Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Is Mathgirl Smarter than Orgel and Wicken Combined? Doubtful.

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Mathgirl wrote in a comment to my last post:  “My conclusion is that, without a rigorous mathematical definition and examples of how to calculate [CSI], the metric is literally meaningless.  Without such a definition and examples, it isn’t possible even in principle to associate the term with a real world referent.”

Let’s examine that.  GEM brings to our attention two materialists who embraced the concept, Orgel [1973] and Wicken [1979].

Orgel:

. . . In brief, living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals are usually taken as the prototypes of simple well-specified structures, because they consist of a very large number of identical molecules packed together in a uniform way. Lumps of granite or random mixtures of polymers are examples of structures that are complex but not specified. The crystals fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; the mixtures of polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity.

The Origins of Life (John Wiley, 1973), p. 189.

Wicken:

‘Organized’ systems are to be carefully distinguished from ‘ordered’ systems. Neither kind of system is ‘random,’ but whereas ordered systems are generated according to simple algorithms [[i.e. “simple” force laws acting on objects starting from arbitrary and common- place initial conditions] and therefore lack complexity, organized systems must be assembled element by element according to an [[originally . . . ] external ‘wiring diagram’ with a high information content . . . Organization, then, is functional complexity and carries information. It is non-random by design or by selection, rather than by the a priori necessity of crystallographic ‘order.’

“The Generation of Complexity in Evolution: A Thermodynamic and Information-Theoretical Discussion,” Journal of Theoretical Biology, 77 (April 1979): p. 353, of pp. 349-65.]

I assume mathgirl believes Orgel and Wicken were talking meaningless nonsense.  Or maybe she doesn’t and that’s why she has dodged GEM’s challenge at every turn.

Be that as it may, both dyed-in-the-wool materialists and ID advocates understand that living things are characterized by CSI.  Indeed, the law recognizes that DNA is characterized by CSI.  Recently a federal judge wrote:

Myriad’s focus on the chemical nature of DNA, however, fails to acknowledge the unique characteristics of DNA that differentiate it from other chemical compounds. As Myriad’s expert Dr. Joseph Straus observed: “Genes are of double nature: On the one hand, they are chemical substances or molecules. On the other hand, they are physical carriers of information, i.e., where the actual biological function of this information is coding for proteins. Thus, inherently genes are multifunctional.” Straus Decl. 1 20; see also The Cell at 98, 104 (“Today the idea that DNA carries genetic information in its long chain of nucleotides is so fundamental to biological thought that it is sometimes difficult to realize the enormous intellectual gap that it filled. . . . DNA is relatively inert chemically.”); Kevin Davies & Michael White, Breakthrough: The Race to Find the Breast Cancer Gene 166 (1996) (noting that Myriad Genetics’ April 1994 press release described itself as a “genetic information business”). This informational quality is unique among the chemical compounds found in our bodies, and it would be erroneous to view DNA as “no different[]” than other chemicals previously the subject of patents.

Myriad’s argument that all chemical compounds, such as the adrenaline at issue in Parke-Davis, necessarily conveys some information ignores the biological realities of DNA in comparison to other chemical compounds in the body. The information encoded in DNA is not information about its own molecular structure incidental to its biological function, as is the case with adrenaline or other chemicals found in the body. Rather, the information encoded by DNA reflects its primary biological function: directing the synthesis of other molecules in the body – namely, proteins, “biological molecules of enormous importance” which “catalyze biochemical reactions” and constitute the “major structural materials of the animal body.” O’Farrell, 854 F.2d at 895-96. DNA, and in particular the ordering of its nucleotides, therefore serves as the physical embodiment of laws of nature – those that define the construction of the human body. Any “information” that may be embodied by adrenaline and similar molecules serves no comparable function, and none of the declarations submitted by Myriad support such a conclusion. Consequently, the use of simple analogies comparing DNA with chemical compounds previously the subject of patents cannot replace consideration of the distinctive characteristics of DNA.

In light of DNA’s unique qualities as a physical embodiment of information, none of the structural and functional differences cited by Myriad between native BRCA1/2 DNA and the isolated BRCA1/2 DNA claimed in the patents-in-suit render the claimed DNA “markedly different.” This conclusion is driven by the overriding importance of DNA’s nucleotide sequence to both its natural biological function as well as the utility associated with DNA in its isolated form. The preservation of this defining characteristic of DNA in its native and isolated forms mandates the conclusion that the challenged composition claims are directed to unpatentable products of nature.

