Have you ever tried writing palindromes? How about writing phrases that can be read the same way in either direction? Here are some examples:
A man, a plan, a canal: Panama
Live not on evil
Was it a car or a cat I saw
These sentences were no doubt designed…
Can you imagine writing a book that can be read forwards and backwards containing 2 different stories that made sense? Not an easy task…
Watch the video and pay special attention to the following examples:
- Alternative splicing of RNA that produces multiple proteins from one gene
- Duons – Overlapping sequences that code for both protein expression and transcription factor binding sites simultaneously
- Dual coding genes in which one sequence is read in multiple frames to produce completely different protein
The magnitude of the dual coding problem in DNA would be the equivalent of writing a novel that could be read in either forward over reverse directions making two different stories both of which made sense…
And don’t forget that according to Darwinists the dual coding in DNA simply evolved, right?
Well, that’s precisely your problem. You want to cherry pick what counts for your “argument.” You only want to consider what is known about designers when it helps your case, not when it doesn’t. You want to consider something as a “problem” (for example, the “origin” of “repeatability” and “specificity”), as long as you can ignore it when it interferes with your preferred conclusion.
Entropy,
The argument is what it is. Like all arguments it has strengths and weaknesses. I personally find the argument that biology built itself by reproduction, random change and environmental pressure lacks plausibility.
I agree that the design inference lacks a specific explanation but it is the best description of the origin and evolution of living organisms I have heard at this point.
We already have candidates for the origins and an established one for the diversity of life, that you’re so fucking stupid that you can’t guess which those are comes as no surprise to anyone
Then it can’t be the best explanation (nor “description”, nice try but no cigar) because it’s not one. No inference can change that, dimwit
colewd,
Oh no Bill. Confront the issue head on: how could that be the “best explanation” to anything if it relies on ignoring some fundamental problems? How could anybody say, with s straight face, that it is even an explanation when it, so obviously, relies on cherry-picking for the sake of the conclusion? (Leaving aside that it really doesn’t explain anything.)
If natural explanations, however misrepresented, don’t satisfy you, then the only honest position you could take is that you don’t know. That you have no idea. But pretending that the “design inference” has legs is just making a fool out of yourself.
Ah, I understand now. You just don’t know what “here” means, and you are incapable of a proper citation. For reference, in the future when you want to cite something in support of a contention, cite the paper that made the contention rather than one that refutes it. So what’s wrong with the refutation?
Then you don’t understand what a refutation is.
No, I’m claiming that you don’t have a clue how science works. Specifically:
1. You seem to think that experiments are better in some way than data gathered in some other fashion.
2. You seem to think that experiments result in something other than inference to the best explanation.
3. You use “experimental” as an incantation to add glamor to the word “tested”, which it does not.
Exactly. You use “experimentally” and “validated” as magic words without any comprehension of how science actually works, as you demonstrate right there.
dazz,
So your claim is design is not an explanation. You were unable to support your claim that the origin and diversity of life had scientific entailments. Can you support this claim? Please show me that your skill set goes beyond ad hominem attacks and unsupported assertions.
John Harshman,
If I claim my hypothesis is tested, what does that mean to you?
That observations, experimental or otherwise, have backed up your hypothesis.
Shocked I am that you don’t know this about science. Ha ha, no.
Glen Davidson
To you it means, apparently, that it’s something you want to believe. It certainly has nothing to do with science. Now, if I made that claim, it would mean something different: that it had survived an encounter with data in some comparison of hypotheses, possibly with a formal, statistical test.
Here’s a case in astronomy where a test of a hypothesis is made, which consists wholly in non-experimental observations:
https://tinyurl.com/y7ycx3n9
Glen Davidson
John Harshman,
So in your world that data is always compared to a competing hypothesis? When you did the sequencing of the flightless birds what determined that the data survived the encounter?
