly built machines but, as mathematicians would say, isomorphic to them, that is, they capture all the essential features of machines.

Isn’t claiming isomorphism going a bit far? All machines we know about were designed by humans, so that would imply that the bacterial flagellum is also designed by humans.

Ah, another ID prediction: time travel is possible!

More seriously, the isomorphism is clearly not exact, so what tools do we use to decide what aspects of the analogy are correct, and what aren’t?

Bob

Venus Mousetrap -

I believe your mistake is in considering the strings produced by your program only and not the program itself (including the pseudo-random number generator) which, as part of the system in question, must be taken into account when calculating the initial information content of that system.

No new information can be generated by the program because all of the possible strings were defined, in germinal form, in the program’s code.

“Surely ‘bad’ has a different meaning than ‘a’?” - Jack Krebs

Not within the scope of the system in question. Such meanings arise only when you include a human interpreter as part of the system - but that human observer (and the information he brings with him) must then be counted as part of the initial information content of the system, and therefore nothing new arises.

GR: that’s interesting, I didn’t look at it like that. But you know what evolutionists are like: they’ll just say ‘well, in that case the environment is capable of causing a mutation to any area of an animal’s DNA, therefore all possible animals are encoded in the environment without violating CoI’. It’s not a good argument for ID because it makes the worth of CoI effectively zero.

Suppose the next two events are

bdd (point mutation of the b)
bad (point mutation of the middle d)

One of the obvious problems with Darwinism is the assumption mutations lose their power with the arrival of something useful. Even in this simple example, the odds are exponentially higher than the next mutation will take bad to bcd than from “bad” to “good”.

Now, obviously serendipitous mutations can occur and be frozen via natural selection but it requires a belief system akin to the expectation of daily miracles for one to conclude that this process can explain the development and diversity of life. There really is an “edge to evolution”.

“…you know what evolutionists are like: they’ll just say ‘well, in that case… all possible animals are encoded in the environment without violating CoI’ ” - Venus Mousetrap

Except for two things:

First, they would still have to demonstrate that the environment is a sufficient (and not just a necessary) cause of what we see and know, which is an exceptionally far-fetched idea akin to perpetual motion or spontaneous generation: the periodic table of the elements plus the basic laws of nature are woefully inadequate to account for life in all its manifestations (even without including consciousness, conscience, moral concepts of good and evil, etc).

Secondly, they would still have to explain where those cleverly designed elements and those flawlessly integrated laws originated.

Bear with me.

The form of our arguments, I think, are the same in the small and the large. We deny both perpetual motion and spontaneous generation on thermodynamic gounds, at any scale. And the notions we have of both specified and irreducible complexity, which are more-or-less “built in” to our psyches, tell us that any sufficiently complex functioning system (whether a microscopic flagellum or a humongous universe) is the result of design and purpose.

Misunderstanding of thermodynamic principles may be excusable, but denial of our built-in faculty for recognition of “artifacts” is neither a logical nor a scientific problem; it is a manifestation of a spiritual defect (called “depravity” or “original sin”) that cannot be cured by anything short of a miracle (called “regeneration” or “rebirth”). Such obstinate deniers of the obvious are “without excuse”, Romans 1:20, and will be converted only through “the foolishness of preaching”, 1 Cor 1:21.

To tribune7: the issue is merely whether new information has been added. Extrapolating that issue to the power of evolution is far beyond the intent of my remark.

Also, Gerry writes,

Secondly, they would still have to explain where those cleverly designed elements and those flawlessly integrated laws originated.

This also is taking the issue too far. One doesn’t have to know why the universe is as it is in order to explore and explain how it works. You are confusing science with metaphysics, I think.

And I have to object to your idea that my, or anyone else’s, objections the aspects of ID that you describe is a product of original sin that will be remedied only by spiritual rebirth.

One doesn’t have to know why the universe is as it is in order to explore and explain how it works.

