Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

My Proclivity for Inspiring Long UD Threads — Part Deux

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

At this writing I see that my post here has 122 responses, and that my post here has 81 responses.

After examining all the dialog one thing seems clear to me: The ID versus Darwinian-materialism question must inevitably invade and challenge the core of the human soul.

Don’t tell me that anyone doesn’t at least eventually ask the only substantive and meaningful questions: 1) Why am I here? 2) Where did I come from? 3) Is there any ultimate purpose or meaning in my life?

If Darwinism is true, the answers to these questions are obvious:

1) No reason.
2) Chemistry and chance, which did not have you in mind.
3) No. You are an ephemeral product of 2).

The problem is that Darwinism is obviously not true, and the scientific evidence mounts every day that its mechanisms are catastrophically inadequate as an explanation for what we observe.

The philosophical, theological, ethical, and existential ramifications of this debate cut to the core of the human soul, which is why it inspires so much passion.

Comments
Likewise! I'll see you at the next event, hopefully (if you don't live too far from the metroplex).HouseStreetRoom
September 24, 2010
September
09
Sep
24
24
2010
07:46 PM
7
07
46
PM
PDT
Dang HSR...I certainly wished I had known you were there!Upright BiPed
September 24, 2010
September
09
Sep
24
24
2010
09:32 AM
9
09
32
AM
PDT
Upright BiPed, Ditto on the presentation. The question and answer portion was a treat. I enjoyed the clarity with which they were able to answer questions, and stay on point while doing so (rather than misdirection, changing the subject, etc).HouseStreetRoom
September 24, 2010
September
09
Sep
24
24
2010
08:01 AM
8
08
01
AM
PDT
Well so anyway...last night I had the chance to meet Stephen Meyer, Johnathan Wells, Richard Sternberg, Douglas Axe, and Paul Nelson. I drove over and attended the Darwin's Dilemma conference on the SMU campus (nice campus) in Dallas. Great presentations by all. Sternberg talked about population genetics, Nelson and Wells talked about embryonic development, Axe talked about protien math, and Meyer was just a simply impressive host.Upright BiPed
September 24, 2010
September
09
Sep
24
24
2010
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PDT
Warehuff #109, “What exactly am I supposed to be assuming here? What intractable evidence shows it’s false, whatever it is?” When I wrote my response in #107, I broke your opening remarks into four pieces. In retrospect, by doing so I may have made myself less clear than I should have. This is probably why you responded “whaaa?” So allow me to be clear now. When you say:
I’m certainly not saying that life began without information, the information would have been in the arrangement of the atoms of whatever the FLT was. I AM saying that no intelligence is needed to arrange those atoms. The FTL would have been small enough to form spontaneously.
You then assume everything. Firstly, you removed the information carrying molecule from the FLT for a logical (and strategic) reason. That reason is that the presence of an information carrying molecule is just too great to explain ex nihilo. It’s hopeless (embarrassingly hopeless). However, having removed the information carrying molecule from the FLT you then simply assumed the FLT was still infused with information. Your position suggests that the information the FLT contained was based upon the arrangement of its atoms. This cannot be so. There is no information in an atom, and none in an arrangement of atoms. There are no particles of information existing amongst the protons and electrons of atoms (or any arrangements of atoms). Information is not material, and is therefore immaterial. In other words, the information must be produced in order to exist, and you simply assumed it was somehow already there. Well… it wasn’t. Your position almost begs the question, if the arrangement of its atoms is all the FLT needed to contain information, then what was the need for an information carrying molecule? For self-replication perhaps? That would suggest the FLT was not a self-replicator on its own. But, if it’s a not a self-replicator then it’s not a living thing, and given your earlier position that the FLT had no metabolism, and now no self-replication as well, one might ask how it got the name “first living thing”. Obviously, you are suggesting a chemical process of some unknown type must have BECOME the FLT once it took on metabolism and self-replication. But this explanation is no explanation at all. All you’ve done is removed what must be explained about the FLT and then proceeded to call it a “first living thing” anyway. And now that it has been dubbed a “living thing”, you act as though a satisfactory explanation of Life has been given (with perhaps the need of a few details). Nothing could be farther from the truth. You’ve repeatedly leaned on the airy speculation of authority figures, but all you’ve done is told us what a “first living thing” might exist like -if- it had none of the qualities of a first living thing. Warehuff, this is hardly a convincing argument. Yet as bad as it is, you’ve apparently only begun. You next go on the “what is information” tangent. But instead of actually addressing what I said about information (that information is an abstraction ABOUT a thing of interest, but is not IN a thing of interest, which by the way, is an observable fact of nature) you very confidently quote from the recognized global source for correctness of thought, Wikipedia. This is hardly a novel approach for a materialist; when the terms are difficult, simply redefine them so that you may