A Scientific Hypothesis Of Design – finally.

Upright Biped has announced the launch of his site via this UD post: Writing Biosemiosis-org

All of the unique physical conditions of dimensional semiosis have already been observed and documented in the scientific literature. It is an intractable fact that a dimensional semiotic system is used to encode organic polymers inside the cell. The conclusion of intelligent action is therefore fully supported by the physical evidence, and is subject to falsification only by showing an unguided source capable of creating such a system.

http://biosemiosis.org/index.php/a-scientific-hypothesis-of-design

Discuss!

828 thoughts on “A Scientific Hypothesis Of Design – finally.

  1. fifthmonarchyman: Do you have any evidence that species (or other minds) don’t exist? I’d love to hear it

    I have such evidence. And I’ll be happy to present it to you.

    Just one condition. Answer me this question: I have arranged it so that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars.

    Do you believe me?

  2. fifthmonarchyman: It’s called “saving the phenomena” you might want to check it out. We know that species exist my approach does not contradict that knowledge.

    Your approach does not contradict anything and that’s what makes it worthless.

    fifthmonarchyman: There is very little practical difference between in everyday life between Newtonian physics and general relativity. We accept relativity mostly because it saves the phenomena

    You don’t know much about computers do you? The only reason you can send that message is because of the massive difference in everyday life between those two things.

  3. OMagain: because as noted you’ve not spent a considerable fraction of your life studying what you’d have to study to know why this is not possible.

    Are you saying that according to Darwinism that it is impossible for new species to arise from precursors. That is quite an admission. Are you sure you want to go down that road?

    peace

  4. fifthmonarchyman,

    I have no idea. Hybridization is common phenomena. There in nothing prohibiting a wombat from breeding with a non-wombat. Just as there in nothing prohibiting multiple wombats being born to different non-wombat parents at the same time.

    But you envisaged it as transition across a sharp God’s-Mind boundary – The First Wombat. ie, the first thing with Wombat-Essence, born to parents which were Pre-Wombat Essence, and yet indistinguishable. You accept that the boundary is not in fact sharp. And yet you insist it is.

    Your difficulties here flow from your inability to in-vision anything but the materialist assumption that “like always yields like”.

    Haha! ‘Like always yields like’ is actually in the Bible. And it’s a ‘default human assumption’. I’d suggest that something does not stack up in your overall analysis of the species issue. Your difficulties here flow from your inability to [envision] a changing continuum.

    You have already accepted that in the particular case being discussed ‘Pre-Wombat’ and ‘Wombat’ were indistinguishable by humans, even if different Godly Essences. I am illustrating the difficulty with that view. There must be some flipping between ‘essences’ as first Wombats, then hybrid Wombat/Pre-Wombat, and all shades in between, are produced. ie, it’s not a boundary at all.

    What purpose does it serve to say that there is Wombat Essence and Pre-Wombat Essence in the Mind Of God? Other than to rather feebly conserve your personal conviction (possibly Biblically influenced) that species are, in some way, ‘real’?

  5. OMagain: The only reason you can send that message is because of the massive difference in everyday life between those two things.

    How exactly do computers rely on general relativity? Please be specific.
    I know they rely on QM but that is an entirely different kettle of fish.

    Peace

  6. Allan Miller: You accept that the boundary is not in fact sharp. And yet you insist it is.

    Species are not bounded sets they are centered sets. A set of circles contains all shapes that approximate the prototypical circle regardless of how they arise

    peace

  7. Allan Miller: ‘Like always yields like’ is actually in the Bible. And it’s a ‘default human assumption’.

    It’s not my assumption.
    We see humans creating new and different stuff from different preexisting stuff all the time. The same goes with God in the Bible.

    peace

  8. Allan Miller: What purpose does it serve to say that there is Wombat Essence and Pre-Wombat Essence in the Mind Of God? Other than to rather feebly conserve your personal conviction (possibly Biblically influenced) that species are, in some way, ‘real’?

    What purpose does it serve for example to say that the universe has a beginning or that dark matter exists other than to serve your conviction that human sensory impressions are in some way real?

