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. Allan Miller: The differences between a parent and a child in an obligate sexual population never lead us to declare them different species. Never. There are no characteristics that are sufficiently different.

    never really

    Have you heard of GMO? Do GMO organisms have parents? Is it possible to modify an embryo such that it would be a different species than it’s parent?

    like this

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De-extinction

    peace

  2. fifthmonarchyman,

    Of course and the second person of the Godhead (The Logos) exists temporally in the universe. I am not appealing to some sort of generic deity but specifically to the Christian God.

    Does not much matter what you call it. You construct a bizarre notion of an atemporal entity making temporal choices regarding atemporal categories. For no better reason than that you’ve noticed some temporal entities doing similar from their temporally-restricted viewpoint.

  3. fifthmonarchyman,

    Have you heard of GMO? Do GMO organisms have parents?

    Yes, of course. Those subject to LGT, transposition and mutational misrepair likewise. However, the main proportion of such organisms comes in vertical descent from their parents. A number of base pairs is not directly derived from the parent(s). That’s precisely how evolution happens. But not in any significant manner in a single generation.

    Is it possible to modify an embryo such that it would be a different species than it’s parent?

    Probably. It would struggle to find a mate, however, unless you made it the same species as something else. If it could back-cross with the parent population, it would soon stop being ‘a different species’ in descent, if it ever really was to begin with.

  4. KN said:

    I don’t think that our experience of concepts shows that they are immaterial or material …

    No. It’s the fact that such concepts do not have a locatable, measurable presence as such anywhere we can look that shows they are immaterial, whether or not their cause is physically locatable and measurable.

    When I am imagining a perfect circle, it feels different than imagining my uncle’s dog or looking out at the trees in the park.

    All such experience is either immaterial or non-local, take your pick. To claim the dog exists in your brain is nonsense; to claim the dog in your mind’s eye is the dog in the neighbor’s yard requires some form of non-local connection.

    I just don’t think you naturalists have really thought much about the nature of personal experience outside of rather vaguely rationalizing it as being caused by physical machinery. Okay, let’s say it’s all caused by physical machinery; that doesn’t account for what that experience is.

    The cause is not the thing in question. Where the cause is located is not the thing in question. Where and what is the thing in question?

  5. Allan Miller: Does not much matter what you call it. You construct a bizarre notion

    Bizarre is in the eye of the beholder. Each member of the Trinity is active in every thing that God does.

    Check this out to get an Idea of how that might work in practice.

    https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/quantum-experiment-shows-how-time-emerges-from-entanglement-d5d3dc850933

    The Trinity is three persons one God

    One member in the universe —–The Logos
    One member outside the universe——- The Father
    One member eternally bridging the gap between them—– The Spirit

    You may find the concept bizarre but that is what Christianity teaches.

    peace

  6. William J. Murray: I said they are immaterial. You are the one apparently terrified of the term “immaterial” and trying to pass off “relationships of neurons” as “circles”. When I can see a circle in my mind’s eye, I do not see “relationships of neurons”.

    You are projecting your fears onto me.

    When you see a circle in your mind’s eye, you do not see “relationships of neurons”. I don’t disagree. The mistake you are making is to think you are not the system. You are inside the system. You *are*the relationships of neurons.

    William J. Murray: Yet, you cannot find the circle in the brain, even while I am imagining it.

    Make an exact copy of your brain while you are thinking about circles.
    Then stop thinking about circles. Make another exact copy. The delta between the two images “where” your circle is in your brain.

    No, you cannot find a “circle”, but that does not mean that the concept of circles is immaterial. It just means that you don’t need to be circular to think about circles.

  7. fifthmonarchyman,

    Bizarre is in the eye of the beholder. Each member of the Trinity is active in every thing that God does.

    Bibbety-bobbety-boo!

    The Trinity is three persons one God

    […]

    You may find the concept bizarre but that is what Christianity teaches.

    Absolutely knob all to do with species and the vertical temporal issue of the parent-child continuum on your supposed ‘4D grid’. God has revealed this Truth to me through the medium of Classes, Textbooks and Journal Papers.

  8. William J. Murray: The cause is not the thing in question. Where the cause is located is not the thing in question. Where and what is the thing in question?

    It seems you have an answer. Why don’t you give it?

  9. Kantian Naturalist: We can determine correlations between reported mental imagery and observed brain activity, but we can’t determine identity.