continue to assume what you say is true. You provide Wiki’s alternate definition: “Information is any type of pattern that influences the formation or transformation of other patterns. In this sense, there is no need for a conscious mind to perceive, much less appreciate, the pattern (citation needed)” and you then completely ignore their topline definition: “Information, in its most restricted technical sense, is an ordered sequence of symbols” and you otherwise disregard the actual etymology of the word (information is “to give form to”). I assume you skipped past these definitions because they are exactly what I am talking about. That’s fine. I understand; you want to prevail in the argument, not seek the truth. Playing definition-a-go-round is a viable option if that is your goal. In any case, let us look at your definition. The Wiki entry goes directly to reference DNA as an example of information that can cause a transformation without the need for a conscience mind (what were the odds of that example?). Yet I wonder about the resilience of their definition (any pattern that can cause a transformation in another pattern). Is this definition stable, or is there a good reason it’s a minority definition? For instance, a pole on a magnet creates a pattern in its electromagnetic field. If I take a second magnet of the opposite pole and hold it near the first, there will be a change in that pattern. Is that information? Anyone care to claim that it is? According to Wiki, it is. Even so, this has nothing to do with the issue, Warehuff. It is not that a pattern can influence another without direct interpretation of a mind; the code running through my computer is a prime example. Humans have not installed a “mind” in the computer to do the interpreting, they have instead installed a system architecture to perform the interpreting, and have given it the rules by which that interpretation will proceed. This is exactly what is happening in DNA. It is that system and those rules which cannot be explained by the transistors in a computer, or the nucleotides in a cell. Do you intend to ever address these issues straight up, or not? - - - - - - - Information is an abstraction ABOUT something of interest; it is not IN something of interest. There are no particles of information in matter; it is an immaterial phenomena. Information requires perception to exist, and that perception requires symbols. Life operates by means of symbolic information about the organism; an abstraction instantiated in matter in DNA.Upright BiPed
September 23, 2010
September
09
Sep
23
23
2010
03:27 PM
3
03
27
PM
PDT
warehuff,
”It engages the theory. It says why I don’t think it’s correct. That’s so much more useful than just saying that the theory is a fairy tale.”
I agree, because at least there is some truth to fairy tales.Clive Hayden
September 23, 2010
September
09
Sep
23
23
2010
07:38 AM
7
07
38
AM
PDT
---Warehuff: "And I would assess the validity of that argument by pointing out that every thing we know about pain says it is a phenomena of a nervous system and vegetables don’t have one of those." Which means, of course, that you have invalidated your previous theme, which elevated the conclusion of the "expert" over the more logical objections of the lay critic. Now, you tell us that the merits of the argument matter more than the credentials of the scientist. ---"It engages the theory. It says why I don’t think it’s correct. That’s so much more useful than just saying that the theory is a fairy tale." Yes, which is exactly what GPuccio was doing when you declared that his conclusions were irrevent on the grounds that he was disagreeing with "experts."StephenB
September 23, 2010
September
09
Sep
23
23
2010
06:49 AM
6
06
49
AM
PDT
Obriton: Welcome here, and thank you for your interesting contributions. I am also from a not english speaking country, and writing on this blog has greatly enhanced my ability with the language. Just go on...gpuccio
September 23, 2010
September
09
Sep
23
23
2010
06:37 AM
6
06
37
AM
PDT
warehuff: Some quick comments: 1) I don't remember exactly what I have written about the Yarus paper some time ago. My calling it a firy tale is certainly only a quick summary of my impressions, and you are right that I should go more in detail about it. Perhaps I will, if I find the time. You may know that I have gone in great detail about other papers, which I considered more important. In brief, my main reason for considering Yarus's paper a "fairy tale" is very general: I consider "fairy tales" (not supported by facts) all theories about the RNA world, becuse we have absolutely no empirical reason to believe that an RNA world ever existed (I definitely believe it didn't). Yarus's hypothesis that a biochemical affinity was at the base of the code can be accepted as a hypothesis, but it is based on so many assumptions that at present I cannot consider it any more than a "fairy tale" theory. Which does not mean it has no value, but just that it is completely speculative at present. I remember I had some problems with some details of the paper too, but forgive me if at present I have not the time to deal with them. In my spare time, I am analyzing another paper suggested here, which is IMO much more relevant to ID. 2) You say:
3: What is with all this dFSCI and FSCI stuff? I read the arguments that broke out over that a few months ago and just shook my head. Dr. Dembski’s plain old Complex Specified Information (CSI) is fine with me. If it will advance the conversation, I will happily state that DNA contains CSI and can we get on with it now? 4: See my message 119 above with its seven step algorithm for generating CSI in the form of new and highly useful DNA using nothing but the principles of Darwinian evolution.
