Here is an informative little video by a guy named Steve Mould who does a lot of “science” videos on youtube. Its all (ostensibly) about how simple little processes can make “meaningful” structures from stochastic processes-and he uses magnetic shaped little parts to show this. Its a popular channeled followed by millions, and is often referenced by other famous people in the science community-and his fans love it.
And hey, it does show how meaningful structures CAN form from random processes. Right? So you can learn from this. Wink, wink. Nod, nod. And all the skeptics will know exactly what he is really saying. Cause we are all part of the clique that knows this language-the language of the skeptic propagandist. I mean, he almost hides it, the real message, it is just under the surface, and the less skeptically aware, the casualist, might even miss it. The casualist might not learn as much about Steve Mould and what he is trying to say here-but the skeptic knows. “See, atheism is true! Spread the word!” Steve has given the wink. The same wink used by DeGrasse Tyson, and Sean Carroll, Lawrence Krauss, Brian Greene, and on and on. You know the one.
And for 95% of his viewers, whether they know it or not, they got his message. I mean, look, its plain as day, right? He just showed you, that is certainly a meaningful structure that arose from random processes, isn’t it? Its defintely meaningful, its a, a, a , well, it’s shape that, we have a, a name for…that’s kind of…anyway, defintely random, I mean other than the magnets and the precut shapes, and the little ball with nothing else inside, and the shaking only until its just right then stopping kind of way…That’s random kind of right???
But there are 5% percent of his viewers that spotted his little wink and nod, and said, hold on a second. If you want us to believe that your little explanation about how simply life can form from nonsense without a plan, how blind exactly do you want us to be? 95%, they are hooked, you got them (Ryan StallardThere are so many creationist videos this obliterates. Especially 4:18.). But some likeGhryst VanGhod helpfully point out: “this is incorrect. the kinesin travels along fibres within the cell and takes the various molecules exactly where they need to be, they are not randomly “jumbling around in solution”. https://youtu.be/gbycQf1TbM0 ” and then you get to see a video that tells you just a few more of the things that are ACTUALLY happening which are even more amazing if you weren’t already skeptical (the real kind).
And if you go through some more of the comments you will notice a few more (real) skeptics, not the wink and nod kind, and you will start to notice why the wink nod propogandist skeptics everywhere you look in modern culture are a very puposefully designed cancer on knowledge and thought.
Sigh. “designated spaces”. How did that come about then? Who designated what?
Nope. Utterly wrong. By way of illustration, you wrote:
How the heck do you think those enzymes work? They rely on just bumping into the right aa and the right tRNA.
Also a gem:
Actually, that’s the only thing that enzymes do. Evah. I suspect that you are making a fairly common mistake, imbuing enzymes with some magical property. They are catalysts.
I encourage you to take an introduction to biochemistry course at a reputable university. Then, perhaps, you will understand what the literature tells you about “the behavior of tRNA”.
Well, if you mean ‘coordinated’ in the sense of “When temperature increases, there is a coordinated increase in the rate of all these reactions”, then suuuure, I guess. If you are seeking to imply that {there must have been | there must be} a coordinator, then support your assertion, for once.
Rolling a die once per week or forty times per minute, it’s going to be “stochastic” what it lands on either way.
Yes the uncatalyzed rate of the aminoacylation of tRNA is very low. The rate of the reaction has nothing to do with it being stochastic or not.
That makes you have a highly idiosyncratic, and frankly nonsensical, definition of ‘stochastic’. Stochasticity of chemical reactions is not related to their rate of occurrence over unit time, but to the number of different possible outcomes and the probabilistic nature of how they occur.
The fact we’re looking at the end product of millions of years of evolution seems to escape many. Relatively inefficient processes are replaced by relatively less inefficient processes as they are stumbled upon, or not.
Human designers strive for simplicity and re-usability. Demeters principle suggests disconnected systems should have minimal knowledge of each others inner workings.
None of which we observe in biology. We observe massive cross talk in systems. Stochastic behavior. Pulling on one thread changes 100 other things. And yet people point at biology and “see” human style design.