    Yes, my understanding is that we’re not seeing the actual shapes (or whatever) emobodied in neurons, rather we’re performing many trials and correlating this type of activity with the cause of the activity. It’s not a direct match.

  10. Allan Miller: If it could back-cross with the parent population, it would soon stop being ‘a different species’ in descent, if it ever really was to begin with.

    I never thought I’d see a Darwinist arguing that speciation is impossible. hybridization is not a problem as long as the niche is available it will be filled.

    We are seeing this right now with the coywolf. Some coywolfs are back-crossing yet the new species does not cease to exist .

    Wolfs and coyotes can and often do breed but wolfs are not coyotes.

    peace

  11. fifthmonarchyman: What empirical evidence do you have that there is no mind behind the universe?

    please be specific

    The onus is on your to prove your claim that there is. It’s as simple as that.

    Otherwise, please disprove my claim there is a teapot orbiting Saturn. You do that, and I will give you the evidence you desire.

  12. fifthmonarchyman: I never thought I’d see a Darwinist arguing that speciation is impossible.

    I don’t see him arguing that at all. I see you misunderstanding what’s being said is all.

  13. fifthmonarchyman: You may find the concept bizarre but that is what Christianity teaches.

    In 10,000 years your religion will be just one of many faiths recorded in old books. No different to the 1000’s of other religions that have come and gone over time. Yet Charles Darwin’s name will live as long as humanity exists and has the desire to ponder it’s own origin.

  14. petrushka:
    I don’t believe my question implied any reference to vision, human or otherwise.

    Then eight classes of electromagnetic radiation but with no hard demarcations,

  15. OMagain,

    Yes, his name will live on but not in the way you imagine.

    What is the scientific hypotheses for evolutionism? If you would say then we could compare ID’s testable entailments with evolutionism’s testable entailments.

  16. OMagain: The onus is on your to prove your claim that there is. It’s as simple as that.

    Otherwise, please disprove my claim there is a teapot orbiting Saturn. You do that, and I will give you the evidence you desire.

    .

    That onus has been answered. The evidence from physics, chemistry, astronomy, cosmology, geology and biology all support the claim. However the claim is subject to falsification as someone could just step up and demonstrate our existence is really due to a long series of lucky accidents.

  17. Frankie: If you would say then we could compare ID’s testable entailments with evolutionism’s testable entailments.

    Been there, done that. The world has moved on and ID lost.

  18. Frankie: The evidence from physics, chemistry, astronomy, cosmology, geology and biology all support the claim.

    The evidence from physics, chemistry, astronomy, cosmology, geology and biology do not support the claim.

  19. OMagain: Been there, done that. The world has moved on and ID lost.

    You have not done anything but bluff and .attack strawmen No one can say what the testable entailments of evolutionism are.

  20. OMagain: The evidence from physics, chemistry, astronomy, cosmology, geology and biology do not support the claim.

    Of course they do as A) there aren’t any testable alternative explanations and B) the evidence flows from the observed counterflow, ie it meets the design criteria

  21. FrankieYou have not done anything but bluff and .attack strawmen No one can say what the testable entailments of evolutionism are.

    Your position can’t explain testable entailments

  22. Frankie: Of course they do as A) there aren’t any testable alternative explanations and B) the evidence flows from the observed counterflow, ie it meets the design criteria

    Your position can’t explain counterflow or design criteria.

  23. Adapa: Your position can’t explain testable entailments

    They exist and we use them. Your position doesn’t have any.

  24. OMagain said:

    You are projecting your fears onto me.

    I’m certainly not afraid of the immaterial. I’m noticing a pattern of denialism and reiteration that appears to be generated by some kind of emotional, non-rational aversion to certain ideas and concepts (code, information, intelligence, mind). Why else not simply admit that the conceived circle is immaterial?

    When you see a circle in your mind’s eye, you do not see “relationships of neurons”. I don’t disagree.

    Good. We’ve found some agreement.

    The mistake you are making is to think you are not the system. You are inside the system. You *are*the relationships of neurons. ‘

    I made no such mistake because I made no such claim. It now appears you will do anything to divert attention from the challenge. I haven’t asked what “I” am, nor have I made any assertion (in this thread). Whatever “I” am, “I” am conceiving a circle, and I’m asking you what that circle is and where it is located. Unless I am a circle and I am perceiving myself, “what I am” is entirely irrelevant to the challenge.

    Where in the material world is the circle I envision?

    Make an exact copy of your brain while you are thinking about circles. Then stop thinking about circles. Make another exact copy. The delta between the two images “where” your circle is in your brain.