I don't understand. You say you are fine with the concept of CSI, and then you refer your post 119, where you offer as an example Apo-A1M, which is a one aminoacid mutation. One aminoacid is (at most) 4.3 bits of information. Do you know what the C in CSI (or in dFSCI) stays for? Do you know what "complex" means, especially in the ID theory? If you don't, why do you speak of what you don't know? Just to understand...gpuccio
September 23, 2010
September
09
Sep
23
23
2010
06:31 AM
6
06
31
AM
PDT
KF, thanks for the welcome and not worry about my little habit of writing in English. My problem is that taken much longer than it would if you use my own language, but that is something that will heal with time ... I hope. First of all I want to say that I appreciate very much your effort for the many years I've been reading you. I consider you a true "worker of the truth" (my own definition) I think is the best way to define a scientist. On the other hand, and now speak to all, one of the points I see that sooner or later it always repeats itself every time someone comes here with the Darwinian materialistic mentality or preset, is "whether there is design, who is the Designer ? I think that whoever comes here with that question also had to do the following: "if there are laws of nature, who established these laws and how obliged to comply? Hard answers, of course, but that prevents them from admitting laws, use them as they wish or do experiments trying to find new laws?. That's what science is, no doubt. For a hard question, an even more difficult and ended questioning. I think so and I am convinced that this contradiction of supporting a position of unbelief, and requires a position contrary to one that can be derived from the first, is evident. So the answer would be "the Designer is or may be the Same as that established the laws of the universe and has the means to enforce them". Finito and move on to other issues to help us improve what we know. Do not you think it is so ? Best for you.Obriton
September 23, 2010
September
09
Sep
23
23
2010
06:08 AM
6
06
08
AM
PDT
WH: You just presented a target-rich environment. I will leave most details to others, just first noting on one of your red herring tracks that there are millions who will testify to you on experience that prayer works. In fact, that I am alive, have enough breath to post, and have enough back to sit up are ALL answers to prayer, in astonishingly and obviously miraculous ways. (I could start with the appointment error that led my mom to half lift me out of a med centre, and as we came out the door, we faced a taxi with the open door, and the man saying: "Asthma, I know just the doctor you need." That is how we found the doctor who saved my life. Literally.) When it comes to materialism proper, it is inherently self-referentially incoherent and necessarily false. It is intellectually indefensible, and unreliable as a worldview foundation, before we even get to the dangers posed by its utter amorality. It only survives because, as a legacy of C19 positivist skepticism propped up in a circular argument by Darwinism, it is now an imposed ideological stratight-jacket on origins science, as is discussed here in more details. My allusion to the warm little pond or the modern equivalents [volcanic vents, comets, moons in the solar system, etc etc] is in a context that THE RESOURCES OF THE OBSERVED COSMOS ACROSS ITS THERMODYNAMICALLY CREDIBLE LIFESPAN are not enough to begin a credible search of the relevant config space for just 1,000 bits of information, so discussions on waters circulating to kms depth etc are irrelevant. (Have a look at Abel's plausibility bound paper here.) When we come to your central claim in your point 10:
Life doesn’t “get to” islands of function, it starts in a very simple island and then builds from there. It ALWAYS stays in an island of function because getting out of one of those islands is called being dead.
a --> You have begged the question, and fail to provide empirical evidence relevant to the origin of observed life: metabolic systems conjoined to abstract coded representations used in a von Neumann replicator. b --> That is by no means "simple" -- we have a code based irreducibly complex algorithm-implementing system! -- as can be seen here, and in onward references as were given at 102 ff. above. c --> The issue you have yet to solidly answer to is not mere replication [and the cases offered to date require intelligent design and manipulation of chemical contexts that require intelligent and knowledgeable chemists, using arrangements that are utterly implausible for any prebiotic environment] but replication of a metabolising automaton; based on coded functional, complex digital information. d --> The observational evidence (you tried to brush BA aside on this above, but failed)is that such entities start out in excess of 100 k bits of information, reckoning at about 2 bits per base pair [I here recognise that the observed distributions of GCAT are not flat random]. e --> This is about 100 times the reasonable threshold where the search resources of he observed cosmos run out of capability to scratch the surface of the config space. [The observed cosmos allows for about 10^150 quantum states of 10^80 or so atoms for 10^25 s, 50 mn times the timeline since the generally accepted singularity. 500 bits is about the same number. Squaring this gives 1,000 bits and specifies a config space that is about 10 times the square of the number of states for the atoms of the observed cosmos. 