Upright BiPed has been proposing what he has called a “semiotic” theory of Intelligent Design, for a while, which I have found confusing, to say the least. However, he is honing his case, and asks Nick Matzke…
…these three pertinent questions regarding the existence of information within a material universe:
- In this material universe, is it even conceivably possible to record transferable information without utilizing an arrangement of matter in order to represent that information? (by what other means could it be done?)
- If 1 is true, then is it even conceivably possible to transfer that information without a second arrangement of matter (a protocol) to establish the relationship between representation and what it represents? (how could such a relationship be established in any other way?)
- If 1 and 2 are true, then is it even conceivably possible to functionally transfer information without the irreducibly complex system of these two arrangements of matter (representations and protocols) in operation?
… which I think clarify things a little.
I think I can answer them, but would anyone else like to have a go? (I’m out all day today).
Madbat,
Your argument is that the letter “a” (an arrangement of matter which represents an effect within a system, one having the protocol required to establish the relationship between the representation and its effect) is not arbitrary to physical law. I could easily ask which of the physical regularities we call laws, individually or in combination (Einstein’s Relativity, Maxwell’s Electromagnetic Field, or the Weak and Strong nuclear forces) is responsible for the letter “a” representing the “ahh” sound that humans make, and of course, I would want to know how you know this to be true. But, let us be appropriately modest, it would be an endless line of inflated assumptions on your part in order to answer such a question. So what’s the point? One thing I would like to ask you is this: you’ve pointed to a physical organization (in this case a human brain in a human body) as the responsible organization which caused the representation “a” to exist as it does. Are you saying that ‘because of the existence of physical regularities’ (laws), you deny the existence of any arbitrary representation whatsoever? Or, are you saying that arbitrary representations can and do exist, it’s just that they require a suitable organization capable of creating them?
Your X does not demonstrate B.
Implicit in your premise is the unsupported assertion that the information in the genome has been purposely recorded using molecules as semiotic abstract symbols. This has never been demonstrated and indeed is what you’re trying to prove.
Since your premise is flawed, your whole argument is invalid.
1. “All intelligently designed (semiotic) communications systems require physical means to pass information.
2. DNA –> protein requires physical means to pass information.
3. Therefore DNA –> protein is an intelligently designed semiotic communication system”
is just as bad as
1. “All fish use fins for propulsion
2. Whales use fins for propulsion
3. Therefore whales are fish”
How many people have pointed out your beginner’s logic flaw to you? 10? 20? And you still don’t get it.
How many people have pointed out your beginner’s logic flaw to you? 10? 20? And you still don’t get it.
Very nice summary.
Read does not necessarily mean understood. Another round of Nested Hierarchies, Joe?
oleg-
You don’t understand nested hierarchies.
UBP,
I’m not sure which philosophical basket you would stick it in, but you have somewhat scooted past the biochemical argument I attempted to present.
Any particular interaction between one molecule and another takes place because it is thermodynamically favourable to do so. The ‘information’ is that there is a slope, a gradient of chemical potential down which the reaction will proceed, releasing energy, and against which the interaction will not proceed unless you put energy in. An enzyme is simply a chemical catalyst that changes the shape of the potential gradient to render it more likely that the reaction will proceed down it – perhaps by orienting the molecules in a manner that maximises the likelihood of interaction.
It is very closely analogous to a system in which a ball sits in a pocket near a slope. If a process lowers the edge of the pocket, the ball will fall downslope. The only ‘information’ here is gravity.
Now, a ribosome is simply an RNA enzyme. All it does is progress along a piece of mRNA and link amino acids, by using the mRNA to create a stable ‘docked’ arrangement. The mRNA holds the tRNA in place, by complementary base pairing (another ‘energy gradient’ process), which allows the amino acid to be condensed onto the growing peptide chain. The condensation of the amino acids is a chemical reaction, energised (unusually) by GTP not ATP. Give a ribosome a set of amino-acid-charged tRNA molecules, and any that can base-pair with the particular bases in the mRNA chain will cause alignment of the amino acid with the end of the growing chain, and attachment. If a codon in the mRNA does not have a matching tRNA, elongation will stop.