    You keep putting words in scare quotes because you and I both know we will not find a circle there (you should have put the word “circle” in scare quotes as well). There may be something there which produces the conception of a circle in the system’s (my) experience of the circle, but that is not the experience itself, which is of a circle. There is no circle in that mass of tissue; there is only something that is either interpreted as, or something that produces the circle concept.

    I’m not asking you to point out what is interpreted or experienced as the concept of a circle (the cause); I’m asking you to point out, locate, weigh and measure the conceived circle.

    You cannot, because the actual conceived circle is not physical. It is immaterial.

    It seems you have an answer. Why don’t you give it?

    It was my answer that provoked this entire line of debate: Conceptual forms are immaterial.

  25. Omagain said:

    No, you cannot find a “circle”, but that does not mean that the concept of circles is immaterial.

    If it is a material, physical reality, why can’t you find the circle I conceive?

  26. William J. Murray: I’m asking you to point out, locate, weigh and measure the conceived circle.

    I’ve already explained how I would do this.

    William J. Murray: You cannot, because the actual conceived circle is not physical. It is immaterial.

    No it’s not. It’s conceived via neurons which are physical. Or demonstrate you conceiving a circle without a brain.

    William J. Murray: It was my answer that provoked this entire line of debate: Conceptual forms are immaterial.

    They are not. They communicated via books, which are physical or voice, which is physical. Or other, physical means.

    Once humans stop existing, so will the forms humans have conceived.

  27. William J. Murray: There may be something there which produces the conception of a circle in the system’s (my) experience of the circle, but that is not the experience itself, which is of a circle.

    And that is where you are wrong.

    All you are doing is pushing back what is “experiencing” the circle to a magical mystery realm of your own invention because for whatever reason this reality is not sufficient for you.

    It’s apparently aberrant to you that qualia are experienced locally rather then in “magic brain dimension”.

  28. fifthmonarchyman: As close as he likes, That is how categorizing and choice in general work

    This really does not make sense.

    Categorization is something we do, because we are limited finite beings. An omniscient god should have no need for categorization. Such a god should be dealing with individuals, not categories.

    But you see god as categorizing. That’s because we create gods in our own image, and we categorize. Therefore we create gods that categorize.

  29. fifthmonarchyman: What empirical evidence do you have that there is no mind behind the universe?

    Hah. What would constitute evidence against there being “mind behind the universe”? Minds are essentially invisible, aren’t they? Consider these questions:

    Do they have to feel pain or get knocked out when struck by a shovel? Will they do my homework for me if I bribe them? If you tickle them, will they giggle or shake one of their back legs?

    Does the answer NO to any of these constitute evidence against there being “a mind behind” (e.g.) my front lawn? If it doesn’t, what would?

  30. fifthmonarchyman: There is no such thing as indistinguishable, any two individuals will have distinguishable differences (and similarities). Categorization is simply the act of deciding which differences are important and which are not.

    deciding is what intelligent agents do.

    A real god has no need to prove its intelligence by engaging in “deciding”.

    A real god is not limited by your parochial human pride in being intelligent enough to be able to decide.

    Suicide, homicide, decide.

    God does not share your personal predilection for cutting things into separate chunks.

  31. OMagain: Otherwise, please disprove my claim there is a teapot orbiting Saturn. You do that, and I will give you the evidence you desire.

    Apparently you don’t understand what is in play here

    Humans do not have an innate belief that there is a teapot orbiting Saturn. On the other hand humans do have an innate belief in mind(s) behind the universe.

    The burner of proof is always on the one who would deny the natural innate belief.

    Hope that helps

    peace

  32. fifthmonarchyman: Humans do not have an innate belief that there is a teapot orbiting Saturn.

    I do. Your turn.

    fifthmonarchyman: The burner of proof is always on the one who would deny the natural innate belief.

    If you say so. How’s that working out for you?

  33. fifthmonarchyman: The burner of proof is always on the one who would deny the natural innate belief.

    Some people innately believe that women are inferior to man. I need no evidence to deny that. Yet you would say that women are inferior to men until proven otherwise.

  34. fifthmonarchyman: Apparently you don’t understand what is in play here

    Humans do not have an innate belief thatthere is a teapot orbiting Saturn. On the other hand humans do have an innate belief in mind(s) behind the universe.

    The burner of proof is always on the one who would deny the natural innate belief.