    Please be specific

    peace

  9. fifthmonarchyman,

    We have evidence that the earth is a sphere. Do you have any evidence that species (or other minds) don’t exist? I’d love to hear it

    I doubt that last part – I suspect it is simply smarm.

    I don’t argue that other minds don’t exist.

    Species, on the other hand – populations exist, species don’t. There is plenty of evidence, to which one would need to be wilfully blind or ignorant to ignore. The fossil record and extant genomes and forms speak loudly of continuity of change, rendering essentialist positions untenable to anyone who actually studies this stuff, rather than pontificating on the net.

    Of course, I have no evidence that species don’t exist in the mind of God. No more do you that they do.

    I won’t go into it further yet again. If you were genuinely interested in the question, rather than simply trying to assert your position come Hell or high water, no matter what ridiculous notions it entails, I think I might have got through on a previous occasion. Or you might even have done your own research.

  10. fifthmonarchyman,

    What purpose does it serve for example to say that the universe has a beginning or that dark matter exists other than to serve your conviction that human sensory impressions are in some way real?

    Please be specific

    Neither a beginning to the universe nor dark matter have anything to do with any convictions I have re: my sensory perceptions, Captain Rhetorical. Try again.

  11. fifthmonarchyman,

    It’s not my assumption.
    We see humans creating new and different stuff from different preexisting stuff all the time. The same goes with God in the Bible.

    I dare say, but in the case under discussion, Pre-Wombats and Wombats are indistinguishable.

  12. Mung: And now you can’t count. Some mathematician you are Neil.

    Which of the following TWO questions was the rhetorical question?

    1. Are you deliberately missing the point?
    2. Or are you that confused?

    Given that either one or both of the previous questions were rhetorical, why is it that either one, or both, do not belong in Guano?

    Grow a pair of balls Neil. Or at least one.

    Guano.

  13. fifthmonarchyman: Are you saying that according to Darwinism that it is impossible for new species to arise from precursors. That is quite an admission. Are you sure you want to go down that road?

    Can you give an example of species X giving birth to species Y?

  14. fifthmonarchyman: How exactly do computers rely on general relativity? Please be specific.
    I know they rely on QM but that is an entirely different kettle of fish.

    They stay where you put them, right?

  15. fifthmonarchyman,

    Species are not bounded sets they are centered sets. A set of circles contains all shapes that approximate the prototypical circle regardless of how they arise

    Yes, you’ve said that before, and it’s bullshit. As I illustrated, the only way you can assume a ‘centred set’ is by pretending it has no boundary. Pre-Wombats are in one ‘centred set’. Wombats are in another. The Wombat child of Pre-Wombat parents is in the Wombat set. The hybrid offspring of a Wombat and a Pre-Wombat are in … er …

  16. fifthmonarchyman: What purpose does it serve for example to say that the universe has a beginning or that dark matter exists other than to serve your conviction that human sensory impressions are in some way real?

    And this is a perfect example of why you don’t get science.

    The evidence suggests that the universe had a beginning.
    The evidence suggests that dark matter, or something like it, exists.

    They were not “invented” to avoid having to admit that god exists. Science does not care about god. It follows the evidence where it leads.

    That in your mind these things were invented to avoid involving god does not make them true. It just makes you ignorant of much of the history of science.

  17. fifthmonarchyman,

    Are you saying that according to Darwinism that it is impossible for new species to arise from precursors. That is quite an admission. Are you sure you want to go down that road?

    Yeah, why not? It’s not true anyway. Instances of new species arising in one generation are known. But in obligate sexual species, because of the mating thing (necessary for the lineage, not for the definition), it is theoretically impossible (eta – to go beyond one generation, at least).

    So how do ‘new species’ arise in sexual lineages, according to ‘Darwinism’? erm … ummm … gradually.

  18. Allan Miller: So how do ‘new species’ arise in sexual lineages, according to ‘Darwinism’? gradually.

    Cool

    What do you call the many individuals that exist between species one and species two? Do they belong to a particular species?
    Is it species one or species two?