Now, I don’t see anything fundamentally ‘semiotic’ about that system. If mRNA is poly-U, and the only tRNA in the world has a codon AAA, then you will synthesise polyphenylalanine, until you hit a triplet in the mRNA that is not UUU. The interactions are all mechanistic – UUU mRNA has a thermodynamically favourable interaction with AAA-bearing tRNA codons, which enhances the ability of the condensation process to condense.
In that system, you have two basic ‘meanings’ – UUU ‘represents’ phenylalanine, everything else ‘represents’ STOP. You can call it semiotic, but it is not a representational relationship. UUU physically stabilises tRNA binding, and if the only tRNA has phenylalanine on the end of it, that is what gets stuck on the end of the growing peptide chain. Replace phenylalanine by any other acid, and that is what you get stuck on the end instead. But again, UUU/AAA interaction does not become ‘representational’ of that acid, any more than GGG would be ‘representational’ of STOP. UUU/AAA base pairing is simply what happens when UUU/AAA get close to each other. STOP is simply what happens when the ribosome hits a physically unfulfillable gap in the tRNA set, because there is nothing to dock with that codon.
So your ‘semiotic’ argument seems to depend on a multi-acid tRNA set, rather than the fundamental process of ribosomal protein elongation. And so, what grounds do you have for insisting that ribosome-mediated peptide synthesis MUST be viewed as a multi-acid system, at the OoL or at any subsequent point (prior to LUCA)?
How does the system know the code, Allan?
The system need not “know” the code any more than hydrogen and oxygen “know” that if they combine in a 2:1 ratio that water will result.
It is UB’s intrinsic claim that ‘the code’ was “written”. But other than strained analogies and misinterpretations of scientific concepts (such as the role of aminoacyl synthetases), I see nothing but unnecessarily verbose face-saving.
Exactly. Beautifully put.
Or alternatively: “what grounds do you have for insisting that the multi-acid system we observe is unevolvable?”
Well all one has to do is step up and demonstrate that a ribosome can evolve via accumulations of genetic accidents.
Unfortunately that ain’t going to happen. So what do you have?
UB:
Biped, your response, and your belief that this is a contradiction, confirms beyond any doubt my original suspicion that you neither understand the word “entailment,” nor understand the the entailment relationship described in the simple illustrations we have provided. For that reason, you repeatedly travel the wrong way down a one-way street.
Wetted ground is an absolutely reliable entailment of (consequence of) rainstorms, in that wet ground always results from rainstorms. By modus tollens, if I hypothesize that it rained 15 minutes ago, I may test my hypothesis because rain 100% reliably entails wet ground. If I fail to find this entailment of rain, my hypothesis fails. If I do find wet ground my hypothesis is not disconfirmed, and indeed it is strengthened because a prediction that flowed from it has been confirmed. But it could still be wrong.
See entailment works? It does not follow from the fact that wet ground is a 100% reliable entailment of rain that upon finding wet ground we can be 100% certain that it rained. Entailment is a one-way street; wet ground is an entailment of (necessarily follows from) rain, but rain is not an entailment of (does not necessarily follow from) wet ground.
Similarly, your “listed entailments” (although there can now be no doubt that you actually don’t understand “entailment”) may follow from “recorded information” with 100% reliability. I may hypothesize “this phenomenon is an instance of recorded information,” an hypothesis which may be tested because your “listed entailments” follow from the fact of recorded information. If I fail to find one or more of your “entailments,” then the hypothesis is disconfirmed. If I do find your “entailments” then my hypothesis is strengthened – but still may be wrong, because although your listed characteristics are (we grant arguendo) an entailment of the transfer of recorded information, “the transfer of recorded information” is NOT AN ENTAILMENT OF YOUR “LISTED ENTAILMENTS.” Other processes may result in the presence of those features.