Those people have never created anything complex is my take away from that. Or they’d look at biology and see it as designed by anything unlike they have encountered before. Iterative processes that use absurd “shortcuts” that may be crippling in the long term.
SciShow and Eons don’t promote atheism.
Scientists and philosophers of science who write about science for lay audiences and don’t promote atheism would include Antonio Damasio (Descartes’s Error, Looking for Spinoza, a few others), Anil Seth (Being You), Lisa Barrett Feldman (How Emotions Are Made, Seven and a Half Lessons About the Brain), Andy Clark (Being There, Surfing Uncertainty), Peter Godfrey-Smith (Other Minds, Metazoa), Sean Carroll (Endless Forms Most Beautiful, The Making of the Fittest), Brian Goodwin (How the Leopard Changed Its Spots), Stuart Kaufman (At Home in the Universe, Reinventing the Sacred), Kenneth Miller (Finding Darwin’s God, Only a Theory), Joseph Heinrich (The Secret of Our Success and The Weirdest People in the World).
Reread what I said, it’s not me who holds to such a dichotomy, but those apologists who call themselves IDists. We can call what nature does design if you like that. I don’t care either way. If I believed that there’s something inherently different in what we do and what nature does, then I’d care. But I truly don’t. Take a second look or two.
Sure. And it continues to do so. See? We agree.
I think we’re also using different definitions for “understand.” Here I disagree with your terminology, seems like you meant “believe.” Also, it all depends on the theists in question, as far as the apologists of “Intelligent design”, they believe that there’s inherent differences between what humans do and nature does. By the way, I don’t believe that nature’s design capabilities evolved, but I’m open to be convinced otherwise.
If that floats your boat. As far as I am concerned, nature’s designs are a result of the way nature works. Why nature works that way is an open question. However, your position seems a bit incoherent. Software is designed itself. Thus, the nature of whatever makes this software would have to be design-capable, just like nature is. I don’t see a reason to take so many steps back, into fantasy-land, to end up with the same answer: there’s something inherently designuous at the very foundation.
Again, I think ‘we’re using different definitions for “understand.” I suspect you meant “believe.”
Designouos? Dawkins made a similar point about “designoid” aspects of nature. Humans have a propensity (which I’m sure is innate and heritable) to infer patterns from very small amounts of data which can mislead us into seeing things that aren’t there.
I see Steve stated his position around eight years ago.
I support a front loading position. I support the original definition of evolution as ‘an unfolding of pre-existing rudiments’. I support the notion that life is succumbing to the effects of the environment and is degrading from an original optimum design; in contrast to the darwinian evolutionary take that the genome is a mess as a result of unguided processes.
I think we can predict that some time in the future we should be able to detect something like quantum templates that act as command and control of the development of lifeforms. In fact, if im not mistaken we are going in the direction of understanding light as instrumental in genomic activity. so it wont be all that long before we make the jump to the intelligent properties of light.
Do you still think this?
Alan Fox,
I like playing with words.
In eight years there should be measurable progress in the things mentioned there.
If so, lets hear it!
If not, is it not the case that your prediction has failed Steve? Perhaps time to reconsider?
All the more telling that it is designed. the inanimate RNA would be degraded by cytosolic RNases. Yet they don’t because lo-n-behold they are protected by nucleoproteins (by design; no signature required).
LOL, you can’t even converse about the process without reference to design language hence your use of the work assembly, which is a designed process. Note how in your words they assemble ‘through’ electrostatic forces. Why dont the capsin proteins align flat and create a plate ‘through electrostatic forces’. If they truly was no design, the proteins would not have such specificity as to only be able to form into a specific shape useful to the virus.
Again, high-order design. None of the component ‘need’ to know shit. The fact that they do shit without any Made in China labels points you in the direction of meta-design. Fully automated, no hands required. Indistinguishable from magic.
You really need to be purposefully ( 🙂 ) obtuse to not see the order in the chaos. You focus on the seemingly random movement as being chaos and then declare no Gods here. LOL. Yet, out of that seemingly random, chaotic activity comes order: drop-off, pick-up, start, stop, assembly, output, application, function, etc.
