Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

When Darwinism infects popular culture, confusion follows as well as nonsense

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email
File:Nostradamus prophecies.jpg

Every so often, one reads a sentence that just takes one’s breath away from an otherwise intelligent writer who uses Darwinism to help explain the world: This from Colin Dickey’s “Quack Prophet” (Lapham’s Quarterly):

Whether it’s the Dead Sea Scrolls or Finnegan’s Wake, there’s a long literary history of taking the garbled and the fragmented and looking for lucid meaning beneath. The science writer and professional skeptic Michael Shermer has gone so far as to argue that we’re hard-wired, from an evolutionary perspective, to look for such hidden meanings. “From sensory data flowing in through the senses the brain naturally begins to look for and find patterns, and then infuses those patterns with meaning,” Shermer writes. “We can’t help it. Our brains evolved to connect the dots of our world.” By adjusting the signal-to-noise ratio, Nostradamus introduced enough static into his Prophecies that they could be all things to all readers, poetic Rorschach blots of detail and blur.

Excuse us, but: The Dead Sea Scrolls are a remarkable 1947 find (since augmented) of a group of manuscript fragments and artifacts that everyone knew had lucid meaning, but awaited translation and clarification. You didn’t need to be “hard-wired” to notice any of that. Finnegan’s Wake is a deliberately obscure novel written by Irish novelist James Joyce, pored over by generations of academic dullards – to Joyce’s huge amusement, had he lived to see that entire circus play out. Much of it probably did have some meaning; it was written in English by an already successful novelist. Again, no “hardwiring” required to suppose that, though a certain amount of denseness for spending a lot of time on the problem.

It’s not like seeing patterns in the clouds, which might actually be evidence for Shermer’s thesis if not pressed too far – which it nearly always is.

Conflating the Scrolls and Finnegan’s Wake, spiced up with some Shermerite nonsense about how our brains evolved to … whatever, is an appalling but telling example of cultural Darwinism at work.

Those who don’t believe in meaning corrupt and confound it.

Note: The ostensible subject of the piece is that reliable checkout counter tabloid icon, the “prophet” Nostradamus, who was obscure for an entirely unrelated reason – to avoid falsification. Reminds one of something, no … ?

Comments
"Explain why the origins of biological fsci cannot be inferred from the origins of non-biological fsci." Because that: 1) Lacks an observation-the inference of design is based on an the probability of large amounts biological fsci arising at once, beyond the universal probability bound. No observation, no point to the inference (especially when smaller incremental increases in biological fsci are observed). 2) Lacks a reasonable metric-no one can actually calculate fsci for any meaningful biological object. 3) Using an unlimited inference is an abuse of logic. Present human designs that are non-biological fcsi explain biological fsci in the past? If I intentionally drop a ball, are all falling objects past and present intentionally dropped? In 1850, the only mechanical transport was steam-engine based. Human design. By inference, would a ID advocate of the time one conclude mechanical transport in nature use must the same mechanism? ======================= By the way, KF, I saw how you referred to non-believers as gangrenous, and then closed the comments to that thread. How very kind of you. Ironic how much anger and 'turnabout' you spewed forth on a thread dedicated to showing how only your opposition has those faults. But let us keep is substantive. Can you provide me an empirical example of biological fsci arising at once, and exceeding the universal probability bound? Provide the calculation.DrREC
November 7, 2011
November
11
Nov
7
07
2011
02:24 PM
2
02
24
PM
PDT
ScottAndrews2
Last week you demanded that KF prove that a volcano wasn’t designed.
No I didn't. I asked him to validate his claimed process for detecting design with a real world example, and he couldn't do it. Please stop lying about what was said. It's not Christian.
Now you want me to argue that a simple chemical reaction does require intelligence. Trolling
No, just pointing out the flaws in your claims. You say everything that gets assembled needs intelligence. I showed you how something was assembled with no intelligence required. Looks like your claim is busted.GinoB
November 7, 2011
November
11
Nov
7
07
2011
08:12 AM
8
08
12
AM
PDT
GinoB, Last week you demanded that KF prove that a volcano wasn't designed. Now you want me to argue that a simple chemical reaction does require intelligence. Trolling.ScottAndrews2
November 7, 2011
November
11
Nov
7
07
2011
07:59 AM
7
07
59
AM
PDT
The great scientist Max Planck said the following during his Nobel Prize acceptance speech:
"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this minute solar system of the atom together . . . . We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind."