    Please be precise in your answer.

    peace

  19. OMagain: The evidence suggests that dark matter, or something like it, exists.

    How is the evidence that dark matter exists different than the evidence that species exist? Please be specific. This is important.

    peace

  20. OMagain: That in your mind these things were invented to avoid involving god does not make them true.

    You have a jacked up idea of what I believe.

    peace

  21. When the first wombat is born, it could associate with pre wombats, but the relationship would be platonic.

  22. petrushka: When the first wombat is born, it could associate with pre wombats, but the relationship would be platonic.

    Nope it would be inter-species breeding IOW hybridization,
    Stuff like that happens all the time in the animal kingdom.
    It has next to nothing to do with the existence of separate species.

    peace

  23. fifthmonarchyman: You have a jacked up idea of what I believe.

    Oh? It was you that said

    fifthmonarchyman: What purpose does it serve for example to say that the universe has a beginning or that dark matter exists other than to serve your conviction that human sensory impressions are in some way real?

    The purpose dark matter services is to explain some factual observations.

    Why do you believe dark matter was proposed then?

  24. fifthmonarchyman: Stuff like that happens all the time in the animal kingdom.

    What stuff like god creating the first animal of it’s kind? Yeah, happens all the time…

  25. fifthmonarchyman: What do you call the many individuals that exist between species one and species two? Do they belong to a particular species?
    Is it species one or species two?

    Each of those individuals would exist as a separate platonic species in the mind of your god, right?

  26. OMagain: The purpose dark matter services is to explain some factual observations.

    That species exist is a “factual observation”. If you disagree please provide empirical evidence to support your claim.

    peace

  27. fifthmonarchyman: Nope it would be inter-species breeding IOW hybridization,
    Stuff like that happens all the time in the animal kingdom.
    It has next to nothing to do with the existence of separate species.

    What is your definition of species?

  28. OMagain: Each of those individuals would exist as a separate platonic species in the mind of your god, right?

    Nope individuals are not species.

    Species are groups of individuals that approximate one immaterial form. There are an infinite number of individual polygons but a smaller number of geometric forms that are approximated.

    Earlier we have talked about the problem of induction and the problem of other minds this is the problem of the one and the many it’s related to the problem of species.

    There are so many “problems” that exist in your worldview it’s hard to keep track.

    peace

  29. fifthmonarchyman

    Species are groups of individuals that approximate one immaterial form.

    Do you think lions and tigers are the same species? If they are different species what makes them different species since they are still interfertile?

  30. fifthmonarchyman,

    What do you call the many individuals that exist between species one and species two? Do they belong to a particular species?
    Is it species one or species two?

    Please be precise in your answer.

    I think species are illusory. That is my precise answer. The ‘problem of intermediates’ is yours, based upon your insistence that they are real – that shading imperceptibly from one type to another is in some sense, at some point, crossing a ‘hard boundary’ in Gods’s mind.

  31. fifthmonarchyman,

    From the article:

    In reality, “species” is a concept invented by human beings.

    You are invoking a hybrid to support your notion of ‘Platonic Essence’?

  32. fmm-species- A group of living organisms exemplifying a particular Platonic Form in the mind of God.

    So if the First Wombat is identical to its parents, which are Pre-Wombats, in what ‘real’ sense is it different?

  33. fifthmonarchyman: There are so many “problems” that exist in your worldview it’s hard to keep track.

    Yet your “worldview” offers nothing of any practical use to any of those “problems”.

    If it did you could solve many long standing problems in science. But it does not and you can’t.

  34. fifthmonarchyman: Species are groups of individuals that approximate one immaterial form.

    No, they are not. Humans decide what a species is defined as.

    It might please you to imagine such, but “immaterial forms” are irrelevant. Occam’s razor I’m afraid. It’s an unneeded entity and as such should be discarded until it serves an actual purpose.

  35. Allan Miller: I think species are illusory. That is my precise answer. The ‘problem of intermediates’ is yours, based upon your insistence that they are real – that shading imperceptibly from one type to another is in some sense, at some point, crossing a ‘hard boundary’ in Gods’s mind.

    I think that one can be a realist about species without being an essentialist, let alone a Platonist.

    Here’s one view: species are real in the same sense that sports teams are real. Manchester United is real, not fictional. It’s not a single individual, and it’s not always composed of the same individuals, but it’s a real entity. Species are real in the same sense, except that they weren’t invented. Teams don’t need to have precise, crystal-clear boundaries in order to count as real, and neither do species.