Of course it would. It is the usual go-to lie of omission. Mould could not get the capsid proteins to shake ‘around’ a strand of RNA or he would have done that and be the talk of the town. the capsid proteins dont hold hands and do the shake-a-la around the RNA fire by chance. It will obviously take a scientist with a design approach to show why the shape of the capsin proteins are such that they cannot but assemble into a sphere around an RNA molecule and no other molecule by mistake or happenstance.
Sure there is. High order (meta) design is such that there need not be a warehouse supervisor present to demand check-in, check-out receipts. The design process is such that all components are floating randomly in solution but because of the design, they are picked out of the solution flawlessly, when required and in sufficient supply. I am willing to bet that there actually is wireless communication happening which our technology is not yet capable of detecting. Each amino acid having a frequency signature, the ribosome able to send out a signal whether through photons or other medium. so although amino acids are floating around they are easily contacted for duty. Again, technology not understood is akin to magic and too easily dismissed. To our detriment of course. That is why skeptical science is bad science. We need more design oriented scientists if we are to make inroad in AI. Learn from the Master.
Oh, it makes perfect sense to those that can see (above).
Again, the purpose is easily seen in the high-order design. You have to be obtuse not to see it.
Argument from utility. Category error.
This where Rumraket and the rest of the ‘evidence seekers” really throw on the blinders. “Well, if there was a design, where is the evidence?” What a joke.
They say if there was a design, shouldn’t we see evidence. And then they don’t see the irony when they say, “The forces of attraction and repulsion, and, and…” as if saying see, no design, just laws that make things happen exactly as they need to happen. No, there is no design, there is just um, um, nature, see, so that doesn’t count.
If NATURE has all kinds of laws and rules and forces which cause other forces to create more designs and more complicated networks, and more sophisticated elements, which in turn create even more sophisticated elements, well, that doesn’t count as a design, because nature is doing it. What the heck does that even mean, other than saying, things aren’t designed because the world is designed to design.
I have to say, I am impressed that you were able to put together such a bizarre list. You have guys who are clearly atheist mouthpieces like Sean Carroll. You have guys like Brain Goodwin who doesn’t even believe in Darwinian evolution, and you include him as someone who is a science communicator who doesn’t believe in the science that supposedly is settled science. You have “shows” like scission, which clearly preach the whole darwinian evolution is settled, and so everything that happens is a result of natural selection, even if we can’t show how. You have people that no one would consider a well known science communicator, and then you have neuroscientists who believe consciousness is a problem science nee to solve.
How any of this makes your point that the “science” community isn’t promoting atheism I am just not seeing. You have pointed out people who don’t believe in the scientific so called consensus, and then said, see the scientific consensus isn’t atheistic.
phoodoo,
I mean heck, I guess you could have included people like Casey Luskin, and Jonathan Wells, or Michael Behe, or Stephen Meyer aren’t pushing the atheist talking points, and that would certainly be true, but I am not sure others here would include them in their list of science communicators, because, you know, they aren’t atheists.
So, “Front loading”? How does that work?
Alan Fox,
Why do you care? Why does design bother you so much? Were you abused by a designer when you were younger or something?
So if they accept the scientific consensus they must be atheists and if they do not, then they don’t count.
In my days as an evolutionary biologist I have had colleagues who were roman catholics, protestants and even hindu. All of them were very skilled scientists. None of them viewed evolution as incompatible with their faith. So your circular argument that scientists who endorse evolution are atheists because evolution is an idea endorsed by atheists doesn’t really impress me.
Evolutionary biology does not threaten christianity. Self assembly of biomolecules does not threaten christianity. Not even *gasp* randomly tumbling capsid proteins will threaten christianity. If you perceive these things to be a threat to your faith, then it is time to examine the fundament on which your faith rests: Creationism is a very shaky basis.
phoodoo,
Just curious, phoodoo. I have some impression of what you (and Steve, if I may bracket him with you) are against but I’m wondering what Steve is for. The eight-year-old comment indicating a liking for “front-loading” might be a starting point.