Joseph
November 7, 2011
November
11
Nov
7
07
2011
07:53 AM
7
07
53
AM
PDT
ScottAndrews2
Try assembling a piece of furniture from pieces that were not deliberately collected to carry out a previous design and see how far you get. That you even have pieces which can be assembled to form a finished product indicates intelligence and planning. Or, if you have all of the correct pieces, try assembling them without instructions (input from the designer) and without using any intelligence (biting my tongue here.) You will quickly find that intelligence of some sort is required for the final assembly.
I'll ask the same question again. NH3 + HCl --> NH4Cl Where is intelligence required to assemble the ammonium chloride?GinoB
November 7, 2011
November
11
Nov
7
07
2011
07:50 AM
7
07
50
AM
PDT
GinoB, Try assembling a piece of furniture from pieces that were not deliberately collected to carry out a previous design and see how far you get. That you even have pieces which can be assembled to form a finished product indicates intelligence and planning. Or, if you have all of the correct pieces, try assembling them without instructions (input from the designer) and without using any intelligence (biting my tongue here.) You will quickly find that intelligence of some sort is required for the final assembly. Notice that these simple truths can be observed through countless examples in the reality we inhabit. To observe that regularity and explain the consistency is scientific. To insist that a far more advanced assembly is the exception to the rest of observed reality, which would make it consistent with nothing at all, is ignorance.ScottAndrews2
November 7, 2011
November
11
Nov
7
07
2011
07:27 AM
7
07
27
AM
PDT
We can’t help but be suspicious of “evidence” that is always expressed as abstractions such as fitness landscapes, but never through specific examples. Without such, how can you know that your abstractions hold water?
I think that's a fair point, Scott, which is why I keep suggesting we drop the metaphor! But if questions are posed in terms of "search" then "fitness landscape" is the relevant abstract level. But I'd much rather talk about basic processes, which is why, rather than "natural selection" I tend to talk about "differential reproductive success" which is all it is, and instead of "RM+NS", of "self-replication with heritable variance in reproductive success". I think it's terribly important to be aware of what we are talking about at any given time, and unfortunately we have no lost DrBot, who has a great deal of relevant knowledge in this domain (for absolutely no good reason, I have to say - kf accused him of saying something he simply did not say, and then I gather he was banned for quite understandably responding to a "libel" charge with a wink-smiley'd libel comment of his own! Anyway just thought I'd throw that in there, as it's one of a number of reasons I'm trying to abstract myself from these conversations!) To understand the "fitness landscape" metaphor, it's really important to distinguish between phenotype (the entity that reproduces) and genotype (the component of the phenotype that ensures a high degree of reproductive fidelity), and also between "individual" and "population" and I think this is not always clear in these discussions (it certainly hasn't been in this one). So if people make claims about "search" and "islands of functionality" then those have to be understood in terms of "fitness function". But much better to drop those terms IMO, and figure out what they are metaphors for.Elizabeth Liddle
November 7, 2011
November
11
Nov
7
07
2011
07:13 AM
7
07
13
AM
PDT
GinoB:
What about the raw materials, manufacture, and assembly of your claimed ‘designed’ biological life? When were they done, and where, and how?
That is what science is for- if we knew all the answers we wouldn't need science. And if your position had some positive evidence to support it you wouldn't need to attack ID with your ignorant spewage.Joseph
November 7, 2011
November
11
Nov
7
07
2011
06:59 AM
6
06
59
AM
PDT
ScottAndrews2
Why assume that design must occur in one step? I put together an entertainment center. It took 15, for me, more if you count preparing and packing the materials and printing instructions.
That's the assembly part, not the design part. Human designed products usually go through multiple separate stages - design, collection of raw materials, manufacturing of the parts, assembly of the parts. All you keep asserting is the design part. What about the raw materials, manufacture, and assembly of your claimed 'designed' biological life? When were they done, and where, and how?
That’s heavier burden for the materialist because there is nothing from which to extrapolate or infer, and the only research in progress attempts to emulate intelligent design.