That is why “Yet you don’t know a single way to record and transfer information that doesn’t entail the physical roles and dynamic relationships as given in the argument you wish to refute” doesn’t accomplish what you think it does. Nor does this more elaborated version of the same argument:
Wrong question. The question is, “can a process other than the necessarily semiotic transfer of recorded information result in an arrangement of matter to represent an effect within a system, as well as an arrangement of matter to establish the relationship between the representation and the effect within that system?”
We say yes. You don’t believe it (so what?). That’s the question at issue. Reasoning such as yours goes no distance whatever to settle the matter, regardless of how fervently you wish it were so.
I notice you don’t respond at all to my remark regarding your unwarranted leap from “transfer of recorded information” to “semiotic state,” nor my further question vis your definition of “semiotic state” and what that entails that “recorded information does not.”
Why not?
Say yes all you wat to, you don’t have any evidence.
Right, Joe. Tell us again how the tree of life is not a nested hierarchy.
Take it to the sandbox- but thanks for proving my point.
Joe
It doesn’t.
any more than a ball knows to roll downhill
Upright BiPed,
There is no requirement for a “protocol” to transfer “information”.
A protocol implies that a “sender” and “receiver” share a common set of actions that are applied to “information” transfer.
A “protocol” is not required in the case of pressing a vinyl record for example.
While the stamping device is an “arrangement of matter”, there is no protocol required between the original and copy and no “arrangement of matter” is required for a “message” either.
At the point of existence for the copy, it already contains the original’s “information”, and at not time in its existence is it lacking that “information”.
Cells work this way too as at no time is DNA “information” transferred from an existing cell which has it to an existing cell which doesn’t.
There is no contradiction that I can see.
If it has rained, I can be 100% certain that if I walk out my front door, the ground will wet.
If I come home and the ground is wet, my neighbour may have been nice enough to water my lawn for me and there is no requirement for rain.
Perhaps UB has been learning to affirm the consequent from his UD co-denizen StephenB, who insists that if x implies y, then y implies x.
So UB keeps repeating “All dogs have 4 legs, therefore everything with 4 legs is a dog”, in different words, over and over. And still no materialists are “honest” enough to agree with him, like they all do over at UD.
It seems to me that all ID arguments are in this form.
Well actually there are times when DNA is inserted into a cell or acquired by a cell, but I don’t think those instances are what UB has in mind.
Yes, UB and the ID movement is desperately trying to claim a limited computer analogy as a valid model model of biology.
The cell should not be considered to be equivalent in operation to a human designed computer.
When you have a computer that can model chemistry in real time, we can test hypotheses.
My own position is that for the purpose of testing evolutionary hypotheses, chemistry is faster than computation.
Which is why I have been arguing that design is impossible without invoking some kind of evolution. Chemistry is going to be faster than any simulation of chemistry.
Above I said:
This is intended in this sense: “Wetted ground is an absolutely reliable entailment of (consequence of) rainstorms, in that rainstorms always result in wet ground.”
It occurred to me that the original is ambiguous, and could be construed as “all wet ground results from rainstorms.” Not my intention (which should be obvious).
I haven’t read through all the comments, but the three questions do not make any sense. All three are questions, not statements, so what does it mean for them to be true? (“If 1 is true …”; “If 1 and 2 are true …”). If an answer of “yes” means they are true, then #3 makes no sense.
Anyway, the answers to 1 and 2 are both “yes”.
(1) We can (and do) represent information in EM radiation (e.g., light or radiowaves), AND
(2) we also transmit it that way.
(3) Is incomprehensible (to me, anyway).
Forgive me if others have already said this.
Thanks. I re-read the post, and withdraw my query, Your use of “arbitrary” was not as arbitrary as I thought.