Scientific entailments? Theories, hypothesis, in short, explanations are what have entailments. “Design” has none. Nobody knows what design is about. At least special creation has some entailments, like (some) life forms must appear fully formed. of course that was refuted long ago. so…
We have RNA world and metabolism first theories for the beginning of life and of course, evolution for it’s diversity. Those things have plenty entailments whether you like it or not
You persist in word salad. It’s not the data that survive the encounter. It’s the hypothesis. The data test the hypotheses, not the other way around. In that case, I compared all credible hypotheses of relationships using a Shimodaira-Hasegawa test. The bootstraps of the phylogenetic hypotheses also constitute tests of branch existence vs. branch nonexistence. And the binomial test of individual locus analyses also supported the main hypothesis. You could have found all this quickly by reading the Results section.
Just saying “it was designed!” has exactly the same explanatory power as saying ” it was MAGIC!” – none at all.
You need to prove some details: a mechanism for manufacture, a time line, a source of materials, etc. Evolution provides lots of such details backed with evidence. ID details are non-existent.
dazz,
Can you give me a few examples of what you consider entailments for OOL and Evolution?
Ah, we have reached the creationist default position and I get to quote myself:
And you were so close. You even Googled the word “palindrome” and cut and pasted stuff that was nearly OT, were it not for the unfortunate fact that the content had nothing to do whatsoever with duons or dual coding genes. And now you are retreating to abiogenesis again.
But let’s remember what this OP was about; It was posited that design is a superior explanation for the existence of dual coding genes:
I say that’s nonsense. The data are available. Are you willing to defend that claim? J-Mac won’t.
You still don’t understand. Entailments of OOL? It’s the proposed explanations, the hypothesis for the OOL that should have entailments. As in “if hypothesis X is true we should see Y”. Also you shouldn’t need to ask anyone: if something is entailed from an explanation it simply follows from it.
Here’s an easy one: if evolution is true, the book of Genesis is a fable. Of course we don’t need evolution to know that, but just so you get the point (and you won’t anyway)
I’m sure colewd can practice what he preaches.
colewd,
Can you give me a few examples of what you consider entailment’s for the creation of life and the Intelligent design of all biology?
On second thoughts, don’t bother. I already know what you are going to say. And it’s that predictability that makes your position empty and futile. It never produces anything new or useful, and yet you call it the “best” explanation regardless.
dazz,
Let me try again. What are the two most important entailments of OOL and evolution?
Corneel,
Design is a superior explanation for the origin of genetic information. A dual coding gene is just one example of many.
colewd:
Neither you nor J-Mac has demonstrated that, and neither of you can.
Then why have you never given us this explanation?
An incantation or invocation is not an explanation.
Glen Davidson
Bill, today:
Bill, yesterday:
John Harshman,
So if the branches exist you consider this a positive test for common ancestry? Is this confirmation dependent on common ancestry being the “best explanation” for the existence of the branches? Do you consider the existence of the branches evidence of or validation of the nested hierarchy?
OMagain:
colewd:
Those are questions, Bill. Can you answer them? (Rhetorical question.)
You have no coherent position. All you know is that you want your Jebus, and the “Darwinist” meanies keep shoving the truth in your face instead.
Do you consider the existence of three sides forming a plane figure to be evidence of or validation of the triangle?
IOW, are you ever going to recognize what the nested hierarchy is?
Glen Davidson
OMagain,
Overall it is the observation of cells ability to turn genetic information into mechanical work at the molecular level.
Two examples would be the origin of new genetic information in the form of DNA, and the origin of new genetic information in the form of post translational protein modification.
It is difficult to answer word salad questions, but I will try to answer the questions you might have asked if you were capable of coherent writing. Yes, the bootstrap is a test of the hierarchical structure of the data as it relates to particular portions of a tree. Common descent is the best explanation for the hierarchical structure of the data, but that’s not an emphatic enough statement. It isn’t just the best, it’s the only remotely plausible explanation.
Now you: what’s your argument? What’s your alternative explanation of the data?
Definition of insanity.
This is incoherent; let me demonstrate.
An entailment of OOL is that there was, at some time, life on earth. Check.
A second entailment is that, at some earlier time, there was not life on earth. Given what we know about planetary formation, this seems rather likely, so check.
An entailment of evolution is that there be a tree-like relationship between organisms that share a common ancestor. Check.
As has been pointed out to you, specific hypotheses about exactly HOW these things happened will have further entailments.