Association for Molecular Pathology v. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, 702 F.Supp.2d 181 (S.D.N.Y. 2010).

Maybe mathgirl knows something that this federal court or Orgel or Wicken didn’t when she says CSI is a meaningless concept.  But I doubt it.

Comments
Perhaps curiousity killed the idcurious... :cool:Joseph
April 18, 2011
April
04
Apr
18
18
2011
04:34 PM
4
04
34
PM
PDT
I do wish the moderators would simply announce when & why a poster was banned.critter
April 18, 2011
April
04
Apr
18
18
2011
04:03 PM
4
04
03
PM
PDT
CH: The idea that nature is all there is, and everything reduces to time plus chance plus matter-energy and the forces of mechanical necessity that drive it, is an assumption, not a conclusion on facts. For instance, it is utterly incapable of accounting for our experience of ourselves as self-moved, significantly free thinking and choosing, minded, embodied beings. Indeed, the evolutionary materialist worldview reduces to self referential incoherence when it tries to address the mind. And that has been known for a very long time. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
April 17, 2011
April
04
Apr
17
17
2011
04:16 PM
4
04
16
PM
PDT
Noesis,
I agree entirely. Philosophical naturalism is a stance of some scientists. However, I cannot see any practical benefit in concluding that some phenomenon is due to supernatural intervention, even if it actually is. Science seeks always to explain nature in terms of nature.
Supernature and nature are philosophical assumptions. Because what we call nature repeats and holds steady doesn't mean that we really understand it, all we do is describe it by science. So it cannot be used as a rule to rule anything else out.Clive Hayden
April 17, 2011
April
04
Apr
17
17
2011
02:22 PM
2
02
22
PM
PDT
C & U: I suggest you look at IDC's track record over the past day or so, especially compared with J, noting what happened when both -- J in the lead [vulgarity] -- were called on to clean up their act. J apologised, IDC doubled down. A telling contrast. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
April 17, 2011
April
04
Apr
17
17
2011
02:18 PM
2
02
18
PM
PDT
critter @ 284: Most likely "in moderation" (as this comment will probably be.) I hear that the wheels of moderation move pretty slowly on the weekend. Unlikely to see anything until Monday.utidjian
April 17, 2011
April
04
Apr
17
17
2011
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT
idcurious has stopped responding. Has he been banned?critter
April 17, 2011
April
04
Apr
17
17
2011
10:33 AM
10
10
33
AM
PDT
Scott:
Re: It’s been said that science is not the search for truth. Isn’t it the search for knowledge, and are the two mutually exclusive?
Knowledge -- on the ground -- is best understood as well warranted, credibly true belief. There is room for potential error, correction and progress in the implicit provisionality. Hence a permanent need for research and critical inquiry. If one over-emphasises the possibility of error and instead substitutes utility: empirically reliable results, then on loses the distinction between theories and models. Models are often very useful indeed, but hey are not good enough to be theories, as they are known to be false or "simplified." Newtonian dynamics was dethroned when relativity and quantum came along, but it is still very useful and quite reliable in most areas. Most. The point is, that scientific investigations cannot keep its integrity if it abandons the search for truth, however we may err in the attempt. And if we allow a metaphysical a priori like materialism to dictate to science, then it is now under censorship. It loses credibility. And BTW, that is part of why when I point out limitations of geochronological investigations, there is such a sharp reaction, because there is a wish to believe in the truthfulness of the myth with the imprimatur of science. You cannot have it both ways. Science as freely truth seeking or science as materialistic myth making. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
April 17, 2011
April
04
Apr
17
17
2011
06:49 AM
6
06
49
AM
PDT
paragwinn, Do you think the electricty carrying cables for the underwater power grids will be shielded from the wet environment?Joseph
April 17, 2011
April
04
Apr
17
17
2011
05:59 AM
5
05
59
AM
PDT
Consider this thought experiment: In 100 years, with your advanced quantum computer, you create a simulated world full of sentient, living things. They have no knowledge of you or any record of how they came to be. (Note the lack of anything supernatural in this illustration.) When the time comes that they want to explore their origins, would we expect them to exclude the possibility of your existence? Should they be chastised if they don't endlessly search for an explanation they will never find because that's supposedly more scientific? If that's reasonable then I guess I'm not. It's been said that science is not the search for truth. Isn't it the search for knowledge, and are the two mutually exclusive? The argument that design requires the supernatural and therefore isn't scientific really translates to, 'This possibility seems way to hard to investigate, so we'll just keep looking over here instead.'ScottAndrews