I’ve asked you what you are for but you’ve given no clue so far.
Corneel,
We know nothing of phoodoo’s beliefs. The hint seems to be that any belief is better than atheism.
Steve,
When presented with evidence that your beliefs about viri are incorrect you just ignore it. Children exposed to dirt do better than those who are not.
The ‘purpose’ of viri are then not what you thought it was after all. And yet your response is to simply ignore that fact.
And that’s why you are an IDC supporter.
Lies bother all people on the side of righteousness, as they should.
Whereas you are bought and paid for. So they don’t bother you at all.
It seems to me you are removing the need for a designer at all. What purpose does your Intelligent Designer have once the world exists that can itself design? Does it just go on to create another?
But, congratulations. You’ve just admitted that ID is not science. There’s no way to decide either way, so all you have left is faith.
So you didn’t get the part where I was saying KN COULD have included those scientists, but I understood why he wouldn’t?
That doesn’t make it MY circular argument. Subtlety escapes you skeptics so greatly that you often get the exact opposite meaning of what is being said.
After Kn suggested Scishow, and I looked at some of their videos, my youtube feed automatically also suggested a similar channel, called Forrest Valkai. One of the first videos it suggested for me, Ask An Atheist Day. Because what else would you expect from a science channel?
I also noticed it appears he censors every post which is opposing.
Again, what you would expect.
I said science communicators. The shills who want to be preachers. I never said scientists.
I predict that KN will continue to claim that militant atheism doesn’t exist.
I suggest he reads the comments: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZ_HnZfiy50
etc, etc……
Firstly, not all fallacious arguments are category errors. If you meant category error in Ryle’s sense, it is a very specific kind of mistake, and arguably not an mistake of logic (at least not of what we ordinarily take logic to be). If you weren’t referring to Ryle’s use of that term, then I have no idea what you mean.
Secondly, there’s no “argument from utility” in my making the following point: the concept of gravity is embedded in networks of observations, formalizations, entailments, predictions, measurements, confirmations, corrections, falsifications, etc.
You had claimed that one’s acceptance of God is comparable to one’s acceptance of gravity — in both cases, we don’t observe it but we have logical grounds for believing in it.
I am pointing out that the precise character of the logic involved in our acceptance of gravity has a specific character — it’s not an a priori argument but is bound up feedback loops between formalization and experimentation.
The Sean Carroll who wrote the books on evo-devo I mentioned isn’t the cosmologist Sean Carroll. I should have been clear that I was referring to Sean B. Carroll.
Goodwin accepts natural selection — he just thinks it can’t be the whole story. I think he’s right about that.
Sounds like the problem is with how YouTube is tracking your history and recommending channels because of your obsession with atheism. I’ve been watching SciShow for a few years and I’ve never heard of Forrest Valkai.
I didn’t include them, not because they aren’t atheists, but because they promote intelligent design, which is bullshit.
I’m not making any judgements as to how the processes of virus infection originated. I used “designed” in that sentence in the same way that I would say that cleaver fruits are designed to stick to animal fur. It is possible to appreciate beautiful and functional designs without concerning ourselves with how that design came about or being concerned about the consequences of its application. I know how some people get very twitchy when they come across the word “design”. 🙂
Icosahedra and dodecahedra are beautiful and fascinating objects as Plato would have attested to. And the fact that they can form so readily out of organic molecules adds to their appeal.
Radiolaria take the beauty and complexity of protective casings a stage further as can be seen in an illustration by Ernst Haeckel shown below. Also on that Wikipedia page is a link to a video on radiolarians. They build their skeletons in a way similar to us, by a condensing process which lays down the solid form along lines of force. These lines of force follow the living etheric pattern of each creature. Radiolaria skeletons are the dead deposits resulting from living form. These dead silica forms are the end results of a sequence of matter descending through the five classical “elements”. Through each stage the molecules become more tightly bound and thus are less mobile. In other words their life force is reducing. In contrast to the skeletal deposits the microtubules remain fluid and dynamic. They do not lose the life force in the way that the skeletons do.