It has also been pointed out to you multiple times that your whole ” ‘inference to best explanation’ is different from ‘experimental science’ ” spiel is wrong: it’s ALL inference to best explanation. Trust me, I was a bench scientist for a couple of decades.
You don’t even get how competing hypotheses work:
You wrote:
Utter rubbish! The whole point of the eclipse data was that Einstein’s theory predicted a different result than did the competing theory (which had been around a while…) The eclipse data was 100% about distinguishing between two competing theories; it happened to be something of a slam dunk for Einstein.
P.S. Don’t know if it’s true, or mere dramatic licence, but Genius:Einstein portrays Einstein as getting the math wrong the first time, such that his prediction for the 1918 eclipse was off. The soon-to-be-ex-wife pointed out the error, and Albert was able to fix it in time for the 1919 eclipse, so the cloud cover saved him from an embarrassing failure… not that it matters, of course
colewd,
Dude, your second paragraph doesn’t even follow from the first.
You are hopelessly lost.
Your examples are marred by the presence of a number of words whose meanings you seem not to know, such as “genetic” and “information”.
They are also not entailments of design.
All we ever get from IDists are post-dictions…
John Harshman,
Your test requires the assertion (assumption) of common descent being the best or only explanation of the nested hierarchy that the data forms to be true. If common design is true in this specific case then your test is no longer valid.
Since your test requires inference to the best explanation as a working hypothesis then the design argument becomes a valid alternative explanation.
DNA_Jock,
It was about validating his predictive model was accurate. It was not against Newtons model at all because Newtons model did not show light following a curved path as light has almost zero mass. The test was to show the light of the star curved as the general relativity equations predicted.
This is where the slippery slope for evolutionists is.
That is not the point of the video or the OP. If it was, J-Mac would not be going bananas over palindromes. I sense some shifting of goal posts here.
But I am very impressed that, except for the stuff in the OP, you seem to be discussing everything else.
Better to quit with no meaningful evidence and no chance of increasing knowledge.
It’s the ID way.
Glen Davidson
Oh dear. Suppose, Bill, that “Newton’s model” did predict that light would curve around a massive object. (Certainly something that Newton’s (or Lucretius’s) theory could accommodate, Maxwell’s not so much…). Heck, suppose that Maxwell’s model did predict that light would bend around a massive object.
In that (counter-factual hypothetical) case, then the eclipse data would have failed to distinguish between the competing hypotheses.
Ack!
Yes! That’s right! Science, real actual science, is subject to dis-confirmation.
ID, not so much. Have you not thought this through? At all?
colewd:
Christ, Bill. Einstein himself said that it was a test of his theory against Newton’s:
The next time you get the urge to blurt something out, pause and remind yourself of how incompetent you are, and how likely it is that whatever you’re about to say will backfire on you.
DNA_Jock,
He made a mathematical model based on his hypothesis that space time curved in the presents of matter. The experiment validated the prediction of his mathematical model. Most experiments are validating a prediction or hypothesis on their own. Inference to the best explanation is primarily for historical sciences where direct testing of a hypothesis is difficult.
You need to define “real actual science.” Do you think inference to the best explanation is “real actual science” ?
Asked and answered:
Why do you think that experimental scientists sometimes get it wrong?
Hypotheses get replaced when a better one comes along; generally, it’s about dis-confirming the older hypothesis. Only possible if your hypothesis has entailments. THIS is how “experimental” science, all science, works.
DNA_Jock,
So the design inference is valid.
The question is have you directly validated your hypothesis by test and/or experiment? A lot has been written that inference to the best explanation is different then experimental science.
I would argue that you are making an inference prior to validation by test/or experiment. The test /or experiment confirms your inference. In the case of Einstein the experiment was to validate a predictive mathematical model.
No, the design dogma is not valid (more properly, sound).
Inference is not imposition.
First off, you certainly haven’t. Second, you’ve been told a huge number of times how it has been (and “test” includes observation) and so you are without excuse.
By the IDiots who don’t do design experiments.
Part of the reason evolution is the best explanation is that it is verified by experiment, so you have to be pretty ignorant to think the two are different.
Where’s the argument? Do you even know what a decent argument is, rather than a slogan from the charlatans?