Experience tells us that it matters a great deal to an investigation whether or not that which is being investigated arose via agency involvement or nature, operating freely.

However when it comes to origins then we know that nature, operating freely cannot account for the origins of nature.

Therefor something beyond nature is required. IDists say that something is an intelligent source. The other guys just ignore it all together.

And now they want to use that ignorance as some sort of leverage to the disadvantage of ID.

“When I find myself among the crude and vulgar I tend to participate at the same level rather than rise above it as I should.”

One thing that I have always admired about Dr. Dembski is his humility. He seems like someone who thinks about his actions and cares about how they effect others.

Three cheers for Dr. Dembski. Hooray!

Hey Bob,

We could take your line of thought a step further: every machine we know of has been produced by specific people born before 2009. Will this, therefore, imply that the machines of the future (clearly an isomorphic group) were also produced by these same individuals born before 2009? Clearly not.

We could also widen the criteria instead and say that all known machines produced have been produced by intelligent, animated agents (which is what allows them to build machines in the first place.) Even beavers and bees build simple machines, designed for a contrived purpose, but they are not human. They are, however, animated intelligent creatures.

I’m sure ID advocates would be comfortable with the conclusion that whatever designed the biological machinery we see must have been an animated intelligent being.

“When I find myself among the crude and vulgar I tend to participate at the same level rather than rise above it as I should.”

One thing that I have always admired about Dr. Dembski is his humility. He seems like someone who thinks about his actions and cares about how they effect others.

Three cheers for Dr. Dembski. Hooray!

It was actually DS who wrote that part. But he equally deserves credit for admitting his behavior was wrong and manning up to it.

Sorry Dave, this is the second time I didn’t give credit to you when credit was due.

Jack

If letters are not designed to transmit information, there is no more information in “bad” than there is “bcd”

If letters are designed to transmit information in highly specified sequences, then then the mutation to “bad” conceivably decreased clarity (information) since bad has a predetermined meaning, and if used in an improper context, would distort reality.

BarryA
Neither Atom’s answer in 29 nor yours in 33 shows that Bob is wrong. There is very good visible evidence that leads to an inference that humans born after 2008 will have the same ability to create machines that earlier born humans do.

The evidence for the aliens you suppose, or any other non-human machine creator is not quite so clearcut.

congregate wrote:

There is very good visible evidence that leads to an inference that humans born after 2008 will have the same ability to create machines that earlier born humans do

Yes, but they are not the same humans. All human design observed thus far has been designed by humans born before 2009. According to Bob’s logic, we’d have to conclude that for the future machines machines to be truly isomorphic they would also have to be produced by people born before 2009. This is clearly not the case.

I also included the example of non-human design: bees (hive structures), beavers (artificial dams and homes), and let’s not forget spiders (food trapping nets).
This again shows that Bob’s stringent requirements for “isomorphism” are mistaken, since we have literal examples of non-human design by intelligent, animated agents. So the human factor he requires is not a fundamental or relevant feature to the isomorphism.

When is the interview with Keith Olbermann scheuled? I don’t watch his kind but in this case I’ll make an exception.

Lou

Atom - I’m not sure I would describe what beavers and bees build as machines. They’re structures, yes, but they don’t have any moving parts. And are they really dissimilar to, say, corals?

I think you’re actually strengthening my point. The mapping from human machines to the working of the cell is not exact (i.e. it’s not an isomorphism), and the question is where do we draw the line? And how do we find a rule for drawing the line?

BarryA - Have you ever seen an alien construct a machine? If you have. please report to Area 51 for debriefing.

Let me repeat what I wrote, and emphasise the bit you missed:
“All machines we know about were designed by humans”
So, if I’m wrong, you have an interesting story to sell to the papers.

Bob

OK - so two questions:

1. Does a four letter “word” have more information than a three letter “word”? I assume the answer to this is yes - if it’s not, please explain.