Thorton,
When you say that my “X does not demonstrate B”, it is required that you actually engage the material evidence in order to support that assertion. This is fundamental to empirical discourse, and the distinction between the two approaches is tremendous. Conclusions are supposed to flow from the evidence, not to it. Yet once again, you have failed this basic approach. In place of engaging the material evidence, you have injected something into the argument that does not exist. It’s most likely that you do this because the potential implications of the argument are displeasing to you. These implications are apparently more important to you than the material observations themselves; consequently your response is based upon the implications; not the evidence.
It is not an “implicit” “premise” “that the information in the genome has been purposely recorded using molecules as semiotic abstract symbols.” The argument addresses material observations alone. Those observations demonstrate a semiotic state. It is the observations you’ll have to contend with.
Hello again, Allan
Again, thank you for your thoughtful response. There is no need for a philosophical basket; the issue here represents nothing more than not having more time to participate.
First off, let me say that I have no issue with those who would like to conduct a search for a purely natural OoL explanation. What I have a problem with is having (truly) massive speculation adopted as the absolute default position among the sciences, all in the face of substantial material evidence to the contrary, then having the institutions of knowledge, the media, and the courts, used as weapons against anyone who disagrees or poses a question.
You yourself have noted (in your posts) that the argument being made here doesn’t just go away because there might be less than 20 amino acids. And now you raise again an issue we had begun to discuss in terms of the elaborate biosynthesis of the ribosome and its maturation. Then of course there is tRNA and its ATP powered activation process, and regulation, and transport, and energy distribution, and isolation from contamination, etc, etc. But to answer your question above; the obvious answer is because ‘mono-acid ribosome-mediated peptide synthesis’ doesn’t have the information-carrying capacity to encode (and organize) mono-acid ribosome-mediated peptide synthesis. There is therefore absolutely no evidence to suggest it can begin to encode a multi-acid system. To gaze fondly at poly-uracil is, once again, to operate as if there are no limits to abiogenesis – which is the exact opposite of what is actually found.
When we presume to look back in biological history through the process of observing physical evidence, we never come to a point in the journey where complex, information-based organization isn’t found or isn’t required. That glorious threshold simply does not exist as a material fact, not by any stretch of reason. In fact, the direct opposite is true. So perhaps it is not so much that my argument requires a multi-acid system, but instead, it is biofunction itself that requires it. On the other hand, it is your position that requires a drastically simpler system, as evidenced by it being the focal point of your argument.
RB,
Certainly you are not suggesting you were unaware that the entailments being discussed were those that confirm semiosis. Surely you remember reading ”Demonstrating a system that satisfies the entailments (physical consequences) of recorded information, also confirms the existence of a semiotic state.” In fact, did you not once ask me specifically about that sentence? Wet ground is not “a 100% reliable entailment” that CONFIRMS that it has rained. I already have to say “recorded information transfer” every time I say “information”, I would hate to think that I must now say “semiosis confirming entailment of recorded information transfer” every time I say “entailment”.
I have no problem remarking on this. “Semiosis” is our descriptive word for the use of signs, representations, and symbols. All transfer of recorded information must happen in a semiotic state – by representation. You say it’s an “unwarranted leap”, then describe a transfer of recorded information that isn’t accomplished by representation. This was the point of the questions in the OP which began this thread. In fact, this was in my last post to you:
When you do so, then you can characterize the linking of information transfer to semiosis as “unwarranted”.
Once again, this is a (now repeated) demonstrated example of you excusing yourself from having to provide any support for your position. My question to you is simple; does this exemplify the empiricism you hold as scientific?
Toronto,
You are (perhaps legitimately) confusing transcription with translation. Transcription can be accomplished by direct templating, but alone, it cannot create the effect of the information. To create the effect, translation must occur, which requires a protocol.