LOL! "THAR AIN'T NO DARN EVIDENCE!!" That gets funnier every time you claim it.GinoB
November 7, 2011
November
11
Nov
7
07
2011
06:07 AM
6
06
07
AM
PDT
Elizabeth,
Fortunately, in a high dimensioned fitness landscape, there will be a rich network of such connections, and we know that biological populations inhabit a high dimensioned fitness landscape.
We can't help but be suspicious of "evidence" that is always expressed as abstractions such as fitness landscapes, but never through specific examples. Without such, how can you know that your abstractions hold water?ScottAndrews2
November 7, 2011
November
11
Nov
7
07
2011
06:01 AM
6
06
01
AM
PDT
Petrushka, Why assume that design must occur in one step? I put together an entertainment center. It took 15, for me, more if you count preparing and packing the materials and printing instructions. That's beside the point. No one has observed anything. Until Szostak, etc. successfully demonstrate the deliberate design of a living organism, extrapolation and inference are the tools in our box. That's heavier burden for the materialist because there is nothing from which to extrapolate or infer, and the only research in progress attempts to emulate intelligent design.ScottAndrews2
November 7, 2011
November
11
Nov
7
07
2011
05:49 AM
5
05
49
AM
PDT
All you need to do is demonstrate that cells originated in one step. Were you there?Petrushka
November 7, 2011
November
11
Nov
7
07
2011
05:30 AM
5
05
30
AM
PDT
Elizabeth:
Darwinian processes (which include, but are not restricted to, the generation of genotypic variance by “duplication, recombination and other tricks”)
As far as you know duplications and recombinations are design mechanisms. IOW once again you are begging the question.Joseph
November 7, 2011
November
11
Nov
7
07
2011
03:57 AM
3
03
57
AM
PDT
Dr Liddle: Kindly cf here with here (and context!), noting the very recent Chaitin paper. (Do not omit the original post by Dr Torley, please.) Pardon fair comment but I think some rethinking will be in order on your part. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
November 7, 2011
November
11
Nov
7
07
2011
02:53 AM
2
02
53
AM
PDT
How many times more do we need to point out to evolutionists that “unfit parameter combos” are not low places but areas where where fitness is not defined?!
I hope one less time than the number of times evolutionists need to "point out" that this is nonsense!
Search is not physically possible across islands of functionality. Gene duplication, recombination and other tricks won’t take us far enough, e.g. from a cell to a human.
No, it isn't. That's what we are saying. Darwinian processes (which include, but are not restricted to, the generation of genotypic variance by "duplication, recombination and other tricks") won't carry populations across very wide plains or very deep gulfs in fitness space. So we should observe, as we do, the exploration of fitness space that is connected by moderately wide plains or upward slopes, and only obstructed by narrow ravines of limited depth. Fortunately, in a high dimensioned fitness landscape, there will be a rich network of such connections, and we know that biological populations inhabit a high dimensioned fitness landscape.
Evo story telling again and again. Maybe it is time to remind that the number of times alone these fairy tales are repeated with the air of knowledge but without evidence will not make them come true.
What I am seeing here is ID story-telling about evolutionary straw men! Perhaps the problem is the metaphor. Let's try without.Elizabeth Liddle
November 7, 2011
November
11
Nov
7
07
2011
02:40 AM
2
02
40
AM
PDT
ScottAndrews2
Put it in your own words. I’ll no longer afford you the respect of wasting my time reading whatever you dig up.
How can you stop doing something you never did in the first place?
Why should I think that this is any different from anything you’ve posted on this board, or on the other where you troll under the name Thorton? Enough of you
Fine by me. I offered a truce and a chance for civil discussion. I'm not surprised you refused, since you know your scientific incompetence would be brutally exposed. I do hope those brown stains wash out of your shorts.GinoB
November 6, 2011
November
11
Nov
6
06
2011
10:56 AM
10
10
56
AM
PDT
GinoB, Put it in your own words. I'll no longer afford you the respect of wasting my time reading whatever you dig up. Why should I think that this is any different from anything you've posted on this board, or on the other where you troll under the name Thorton? Enough of you.ScottAndrews2
November 6, 2011
November
11
Nov
6
06
2011
10:44 AM
10
10
44
AM
PDT
17.1.1.1.3 How many times more do we need to point out to evolutionists that "unfit parameter combos" are not low places but areas where where fitness is not defined?! Search is not physically possible across islands of functionality. Gene duplication, recombination and other tricks won't take us far enough, e.g. from a cell to a human. Evo story telling again and again. Maybe it is time to remind that the number of times alone these fairy tales are repeated with the air of knowledge but without evidence will not make them come true.Eugene S
November 6, 2011
November
11
Nov
6
06
2011
10:27 AM
10
10
27
AM
PDT
ScottAndrews2
GinoB: "ScottAndrew2 has also admitted to being a Biblical Creationist. So don’t go blustering that no one is using ID to support their religious position." You don’t know anything about my religious position other than that I believe God created things.
