As Tom English’s post critiquing Dembski, Ewert, Marks, (eg Ewert) is being swamped with OT stuff, I offer this as a place to discuss the lack of substantive responses to Tom English and Joe Felsenstein so that any substantive response to Tom’s points will be more visible.
163 thoughts on “Failure to Respond: open thread!”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Open Thread. YAY!
http://www.food.com/recipe/honey-and-whiskey-ice-cream-108636
Maybe you all should set up a donation scheme like I did for the failure to respond in the latest Upright BiPed thread. 🙂
Responding to Elizabeth’s question:
They understood. I start with one coin. I ask the kids, “guess if it’s heads?”
I add another coin to the cup, shake it, “guess if both are heads?”
Get up to twenty, none will guess if it’s heads. The larger number of coins, the less likely it will be 100% heads. At least that aspect is easily understood — the larger the number of coins, the less likely they will all turn up heads from a random process like shaking.
If you don’t believe that kids can comprehend this, you can carry out the experiment. “Kids do you think all these 40 coins will be heads when I pour them out on the table. Maybe you can put Dr. Nick Matzke to shame since he has problems comprehending.”
For starters, with a physical example, it relates quite well to the problem of homochirality. Even on the generous assumption that a prebiotic soup can start with homochiral molecules, there is an associated half life for how long the homochirality can be sustained (half lives on the order of hundreds of years, and hours if trying to polymerize the monomers through heat). It follows the same principles with the coin flips and law of large numbers.
One of the most elementary features of the design of life is at variance with the law of large numbers. Homochirality emerges when there is machinery to enforce it, but that machinery needs homochirality to make it workable (I’ve cited many NASA sources that say this). This leads to a chicken and egg paradox.
The Law of Large numbers proceeds from the multiplicity of states.
100% heads is a low multiplicity state or (alternatively) a high specificity state. 50% heads is a high multiplicity state or (alternatively) a low specificity state.
Some objects are unlikely to be in high specificity states.
i.e. a set of fair coins 100% heads, a set of dominos on their side, man-made Rube Goldberg machines, God-made Rube Goldberg machines.
Life is exceptional because it occupies a low multiplicity state or (alternatively) high specificity state. By high specificity, I mean “not vary tolerant to variation in certain components”, like say, life critical genes such as insulin or the aaRS or helicase or topoisomerase or who knows what else.
FWIW, inhibiting topoisomerase is a real killer, topoisomerase inhibition is one of the avenues of anti cancer chemo therapy. Works well also for killing some parasites in the human body too.
Maybe you should re-think your life choices?
EPTRANSCRIPTOME and the Epigenome.
That’s the reason I think Graur and Moran will lose the junk DNA debate.
The epgigenome and epistranscriptome host on the order of Sextillion bits of information that is nicely networked in the 150 trillion cells of a adult human.
A toy illustration, coinsider the DNA strand of Adenines
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
It will transcribe to the RNA strand of Adenosines (Adenines):
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Looks rather uninformative right? But as we have learned recently, that is not the whole story. Adenosines can by methylated, and not only that there are specific Proteins designed (yes, designed) to methylate and demethylate and READ the methylations. If conceptually we see the methalation marks ( let 1 = methylated, 0 = unmethylated) the above RNA transcript conveys information that may look like this:
11011100101….
This is a simplification, but it illustrates the point the supposed Junk DNA and supposed Junk RNA can be part of a huge information processing complex.
The information processing importance is borne out by the GWAS studies on heritable disease carried out by the ENCODE and ROADMAP sympathizers.
Dan Graur and Larry Moran are setting themselves up to be the butt of jokes.
I always thought T was transcribed to U.
One thing I’ll say is that if the Conservation of Information is false, then it would be hypothetically possible we could construct self-replicating robots that will be able to keep self improving and hence surpass the human race in technology. We would then have possibly this scenario:
Alan,
Hope you and yours are alright over there across the pond. Heard of all the bad things happing in your neck of the woods. Radio check.
Sal
I wrote this at Larry Moran’s blog:
http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2015/11/cornelius-hunter-predicts-that-theres.html
Oh, I believe it – as I’ve said, I’ve done the same with a bunch of young elementary school kids.
But you seem to have misunderstood Nick’s position.
No, it doesn’t. You can demonstrate that this is false just as easily as you demonstrated the law of large numbers.
Toss a coin 100 times, and write the results in a row. You start with a “heterochiral;” row.
Now, start another row.
This time, when you toss the coin, don’t put down how the coin lands but instead use the following rule:
If it’s heads, copy the cell above; if it’s tails, copy the cell to the right of the one above. (When you get to the end, tails will mean you copy cell 1 of the first row.