When I use the term “transfer”, I am referring to the transfer of information into its effect – and there is a definite reason for viewing it in those terms. That reason is this: IF we cannot see/determine a functional effect being driven by the input of representations, then we cannot know with any confidence that information actually exists and is being transferred. I will explain through an example. Imagine something like an archeological artifact with some obscure characters appearing on it. Can we say that those characters represent something? No. We can likely imagine that they do, but without a protocol to understand what they mean (ie achieving their functional effect) we can only imagine them to be so. Ultimately, they could be no more than pointless scratches left by a child with a stick in his hand. Now imagine finding something like the Rosetta stone, which had characters that we knew, along with those that we didn’t know. It served as a protocol, allowing us to take those representations to their effect – thereby confirming with confidence that information did indeed exist in those representations, and had indeed been transferred (translated).
You can think of transcription as a process that makes a copy of representations. Translation is a process of actualizing the effect of those representations. They are materially very different. And by the way, both of these processes are completely exemplified in the processing of DNA.
Toronto,
As explained above, the ground being wet does not confirm that it had rained. On the other hand, the entailments presented in the argument successfully confirm the existence of a semiotic state. That is why the analogy was flawed when it was presented, and has remained flawed thereafter. You can challenge its power to confirm a semiotic state by presenting a method to record and transfer information that does not use “matter as both a medium to carry that information in a representational form, and as the physical pathway for instantiating that representation back into an effect.”
R0b, I had never thought of taking potshots to be your style. In any case, if you’d like to present a manner in which to record and transfer information without representations and protocols, then I will be happy to engage your example.
You’re right — not only was that a baseless insult, it was also really lame. I’m sorry.
As for your challenge involving information, the recording and transferring thereof, representations, and protocols, I would have to know how broadly you define those terms. Without operational definitions, a prolonged semantic runaround seems inevitable.
Dtheobald,
It is a common as can be in these conversations, that when someone states something requires the “matter in/of the universe”, they are naturally including by shorthand the energy in the cosmos as well (given E=MC2). In other words, they mean ‘the matter and energy that make up the universe’.
With that simple clarification, I’d be happy to hear of any method you know that can record and transfer information which does not use “matter as both a medium to carry that information in a representational form, and as the physical pathway for instantiating that representation back into an effect.”
To All…
We have now gone three or four rounds of back and forth. To date, no one has been able to successfully challenge the material observations in the semiotic argument. Also, there have been a series of very normal misunderstandings and clarifications. The remainder of the conversation has been an attempt to show a logical flaw in the rational of the argument by using an analogy to a different argument, whose elements do not equate to those in the argument at hand. A challenge has been made to provide evidence to substantiate the claim that the elements are indeed the same in both arguments, but that evidence has not been presented, and none will be forthcoming.
So this conversation is now quickly headed for that point where (as is very typical) objectors will either disengage for greener grass or become petty. Some began that way. I have no desire to continue to participate in that event, and indeed my time right now is fairly limited anyway.
Upright BiPed,
OK, so by “matter” you mean matter and/or energy. So I would say “no” to all three. Before you go, could you point me to a simple statement of your “semiotic” argument?
I thought observations were immaterial! The mind is not the brain and all that.
dtheobold,
A condensed version of the argument is available on this thread here:
http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/?p=659&cpage=1#comment-10621
Upright BiPed,
Well, that wasn’t so simple or concise, but can I assume that your point is this:
(1) Genomic DNA is a biological version of information.
(2) To explain genomic DNA we need a mechanism that can explain the information found in the genome.
?
Upright BiPed,
You are not using the term “transfer” then as it is used in “information” technology.
I can download a file and never use it, and therefore never create the “effect” of the “information” but in this case, a protocol was required for the transfer.
You’ve just said that I can create the object containing information with a template, and no protocol is required until I want to “use” the information.
You are also wrong about “translation”, which does not necessitate a protocol at all.
To listen to a vinyl record, a needle is physically moved.
There is no “protocol” as the receiver does not “interpret” the needle movement in an “information” related way, it is simply physically moved.
As far as a template duplication of “information”, no semiotic mechanism was used.
Upright BiPed,
Exactly!
You were claiming a contradiction was made by Reciprocating Bill but there was none.
If it rains,..the ground will be wet.
If the ground is wet, …it doesn’t mean that rain did it.