Then you're a Biblical Creationist, exactly as I said. Nothing wrong with that per se, except you seem to be ashamed of it for some reason.
My religious beliefs extend far beyond who created what and when. I cannot use ID to support them because ID does not support them.
Then I'll ask again - why are you posting on a supposedly scientific ID website? There are lots of sites online for Christian Apologetics.
But you are a troll. That is an established term which refers to a known behavior, that of entering an internet discussion for the sole purpose of harassing and mocking others or disrupting the discussion.
Which describes your behavior to a T. Projecting your actions and calling others who point out your scientific ineptitude a troll is another time-honored Creationist tactic. I do agree that we rub each other the wrong way, and I for one am willing to call a truce. I'm also still willing to civilly discuss the details of those scientific papers. Want to give me your explanation, ID or otherwise, for the evidence in the treehopper helmet evolution one? Ignoring the evidence won't make it go away.GinoB
November 6, 2011
November
11
Nov
6
06
2011
09:19 AM
9
09
19
AM
PDT
No, I know that wasn't your intention, Scott, but I think it is quite an important point all the same :) The "nitpicks" are actually rather important details! So let me ask you: what kind transition do you have in mind that is critically more than the kind of evolution of, say, beak sizes in response to changes in seed sizes? Because my point was that "reptiles" didn't "evolve into birds and mammals". Amniotes diverged into saurapsids and synapsids; mammals evolved from the synapsid branch, while the saurapsids (sometimes called "reptilia" but not "reptiles") diverged into various lineages, including turtles down one route, lizards down another, and birds down another.Elizabeth Liddle
November 6, 2011
November
11
Nov
6
06
2011
09:14 AM
9
09
14
AM
PDT
GinoB,
ScottAndrew2 has also admitted to being a Biblical Creationist. So don’t go blustering that no one is using ID to support their religious position.
You don't know anything about my religious position other than that I believe God created things. The only time I have mentioned my religious belief in the context of this ID discussion is when you repeatedly demanded it. I am not interested in discussing my religion in this context. First you demand that I identify my religious beliefs. Now you see exactly why I did not. Because now you seize upon it and suggest that I'm pushing those beliefs - the very ones I declined to bring up. When I don't express them, you call me a hypocrite. Then, when after repeated demands I do express them, you accuse me of pushing them on you and others. My religious beliefs extend far beyond who created what and when. I cannot use ID to support them because ID does not support them. I've been reasonably civil. Unlike you, I do not resort to childish name-calling (liar, hypocrite, gutter-dweller, moron, slimy, butt-hurt girl. [???]) I guess you have to use whatever tools are in your box. But you are a troll. That is an established term which refers to a known behavior, that of entering an internet discussion for the sole purpose of harassing and mocking others or disrupting the discussion. You've been shown a surprising amount of patience and tolerance. I hope they run out soon, as I'm sure many others do.ScottAndrews2
November 6, 2011
November
11
Nov
6
06
2011
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PDT
Elizabeth, (In response to "Then I’ve misunderstood. I thought the idea was that over time reptiles had evolved into mammals and birds, and so on."
Actually no. Or not exactly. It’s really important IMO to distinguish between longitudinal differentiation and lateral diversification.
You mean well, but it wasn't my intention to give a complete summary of evolutionary theory, and it was unnecessary for you to reply with one. It was just a sentence that was part of a thought I was forming. Unless it is not the case that, according to evolution, reptiles evolved into birds and mammals, then there's really no need to nitpick. It would really be a burden if I couldn't just make a statement like that without having to spell out the theory in detail.ScottAndrews2
November 6, 2011
November
11
Nov
6
06
2011
08:40 AM
8
08
40
AM
PDT
kairosfocus
What GB is doing here is the smear tactic of trying to imply that design theory and the design movement are nothing more than a stalking horse for Biblical Young Earth [based on the examples chosen] Creationism.