2. So suppose a three letter word in the program above gains a letter through duplication, thereby gaining information. If, as you say, “information cannot be created nor destroyed. It only changes form.”, I would conclude that something else must have lost information in order for the word to have gained information. What information was lost? Can you explain?

Thanks.

Speaking of nano-machines, I was browsing “New Scientist” magazine online last night when I came across an article that claimed to explain how the bacterial flagellum evolved. Unfortunately, as I’m not a subscriber, I was only able to read the first paragraph or so online. Has anyone read the article, and is there anything new in it, or is it just the same old stuff?

By the way, I just had a thought regarding nano-machines. If the universe is the product of a superior but finite intelligence, then as our scientific knowledge advances over the course of time, the complex designs we observe in the universe should become more comprehensible to us, and the ratio of explained to unexplained phenomena should gradually increase. We would thus expect to observe a “God of the gaps” trend in science, as advances lead us to flashes of insight: “Ah, so THAT’S how the intelligence did it!” Our awe of this intelligence would therefore decrease over the course of time.

If, however, the universe is the product of an Infinite Intelligence, as Jews, Christians, Muslims and Hindus believe, AND if the universe is a reflection of the wisdom of this Intelligence, then as our scientific knowledge advances, we would expect to discover more and more examples of bafflingly complex structures that leave us scratching our heads and wondering, “Who ordered that?” Also, the rate at which we discover new and unexplained complex structures should exceed the rate at which we find explanations for previously known structures. Thus the ratio of explained to unexplained phenomena should DECREASE, and the gaps should grow, not shrink. In the meantime, our awe and bafflement at the kind of mind that could come up with designs that we would never have thought of in a million years should increase.

I would suggest that what we are now beginning to learn about the complexities of DNA and the human brain may just be the tip of the intelligent design iceberg.

Jack Krebs:

“Does a four letter “word” have more information than a three letter “word”?”

A four letter word has more complexity that a three letter word, but not necessarily the same specification. Just for instance:

a) cat is a three letter word, with complexity = 1:26^3, and a functional specification due to trhe fact that, in english, it is recognizable as the word for the specific animal.

b) cart is a four letter word with higher complexity (1:26^4), and similarly specified, but with a different meaning.

c) catt is a four letter word with the same complexity as b), but not functionally specified, at least in the context of english lauguage.

Please note that it is easy enough to pass from a) to b) ot from a) to c) through a random process of adding a random letter in a random position, because the search space is not so big. None of these examples is CSI. The first two are non complex, specified infromation. The third is non complex, non specified information. Anyway, the passage from a) to b) indeed destroys some information and creates a different one. That’s perfectly possible, because the information we are considering is trivial, in the sense of non complex, and it can randomly emerge from random processes.

But consider the same example, but with a) and b) being two different english sentences, of the same length, let’s say 100 characters, which is not a long sentence at all. The two sentences have a specific meaning, but thwy are saying two completely different things with completely different words. In this case the two sentences are CSI (complexity higher than 1:10^150, which is Dembski’s UPB, and functional specification), but it is completely impossible, for all empirical purposes, to pass from one to another through a random process of character substitutions, unless the searching algorithm already knows the target solution and can fix single correct characters (the “Methinks it’s like a weasel” model), or anyway has some other specific knowledge about the target solution which can facilitate the search.

These examples are just to show that the information in ID discussions should always be considered related to a specification, and not in general as a bit content. Besides, only if you add complexity of sufficient level the difference between random events and designed events becomes evident. At low complexity levels, anything can happen randomly. That’s why languages are complex and we use words and sentences and paragraphs, and not just simple sounds, to express ourselves. That’s why passwords have to be long enough and complex enough to be safe. If you have a 4 bit password, you are doomed, but if you have a 256 bit password you can sleep safely. Unless someone alredy knows it: then the pre-specification of your complex password is shared with another being, and if someone steals from your account, you have not to think long before knowing who is responsible. That’s called design inference…

Bob O’H,

Spider webs and Beaver dams are both:

Materials arranged in a pattern which fulfill a specific purpose, due to their properties and physical interactions.