There was no contradiction.
Nothing you are saying here really relates very well to the argument I made. Which leads me to assume that you did not understand my argument.
But let me address the points you make here, and maybe that will help you understand my actual argument.
All physical laws in combination (and the stochasticities inherent in / related to them) are responsible, of course! Do you seriously suggest that the letter “a” could represent the “ahh” sound without the action of these physical laws (operating in sound waves, the application of ink on paper, human brains, etc.)?
No, of course not. A representation can be arbitrary in relation to any number of physical phenomena (like, e.g. the amplitude of the sound it represents). But that doesn’t mean it is arbitrary in relation to ALL phenomena. In fact, if it were arbitrary in relation to ALL physical phenomena, it would not be a representation in any meaningful sense of the word! And physical/material phenomena are, as far as I can tell, governed by physical law (and stochasticity). I.e. since a representation must be non-arbitrary in relation to at least some physical phenomena, it is non-arbitrary in relation to physical law governing these phenomena.
I see we’ve reached the point where the IDiot argument is in a smoking shambles, so the IDiot declares victory while scuttling for the door.
<i>I see we’ve reached the point where the IDiot argument is in a smoking shambles, so the IDiot declares victory while scuttling for the door.</i>
A very common antic of the IDC movement elite.
UB:
Again demonstrating that you don’t grasp the relationship of “entailment.” Entailment may be 100% reliable, yet by itself does not “confirm.”
A claim that 1) repeats your misapplication and misunderstanding of “entailment,” and 2) is wholly unsupported, with the exception of instances in which you have defined semiosis as “that which demonstrates the entailments of recorded information.”
In requesting your definition of “semiotic” I am requesting a description of what “semiotic” entails that “transfer of recorded information” does not entail. If nothing, why invoke it? If something, than what?
As I stated above, my position in this discussion is that your reasoning is fatally flawed. One doesn’t demonstrate flawed reasoning by means of empirical observations. So, no, my argument doesn’t represent the empirical methods I hold as scientific.
UB downstream:
Only if you assume the following conclusion: “the entailments in the presented argument arise only by means of a semiotic state or process.”
Of course, how complex systems exhibiting these relationships arose is the issue at hand. Contemporary biology holds that these systems arose across history as a result of non-semiotic processes, as there are no actors wielding signs and symbols behind that history. And, as before, that is simply to state a starting assumption. How those processes originated absent agents and actors then becomes an empirical question, not one that can be decided in an armchair shuffling dictionary definitions.
Your aim has been to establish that biology’s position must be mistaken, and that (although you remain coy about this) such actors must have been present. But you do so by going up the down staircase of entailment, and assuming your conclusions.
UBP:
I think I made it quite clear that you are mistaken in your belief that catalysis is not possible without protein. Clearly, I am not suggesting that the early products of the ribosome (which is itself catalytic RNA) were catalytic proteins mediating their own synthesis. Proteins have many functions, and I did give grounds for believing that protein catalysis is impossible without a ‘library’ of different acid types. But that is not the same as saying that catalysis, and hence life, is impossible. Until that threshold is reached, catalysis can only be the job of RNA, and any peptides produced would be non-catalytic – still functional, just not for catalytic function. Once catalytic peptide production becomes possible, there is good reason to consider that prior RNA-catalytic function has been replaced by the superior protein catalysts – including roles in the very system that produces those same peptides. This is a potential answer to any IC system – AC may not be able to arise directly, but can arise from AB -> ABC -> AC. Once B is lost, we cannot ‘prove’ it ever existed.
No, I really think you are just missing the point. That you should mention abiogenesis at all demonstrates that you are implacably determined to insist that protein synthesis, in the ribosomal manner, was present at the OoL: the First Cell was a protein factory. This is not advanced by any biochemist to my knowledge, but only by non-biochemists who have simply decided, without any obvious deep understanding of the many issues involved, that the system had no precursor.