1 in 10^ 150 is much, much less than one atom to the whole observed universe.] f --> So, your simple island model evaporates. g --> I note that within an sialand ofr function for a given bodey plan, there is room for random variation to meet with differential reproductive success and trigger hill-climbing to peaks of function. h --> But that is not the issue, the issue is to get TO such islands of functions starting in whatever equivalent to Darwin's little pond you wish. [Just, provide empirical evidence of complex self-replicating metabolising entities coming about spontaneously in such an environment.] i --> You also point out that if one wanders off the island, function ceases,. this is exactly correct, and highlights the next problem. j --> Origin of major body plans, which credibly requires ~ 10's - 100's+ millions of novel base pairs of embryologically feasible bio-information. 10 million bits of information specifies a config space of ~ 9 *10^3,010,299. k --> In short, "island-hopping" is even more infeasible than origin of life. l --> But, we know by experience and observation -- thus, empirically -- that intelligences routinely produce systems with that level of complex information that is coded and specifically functional. m --> On inference to best -- and empirically anchored -- explanation, we can explain minor variations in life forms on darwinian and similar mechanisms, but the origin of life and of major body plans plainly is best predicated on intelligent purposefully directed contingency, aka design. ________________ GEM of TKI PS: Since there is a glossary of key terms and a corrective to weak arguments accessible on EVERY UD page, BQA and other commenters are under no obligation to provide definitions and the like to those who come here to make objections, often the same objections that have been adequately answered over and over again. (Sadly, WH, this includes the one you have been making above. It is a matter of going the extra mile that makes me put up a post like this one.)kairosfocus
September 23, 2010
September
09
Sep
23
23
2010
05:32 AM
5
05
32
AM
PDT
Warehuff I have PROVED IT as far as science will allow, it is only dogmatic atheist like yourself that refuse to follow the scientific method for what we are able to ascertain. That you would demand to be 'given to 'same right' to speculate is ironic in the highest degree since unsupported neo-Darwinian 'speculation' is taught as if it were rigid science in schools, whereas actual rigid science which overwhelming supports ID is suppressed,,, How about you writing a few letters to a few school boards with this new found sense of fair play that you have discovered within yourself???bornagain77
September 23, 2010
September
09
Sep
23
23
2010
04:45 AM
4
04
45
AM
PDT
KF @ 117: At the risk of being repetitive, the life we see is not the FLT. It is a product of billions of years of evolution. The FLT was as unlike a von Neumann machine as it is unlike a Turing machine. @118: You're right! Evolution IS being imposed. Dratted old facts! STOP IMPOSING YOURSELVES ON US!! We want Adam and Eve!! Or at least a mysterious Intelligent Designer who seems to have intelligently designed a world that looks just like it was made by Uninteligent Darwinism!warehuff
September 23, 2010
September
09
Sep
23
23
2010
04:43 AM
4
04
43
AM
PDT
PS: Oops, FROM the process. (See what I mean . . . )kairosfocus
September 23, 2010
September
09
Sep
23
23
2010
04:42 AM
4
04
42
AM
PDT
Obriton: Welcome. A refreshing post. Let us hear more from you! (And don't worry over minor errors, you will learn form the process.) Gkairosfocus
September 23, 2010
September
09
Sep
23
23
2010
04:41 AM
4
04
41
AM
PDT
KF @ 116: 1: The warm little pond is out of date now that we know that the earth is saturated by living organisms down to a depth of several kilometers and that plate tectonics constantly cycles gazillions of gallons of sea water through all of the nooks and crannies underground. The extreme pressure and heat (water boils far above 100 deg c a kilometer down) speeds up all chemical activity to the point where reactions that require complex catalysts at sea level proceed unassisted. The sea water also picks up myriad chemical compounds as it percolates through the crannies deep below the surface and the rocks provide physical surfaces that far exceed the total surface of the earth to act as catalysts. Of course, duplicating those conditions on the surface is going to require highly manipulated chemical setups. 2: The definitional problem for intelligence was on Upright BiPed's end. See @109 or @107 for the details and please let me know if you can figure out what he's talking about. I will purposely accept anything that can hold an intelligent conversation with me as being intelligent. 3: What is with all this dFSCI and FSCI stuff? I read the arguments that broke out over that a few months ago and just shook my head. Dr. Dembski's plain old Complex Specified Information (CSI) is fine with me. If it will advance the conversation, I will happily state that DNA contains CSI and can we get on with it now? 4: See my message 119 above with its seven step algorithm for generating CSI in the form of new and highly useful DNA using nothing but the principles of Darwinian evolution. 5: That's why OOL theories concentrate on small molecules of low complexity. To keep those odds within reason. 