I don’t know what your definition of a machine is, but an electrostatic food net should probably qualify, no?

Either way, you are again trying to restrict the isomorphism, this time by adding the “moving parts” requirement. Fine. But let us go all the way and use my “born before 2009″ restriction as well, ok?

You wrote:

The mapping from human machines to the working of the cell is not exact (i.e. it’s not an isomorphism), and the question is where do we draw the line? And how do we find a rule for drawing the line?

In what relevant ways are they different?

As for your won questions, we draw the line at relevant features, meaning ones that are essential to a) being a machine and b) their construction.

All three classes of machines (human buiolt pre-2009, human built post-2299, and cellular) share the following traits:

1) All are material objects.

2) All use laws of physics and interactions among the parts to seemingly accomplish a goal.

Now, if there is alien life (as BarryA uses in his thought experiment) or Strong AI in the future, they could also build machines that fit these criteria.

Again with BarryA’s thought experiment:

If a non-human intelligence (alien, robotic, etc) were to build an exact replica of a human device, it would be both isomorphic and non-human built. So this thought experiment shows that it is not logically necessary for a machine to have been built by a human in order to be isomorphic to human machines.

Your bringing up of “we have no proof of alien life” is a distraction and doesn’t do anything for your case; it is irrelevant, as we are discussing what is logically necessary to qualify as an isomorphic machine.

You might as well argue that Schrödinger never actually had a cat.

I just wrote:

You might as well argue that Schrödinger never actually had a cat.

I apologize…that comes across mocking and I’m sorry for writing it. Please disregard that part.

What I meant to say, more kindly, was that BarryA’s example and mine both show is that “who built it?” is not a logically necessary or relevant requirement for isomorphic relationships among machine classes. Barry’s was a thought experiment only, so finding proof of teh situation actually occuring is irrelevant.

Again, sorry for my tone of the Schrödinger comment…it sounded better in my head and less mocking.

Thanks Barry. It is Bob, however, that may have been offended. If he didn’t see anything wrong with it, then I’m good. But if he was offended by it, then I will apologize to him (as I did).

DaveScot, isn’t the genetic “code” kind of a metaphor, at least at some levels? (For example, it might be more like a cipher than a code.) Thinking of it as a code can be useful but might also constrain.

larrynormanfan:

I don’t understand well what you mean with “metaphor”. As far as I know, the genetic code is exactly what the word says: a code.

Here is a defin ition of code from the internet:

“A system of symbols and rules used to represent instructions to a computer; a computer program” (from “the free dictionary”).

Well, the genetic code is exactly that: a system of symbols (the triplets or codons) used to represent instructions to a computer (the translation system in the ribosomes). The codons are symbols, because they represent both the 20 aminoacids and some important punctuation instructions. Each codon has no biochemical relationship with the aminoacid it represents: in other words, the relationship is merely symbolic, acoording to a code established in the beginning (indeed, as we know, it is not even really universal).

gpuccio, here’s a piece from an article in Modern Drug Discovery that explains what I’m getting at:

By mid-1954, Gamow had accepted that his diamond code was not accurate, yet he and others continued to deliberate over the various codes presented by disparate researchers. In truth, the notion of a “code” as the key to information transfer was not articulated publicly until late 1954, when Gamow, Martynas Ycas, and Alexander Rich published an article that defined the code idiom for the first time since Watson and Crick casually mentioned it in a 1953 article. Yet the concept of coding applied to genetic specificity was somewhat misleading, as translation between the 4 nucleic acid bases and the 20 amino acids would obey the rules of a cipher instead of a code. As Crick acknowledged years later, in linguistic analysis, ciphers generally operate on units of regular length (as in the triplet DNA scheme), whereas codes operate on units of variable length (e.g., words, phrases). But the code metaphor worked well, even though it was literally inaccurate, and in Crick’s words, “‘Genetic code’ sounds a lot more intriguing than ‘genetic cipher’.” Codes and the information transfer metaphor were extraordinarily powerful, and heredity was often described as a biological form of electronic communication.