KF, it was Joseph who first brought up Noah's Flood and baraminology and claimed there was scientific evidence for them, not me. ScottAndrew2 has also admitted to being a Biblical Creationist. So don't go blustering that no one is using ID to support their religious position.
In a parallel thread, Joseph explicitly disclaims Christian affiliation.
Joseph at various times over the last few years has claimed to be a Christian, and an atheist, and a Muslim. He's also at times claimed to be an Iraqi war hero, and a practicing scientist, and an airline pilot, and an Olympic class athlete, and an expert in genetic algorithms. You take what he says with a bucketful of salt.GinoB
November 6, 2011
November
11
Nov
6
06
2011
07:10 AM
7
07
10
AM
PDT
GinoB:
Joseph, please tell us more about your evidence for Noah’s Flood, baraminology, and Adam & Eve.
1- The evidence for baraminology comes from SCIENCE 2- The evidence for a global flood also comes from science 3- And I am unaware of any evidence for Adam and Eve But please, we are all waiting, tell us about this alleged evidence for your position?Joseph
November 6, 2011
November
11
Nov
6
06
2011
05:57 AM
5
05
57
AM
PDT
Then I’ve misunderstood. I thought the idea was that over time reptiles had evolved into mammals and birds, and so on.
Actually no. Or not exactly. It's really important IMO to distinguish between longitudinal differentiation and lateral diversification. The first is how about things change along one lineage, which is always incremental. That's what we call adaptation. The second is about differences between different lineages at any one time, where there will be (by definition, in fact) discontinuities. That's what we call speciation. But the nomenclature is confusing, not least because down some lineages there will be fairly little adaptive evolution (modern reptiles resemble there reptilia ancestors quite closely) whereas down others there will be much more (birds and mammals resemble neither modern reptiles nor each other very closely, but and bear much less resemblance than modern reptiles do to their common reptilia ancestor). So all adaptation is longitudinally stepwise (as in finch beaks et al), but speciation is the name we give to the divergence, laterally, between lineages, and results in lateral discontinuities (so birds can't mate with mammal, nor even chimps with orangutans, although perhaps lions with tigers at a pinch).
If you’re not claiming that evolution is the primary cause of such biological diversification, but rather tinkers with finch beaks and lizard heads and makes cichlid fish change colors, then we are in agreement, and we can leave it there.
And so evolution is indeed the "primary cause" of biological diversification, but diversification occurs when different lineages adapt in the usual way, incrementally, but independently (because the populations stop interbreeding, and cease to share the same gene pool).Elizabeth Liddle
November 6, 2011
November
11
Nov
6
06
2011
05:23 AM
5
05
23
AM
PDT
Well, I think we stay almost on common ground on the fundamental points. Maybe some clarifications are still needed, however:
polint b) About the symbolic character of DNA information, what I mean is only that the codons “represent” aminoacids. That is symbolic, IMO, because the codons in themselves are not related to the AAs except for a symbolic association. But is the word causes problems, it’s fine for me to define that simply a “mapping”. The important point is that the particular mapping is not determined by biochemical laws (more on thet after). This looks circular to me, gpuccio. You are saying that the relationship of codon to amino acid is "symbolic" because they are only related via a "symbolic association". So let's call it a "mapping" which has slightly less semiotic baggage, and deal with the "biochemical laws" later :)
point c) I am not sure what you mean here: “yes, I accept that, as long as we are only talking about mRNA after editing. At that point, the mapping is one-to-one-or-more, and all units are triplets.” As far as I can see, the mapping is many-to-one both in DNA and in mRNA. mRNA splicing takes away the non coding parts. But for the coding parts, the mapping is always many-to-on (many codons map to one and only one aminoacid, or a stop signal).
Well, tryptophan is only mapped to UGG, and methionine only to AUG. But apart from that niggle, sure, we agree on this - the important thing is that each possible codon is only mapped to not more than one amino acid.
point d) Here there is perhaps a significant difference. When I say that there is no biochemical law that connects the codons to the AAs, I mean just that: the laws of biochemistry do not connect the codons to the AAs, and the mapping is arbitrary, biochemically.
Yes, but that doesn't mean there isn't perfectly good chain of causality.
Your discussion about the “selection of the set” is not pertinent here. We are just dealing with the necessity laws of biochemicstry here, the laws that explain why some molecules react with others and how.