    By contrast, higher taxa (genera, families, etc.) are probably not (in my view) real — they are convenient labels we attach to indicate degrees of similarity and difference between species.

  36. Species are real in the sense that green and yellow are real colors.

    But if you think of a gradual sweep of lightwave frequency, there is no point where green becomes yellow.

    http://www.colorsontheweb.com/images/spectrum.jpg

    The more interesting biological fact is that despite the appearance of periods of stasis in phenotypes, genotypes continue to evolve at a rather constant rate.

  37. Kantian Naturalist: By contrast, higher taxa (genera, families, etc.) are probably not (in my view) real — they are convenient labels we attach to indicate degrees of similarity and difference between species.

    All speech is convenient labels. The pertinent question is whether the similarities and differences themselves are real on your view.

    petrushka: Species are real in the sense that green and yellow are real colors.

    But if you think of a gradual sweep of lightwave frequency, there is no point where green becomes yellow.

    Do colours move from one to another the same way as species supposedly do? And what to make of the fact that no new colours are ever born, the full spectrum remains the same?

  38. Erik: Do colours move from one to another the same way as species supposedly do? And what to make of the fact that no new colours are ever born, the full spectrum remains the same?

    Have you ever been to a paint store, new colors appear all the time.

  39. Erik: All speech is convenient labels. The pertinent question is whether the similarities and differences themselves are real on your view.

    There are similarities and differences between any two living things.

    The problem with taxa is that there are no discontinuities between generations.

    Hybrids accentuate the problem. Even individuals that look quite different can occasionally mate and produce fertile offspring. But that is because their genetic differences are not as great as their appearance would indicate.

    There’s an untended hybridization experiment going on right now, in which Wolves, dogs and coyotes have interbred to form a stable hybrid.

    But the species boundaries were never very firm.

  40. Erik: The pertinent question is whether the similarities and differences themselves are real on your view.

    Sure. I mean, cladistics does describe real patterns! There are objective facts about which phenotypic traits and genetic sequences are more similar to others.

  41. newton: Have you ever been to a paint store, new colors appear all the time.

    To be fair, the spectrum remains the spectrum.

    How many different spectral colors are there, anyway? I keep forgetting.

  42. Adapa: Do you think lions and tigers are the same species?

    no they are separate species

    Adapa: If they are different species what makes them different species since they are still interfertile?

    They are different species because the approximate different forms. Fertility or lack thereof is pretty much irrelevant.

    Women are still humans before puberty and after menopause.

    peace

  43. fifthmonarchyman: They are different species because the approximate different forms. Fertility of lack thereof is pretty much irrelevant.

    So what about poodles and bulldogs?

  44. Allan Miller: I think species are illusory. That is my precise answer.

    That species are real is the universal default consensus of humanity. Any four year old can tell you that a lion is not the same as a tiger.

    Yet another case of abandoning commonsense it’s getting to be quite a list.

    Allan Miller: The ‘problem of intermediates’ is yours, based upon your insistence that they are real – that shading imperceptibly from one type to another is in some sense, at some point, crossing a ‘hard boundary’ in Gods’s mind.

    again species are not bounded sets they are centered sets. There is no shading there are those organisms that approximate a particular form and those that don’t.

    It’s a little like looking at a pile of rocks and picking out all the spheres. There is no impercepible shading and no intermediates there are only spheres and non-spheres.

    Allan Miller: You are invoking a hybrid to support your notion of ‘Platonic Essence’?

    No, there is a new niche and a new species is arising to fill it. The three way genetic ancestry of the coywolf are pretty much beside the point.

    peace

  45. Kantian Naturalist: Here’s one view: species are real in the same sense that sports teams are real. Manchester United is real, not fictional. It’s not a single individual, and it’s not always composed of the same individuals, but it’s a real entity. Species are real in the same sense, except that they weren’t invented.

    You are not far from the kingdom 😉

    Manchester United is real but it is not a materiel thing it exists in a mind(s).
    The same goes for species.

    Problems arise when we try to treat teams or species like they had materiel existence separate from minds.

    Of course species were not invented they have always existed in the mind of a timeless God.

    peace

Leave a Reply