6: The problem here is that no one was around to observe the FTL and we don't know what it was like, so we have to figure out what it might have been like, given what we know of chemistry, conditions way back then and, of course, statistics. That's why researchers are working with small molecules which only have a single function: reproduction. One thing we're very sure of - the organisms we see today didn't do it. 7-1: You're very lucky to be here. make the most of it. 7-2: Nope, there might have been no intelligence beings at all or they might have been reptiles or something. We're very lucky to be here. Make the most of it. 7-3: See 7-1 & 7-2. You're very lucky to be here. MAKE THE MOST OF IT! 8: Unfortunately for some models of the world, materialism is what works. Prayer doesn't seem to even help you recover from surgery faster. 9: Evolution doesn't make much sense to the regular posters on UD and to anybody who's emotionally committed to supernatural causation. It makes lots of sense to the rest of us. As for what's preferable, I'm sorry if the universe is not to your satisfaction. 10: Life doesn't "get to" islands of function, it starts in a very simple island and then builds from there. It ALWAYS stays in an island of function because getting out of one of those islands is called being dead. If Dr. Dembski is reading this, life avoids the search problems by never searching the entire space of all possible DNA combinations for human-length DNA. When a single base pair mutates, life explores exactly four spaces (one where the changed basepair is C, one where it is A, one where it is T and one where it is G and every other basepair is the same as mom if you're single celled) and one of them is identical to good old mom's. To search the entire search space, our entire genome would have to be assembled randomly every time a new offspring was created and the chances of such an organism surviving even one minute are effectively zero. But the chances of a genome that is identical to daddy's in all but one base pair being viable` - those odds are pretty good. 11: Not if you actually understand the evolutionary materialist account of origins. Of course, if you don't understand it, and rely on the ID just so stories, then it does look impossible. 12: The First Living Polymer (probably RNA) encapsulated in a fatty bubble reproduces and makes millions of copies. Too many to kill off. Some of those copies are different from the original and reproduce better. They soon replace the Original Living Thing. Some of them have a longer string of RNA from duplications. One new mutant's RNA specifies a protein which embeds itself in the cell wall and helps food get in easier. At some point DNA starts to be matched to RNA and makes reproduction much more accurate and stable. This really accelerates reproduction and these new cells soon dominate. I'll pause here and let you tell us what the ID understanding of the FLT is and how it became the cells we see today. Please provide as much information as you demand from scientists. 13: See 12 14: I probably missed your citations. I have a lot of correspondents to keep track of. And thank you for the concise, 700 word message. It makes replying to you much easier. I appreciate it.warehuff
September 23, 2010
September
09
Sep
23
23
2010
04:37 AM
4
04
37
AM
PDT
warehuff (from Wikipedia): “Information is any type of pattern that influences the formation or transformation of other patterns.” (bolds are mine) The "trick" of this definition is that formation is impossible without information. Why something can take form? How something can take form if only is "something" without information? It is more. How something simply can be, can exist, without the most single logic of yes/no applied to this something, which is information? Can we define form whithout use information? If no, then the definition above is wrong. I appreciate you, warehuff, because I see you are trying to seek the truth, but I think (I may be wrong, of course) you are seeking from the wrong side. With respect to the algorithm you propose, the information you think it produces, has another "trick": you need human intervention in the process, and (I'll could explain this better) the human introduce many information in any thing, many times not perceptible, and this is the base for the best tricks of the best magicians. It's hard find out where the trick is, but the trick is a trick, not magic. Sorry if some gramatical error but I'm not used to write in english (only to read). My best for everybody.Obriton
September 23, 2010
September
09
Sep
23
23
2010
04:23 AM
4
04
23
AM
PDT
F/N: Onlookers, I invite you to read the remarks here, as a context to evaluate the sort of strawman claims WH is making above. Random polypeptide chains can doubtless be created by a suitably coded mRNA and ribosome in a living cell, but the likelihood of any such being functional are as near zero as makes no difference, once the chain is sufficiently complex to be relevant, say 100 - 150 AA's. The question being begged, always, by materialists and their fellow travellers, is the origin of digitally coded, functionally specific complex information.kairosfocus
September 23, 2010
September
09
Sep
23
23
2010
04:07 AM
4
04
07
AM
PDT
WH: Re your just now:
Any computer with a random number generator (use one that gets its random numbers from a radioactive source, just to forestall claims like, “Those are just pseudo random numbers!”) can create new information . . .