April 17, 2011
April
04
Apr
17
17
2011
05:24 AM
5
05
24
AM
PDT
F/N: In 273, N also manages to stumble into the false dichotomy promoted by the same evo mat fever swamps, that the debate on causal factors is about natural vs supernatural:
I cannot see any practical benefit in concluding that some phenomenon is due to supernatural intervention, even if it actually is. Science seeks always to explain nature in terms of nature. It does not tell the Truth . . .
1 --> N, clearly, needs to consult the UD WAC 17, where he may see:
17] Methodological naturalism is the rule of science Methodological naturalism is simply a quite recently imposed “rule” that (a) defines science as a search for natural causes of observed phenomena AND (b) forbids the researcher to consider any other explanation, regardless of what the evidence may indicate. In keeping with that principle, it begs the question and roundly declares that (c) any research that finds evidence of design in nature is invalid and that (d) any methods employed toward that end are non-scientific. For instance, in a pamphlet published in 2008, the US National Academy of Sciences declared:
In science, explanations must be based on naturally occurring phenomena. Natural causes are, in principle, reproducible and therefore can be checked independently by others. If explanations are based on purported forces that are outside of nature, scientists have no way of either confirming or disproving those explanations. [Science, Evolution and Creationism, p. 10. Emphases added.]
The resort to loaded language should cue us that there is more than mere objective science going on here! A second clue is a basic fact: the very NAS scientists themselves provide instances of a different alternative to forces tracing to chance and/or blind mechanical necessity. For, they are intelligent, creative agents who act into the empirical world in ways that leave empirically detectable and testable traces. Moreover, the claim or assumption that all such intelligences “must” in the end trace to chance and/or necessity acting within a materialistic cosmos is a debatable philosophical view on the remote and unobserved past history of our cosmos. It is not at all an established scientific “fact” on the level of the direct, repeatable observations that have led us to the conclusion that Earth and the other planets orbit the Sun. In short, the NAS would have been better advised to study the contrast: natural vs artificial (or, intelligent) causes, than to issue loaded language over natural vs supernatural ones Notwithstanding, many Darwinist members of the guild of scholars have instituted or supported the question-begging rule of “methodological naturalism,” ever since the 1980’s. So, if an ID scientist finds and tries to explain functionally specified complex information in a DNA molecule in light of its only known cause: intelligence, supporters of methodological naturalism will throw the evidence out or insist that it be re-interpreted as the product of processes tracing to chance and/or necessity; regardless of how implausible or improbable the explanations may be. Further, if the ID scientist dares to challenge this politically correct rule, he will then be disfranchised from the scientific community and all his work will be discredited and dismissed. Obviously, this is grossly unfair censorship. Worse, it is massively destructive to the historic and proper role of science as an unfettered (but intellectually and ethically responsible) search for the truth about our world in light of the evidence of observation and experience.
2 --> When we zoom in and look at N's astonishing remark, "It [science] does not tell the Truth" we see that he has unfortunately swallowed the ingredient of the evo mat fever swamp brew that substitutes evolutionary materialist myth-making for truth-seeking. 3 --> As was excerpted from newton's Opticks, query 31 in 276 just above, science is about the unfettered pursuit of the truth about our world on empirical evidence. 3 --> While it faces limitations on what we can know -- for we can and do err -- if science dismisses the pursuit of the truth in light of evidence and instead "seeks always to explain nature in terms of nature" it falls straight into the Lewontinain a priori materialism trap already pointed out. 4 --> And, science held in thralldom to a priori materialism loses its integrity and right to stand up and speak as an objective voice, as it would become little more than a mouthpiece for materialism. 5 --> let us hear Lewontin yet again, for plainly the warning is not being heeded:
To Sagan, as to all but a few other scientists, it is self-evident that the practices of science provide the surest method of putting us in contact with physical reality, and that, in contrast, the demon-haunted world rests on a set of beliefs and behaviors that fail every reasonable test . . . . It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. [[From: “Billions and Billions of Demons,” NYRB, January 9, 1997.]
5 --> Philip Johsnon's corrective is also necessary, yet again:
For scientific materialists the materialism comes first; the science comes thereafter. [[Emphasis original] We might more accurately term them "materialists employing science." And if materialism is true, then some materialistic theory of evolution has to be true simply as a matter of logical deduction, regardless of the evidence. That theory will necessarily be at least roughly like neo-Darwinism, in that it will have to involve some combination of random changes and law-like processes capable of producing complicated organisms that (in Dawkins’ words) "give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." . . . . The debate about creation and evolution is not deadlocked . . . Biblical literalism is not the issue. The issue is whether materialism and rationality are the same thing. Darwinism is based on an a priori commitment to materialism, not on a philosophically neutral assessment of the evidence. Separate the philosophy from the science, and the proud tower collapses. [[Emphasis added.] [[The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism, First Things, 77 (Nov. 1997), pp. 22 – 25.]
6 --> The problem: a priori imposition of censoring materialism that distorts the ability of science to seek the well warranted truth about our world, the longstanding warning on the dangers of such an imposition, and what needs to be done to correct it could not be plainer. 7 --> But, it needs to soak in:
a: science should not be subjected to the imposition of a priori materialism, whether blatant or in the subtle disguise of "methodological naturalism." b: It should not be caught up in the trap of demanding only naturalistic explanations for phenomena, but instead should seek to be:
an unfettered (but ethically, epistemologially and intellectually responsible) progressive pursuit of the provisionally but well warranted knowledge of the truth about our world based on empirical evidence, observations, experiment, logical-mathematical analysis, explanatory modelling and theorising, and uncensored but mutually respectful discussion among the informed.
c: In that light it should not be ensnared by the false dichotomy, natural vs supernatural, as there is a credible and longstanding -- Plato more or less said it was immemorial in his day, in The Laws, Bk X -- way of analysing phenomena, processes and objects based on empirical evidence that allows us to think in terms of natural vs ART-ificial (intelligent) causes and their characteristic empirical signs.
If we were tempted to think that the danger is exaggerated or imaginary, N's remarks above should serve to disabuse us of such a notion. For, probably in all naivete, he thought to correct us on what he thought were gross errors of imposing creationism on science. But, it turned out that he only inadvertently exposed how he has himself fallen into the trap of a priori imposition of evolutionary materialism on science. GEM of TKI PS: In his attempt to cite Job 38 etc, N would be well advised to read here (and onward, cf Lucretius and Lahiri etc.) on the REAL corrective point being emphasised there. As in, if we were not there, we should not pretend to all but certain knowledge of the remote past of origins -- remember, people are erroneously talking about the "observed" "fact" of macroevolution and are comparing our knowledge of the past of origins to the roundness of the world or the orbiting of the planets [which by sharp contrast are directly observable, not an inference projected to a remote and unobservable past . . . ], as I have been emphasising on the matter of model timelines, above.kairosfocus
April 17, 2011
April
04
Apr
17
17
2011
04:05 AM
4
04
05
AM
PDT
PS: The above assertion by N is also a subtle form of the "ID is creationism in a cheap tuxedo" smear that keeps on cropping up. For, it is a main ingredient of the brew served up by the evo mat fever swamps. This can be seen by asking yourself what it is that cheap detective novels focus on: whodunit, of course. In short, the subtly loaded strawman is that design theory is little more than creationism in disguise. This aspect of N's rhetorical talking point is corrected in the CSI News Flash thread. We must not allow such red herrings, led away to strawmen soaked in ad hominems, and set alight to cloud, confuse, poison and polarise the atmosphere, distracting us while those who have no answer on the merits escape behind the choking, confusing cloud.kairosfocus
April 17, 2011
April
04
Apr
17
17
2011
03:22 AM
3
03
22
AM
PDT
I suggest the following, as a start for clarifying what science is, or should be about, in light of the recent problems and in light of Newton's classic observations:
. . . science, at its best, is the unfettered — but ethically and intellectually responsible — progressive pursuit of the truth about our world (i.e. an accurate and reliable description and explanation of it), based on:
a: collecting, recording, indexing, collating and reporting accurate, reliable (and where feasible, repeatable) empirical -- real-world, on the ground -- observations and measurements, b: inference to best current -- thus, always provisional -- abductive explanation of the observed facts, c: thus producing hypotheses, laws, theories and models, using logical-mathematical analysis, intuition and creative, rational imagination [[including Einstein's favourite gedankenexperiment, i.e thought experiments], d: continual empirical testing through further experiments, observations and measurement; and, e: uncensored but mutually respectful discussion on the merits of fact, alternative assumptions and logic among the informed. (And, especially in wide-ranging areas that cut across traditional dividing lines between fields of study, or on controversial subjects, "the informed" is not to be confused with the eminent members of the guild of scholars and their publicists or popularisers who dominate a particular field at any given time.)
As a result, science enables us to ever more effectively (albeit provisionally) describe, explain, understand, predict and influence or control objects, phenomena and processes in our world. In addition, origins questions are freighted with major consequences for our worldviews, and are focused on matters that are inherently beyond our direct observation. So, since we simply were not here to see the deep past, we are compelled to reconstruct it on more or less plausible models driven by inference to best explanation. This means that our results and findings are even more provisional than are those of operational science, where we can directly cross check models against observation. That further means that origins science findings are inherently more prone to controversy and debate than more conventional theories in science.
That allows us to take a judicious, balanced, critically aware view of the processes, findings and degree of warrant and provisionality attaching to scientific knowledge claims. Now, those who draw power from or are comforted by the just so stories spread by those who promote the imposition of the philosophical speculation of materialism under the false colours of science, are fighting the expose and the reform. Since the polls make plain that we are dealing with domination of key elites, the battle will be generational. But, that is understood. The challenge to you, sir, is where you stand, on what is plainly the wrong side of history. The snide caricature you just put up tells us that you need to change your entire view and approach. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
April 17, 2011
April
04
Apr
17
17
2011
02:20 AM
2
02
20
AM
PDT
N: The ID movement is not trying to reduce science to forensics. That is a snide strawman caricature; typical of the sort of derogatory and dismissive, disrespectful talking points often promoted by the evolutionary materialist elites who have imposed a question-begging, censoring a priori on science, and their publicists. We have not forgotten Dawkins' sneering smear: ignorant, stupid, insane and/or wicked. On the contrary to such, the plain fact is that we have identified, documented and exposed what is beyond reasonable doubt -- we have direct authoritative statements as well as the admissions of leading and representative practitioners -- an a priori, censoring, question-begging, dubious agenda-promoting imposition of materialism on origins science, and have, quite properly, called for reform. This, because such impositions censor and silence the facts before they are allowed to speak with due weight, and impose a predetermined, question-begging materialist, PHILOSOPHICAL narrative and agenda on science. The Lewontin-Sagan position is particularly apt as an expose:
To Sagan, as to all but a few other scientists, it is self-evident that the practices of science provide the surest method of putting us in contact with physical reality, and that, in contrast, the demon-haunted world rests on a set of beliefs and behaviors that fail every reasonable test . . . . It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. [From: “Billions and Billions of Demons,” NYRB, January 9, 1997.]
Instead, if science is to regain its integrity and hold credibility in the long term, a major reformation is called for. Philip Johnson's retort to Lewontin is quite in order:
For scientific materialists the materialism comes first; the science comes thereafter. [[Emphasis original] We might more accurately term them "materialists employing science." And if materialism is true, then some materialistic theory of evolution has to be true simply as a matter of logical deduction, regardless of the evidence. [Emphasis added] That theory will necessarily be at least roughly like neo-Darwinism, in that it will have to involve some combination of random changes and law-like processes capable of producing complicated organisms that (in Dawkins’ words) "give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." . . . . The debate about creation and evolution is not deadlocked . . . Biblical literalism is not the issue. The issue is whether materialism and rationality are the same thing. Darwinism is based on an a priori commitment to materialism, not on a philosophically neutral assessment of the evidence. Separate the philosophy from the science, and the proud tower collapses. [[Emphasis added.] [[The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism, First Things, 77 (Nov. 1997), pp. 22 – 25.]