In my view it is highly pertinent. A set that maps each possible codon to no more than one amino acid is going to result in far closer mapping of genotype to phenotype than a set in which each possible codon may map to more than one amino acid. This means that the fewer amino acids mapped to each codon the higher better the reproductive prospects for the offspring of a parent with useful protein. This means that a set with this characteristic is evolvable.
Moreover, you insist in attributing the decoding of the code to tRNAs. That is wrong. The decoding is effected by the tRNA aminoacyl synthetases, as clearly stated in my post. The tRNAs in themselves have no information about the code.
I agree that it was an over-simplification. However I disagree that "the tRNAs in themselves have no information about the code". For a start I think we need to be very careful with that word "information": who or what is being "informed" here? What is the information transfer process in question? The process by which a specific amino acid is "called" by an RNA triplet involves the unique tRNA molecule that binds specifically to that triplet, and the tRNA synthetase that effects the binding of the a unique (normally - not always) amino acid to that tRNA molecule. It seems to me you can't really say that the "information" about the mapping resides in one place rather than the other. If the tRNA set were not one per codon, there could be no mapping, and if the tRNA synthetase did not effect the binding of a unique amino acid to each tRNA molecule, the mapping wouldn't be accomplished. Both are necessary.
point f) “Independently” means that we have two different objects that are “built” around the code: the gene codes for a specific protein according to the code; and the 20 tRNA aminoacyl synthetases are built so that they can couple the right aminoacid (according nto the code) to the right tRNA with the right anticodon.
But what is "independent" about these three sets of objects (codon, tRNA molecule, tRNA synthetase)? It seems to me that they are extremely tightly coupled, not "independent" at all.
Now, protein coding genes and AARS are different objects. That’s why I say that they are “independently” connected to the code. Whatever the explanation for the origin of the code, it must explain both how information is coded in the genes and how the 20 proteins that translate the code emerged.
OK, maybe I see what you are getting at. I agree it is a multipart system. I do not see the parts as "independent" however, and now you use the word "emerged" we are right back at my point that you earlier dismissed as irrelevant - selection. Now, I'm perfectly willing (how could I be otherwise?) to concede that we do not yet know how the "genetic code" emerged. However, I do reject the idea that there is anything inherently mysterious or baffling about its origins, and I think the idea that there is ("therefore ID") possibly arises from this idea that the parts are "independent" in some way. Meyer makes a similar point in The Signature in the Cell, and it's essentially an Irreducible Complexity argument - that you need to have all the components of the coding process in place before any of it will work, and until any of it works, Darwinian processes can't begin. I don't think this is a safe assumption - I don't see any reason why coding systems can't evolve from very simple beginnings, as reproductive fidelity itself will tend to have reproductive advantages, as will phenotypic fidelity to the genotype.
You say: The set of 20 tRNA molecules will give you the mapping, but you couldn’t derive the mapping without access to that set. An alien, given only the genome, would be hard pressed to derive the mapping, unless they could figure out where in the genome the tRNA molecule templates would be found. First of all, again, it’s not the tRNA templates that give access to the code. It’s the 20 AARS. And your statement is wrong: the code can be decoded by the knowledge of the protein genes and of their corresponding proteins, without any knowledge of the translation process.
We are misunderstanding each other. Obviously if you know the "protein genes and ... their corresponsding proteins" you can decode the code, because you've just been handed the code! But see above, also.
Or, as it was really done, if you have a cell free system that can synthesize proteins you can just go by trial and error and decode the code, even if you have no idea of how the system you are using works.
I agree entirely, but first you need the "cell free system that can synthesise proteins". That system (derived from cells) contains the information you want to retrieve.
The point is: the results of the system are a clear key to the code used in the system, even if the implementation of the process is not known.