    Apparently it’s you who still doesn’t understand humans having a belief in supernatural beings doesn’t make supernatural beings be real.

  35. fifthmonarchyman: On the other hand humans do have an innate belief in mind(s) behind the universe.

    No, we don’t.

    The studies which you feel support that, don’t really support your grandiose imaginings.

    But even if every human being who ever lived felt that there is a “mind behind the universe”, that mind still would not be your odious genocidal tyrant god.

  36. Neil Rickert: Categorization is something we do, because we are limited finite beings. An omniscient god should have no need for categorization. Such a god should be dealing with individuals, not categories.

    Who said anything about needing to categorize? God does not need to categorize but he can categorize that is what omnipotent means.

    Let’s look at this another way

    God himself as Trinity is both individual and category

    Father Logos Spirit ——individuals
    God———- Category.

    When it comes to the Christian God individual and category are both equally ultimate. It only makes sense that it should be the same in a universe he created

    peace

  37. walto: Hah. What would constitute evidence against there being “mind behind the universe”?

    I have absolutely no idea. That is your problem not mine. You are the one making the claim the burden of proof is on you

    peace

  38. fifthmonarchyman,

    I never thought I’d see a Darwinist arguing that speciation is impossible.

    I never thought I’d see a Creationist misunderstanding or misrepresenting something I have written … Clearly, I think that evolution can happen, and reproductive isolation and divergence, and therefore I think that speciation can happen. I also think that accumulated change eventually merits a new name. I don’t think we are still fish, or reptiles.

    hybridization is not a problem as long as the niche is available it will be filled.

    Niches have sod all to do with hybridisation. But the point in any case is: which ‘essential type’ does a hybrid represent?

    We are seeing this right now with the coywolf. Some coywolfs are back-crossing yet the new species does not cease to exist .

    Wolfs and coyotes can and often do breed but wolfs are not coyotes.

    So of what ‘essence’ is the hybrid?

    Do they have a common ancestor – a Pre-Coyote-Pre-Wolf? At some point, there must have been traversal of two boundaries, one into Coyote-essence and one into Wolf-essence. And yet the parent and child would be expected to have had no distinguishing features allowing diagnosis of species at that time. Your four-year-old would declare them all one species at that time.

  39. fifthmonarchyman,

    We are seeing this right now with the coywolf. Some coywolfs are back-crossing yet the new species does not cease to exist .

    It’s debateable that this is a species at all. Of what ‘essence’ are coywolf-ancestral-population hybrids?

  40. fifthmonarchyman: I don’t understand, are you saying you are not human?

    No, I’m saying this human has an innate belief there is a teapot orbiting Saturn.

    Once you have disproved that claim I will do the same with yours, as the burden of proof is always on the one who would deny the natural innate belief.

  41. fifthmonarchyman: That is your problem not mine. You are the one making the claim the burden of proof is on you

    I missed the evidence you provided for “mind behind the universe”. I bet it was great.

  42. Of course, the reason that the coywolf is a debateable candidate for species status is that essentialism is bollocks! There! I said it! Species are real because … well, Lions and Tigers, quoth fmm. As any 4 year old can see. But, says I, what about boundary cases? “er … they either are or aren’t … I dunno, I’m not God”.

  43. OMagain: No, I’m saying this human has an innate belief there is a teapot orbiting Saturn.

    the syllogism would go like this

    Premise 1) humans do not have an innate belief there is a teapot orbiting Saturn
    Premise 2) OMagain has an innate belief there is a teapot orbiting Saturn
    Conclusion) OMagain is not human

    Can you point to the flaw in the logic?

    peace

  44. OMagain: I missed the evidence you provided for “mind behind the universe”. I bet it was great.

    once again this time slowly

    I not making any claims about minds behind the universe at all.

    It is an innate belief of humanity that there is mind(s) behind the universe. The burden of proof is always on those who would argue that a particular common sense notion is incorrect.

    Did you catch it that time?

    peace

  45. Allan Miller: I also think that accumulated change eventually merits a new name.

    we are back to your temporal perspective again

    Allan Miller: But the point in any case is: which ‘essential type’ does a hybrid represent?

    The one that it approximates

    Allan Miller: So of what ‘essence’ is the hybrid?

    see above

    Allan Miller: And yet the parent and child would be expected to have had no distinguishing features allowing diagnosis of species at that time. Your four-year-old would declare them all one species at that time.

    You are still shackled to the temporal. God is not so constrained. There is no “at that time” with an atemporal being

    peace

Leave a Reply