Our complaint, its proof, and the remedy could not be plainer. For instance, how we view the nature, purpose and approaches of science has to be restored to a modern version of the historic view of what science is about that we can document from say Newton's classic statement in his 1704 work, Opticks, Query 31: _______________ >> As in Mathematicks, so in Natural Philosophy, the Investigation of difficult Things by the Method of Analysis, ought ever to precede the Method of Composition. This Analysis consists in making Experiments and Observations, and in drawing general Conclusions from them by Induction, and admitting of no Objections against the Conclusions, but such as are taken from Experiments, or other certain Truths. For Hypotheses [i.e. unsubstantiated metaphysical speculations or impositions] are not to be regarded in experimental Philosophy. And although the arguing from Experiments and Observations by Induction be no Demonstration of general Conclusions; yet it is the best way of arguing which the Nature of Things admits of, and may be looked upon as so much the stronger, by how much the Induction is more general. And if no Exception occur from Phaenomena, the Conclusion may be pronounced generally. But if at any time afterwards any Exception shall occur from Experiments, it may then begin to be pronounced with such Exceptions as occur. By this way of Analysis we may proceed from Compounds to Ingredients, and from Motions to the Forces producing them; and in general, from Effects to their Causes, and from particular Causes to more general ones, till the Argument end in the most general. This is the Method of Analysis: And the Synthesis consists in assuming the Causes discover'd, and establish'd as Principles, and by them explaining the Phaenomena proceeding from them, and proving the Explanations. [Emphases added.] >> _______________ [ . . . ]kairosfocus
April 17, 2011
April
04
Apr
17
17
2011
02:19 AM
2
02
19
AM
PDT
kairosfocus: The ID movement will not succeed in reducing science to forensics.Noesis
April 16, 2011
April
04
Apr
16
16
2011
10:49 PM
10
10
49
PM
PDT
Joseph @ 238: "Why aren’t power grids under water?" might want to check this out: http://tinyurl.com/3oyxadv and: http://tinyurl.com/3t6rsabparagwinn
April 16, 2011
April
04
Apr
16
16
2011
10:04 PM
10
10
04
PM
PDT
Clive:
Scientists overwhelmingly believe that life arse somehow from non-life, despite not knowing how it happened.
Then it’s not science, I don’t care what scientists believe otherwise outside of science.
I agree entirely. Philosophical naturalism is a stance of some scientists. However, I cannot see any practical benefit in concluding that some phenomenon is due to supernatural intervention, even if it actually is. Science seeks always to explain nature in terms of nature. It does not tell the Truth. There were no halcyon days when it did. Newton's explanation of God's role in correcting the orbits of planets around the sun was false. IDists love one verse that Paul wrote to the "rational" Romans, but apparently are indifferent to Job 38-42.Noesis
April 16, 2011
April
04
Apr
16
16
2011
09:46 PM
9
09
46
PM
PDT
F/N: Onlookers, I suspect that "Scientifically" above means on a priori materialism, in the guise of methodological naturalism. This of course censors origins science and undermines its ability to seek the truth unfettered by such impositions [but acting intellectually and ethically responsibly], in light of empirical observation, explanatory analysis, and informed, fair minded discussion. If you have locked out the most credible explanation, it is no wonder the OOL does not make sense on the censoring terms.kairosfocus
April 16, 2011
April
04
Apr
16
16
2011
06:39 PM
6
06
39
PM
PDT
idcurious,
Scientists overwhelmingly believe that life arse somehow from non-life, despite not knowing how it happened.
Then it's not science, I don't care what scientists believe otherwise outside of science.Clive Hayden
April 16, 2011
April
04
Apr
16
16
2011
06:39 PM
6
06
39
PM
PDT
idcurious,
If the intelligent designer did not require an intelligent designer, why does life?
This can be answered only if we knew whether the intelligent designer required design, which we cannot say, but life, we can definitely say requires design.Clive Hayden
April 16, 2011
April
04
Apr
16
16
2011
06:36 PM
6
06
36
PM
PDT
N: Again, the point is that we do know what has been created, by whatever process, now pretty well. We can identify what we are looking at: a metabolising automaton based on informational polymer nanotechnology. Information that is digitally coded, and algorithmically processed. Then, shocker: additionally we have an integrated von Neumann kinematic self replicator, that implies storage of the code for the metabolic automaton. We can even identify a mini assembly NC controlled manufacturing unit, the ribosome. Complete with drive-in control tapes and position-arm nano-robotic effectors, the tRNAs. That sort of high tech is where we want to head with engineering systems -- I have my eye on the Industry 2.0, open source tech, Global Village Construction Set movement [it is up to 50 key technololgies for modular industry-agriculture colonies now], which is a sort of manual self-replicator that cna carry out the workshop scale "metabolism." Now, where do codes come from and what does it mean for one thing instantiated in a manipulated bit of matter, to serve as a physically set up symbol for another thing? Data structres and stored programs and data, tape controllers for NC machines? Position-arm effectors, etc etc? What do we do about he infinite monkeys analysis used in thermodynamics whe it tels us thsat sugh funcitonallys peciricf complex informaiton is out of teh reach of the known un-intelligent forces of the cosmos, when we simultaneously know that FSCI is a routine product of intelligence? Pardon a frank response to a fighting word. Your dismissive term "crowd" shows a want of seriousness in addressing some pretty serious questions without materialistic blinkers or go-along, get -along with those who do and who are known to hold and ruthlessly use power. Please, think again. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