Oops the image didn’t attach. Here it is.
Here is my opinion.
As can be seen in the radiolaria illustrations, the designs that can be found among the silica deposits on the sea bed were formed from a “template” which was not so rigid and static. As matter rises from solid (earth), liquid (water), gas (air), fire (heat energy), to the etheric (quintessence) in general it becomes less perceptible to our senses. The designs of nature are the result of condensations from areas of nature too subtle for our normal senses to perceive.
That, in my opinion, is an explanation which begins to answer your questions.
Ok, so natural selection isn’t the whole thing, the rest is “something else” then no one knows. Whatever that something else is, the only thing you know for sure is its not designed. Yea, that’s rational.
Like I said, you appear to be the victim of the YouTube algorithm. Do you, perhaps, interact with atheist videos?
Alphabet Inc. has a pretty good idea about what is going to upset you, phoodoo.
I noticed that he did not, judging from the contributions of CecLightning, dieffen and the awesome Christopher Paige on the first thread I looked at. Hilariously, they are responding to this comment by “S.K.”:
What does your spidey-sense tell you about the religious affiliation of the “S.K.”, phoodoo?
He has not the first clue about ascertainment bias.
I don’t know why you assumed “no one knows” from the mere fact that I didn’t go into any detail about Goodwin’s proposal.
Should you ever be interested in exploring where Goodwin and the study of self-organizing systems, here are some recommendations:
The Origins of Order (Stuart Kauffman
Life Itself (Robert Rosen)
Biological Autonomy (Alvaro Moreno and Matteo Mossio)
The Ontogeny of Information (Susan Oyama)
Signs of Life (Ricard Solé and Brian Goodwin)
Beyond Mechanism: Putting Life Back Into Biology (edited Brian G. Henning and Adam Scarfe)
Purpose and Desire: What Makes Something “Alive” and Why Modern Darwinism Has Failed to Explain It (J. Scott Turner)
But, if you’d rather stream YouTube videos and tell the algorithm how obsessed you are with atheism, then by all means, have fun with that.
All of this is just assertions that it is designed. You have not given a single valid argument for design. There is nothing about the fact that viral RNA is protected by nucleoproteins that intrinsically implies design. All you have is assertions. Your entire post is just you asserting with no reason or argument, that X happens like this – therefore it was designed.
Sorry, but it doesn’t follow.
There was no “design language” in anything I said. Are you sure you can even read?
No, that’s just a word we use to describe things coming together in a particular way. There is nothing about an “assembly” that intrinsically implies design. But since you are one of those deeply confused individuals who gets intensely excited about words(“paintings require a painter” – “creations require a creator”) and think they have magical powers, feel free to substitute in the term coalesced. The fact that a piece of RNA is part of the formation of the virion does not mean the individual pieces aren’t moving around randomly until they encounter each other and coalesce through electrostatic forces.
Because of the distribution of charges on and throughout their structure.
Blind assertion. If you can just declare this to be so, I can do the same. There truly is design and the proteins still have the specificity to be able to coalesce into a specific shape conducive to the propagation of new viruses.
Again, blind assertion.
Ahh I see, it’s magic then. Well there we have it. The theory of design: Magic did it with “higher order meta-design”. Dude you’re really just a technobabble bullshitter at bottom, aren’t you?
ROFL.
I think my work here is done. Kids, Steve is your brain on creationism – all assertion, technobabble and no actual reasoning or evidence. Just say no!
Notice how phoodoo gives not even a single argument for design. He just says “gee things are so complicated, sophisticated, and amazing, and I think nature producing it is silly and you’re all ignoring the design” – that’s it. That’s the contents of all his posts. No arguments, no evidence, no reasoning. It’s just a more wordy “but look at the trees” non-sequitur.
This is it, this is all we get from the likes of phoodoo and Steve.