Here is the link. Obviously the code metaphor is important and helpful, but is may be misleading when compared to things like (for example) languages.

Sorry: I should have added “and computer programs” after “languages” at the end of the previous comment.

larrynormanfan:

Thank you for the clarification. Frankly, I was not aware of that kind of difference between “codes” and “cyphers” acoording to the fixed-length - variable length issue. And probably, most people don’t use those words in that technical sense.

The important thing, I believe, is that the genetic code is fully symbolic, and that is a very strong argument for ID. But I fully agree tlat it is a simple enough symbolic system, and should not be called “a language”.

On the contrary, the genetic code which is responsible for the global control of cell functions, as soon as we understand how it works, will certainly have, in my opinion, all the characteristics of a language.

I’m not sure I would believe everything LarryNormanFan says.

He has vested interests as a Darwinists.

Hail Darwin.

As Crick acknowledged years later, in linguistic analysis, ciphers generally operate on units of regular length (as in the triplet DNA scheme), whereas codes operate on units of variable length (e.g., words, phrases)

Some codes, however, like assembly language in certain computers, actually use the same format and length for all instructions. So codes can also be of fixed length (computer code is still code, right?)

See: RISC (Reduced Instruction Set Architecture)

Other features, which are typically found in RISC architectures are:

* Uniform instruction format, using a single word with the opcode in the same bit positions in every instruction, demanding less decoding.

PannenbergOmega, You’re correct that I’m a Christian evolutionist (I don’t use the term “Darwinist” myself). But I’m not sure what you’re trying to say in the comment above except “booga-booga! beware the Darwinist!” The principle of caveat lector applies in all Internet conversation — in fact, in all conversation generally!

Atom, thanks for that clarification. I don’t really know much about computer langauges. I do think we can use computer codes to help understand genetic codes (I think evolutionary computing has a lot of promise, actually). So to the degree that a computer language can look like the genome, good. But I also think we’ve got to be when we map one kind of domain onto another. There are always limitations when we compare genes with natural languages with computer languages, just as there are problems when we understand the mind in terms of software.

As gpuccio has said the genome also has instructions which are probably not codon oriented and for which no one yet has a whiff of what it is. That 98.5% of non coding DNA is probably coding for something or executing instructions somehow that affects the use of proteins.

What encodes the RNA that is used in the cell that is not messenger RNA? Is any of it coded by DNA or is all of it built by proteins?

Atom, thanks for that clarification.

You’re welcome. I’m happy to help.

But I also think we’ve got to be [careful] when we map one kind of domain onto another.

I agree, we should be careful. But I do see DS’ point: every code (symbolic system, if you prefer) of known origin has originated from intelligence. So the best current hypothesis is that the genetic code did as well.

The thing about codes and symbols in general is that they seem to carry “something” beyond their mere physical description. For example, a fire could be just a fire or it could mean “Get ready, the enemy is coming!” The fires are both fires…but one of them is a code. What made one a code and one not?

That is why intelligence is needed to give meaning. (A “coder” if you will.) I don’t claim to understand how it all works; it is an area I meditate on and wonder about a lot. (What exactly gives “intention”? What does “intention” or “meaning” consist of?) But I can say that the physical descriptions of the two fires are the same, so the “meaning” cannot consist merely of the physical components.

And adding other merely physical objects to the equation (the sand around the fire, the trees, the wind, etc) can’t seem to give me the meaning I’m looking for. No, some “meaner” must be inserted into the equation somewhere. If not, it is simply a lump of matter, arranged nicely.