Repeat for a large number of rows.
The process is completely stochastic, but it with high probability produces a homochiral row, which is then “locked in” forever.
That is drift in action – not even selection is needed to produce the homochirality.
Unfortnately the chemistry of pre-biotic life doesn’t work that way. The only place that works is in Dawkins world of Weasels.
How does it work in pre-biotic (aka dead chemical) chemistry.
Generously start with a homochiral soup.
Time and chance gives a racemic (heterochiral) mixture. The half life is on the order of a few thousand to few hundred years if there is no attempt at polyerization via heat, if there is a heat based polymerization attempt, they’ll become heterochiral almost instantly. The way Weasel works is not how chemicals like that evolve.
The problem with this selectionist viewpoint is that it assumes nature (without a goal directing agency) works to select toward a goal that is exceptional.
That’s one of the small reasons life has at least looks designed. Whether it is or is not is matter of faith, but I just don’t find it believable that chemicals behave the way you describe it — chemical theory and experiment bear this out.
Hey Sal
This is pure gold.
Evey lifeless planet and every theoretical dead world in the multiverse reiterates this point as does every evolutionary cul-de-sac .
peace
Lizzie,
This is a neat little demonstration but I’m missing how it ties to homochirality. Could you take the analogy to the next level of detail, please?
No, it’s a matter of evidence. Scientists are looking for it, intelligent design creationists are scared of it.
Well, my assumption is that evolution precedes homochirality – that homochirality is a result of evolution, not that evolution depends on homochirality. In other words I’m assuming that the first self-replicating (and chiral) polymers would have to be able to form in an racemic environment. And we don’t know if that’s possible, but it’s a chemistry question rather than a probability (coin-tossing) question. But if it is true, then my little coin-toss experiment explains to the six year olds that once you’ve got replication going, any one of two possibilities that randomly gets in front will rapidly dominate.
But here’s an actual bit of science:
That’s why I said that ID should focus on chemistry rather than coins.
Or in Dembski’s world of CSI.
I agree – the issue is chemistry, not coin tosses.
Elizabeth,
Got it, thanks. That makes sense.
Elizabeth,
And rather than particular words. *gazes innocently at Mung*
Nature then also seems to select toward the goal of rendering living lifeless as well. Contradictory goals, go figure. It is almost like life is not a goal.
EXACTLY! And when lifeless its stays lifeless. Humpty Dumpty won’t get reassembled by nature that has no interest in putting Humpty Dumpty back together again.
We have experimental evidence against this claim!
We know this to be the case because molecules already 100% homochiral become non-homochiral outside of living systems that maintain this state. There is an associated half life, and it is really compromised by the presence of water.
http://www.pnas.org/content/72/8/2891.abstract
All the amino acids have an associated half life (except one that is not chiral).
WoW! I must not be an intelligent design creationist! I owe you a beer sir!
Oh, because coins are made of metal, not chemicals?
Douglas Axe. Not focusing on chemicals? How so?
Gah. I was freaked out there for a moment. I thought it was Elizabeth that was gazing innocently at Mung. But if it’s you, well…
I would have been more than happy to discuss the chemistry of codes.
Did Elizabeth ever offer up that definition of code according to which the genetic code is a code? One she didn’t make up herself after the fact? Looking for objectivity, not subjectivity.
By the way, the Lamarckism thread is a tangential way of discussing some of the same issues, at a chemical level.
Additional thoughts on this:
“I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken.”
Good gravy this claim is so easy to refute! Take some proteins out of an organism. Put them in a soup or paste of heterochiral amino acids. You think that will turn that mixture spontaneously into homochiral molecules?
This situation happens all the time and all that happens is that the final mix evolves to something heterochiral! Doubt it? Just try it. But no need to do this. This is what happens when homochiral amino acids spontaneously racemize — as in what happens when things die.
No. Instead, I explained to you why your request was not, in my view, reasonable.
We appear to have a fundamental disagreement on the function of a definition.
And that’s the right way to go, in my view, rather than the coin-tossing arguments of Dembski et al.
Or, indeed, the semiotic arguments of Upright Biped.
Lack of experimental evidence for is not experimental evidence against.
You are absolutely correct that we do not have a model for the origin of life, which includes the origin of self-replicating molecules. And one of the problems in arriving at such a model, is, as you say, the problem that informational polymers tend to be chiral, and it’s not clear how a chiral polymer could self-replicate in a racemic mixture of constituents.