It is not necessary that catalysis be carried out by proteins. This fact is most centrally borne out by the fact that the ribosome itself uses RNA catalysis, not protein catalysis. This is a fact that in itself requires explanation, and the RNA World hypothesis certainly provides one possible explanation of that fact.
Your argument does go away when there is a single acid, being attached by a ribosome to a peptide chain. So, to evade that possibility, you simply point to the undisputed fact that no known life forms have a tRNA library with a single member. Yet you have no biochemically-based argument for dismissal of consideration of precursor systems, only its inconvenience for your theory. “We (the non-biochemists) take the work that the biochemists have done to determine the code [the first step, incidentally, being to determine that polyuracil produced polyphenylalanine - I was making a reference to the history of biochemistry, not the history of life], and we close our ears to any and all further work that the biochemists have done. We have never seen a ribosome, would not know one end of a tRNA molecule from another, have no idea how things actually hang together or are related, but it all looks jolly complicated to us. Unless they can produce a working RNA-based life form, THEN evolve a functional ribosome-based peptide-synthetic machinery from it, THEN expand the initial limited code into its current state – that we INSIST is semiotic – then I’m afraid the biochemists have nothing further to say that may interest us. Good Day.”
By all means pose questions, and wholeheartedly disagree if you feel so moved, but don’t make the mistake of assuming that the ‘experts’ are up to something, or have not thought through the implications of their subject. I am, as I have said to many on your side, genuinely interested in locating ‘correct’ answers to these kinds of question – I have no preferred one. My ‘position’ is entirely neutral – my worldview would readily accommodate a 20-acid code in that shadowy First Cell, if such were satisfactorily demonstrated. But simply drawing a veil over the ‘event horizon’ that is LUCA is intellectually lazy IMO.
A ribosome is more than catalytic RNA. And if you want to say proteins can be synthesized without a ribosome, then it is up tp you to propose and test the alternative.
There have been claims of “natural” sound recordings. Can’t remember the details. There are also numerous instances of natural sound producers that have the same physical properties as phonographs and needles.
On a related tangent — has anyone read this?
Yes, I brought it up earlier and no one seems to care.
Joe G,
What do you think of their work? Do you think it supports Intelligent Design theory?
I think their work is interesting- it is what it is. And all work supports ID.
Joe G,
How can all work support ID?
Because we wouldn’t exist if not by design. Therefor our existence and everything we do, supports ID.
And Baraminology!
Not necessarilly.
Joe G,
With that I agree, but ID proponents such as like Stephen Meyer and William Dembsk believe that “Neo-Darwinian” theory is not compatible with Intelligent Design theory or their understanding of Christian theology, Thus I find odd for you to disagree with this common assumption on the part of ID theorists.
What is this alleged disagreement?
…and caek! Don’t forget the CSI in caek!
And another cheerleader chokes on cake. That reminds me:
Just when you thought it couldn’t get any better, I give you Thorton, the amazing EvoTard and its incredible math/ information formulation:
tardtard had sed:
I didn’t understand that as each nucleotide = 2 bits. 4 possible nucleotides = 2^2 = 2 bits. So, to me, a gene with 32 base pairs would have the information carrying capacity of 64 bits.
Back to tardtard. So I asked it about its math. tardtard responded with:
That is so wrong it is pathetic. tardtard is proud to be an ignorant piece of shit liar.
So according to thorton if I have 32 bits of information and someone gives me 32 more bits of information, I only have 6 bits of information.
Thanks for the continued entertainment thorton. Now I understand why you won’t support your position.
actually it reminds me:
Joe Gallien: One way of figuring out how much information it (an object) contains is to figure out how (the simplest way) to make it.
Then you write down the procedure without wasting words/ characters and count those bits.
That will give you an idea of the minimal information it contains.
I say that because all the information that goes into making something is therefor contained by it.
And if you already have the instructions and want to measure the information?
Again just count the bits in the instructions.
For example a cake would, at a minimum, contain all the information in the recipe.