This is all anyone has ever gotten from the intelligent design people. All they have is “anything that’s really complex looks designed to me, and there’s something wrong with you if you don’t see it that way, too!”
Say what you will about creationism, but at least it purported to explain why we observe what we do, and generated predictions based on those explanations. Sure, it’s a pseudo-science, but at least they put in the hours to try making it work. Intelligent design isn’t even a pseudo-science.
Sounds like you included scientists “ Scientists can’t be trusted to tell the truth much these days unfortunately, they are too busy preaching.”
First, it was your suggestion that lead directly to more scientists talking about atheism. They go hand and hand.
Secondly, your whole third way obfuscation doesn’t impress me in the slightest. I have read what the New non Darwin atheists have had to say about the subject, including Goodwin. Seems you can’t boil it down to anything coherent, let me help you. Nature just does it. That’s all they have. Don’t try to hide behind saying the secret is in some book, deep within the text, if you strive long enough they will say what they mean. I already found it. Nature does it.
Deep man!
Darwinists have always had this problem and they know it. If you don’t have unguided, random nothingness doing the creating, then your no designer desires go flying out the window. Of course you all can’t accept that, so the only other option is denial ~ and that denial is in the form of, well, it’s not God, just Nature! Nature strives! But nature isn’t a God, oh no no, it’s, it’s, hey, hey, I can’t hear you, na , na.
Does Nature make predictions? Is it testable? That’s your complaint about intelligent design? It does make predictions ~ the prediction being that life knows how to make itself. What does nature predict?
Every former Darwinist has the same fear as you. Without random mutations, your hope of no God goes crumbling into your meaningless dust. Sorry for that.
Projection much? Sounds like someone is on the edge to me.
Whereas your dust is what, meanful? What is the meaning of your dust phoodoo? What additional meaning does pretending there is evidence for your particular god add?
Which god? Given that there are many gods invented by man it’s difficult to know to which you believe the evidence is pointing.
What god do you worship phoodoo?
Then it will be easy for you to provide quotations, right? Chapter and page please.
Also is it not ironic that you are having a go at people for actually claiming the same as you.
You don’t know anything about how or why, you just know that god did it. In the same way your accusation is that scientists simply say ‘nature did it’.
You are having a go at people who you claim are making the same claim as you!
Why is it bad for someone to say ‘nature did it’ and leave it at that and OK for you to say that god did it and leave it at that?
Double standards much.
Translation: Nature! Not design! Oh brother, what denial.
He doesn’t seem inclined to say.
I still regularly check comments at Uncommon Descent to see how the ID movement is progressing. William J. Murray, who used to comment here but no longer has the stomach for it, makes the same point. How do you move from claiming the Universe and its contents are the work of a creator to deriving a particular belief set, religion and morality?
I don’t think it can be done.
Rumraket,
Rummy, I have some bad news for you. All of this “new Way” which is anyway other than Darwin and other than calling it design, is crushing your atheist dreams. KN is saying you are wrong, the new books are saying you are wrong. Scientists, who you consider the supreme deity are saying you are wrong. There is no more hope for your blind swirling dust theory. Your problem is enormous, because even the people who are supposed to believe your theory don’t believe it. KN no longer believes it, he is recommending books from people who think you are nuts to still believe it. KN is stuck in his own purgatory. He wants a physical explanation, so he thinks saying nature does it solves that problem. His list of books claim they are going to tell us the origin of “self-assembly”.
I hope he is not holding his breath, his books aren’t really going to.
I think it’s a fair point. None of us know whether gods exist. There’s no way to argue it logically or demonstrate it scientifically. We choose, within the options open to us and within the freedom we are permitted depending on our circumstances.
Live and let live.
Goodness me you are a card, phoodoo. ☺️
Can phoodoo answer Murray?
What is then left to assess whether or not to sign up with the Christian God, when I have no way to evaluate the actions and behaviors of that proposed God?
The niche can’t save you this time Alan. As Darwin fails, making up a new name for a creator doesn’t keep them from being the creator.
It doesn’t matter what God one believes in, without random dust, your God is the same as mine.