April 16, 2011
April
04
Apr
16
16
2011
06:04 PM
6
06
04
PM
PDT
Scott: I have actually thought of just that point, quite often. But in fact in many engineered systems, we have a lot of free form or curved structures. Most impressive to me is the pattern of nodes, interfaces and arcs that can be converted to net lists [thus specified as FSCI on FSC organisation, as I elaborated here. That is also where the Denton clip lives, right after a pic of a neuron.) GEM of TKIkairosfocus
April 16, 2011
April
04
Apr
16
16
2011
05:52 PM
5
05
52
PM
PDT
IDC,
We still don’t understand how life arose. Thats one astounding thing about the Universe. ID just can’t handle “we don’t know” as an answer.
Tweak: To say confidently how life arose, scientists would require a time machine to take them into the past and return them to the present. Leading origin-of-life researchers like Tom Cech and Gerry Joyce have no problem admitting that we will never know for sure what happened. The ID crowd can't handle "we cannot know scientifically" as an answer. Francis Collins points out the danger of making God too small. I point out the danger of making too much of science.Noesis
April 16, 2011
April
04
Apr
16
16
2011
05:49 PM
5
05
49
PM
PDT
I wonder if some would be less biased if the cell and its components had more straight lines and fewer curves. We tend to design with lines and right angles. It's what we look at all our lives. Perhaps it's just harder for people to imagine someone designing something without that restriction. It looks less organized until you get an idea what it's doing.ScottAndrews
April 16, 2011
April
04
Apr
16
16
2011
05:41 PM
5
05
41
PM
PDT
Scott: That is one of the most powerful word pictures I have ever read, and it has been on the record since 1985. But, if you look top, right you will see a link to videos that have brought up the picture, and there are many animations that make the same point. Here is a narrated version of the famous Inner Life of the Cell video. (Illustra Media has its own video on unlocking the mystery of life that is actually linked from the same OOL page in IOSE, at the end of the introduction. Ch 3 here is very interesting. You can buy a DVD, been on the market for many years now.) I cannot help feeling that if you don't know about the sort of complexity we are speaking, it is by choice. Why do you think I have been repeatedly linking the discussion of the vNSR at the heart of the cell's self-replicating capacity? That capacity, joined tot he metabolising automaton that is also coded for is in my opinion, decisive. For, we have metabolising capacity reduced to symbolic representation and replicated as a part of the action of a self replicator. Totally irreducibly complex and there at the root of any tree of life. This is Paley's watch that reproduces itself, on steroids. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
April 16, 2011
April
04
Apr
16
16
2011
05:34 PM
5
05
34
PM
PDT
KF: That's an amazing illustration. When people shrug off the improbabilities or the reasons why many infer design, it usually means that they don't grasp how complex these things are. (Just using the word "complex" brings scorn, as if shouldn't be taken into consideration.) We're not looking at a mousetrap. We're just beginning to observe a technology far more advanced than anything we've ever conceived.ScottAndrews
April 16, 2011
April
04
Apr
16
16
2011
05:15 PM
5
05
15
PM
PDT
DESIGN . . .kairosfocus
April 16, 2011
April
04
Apr
16
16
2011
03:15 PM
3
03
15
PM
PDT
SA: The "nothing is known" you picked up in 279 really means that the evo mat attempts to explain OOL have dismally failed. There is an obvious alternative, but there is a stubborn refusal to entertain it. Who'da thunk the cell has in it a digital, coded information storage and processing facility and one that drives a von Neumann self replicating facility integrated with a metabolic system? What do we know about the source of codes, algorithms, programs and implementing machines? Should we not be struck with force by Paley's point -- I have never seen it referred to by those who so gleefully strawmannise his watchmaker argument -- on the impact of discovering that his watch in the field was capable of replicating itself? Here is Denton's awestruck description, which will lift the tone: _________________ >> To grasp the reality of life as it has been revealed by molecular biology, we must magnify a cell a thousand million times