1 --> the computer is a complex, digital code cotrolled functional entitty that is a product of: purposefully directed contingency, i.e. design. 2 --> it is a known artifact of intelligent agents, and so the creation of information, on an equally intelligently designed algorithm to create pseudo-random numbers, is a product of intelligence. 3 --> Going further, we are not talking about arbitrary long bit strings. We are talking about digitally coded, functional complex information, dFSCI. 4 --> You may find it informative to consult the peer reviewed paper discussed here in my always linked [and linked here] on the distinction between such functional sequences, random sequences and ordered sequences, given that strings are the fundamental data structure. 5 --> Similarly, you will find the peer reviewed paper here on how the FSC was measured for 35 protein families through an application and extension of the H metric commonly used in information theory also interesting. (You may find it profitable to read the Weak argument correctives linked on every UD page, at the top. Look at no's 25 - 29, which discuss this and related points.) _____________ WH: kindly, stop setting up and knocking over strawmen. G'day, GEM of TKIkairosfocus
September 23, 2010
September
09
Sep
23
23
2010
04:02 AM
4
04
02
AM
PDT
BA77 @ 92: Me: “BA77, the Last Universal Common Ancestor was not the First Living Thing.” BA77: "Warehuff,,,PROVE IT!!!" How about you PROVING IT!!!? What are your ideas on the first life? What was it like, when did it occur, how did it come to be and what evidence do you base your opinion on? If you don't any evidence to base your opinions on, I won't stop you from speculating based on whatever you can figure out. Kindly allow others the same right. BA77: "The “simplest” life currently found on the earth, the parasitic Mycoplasmal," is the result of 3-4 billion years of evolution. It has nothing to do with the OOL. The rest of @ 92, down to but not including "… no operation performed by a computer can create new information.”: Is the result of 3-4 billion years of evolution and has nothing to do with the OOL. BA77: “… no operation performed by a computer can create new information.” Like UBP, you are using the wrong definition of information. Try this one, since it is appropriate to life: “Information is any type of pattern that influences the formation or transformation of other patterns.” Any computer with a random number generator (use one that gets its random numbers from a radioactive source, just to forestall claims like, "Those are just pseudo random numbers!") can create new information using this algorithm: A: Copy a portion of working DNA into a string. (You'll have to use a peripheral for this.) Example: "CATGATCGA.....CGATTCG". (For this example, assume that the string above is a copy of the APO-A1 gene I've discussed in another thread.) B: Using your random number generator, select one of the four possible basepairs (C, A, T or G) randomly. C: Select one of the basepairs in the APO-A1 string randomly. D: Change that basepair to the random basepair chosen in step B. Never mind if they're the same. E: If the new string is different from the starting string, then your computer has generated new information. But we don't know if it's useful information or just junk, so we have to test it using natural selection: F: Copy the string into a fetus's DNA (you'll have to use a peripheral for this), gestate the fetus till birth than watch it and its descendents to see if they are unusually free from heart attacks and strokes. G: If they are, HALT. You have generated new CSI. If not, throw the modified gene away and go back to step A:. Repeat until the program halts. Congratulations, your computer has developed a new gene, APO-A1M. The lucky people who have it will be almost immune to heart attack and stroke. Google APO-A1M for details. Reflect on how this is exactly what evolution does, except without the computer.warehuff
September 23, 2010
September
09
Sep
23
23
2010
03:17 AM
3
03
17
AM
PDT
PPPS: While name-calling -- on whichever side, cf the weak argument correctives above to see where the main guilt lies on this matter: "if you live in a glass house . . . " -- is regrettable, it is also the case that no authority is better than his or her facts, evidence, reasoning and underlying assumptions. So, in a day where there is abundant evidence that a priori evolutionary materialism is imposed by a reigning ideologised, ruthless and closed-minded Orthodoxy on institutional science and education, citation of authority can often be worse than useless. To the merits, to the merits, to the merits, we must go.kairosfocus
September 23, 2010
September
09
Sep
23
23
2010
02:45 AM
2
02
45
AM
PDT
PPS: WH, I forgot to explicitly point out that one of my objections to your dismissal attempt above, is that you seem to be trying to slip in a question-begging, empirically unwarranted redefinition of life. The only observed self-replicating life is also metabolising, and cell based. The observed system embeds a von Neumann type replicator, one that allows a metabolising entity to make a copy of itself, perhaps with some variation. So, until you can account credibly for the origin of that observed entity, you have not got to the first step in addressing the actual observed evidence. Just-so materialistic speculations are not good enough, and they have never been so.kairosfocus
September 23, 2010
September
09
Sep
23
23
2010
02:37 AM
2
02
37
AM
PDT
WH: 1: Kindly show the empirical case where a self-replicating form originates spontaneously in a warm little pond or other PLAUSIBLE first life origins environment. (Manipulated chemical setups that depend on chemists do not count.) 2: I find it exceedingly odd that you are struggling to "define" intelligence. If you were to scroll up to the UD glossary, you will see that we cite Wikipedia c. 2008 in their article on intelligence, as a good first pass on the concept:
“capacities to reason, to plan, to solve problems, to think abstractly, to comprehend ideas, to use language, and to learn.”