It wasn’t an experiment, it was an observation. Certainly a test, nothing like the dull BS of ID.
Glen Davidson
colewd,
No. As John pointed out:
Evidence is evidence, whether experimental or observational.
ETA: Ninja’d by Glen.
No, that’s more word salad. The test is a test of common descent, because nothing else can explain the results of the test. “Common design” is not even a hypothesis that can be compared, since it predicts, entails, explains no data. If you disagree, then tell me a) what you mean by “common design” and b) what sort of data we expect from common design and c) why we expect that. I ask this in the full knowledge that you can’t do any of those things and can’t even recognize what it would be to do them.
More word salad. The test doesn’t require inference to the best explanation. Inference to the best explanation is how we draw conclusions from the test results. And it’s not a working hypothesis; it’s a tested hypothesis. All science is in fact inference to the best explanation. What the “design argument” lacks is any semblance of an explanation, never mind a test.
John Harshman,
So we have a hypothesis that explains itself because there is no possible alternative. The evolutionists here continue to make this false assertion. You have simply declared it to be true by edict and claim the counter arguments non existent. Your experiment depends on an assumption made by edict. Please explain to me why this is not ridiculous.
Common design would predict correlation between morphological and phylogenetic data as I showed in the Apple computer example.
The proposed evolutionary processes would lose correlation over time by breaking down the sequence. This can be easily demonstrated by experiment. Run the Weasel program, start with the original sentence, “me thinks it is like a weasel”, put it on random search, and select any coherent english sentence that is finds. You will observe that it quickly breaks down the sequence and never returns a coherent sentence.
The combination of design and common descent will solve this problem. Showing the eukaryotic cell came from prokaryotic cells would be required to claim that common descent was universal and remove all lines of demarkation.
The design argument explains the origin of genetic information which is required to explain the origin and diversity of life.
colewd,
I’m sorry, Bill, but I can’t think of any scenario under which you end up understanding any of this. You just aren’t equipped. You even seem to be getting worse. You can’t write a coherent sentence, which makes it difficult to respond. You can’t understand the responses anyway. Not much point here.
John:
It’s true, Bill. You don’t have the cognitive resources, and you really do seem to be getting worse, as hard as that is to imagine.
As I put it earlier:
Inference. You are doing it wrong. The problem with the “design inference” is NOT that it is an “inference to best explanation”-type of inference — we keep explaining to you that ALL science carries that feature, rather it is that the design “explanation” carries no entailments, makes no predictions, and is NOT testable. Therefore, not science. (Read Kitcher for additional reasons)
Why, yes, I have. I hate to break it to you, but every time a scientist sequences a novel piece of DNA he or she is testing the prediction of a nested hierarchy. Every day, scientists use predictions of evolutionary theory to aid them in the development of novel medicines. Rest assured, the people financing their research couldn’t care less about any Darwinist omerta, they are only interested in results.
By actual scientists, or by third-rate philosophers with an agenda?
You formulate a hypothesis. You use the hypothesis to make a prediction. You test the prediction. But the value of the prediction depends on whether alternative hypotheses would make a similar prediction; that is, does your prediction distinguish your hypothesis from the competing hypotheses? The trick in experimental science is to design your experiment such that (if it works) it will rule out all plausible competing hypotheses. That’s actually where all the heavy lifting occurs: your colleagues will grill you “Have you considered the possibility that …” , “How will you rule THAT out?” etc.
It wasn’t an experiment, for crying out loud, it was an observation. Same as a new DNA sequence.
DNA_Jock,
It makes sense of the observation of the cell and its ability to turn information into work. As I said to John you can test if random change and selection can change “me thinks it is a weasel” into another coherent sentence by random change and so far it fails every time.
As with design there is no test that can validate if any proposed evolutionary mechanisms are capable of transitioning animal A into animal B. The nested hierarchy alone cannot separate design from descent.
I agree with all this and have some experience here. The prediction I would make with design is that cellular mechanisms are consistent across cell types. My experience with this is cellular control being managed by destruction mechanisms which control the amount of cell cycle proteins in the nucleus and whether cell division occurs.
So should we put out a press release the famous “eclipse experiment” is not an experiment after all.