until it is twenty kilometers in diameter [[so each atom in it would be “the size of a tennis ball”] and resembles a giant airship large enough to cover a great city like London or New York. What we would then see would be an object of unparalleled complexity and adaptive design. On the surface of the cell we would see millions of openings, like the port holes of a vast space ship, opening and closing to allow a continual stream of materials to flow in and out. If we were to enter one of these openings we would find ourselves in a world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity. We would see endless highly organized corridors and conduits branching in every direction away from the perimeter of the cell, some leading to the central memory bank in the nucleus and others to assembly plants and processing units. The nucleus itself would be a vast spherical chamber more than a kilometer in diameter, resembling a geodesic dome inside of which we would see, all neatly stacked together in ordered arrays, the miles of coiled chains of the DNA molecules. A huge range of products and raw materials would shuttle along all the manifold conduits in a highly ordered fashion to and from all the various assembly plants in the outer regions of the cell. We would wonder at the level of control implicit in the movement of so many objects down so many seemingly endless conduits, all in perfect unison. We would see all around us, in every direction we looked, all sorts of robot-like machines . . . . We would see that nearly every feature of our own advanced machines had its analogue in the cell: artificial languages and their decoding systems, memory banks for information storage and retrieval, elegant control systems regulating the automated assembly of components, error fail-safe and proof-reading devices used for quality control, assembly processes involving the principle of prefabrication and modular construction . . . . However, it would be a factory which would have one capacity not equaled in any of our own most advanced machines, for it would be capable of replicating its entire structure within a matter of a few hours . . . . Unlike our own pseudo-automated assembly plants, where external controls are being continually applied, the cell's manufacturing capability is entirely self-regulated . . . . [[Denton, Michael, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Adler, 1986, pp. 327 – 331. This work is a classic that is still well worth reading. ] >> __________________ It is high time that we tore off the Lewontin-Sagan a priori materialist blinkers and thought afresh about what best explains what we are seeing! GEM of TKIkairosfocus
April 16, 2011
April
04
Apr
16
16
2011
03:11 PM
3
03
11
PM
PDT
jg: I didn't make it up. Google it. Yes, I noticed that it comes up a lot on creationist sites. In my illustration I pointed out that we tend to ignore less plausible possibilities in favor of more likely ones. That's not to say that the unlikely never happens, but if we start ruling out the most likely first, we're going to be wrong a lot. I wasn't suggesting that we should consider entirely unknown factors first rather than simpler explanations. Unfortunately, science seems to have settled on accidental abiogenesis as the best possible explanation, when the odds alone at the very least warrant considering other possibilities.ScottAndrews
April 16, 2011
April
04
Apr
16
16
2011
03:00 PM
3
03
00
PM
PDT
Why aren’t power grids under water? utidjian
Well part of the answer could be that the people that use power grids do not live under water.
We live all around it. Heck we could just plug it into the Mississippi River.
Sometimes the people that use electricity are sometimes separated from where it is generated by a lot of water thus… power cables have been laid under water to lots of places. Like islands (Remember Jaws II?), offshore rigs.
Yeah, shielded in its own little DRY environment.
I have to ask that if, as you say, electricity hates water, then why does electricity favor the wettest path through things?
I take it you didn't read the links I provided. BTW: In his book "Signature in the Cell" Stephen C. Meyer addresses the issue of Intelligent Design and religion:
First, by any reasonable definition of the term, intelligent design is not "religion".- page 441 under the heading Not Religion
"Intelligent Design is based on scientific evidence, not religious belief."- Jonathan Wells "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design" in "The Design Revolution", page 25, Dembski writes:
Intelligent Design has theological implications, but it is not a theological enterprise. Theology does not own intelligent design. Intelligent design is not a evangelical Christian thing, or a generally Christian thing or even a generally theistic thing. Anyone willing to set aside naturalistic prejudices and consider the possibility of evidence for intelligence in the natural world is a friend of intelligent design.
He goes on to say:
Intelligent design requires neither a meddling God nor a meddled world. For that matter, it doesn't even require there be a God.
Yeah baby...Joseph
April 16, 2011
April
04
Apr
16
16
2011
03:00 PM
3
03
00
PM
PDT
1 2 3 10

Leave a Reply