I agree. Good place to pause :)Elizabeth Liddle
November 6, 2011
November
11
Nov
6
06
2011
05:11 AM
5
05
11
AM
PDT
The causal features that best explain a "digital" pattern would be those phenomena that have been observed to produce at least part of the pattern. One does not have to observe an entire orbit of Pluto to infer that an orbit is the best explanation of its current position. Nor does one have to observe the entire history of life to infer that known and observable processes can produce the changes that make one vertebrate different from another. Particularly, since those changes do not require new protein domains (the sticking point of Behe's Edge).Petrushka
November 6, 2011
November
11
Nov
6
06
2011
04:44 AM
4
04
44
AM
PDT
Elizabeth: Well, I think we stay almost on common ground on the fundamental points. Maybe some clarifications are still needed, however: polint b) About the symbolic character of DNA information, what I mean is only that the codons "represent" aminoacids. That is symbolic, IMO, because the codons in themselves are not related to the AAs except for a symbolic association. But is the word causes problems, it's fine for me to define that simply a "mapping". The important point is that the particular mapping is not determined by biochemical laws (more on thet after). point c) I am not sure what you mean here: "yes, I accept that, as long as we are only talking about mRNA after editing. At that point, the mapping is one-to-one-or-more, and all units are triplets." As far as I can see, the mapping is many-to-one both in DNA and in mRNA. mRNA splicing takes away the non coding parts. But for the coding parts, the mapping is always many-to-on (many codons map to one and only one aminoacid, or a stop signal). point d) Here there is perhaps a significant difference. When I say that there is no biochemical law that connects the codons to the AAs, I mean just that: the laws of biochemistry do not connect the codons to the AAs, and the mapping is arbitrary, biochemically. Your discussion about the "selection of the set" is not pertinent here. We are just dealing with the necessity laws of biochemicstry here, the laws that explain why some molecules react with others and how. Moreover, you insist in attributing the decoding of the code to tRNAs. That is wrong. The decoding is effected by the tRNA aminoacyl synthetases, as clearly stated in my post. The tRNAs in themselves have no information about the code. point f) "Independently" means that we have two different objects that are "built" around the code: the gene codes for a specific protein according to the code; and the 20 tRNA aminoacyl synthetases are built so that they can couple the right aminoacid (according nto the code) to the right tRNA with the right anticodon. Now, protein coding genes and AARS are different objects. That's why I say that they are "independently" connected to the code. Whatever the explanation for the origin of the code, it must explain both how information is coded in the genes and how the 20 proteins that translate the code emerged. You say: The set of 20 tRNA molecules will give you the mapping, but you couldn’t derive the mapping without access to that set. An alien, given only the genome, would be hard pressed to derive the mapping, unless they could figure out where in the genome the tRNA molecule templates would be found. First of all, again, it's not the tRNA templates that give access to the code. It's the 20 AARS. And your statement is wrong: the code can be decoded by the knowledge of the protein genes and of their corresponding proteins, without any knowledge of the translation process. Or, as it was really done, if you have a cell free system that can synthesize proteins you can just go by trial and error and decode the code, even if you have no idea of how the system you are using works. The point is: the results of the system are a clear key to the code used in the system, even if the implementation of the process is not known. More in next postgpuccio
November 6, 2011
November
11
Nov
6
06
2011
04:03 AM
4
04
03
AM
PDT
Onlookers: In a parallel thread, Joseph explicitly disclaims Christian affiliation. What GB is doing here is the smear tactic of trying to imply that design theory and the design movement are nothing more than a stalking horse for Biblical Young Earth [based on the examples chosen] Creationism. Since this has been repeatedly corrected in easily accessible fora, including the resources tab top of this and every UD page, this is an irresponsible, willful misrepresentation continued in the teeth of correction. It is therefore time to bring to bear a little point from Wikipedia (which that online encyclopedia itself needs to heed on this subject):
Those who indulge in the more stubbornly correction-resistant forms of such selective hyperskepticism should therefore reflect soberly, slowly and seriously on this Wikipedia summary definition of lying (acc: Jul 23, 2011):
To lie is to state something with disregard to the truth with the intention that people will accept the statement as truth . . . . even a true statement can be used to deceive. In this situation, it is the intent of being overall untruthful rather than the truthfulness of any individual statement that is considered the lie . . . . One can state part of the truth out of context, knowing that without complete information, it gives a false impression. Likewise, one can actually state accurate facts, yet deceive with them . . . . One lies by omission when omitting an important fact, deliberately leaving another person with a misconception. Lying by omission includes failures to correct pre-existing misconceptions. Also known as a continuing misrepresentation . . . . A misleading statement is one where there is no outright lie, but still retains the purpose of getting someone to believe in an untruth . . .