Atom, you and DaveScot both know a lot more than me about this stuff. But still, it seems more complicated than that. DaveScot says “A code is a code. The definition is simple,” but then jerry points out (rightly) that most of the genome is non-coding, apparently. So it’s a code — simply! — except when it’s not, which may be most of the time. Not so simply a code from that perspective. I don’t know much about computer codes, but inasmuch as the code refers to symbol systems in human communication, it’s got a lot of differences which may be quite important.

Here’s something I don’t understand about the code metaphor: if a code is intricatel connected to “meaning,” and the “meaner” is the designer, then who is the recipient of the communication? The organism does not “understand” in any “intelligent” sense. In human codes such as language, there is usually intelligence at both ends of the transmission. But the genetic code is only characterized by necessary intelligence, if it is, at the transmitting end.

(As a Christian, I would be more favorably disposed to ID if it quit pretending that the author of the genetic could be material. If a code is required for material life, and a code needs an intelligent coder, then no intelligent coder is going to be a product of material life. I just don’t get it. None of the published ID people take the idea of a material designer seriously, although they pay lip service to it.)

In human codes such as language, there is usually intelligence at both ends of the transmission

You’re right, there usually is.

However, when I think about it, a system that is built to “accept” certain characters mechanically, while needing an intelligence to specify the coding convention and system, is already one we’re familiar with: an deterministic finite accepter, or dfa. What the dfa does is completely mechanical and the dfa is not “intelligent” in the sense we usually mean it; but the both “codes” that it accepts as well as the dfa itself are designed by intelligence. Hence the intelligence at only one end of the transmission.

A password log-in system is maybe a more familiar example. An intelligence transmits a string of symbols and the machine (lacking intelligence) either accepts or rejects the string.

Anyway, some good food for thought. I too feel like there is a lot to this whole equation I don’t understand, so I won’t throw stones at you for being honest about your questions.

Speaking of “codes” what do you guys think of the bible code?

-Lou

Larrynormanfan

“As a Christian, I would be more favorably disposed to ID if it quit pretending that the author of the genetic could be material.”

ID does not need to identify the “substance” of which the designer is made. ID applies to archaeology where the designer may be homo erectus or modern man. The exact identity of the designer depends on the available candidates. 2700mil years ago, when life started here, and 500mya when the Cambrian explosion happenned, the candidates are limited to alien space beings or another extant being, God for example.

For those who say the physical cosmos is all there is, the designer, if ther is one, must by definition be physical. Christians and other Theists are not restricted and may consider whether a transcendent God is the more likely.

ID detects design. It does not necessarily name designers. Theology and world view provide the candidates.

When I spoke of the non coding region of the genome, I did not mean that it does not code for something. I believe it must but the instructions are not likely to be codons. So the non coding regions are probably mostly code but not in the same sense as the 3 nucleotide codons are.

I have no proof or evidence for such but there must be some instructions for how and where the proteins are placed and how much. It is interesting that the so called junk DNA is so large in the human genome when other smaller genomes such as a yeast have more coding proteins but a smaller genome. Where is the yeast’s junk DNA? It is older than humans and thus has a long time to accumulate junk.

idnet.com.au:
“ID detects design. It does not necessarily name designers. Theology and world view provide the candidates.”

I’m inclined to think differently but not in an arguementive way. Here are my reasons:

I don’t think theologians will ever discover the designer, or tell us much outside of their own tradition or the study thereof. They’re not any closer now than they were thousands of years ago. New or updated versions of old ideas.

I’m more inclined to think that instead it will be ID scientists who make a break through scientific discovery and are able to identify (by scientific evidence and not tradition) the actual attributes and “nature” of the designer. I think they stand the best chance of identifying/discover “Him” through scientific methods.

Take for instance the “Killroy was here” graffiti (design?) which most every American is familiar with. We saw the evidence on American aircraft and people became interested in knowing who, why, how, etc. They did a little digging and now there’s quite a history. The “Killroy” designer was discovered and identified.