3: Further to this, you know full well that all participants here exemplify such, and that one characteristic of intelligence manifested in this thread is that we routinely produce complex, linguistically and/or algorithmically functional, digitally coded information. [dFSCI for short.] 4: There are no -- repeat, no -- observed cases where such dFSCI has been observed to be produced by a blind process of chance and mechanical necessity. And, this is backed up by the implications of the configuration space of so small a quantum of information as 1,000 bits or 125 bytes: ten times the square of the number of Planck-time quantum states the atoms of the observed universe will have across the thermodynamically credible lifespan of the said cosmos. In short, the search space is unsearchable beyond 1 in 10^150th part. Or, effectively zero search. 5: So, since miraculous luck is not a plausible proposal, any theory that proposes spontaneous origin of dFSCI as a core plank in its foundation, is in deep empirical and theoretical trouble. Especially when we do have a routinely empirically observed cause of dFSCI: intelligence. 6: Of course, all of this comes back to the focal point made by Mr Dodgen in his first post, as our observed verbalising intelligences capable of creating complex information systems -- as OBSERVED life forms manifestly are (no speculative just-so stories need apply) -- are unified, conscious, rational selves, i.e. what the ancients used to call "souls." 7:: So, Mr Dodgen:
Don’t tell me that anyone doesn’t at least eventually ask the only substantive and meaningful questions: 1) Why am I here? 2) Where did I come from? 3) Is there any ultimate purpose or meaning in my life? If Darwinism is true, the answers to these questions are obvious: 1) No reason. 2) Chemistry and chance, which did not have you in mind. 3) No. You are an ephemeral product of 2). The problem is that Darwinism is obviously not true, and the scientific evidence mounts every day that its mechanisms are catastrophically inadequate as an explanation for what we observe. The philosophical, theological, ethical, and existential ramifications of this debate cut to the core of the human soul, which is why it inspires so much passion.
8: He is right on why the debate triggers so much passion in a day when institutional science and education are dominated by ideological a priori Lewontinian materialism. 9: He is even more right that the Darwinian answers to the 3 key questions make little sense. Where the evidence points to purposeful directed contingency as the best empirically warranted explanation for the origin of life, "no reason" is an utterly unwarranted preferred answer for why we are here. 10: Similarly, chemical-physical necessity and random chemical and genetic processes cannot credibly get us to islands of function in vast seas of non-function, where we have metabolism conjoined to an abstract coded informational representation of the system that can drive a self-replication process. 11: So, the evolutionary materialist account of origins collapses into empirically unjustified just so stores, on reasonable examination. It dominates ideologically, not on evidence and reason. 12: And, WH, I notice above that you dodged the issue pointed out -- to explain the origin of observed cell based life, it is not enough to try to redefine life as some unobserved imaginary self-replicating molecular complex without metabolism. 13: You have to account for the origin of joint metabolism and code driven self-replication of the metabolising entity. 14: To duck this challenge is to play at strawman tactics. (And BTW, I observe you seem to have ducked aside once I cited specific sources from the literature. that suggests your arguments on citation above were intimidatory, not serious.) _______________ I await a solid response on the merits, not the strawmen. GEM of TKI PS: Gil, I hope the above helps refocus on the original post.kairosfocus
September 23, 2010
September
09
Sep
23
23
2010
02:31 AM
2
02
31
AM
PDT
allanius @ 98: "Warehuff at 89: Dear fellow, my impression was that he’s saying you’re a pompous ass. This is so obvious to everyone reading this thread (except you) that he felt comfortable allowing your pomposity to speak for itself." Could it be that the problem here is that name calling is so prevalent on this blog that any challenge to the practice is perceived as threatening which then generates more name calling?warehuff
September 23, 2010
September
09
Sep
23
23
2010
01:55 AM
1
01
55
AM
PDT
StephenB @ 97: "This may come as a big surprise to you, but there are people who can assess the validity of an argument independent of the so-called authority of the arguer." Indeed there are, but they actually discuss the arguments and give their reasons for agreeing or disagreeing with it, they don't just call them a fairy tale. "I heard of one “expert” scientist in Australia who insists that vegetables can feel pain." And I would assess the validity of that argument by pointing out that every thing we know about pain says it is a phenomena of a nervous system and vegetables don't have one of those. That contributes to the conversation. It engages the theory. It says why I don't think it's correct. That's so much more useful than just saying that the theory is a fairy tale.warehuff
September 23, 2010
September
09
Sep
23
23
2010
01:49 AM
1
01
49
AM
PDT