Showing that no chiral polymer yet discovered can do this, is not the same as showing that no such chiral polymer could exist.
Which may be because life had to be started by a miracle!!!! But that would be very much an argument-of-the-gaps.
(And, btw, would not support YEC.)
Brilliant and insightful.
Except every time you eat or drink something.
Mung,
I’d still like to hear where you’re going with your whole discussion of codes. Pick a definition and make your argument without equivocation. Whatcha got?
stcordova,
Gah, we’ve been through this I don’t know how many times. What makes you think that
a) Proteins are essential for life
b) Homochiral proteins are the only kind that can do anything
?
Observing that this is the situation in modern life?
Mung,
Axe is not looking at the OoL or chirality. Why bring him up?
stcordova,
A nitpick, it will transcribe to the complementary RNA strand of Uracil UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
Mung,
As above. A transcribes to U. U is indeed the RNA version of T, though I think it can be useful to not give too much weight to the distinction nonetheless. T is simply methyl-U. A fact that can get lost when one deals only in symbols.
While Allan’s objections to this “line of argument” are entirely correct, there is another way in which Sal is entirely wrong. The proteins I choose are a little racemase (to speed things along) and a lot of, say, an amino acid esterase ( A. turbidans) — or another enzyme that acts on amino acids in a stereospecific manner. Include a butt-load of alcohol, and lo and behold! You will end up with a pile of homochiral amino acid esters.
That was easy.
The point being, once you have a single chiral agent, stereoisomers are no longer equivalent. Thus the statement
is accurate.
Allan,
Thank you for the correction. Much, much appreciated. I was preparing an essay for some friends.
I’m indebted to you.
Sal
Chrisitianity, Judaism, and atheism have adapted well to a modern world. Islam? Pretty bad:
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/worldpolitics/why-muslim-world-decline/
Sal you seem unable to let go of the assumption that for a biopolymer of some kind to have a useful function, it must be homochiral. You also seem to neglect the question of chemical kinetics. It is true that all biopolymers spontaneously degrade and become heterochiral over time. But this process is usually quite slow, even at biologically relevant temperatures. You’ll notice how you don’t instantly dissove if you take a hot shower, and fish seem to get by rather easily despite being submerged in that terrible agent of hydrolysis: Water. That’s because the rate of degradation is so unimaginably much slower than the rate of synthesis with even weak catalysts.
Is this a random mutation, or an example of horizontal transfer?
Fmm,
You mentioned Christian piety on another thread, could you elaborate on a real work example how Christian piety would deal with a real world dilemma? For instance the Syrian refugee issue. Thanks
Your side has no hypothesis, Joe. I can assume for the sake argument evolutionary theory is incomplete and incorrect in aspects but that doesn’t help you at all. ID still has no hypothesis.
Ask KF. Every tub must stand on its own bottom.
I have yet to see any allegation of equivocation in the many instances where I have discussed the genetic code supported by any actual evidence.
And I have given a definition of a code, and you know I have. And it wasn’t one I had to make up (lie Elizabeth).
“Actual evidence”. Is that like “real code” you kept equivocating over but were too cowardly to ever define?
Mung,
Sure, but you haven’t presented any argument yet, either.
You quoted a couple, as I remember. Then you stopped. Where are you going with this?
There’s nothing wrong with creating a definition for the context of your argument, so long as you stick to it in that context.
Again, whatcha got?
Tom,
I don’t know if you saw this pronouncement that Rich Hughes linked to in another thread.
Dembski reports:
Alan,
I wasn’t aware that word had gotten around. It was on my mind when I wrote above, “I’m trying to refrain from Dembski-bashing for a while.” Let’s give the man a chance to show us that it truly is a new day. I’d much prefer to say that Bill Dembski is someone with whom I have an honest disagreement than to say what I’ve come to know about Dembski the Culture Warrior.
I would add that Marks and Ewert continue to be active pushing their arguments, and Dembski has not disavowed those arguments.
I see Robert Marks is 65 and has had an impressive career quite separate from his association with Dembski. I can’t say I have noticed him being very active in defending his ID papers. Maybe the mantle will fall solely on Ewert now.
Winston Ewert, a software engineer at Google, Inc., indicates in a new paper that he is affiliated with the Biologic Institute, which is funded primarily by the Discovery Institute. That, in my mind, makes him a public person. Sad to say, the gloves will be coming off. But not in this thread. Here I stick to exposing the most obvious of errors in the claim that the Conservation of Information Theorem applies to nature.
Tom English,
For anything written by IDiots, “paper” seems like the wrong label unless the word toilet precedes it.