So if ID scientists see a biological “Killroy was here” (IC? bacterial flagellum?) it stands to reason their research will not stop there and they will continue their pursuit of science which I think will lead to new discovies in detecting design and better understanding the designer.

I’m not argueing this, mind you. It just stands to reason in *my* mind. Time and research will tell.

-Lou

idnet.com.au, no offense, but I just don’t buy it. As I said before, none of the major ID theorists takes the space-alien theory seriously. Not one. They may say “It could be a space alien,” but I don’t think they mean it. I am willing to be corrected on this, but I don’t think the idea is actually taken seriously by Dr. Dembski, or Dr. Behe, or Prof. Johnson. or Dr. Wells, or Dr. Nelson, or Ms. O’Leary, or anybody who’s published an ID friendly book.

On the similarity with archeology, there could be a lot to discuss. But I don’t think most professionals in the field of archeology think of themselves as doing intelligent design work. They think of themselves as doing archeology.

just a correction on what I posted. The yeast genome has a relatively small number of proteins that is no where the size of the human genome in terms of proteins.

larrynormanfan,

I think many here and those prominent in ID hope or wish the designer to be the Judeo Christian God but there is zero scientific evidence to support this.

So how can they say the science points to this God when in fact there is nothing that does. They would just look like religious zealots when they mix their religious beliefs with science and as such it would undermine their science. The best they can say is that it is an intelligent being while in their hearts they hope it is their God.

Pushing for such an admission as to Who the designer is has no scientific purpose. Now for the designer of the universe that is a different proposition but even here one is limited to the designer being an immense intelligence that is outside of the natural world. Whether that is the Judeo Christian God is again only conjecture and outside of the realm of science.

As for your won questions, we draw the line at relevant features, meaning ones that are essential to a) being a machine and b) their construction.

Well, DNA is essential for the construction of biological machines. It directly encodes for the primary structure of the proteins. What encodes the primary structure of your car?

Bob
P.S. No worries on the Schrödinger’s cat comment. I like comments like that, because they summarise the point you’re trying to make.

larrynormanfan:

I appreciate your constructive discussion. Just some comments:

“DaveScot says “A code is a code. The definition is simple,” but then jerry points out (rightly) that most of the genome is non-coding, apparently. So it’s a code — simply! — except when it’s not, which may be most of the time”

We are speaking here of two different things. The known genetic code, the one discovered about 50 years ago, is a simple three nucleotide code which essentially codifies the aminoacid sequence of proteins, that is their primary structure. In the human genome, only 1.5% of the genetic information has tha purpose. That is the “coding DNA”, which is made of about 20000 genes, coding for an unknown number of proteins.
But that does not explain how transcription regulation is achieved. Transcription regulation is the key point in all impotant procedures in the cell and the organism, and it is indeed very intelligent, efficient and robust, otherwise no living being could exist. It is usually felt, by us in the ID field, but now also by many in the darwinist field, that the remaining 98.5% of the genome can have much to do with that. The problem is nobody really understands how. There are now many empirical evidences of that, and we are almost certain that many regulatory functions are achieved by the transcription (but not translation) of segments of the “non coding” DNA, like introns. The relative RNA probably stays in the nucleus, and acts by linking to other DNA segments. Little is known about that anyway, and the bulk of the “non coding” DNA, with its apparent repetitive structure, remains a huge mystery.
So, my assumption (and not only mine) is that the non coding DNA, in most or all of its aspects, is a form of genetic information written in a code that we simply don’t understand. That, obviously, has nothing to do with the traditional genetic code, of which we understand practically everything.