gpuccio @ 95: "I am perfectly free to express mu opinions about any scientific paper, on this blog or elsewhere, just as anybody else can do." And nobody has suggested otherwise. I assure you that a lot of people, myself included, would be heart broken if you stopped posting. At least one blog might have to close down. "So, if eminent biologists state something, they have to convince me that what they are saying is reasonable and credible, otherwise I feel free not to be convinced, I feel free to write that in this blog, and to explain why." The problem is that saying their theory is a fairy tale doesn't explain anything. It's just name calling. If you want to explain why you're not convinced, try pointing out an error in the paper and show us why it's wrong. That would be explaining. But maybe you did that elsewhere on UD? You did say, "I have already commented on Yarus’ theory that a biochemical reason is behind the code." I assume you're talking about the "Michael Yarus and the Thing that Couldn't Die" thread last June 7, but you just get lost on Weasel and never even comment on this paper, which is about something else. "You can stick to your concepts of authority..." This is not about authority, it's about educated people writing about their field of competence in a major publication vs someone who knows next to nothing about biology slagging them instead of engaging their ideas. Tell us which of the ideas in that paper you don't agree with and why and you'll be contributing to a healthy discussion and you'll have my respect. Tell me their paper is a vague fairy tail and you're just name calling and that contributes nothing to the discussion.warehuff
September 23, 2010
September
09
Sep
23
23
2010
01:38 AM
1
01
38
AM
PDT
BA, UB: thank you indeed for the kind words. I really treasure your friendship.gpuccio
September 23, 2010
September
09
Sep
23
23
2010
12:59 AM
12
12
59
AM
PDT
Gil: I copy here my post on the twin thread, just to contribute to the cause: "Shall we try to quantify the improbability? :) "gpuccio
September 23, 2010
September
09
Sep
23
23
2010
12:57 AM
12
12
57
AM
PDT
Kairosfocus @ 102: "Without metabolism and self-replication, there is no cell based life worth the name." See my last posting. No contemporary scientific OOL theory that I am aware of claims that the FTL had any kind of metabolism, just self-reproduction. Turing machines are not needed and the proposed FTL is much smaller than 1000 sub units.warehuff
September 23, 2010
September
09
Sep
23
23
2010
12:22 AM
12
12
22
AM
PDT
I'm going to start with Upright BiPed's post # 107. I'll start with the part that made me go, "Whaaa..": Me: "I’m using “intelligence” to mean “conscious thinker” or “human like consciousness or better” or just “intelligent designer”. UBP: You are now simply assuming your conclusions. You have done so without providing any evidence that it is true, and without addressing the intractable evidence that it’s false. This is hardly an act befitting the age of enlightenment, wouldn’t you agree?" What exactly am I supposed to be assuming here? What intractable evidence shows it's false, whatever it is? "Intelligent" and "Intelligence" aren't well defined because we still don't know exactly how they work, but when I use the words with regard to ID, I mean "possessing whatever humans possess when we say humans are intelligent". I'm not restricting the intelligent designer here - he or she can be much smarter than humans. I'm just saying human level intelligence is the lower limit for an intelligent designer. UBP: "Your proposition removes the information carriers (DNA and RNA) from the FLT" It's not my proposal, it's every proposal for the OOL I've ever heard come out of the scientific community, at least since Pasteur. DNA is universally assumed to have come long after the OOL by scientists. UPB: "No particular arrangement of atoms has information by virtue of being a particular arrangement of atoms." "You are making a category error. Information is an abstraction ABOUT something of interest; it is not IN something of interest." There are a lot of different definitions of "information". Here's one that is very appropriate to the OOL from the wikipedia entry on "information": "Information is any type of pattern that influences the formation or transformation of other patterns." It goes on to add, "In this sense, there is no need for a conscious mind to perceive, much less appreciate, the pattern." As an OOL example, if you have a polymer made of ten subunits and those subunits have electrostatic fields that attract similar subunits so that they line up beside the original polymer and join together to make a new polymer just like the old one, you have met the definition above. The information is in the pattern of electromagnetic fields that attract the new subunits and the information exists solely by virtue of the particular arrangement of atoms in the original polymer. UBP: "Given that you’ve not been able thus far to grasp the issue at hand..." I think the problem is that you're using the wrong definition of information. Me: "The FTL would have been small enough to form spontaneously." UBP: "This comment is simply silly. The size of the organism has nothing to do with it. There is nothing in physical evidence that says “if it just gets small enough, it will pop into existence”." First don't think "organism" for the FTL. All of the scientific hypothesis lean more towards my short polymer example. Second, I'm sure Dr. Dembski will confirm that a short polymer has a bigger chance of forming spontaneously than a longer polymer. All of the current scientific OOL theories call for a polymer or other chemical(s) that are small enough and simple enough to form spontaneously. Once they've formed and have started to reproduce, evolution takes over and adds information to them. UBP regarding gpuccio: "He has the best of bonafides. He is open-minded, trained, curious (and a gentleman)." And Yarus et al are much better trained, much more knowledgeable, probably more curious and I would argue much more open minded. Until I hear them rubbishing a competing theory by calling it a vague fairy tail, I'll consider them better gentlemen as well.warehuff
September 23, 2010
September
09
Sep
23
23
2010
12:12 AM
12
12
12
AM
PDT
1 2 3 5

Leave a Reply