Strange that I provided a reference taht suports what I said and all you can do is choke on it.
I’m reminded of this one where Joe was making physical threats to people, and when asked where he could be found gave out the address of an empty parking lot.
Joe Gallien: “The same place I have lived for years.
If you want to visit me I can be found at 550 Main St in Keene, NH. Just ask for Joe G.”
Who would have though such an internet tough guy would turn out to be a fat, soft Fluffy bear?
SQUEEEEEEEEEEE!!
LoL! The only people who say I threatened anyone are evo-cowards that have a reason to feel guilty.
D1 – D3 are still quite negotiable. Someone just needs to come up with a better explanation for the centuries’ worth of positive evidence they have amassed.
D4 applies to all fields of science, not just evolutionary theory.
Is Dembski groveling already to please his new bosses at the Southern Evangelical Seminary?
The good people over at UD can explain this to you. This thread would be a good place to start: Bill Dembski asks, Is Darwinism theologically neutral – at BioLogos (= Christians for Darwin).
But why am I telling you this? Are you not a UD regular?
Hey if you cannot make your case then why bother?
Joe:
Yes, but its proteins perform a structural, not a catalytic, role. That role is not optional in the modern system, but that is no reason to insist that it therefore non-optional in any equivalent system. Fully protein-free catalytic RNAs exist – for example the spliceosome.
Me personally? I would pass your concerns on to people who have the equipment, but I suspect they already know what they need to do.
Well, I did discuss it briefly, but it is strictly tangential to the genetic ‘code’/semiosis argument. (Note, in passing, that the topic is not about how ‘IC’ the complete system might be, but to what extent it is ‘semiotic’). The genetic code method for generating protein involves a relationship that UBP and many others see as symbolic, and in that context, any method for protein synthesis that does not involve that apparent symbolism – such as the generation of peptides before a working ribosome was made, which includes the possibility of an ‘ID ribosome’ – is not strictly part of the argument, since we do not know how specification was achieved.
But while this is tangential to the symbolic argument, it is less tangential to the broader ID/science ‘debate’. Joe brought up this work in order to argue against the RNA world – but it is based upon methodologies in which (many) ID proponents do not believe. It relies upon Common Descent; it looks at evolutionary history as it is inferred from the traces that remain; it points to a (non-ID) origin of the modern protein synthesis system from a non-ribosomal precursor.
And at this point, we get the usual monotonous responses: “ID is not anti-evolution; all YOU have to do is show the system evolving, etc etc”. And once I’ve heard that a few (dozen) times, I might as well say “f*** off”. Yawn, yawn, yawn. Insofar as it is (mistakenly, IMO) seen to advance the ID cause, papers such as this are trumpeted from the rooftops. Yet about everything else that is published, we never hear a peep, nor do we ever see bunfights about different interpretations within the ID framework, contrast the hot debate that characterises much ‘other’ scientific work.
Allan,
I get it. You have no idea what ID is nor what it claims. Also you have no idea on how to test the claims of your position- Universal Common Descent being one of them.
Joe:
Allan,
I get it. You have no idea what ID is nor what it claims.
It appears to claim that somewhere, sometime, just out of reach of any analytical tools that we may be able to apply, one or more Designers were probably involved.
Also you have no idea on how to test the claims of your position- Universal Common Descent being one of them.
Well, you might want to reconsider using that RNP paper to support your simultaneous RNA-protein-OoL position, then. It is entirely based upon phylogenetic analysis. That thing you say is untestable is a central assumption of such work – which, like all such work, provides further indirect confirmation of the likelihood of UCD. That is, if something other than UCD were governing the patterns, they would be statistically highly unlikely to be capable of arrangement in phylogenetic trees, which paper after paper after paper does, for element after element, structurally, sequentially, you-name-it-ally.
Allan,
YOUR poistion appears to claim that somewhere, sometime, just out of reach of any analytical tools that we may be able to apply, random shit produced teh diversity of life.
And Allan, you have no idea what pattern UCD would produce.