“if a code is intricatel connected to “meaning,” and the “meaner” is the designer, then who is the recipient of the communication? The organism does not “understand” in any “intelligent” sense”

That’s right, but it’s exactly what happens in computer programs. The programmer writes different parts of the software, and they communicate one with the other, and with the hardware, to perform the general function. In the case of the genetic code (the traditional one), the same codon code has been utilized for two different things:

a) The writing of the information for protein sequences in DNA, which has to be transmitted through reproduction, and which is passed to the cytoplasm by a mirror molecule, messenger RNA.

b) The syntesis of the specific RNA tranfer molecules, each of which has both a site for a specific aminoacid and a recognition triplet which corresponds to the right symbolic triplet codifying for that aminoacid in the messenger RNA.

So, as you can see, a symbolic codification is necessary so that the abstract information of the protein sequence may have, at the effector site of the ribosome, the right effect: the correct protein. Indeed, the term “translation” for protein syntesis is perfectly right: the rybosome indeed “translates” the symbolic triplet information in DNA into a real structure written in another language (aminoacids). That is possible only because the aminoacid-triplet link in each RNA transfer molecule is exactly the one used in the symbolic code of DNA.
Again, we can see here that functionally specified information is recognizable only in the specific context. the nucleotide sequence of a DNA gene would have no meaning, if there were no translation system. Indeed, we have deciphered the code that way, studying the translation system, and not in any other intrnsec way.

“None of the published ID people take the idea of a material designer seriously, although they pay lip service to it”

The possibility of a material designer is not just lip service. That is a major misunderstanding by darwinist commenters. Considering the possibility of a material designer is a cognitive necessity, which is implicit in the ID approach, in its foundations and methodology. In other words, ID would not be consistent if it did not consider the possibility of a material designer.

Why? Because ID infers design in biological information, and the design inference in itself does not tell anything about the nature of the designer. Believe me, that is not a political or strategic affirmation. It is the simple truth.

So, we have this situation: we infer design in biological information from the presence of CSI in it, and the only other example of CSI observable in nature is in human artifacts, the products of (partially) material beings. Therefore, it is a cognitive imperative to consider the possibility of a material designer. As human beings, as far as we know, were not there when life started on our planet, the only other possibility is aliens, or something like that.

But, obviously, considering a possibility does not mean believing it is the right solution. Only in the intolerant world of darwinists considering a logical possibility becomes a crime against reason!

As I have explained in a recent post, there are all the logical reasons to believe that the model of a creating God is the best explanation for biological information, even from a scientific point of view. But, unfortunately, our scientific understanding of reality, and in particular of the living world, is still too superficial to really support that point of view with real evidence.

On the contrary, the design inference “can” absolutely be supported with striking evidence. That’s why ID, at present, concentrates on the design inference. That’s no strategy and no agenda: only the reasonable behaviour according to the state of facts.

Spider webs and Beaver dams are both:

Materials arranged in a pattern which fulfill a specific purpose, due to their properties and physical interactions.

If you want to define a machine that widely, then I think you’ll have to conclude that bacteria and polyps are capable of intelligent design (think stromatolites and coral). Do you want to go that far?

Your can take your arguments about thought experiments are irrelevant: see my reply to Barry at 37.

Bob

The genetic code is, well, a code.

Explain how codes can arise without a coder.

It just needs someone or something that can “interpret” the code. If slime molds excrete cAMP when they get stressed, that can be “read” as a code to say “panic”.

Indeed, antigens can be viewed as carrying codes. So, if anything, a codee is what is needed (i.e. someone or something that can recognise the sign).

Bob

Dave @ 74 - I agree. I think that’s an argument for their irrelevance to the issue of the comparison of human-made and cellular machines.

Bob

Dave,

I meant to say rice, not yeast in my post #64. So I retracted the yeast comment in #67. But then I found out rice which has around 35,000 coding genes also has a fairly large non coding area of 430 million base pairs which did not make the point about the non coding regions.

I was trying to make the point that there are genomes that have more coding genes than humans but much less non coding genes. If mutation processes are creating this non coding junk then why are some genomes so much smaller. So rice is not a good example. Maybe there are some. If there are some then then that might say something about the necessity of non coding genes. But at the moment I do not have a good example so I will drop it for the time being.