GB et al know, or should know, that design theory is quite different from Creationism in focus, methods and view of empirical, scientific investigations. However, having successfully smeared Creationists decades ago, it is ever so easy to resort to smearing design thinkers that they are just creationists hiding in cheap tuxedos. Moreover, by promoting that misrepresentation, they are resorting to bigotry and bias, in the hope of poisoning and polarising an atmosphere to their advantage. This all too common disregard for duties of care to truth and fairness, we should take due note of in further dealings with such, as well as the underlying issue that the evolutionary materialism that so often drives such, is inherently amoral and tends to view moral sensibilities as little more than handy levers of emotional manipulation. Most recently we saw -- kindly, cf OP, discussion and onward links here [including Dr Torley's 10 questions post and the linked videos . . . ] before assuming I do not know what I am talking about -- that in the case of professor Dawkins, on record that he cannot ground moral objections to either infanticide or Hitler's holocaust etc, and yet who wants to smear another person -- in the teeth of easily accessible facts to the contrary -- for allegedly supporting genocide; full well knowing that this false accusation will also spread a blanket of poisonous suspicion against Christians in general. So, we can add up a few things:
a: falsely smearing design theorists and the design movement as a fraud carried out by creationists + b: falsely smearing Creationists and others who have questions regarding the evolutionary materialist paradigm and worldview as ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked + c: falsely accusing those who object to the imposition of evolutionary materialism unto even the definition of science and/or the carrying out of morally questionable scientific investigations as being anti-science (in an era where science is the closest thing to a consensus good for the community) + d: too often using the term "fundamentalist" or the like and invidious comparisons to IslamIST terrorists or the like to smear Bible believing Christians as would-be violent theocratic terrorists and tyrants + e: now trying to spread a blanket of poisonous suspicion that Christians support genocide ___________________________ = f: Bigotry-driven willful disrespect, abuse, belittling, willful misrepresentation and demonisation -- in some cases amounting to blood libel calculated to stir up hostility or even hate against the new cultural scapegoats; those dangerous fundy dummy Bible-thumping Christians, including those hiding behind lab coats and science, medicine, math, engineering or philosophy graduate degrees
Such a pattern is very, very, very dangerous. And yet, it is playing out before our eyes. Something is very wrong here, and GB et al need to clean up their act. Before it is bloodily too late. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
November 6, 2011
November
11
Nov
6
06
2011
03:45 AM
3
03
45
AM
PDT
Connected by ridges of equal (or at least not hugely unequal) phenotypic fitness. To stick with the metaphor (and remember fitness space is high-dimensioned), fitness space (i.e. sets of parameter values affect phenotypic fitness) consists of lots of low places (unfit parameter combos), and far fewer high places (fit parameter combos). If the the fitness landscape is such that the height of one spot in the landscape bears no correlation with the height of neighbouring spots, then Darwinian search algorithms will be no more effective at finding the high spots that random search. And if those high spots are rare, then the probability of any search algorithm finding any of the high spots will be low. However, if there is a correlation between the height of one spot and the height of neighbouring spots (spatial autocorrelation) then Darwinian search algorithms will tend to find the high spots in regions of fitness space where the spatial autocorrelation is high. It won't find (won't get near) those islands of fitness in which the spatial autocorrelation is low. So the question is: what is the nature of the biological fitness landscape? Does it include a network of spatially autocorrelated fitness? The answer appears to be yes. To abandon the metaphor (because they can get in the way): Breeding populations (goes the theory), over time, will tend to exhibit greatest prevalence of genes, or alleles of genes that tend to maximise the probability of reproductive success within the current environment. New alleles, and sometimes new genes, are constantly being generated by means of substitution, insertion, deletion, duplication and recombination during the reproductive process, most of which are near-neutral in effect. This means that the gene pool in a population is continually fed by near-neutral novelty, giving populations of substantial size the capacity to absorb environmental change, which includes changes to allele prevalences in the population itself. It also includes changes to the "genetic environment" - in other words new alleles or genes are generated in an existing genetic context, and at least in sexually reproducting populations, this opens the door to potentially beneficial gene x gene interactions. And because of these feedback loops between changes in allele freqency and phenotypic fitness, we would expect (as in any feedback system) to see non-linear rates of change in phenotypic characteristics (e.g. "punk eek").Elizabeth Liddle
November 6, 2011
November
11
Nov
6
06
2011
03:15 AM
3
03
15
AM
PDT
1 2 3 12

Leave a Reply