Dr. Winston Ewert put forward his module hypothesis, but I put forward an alternate module hypothesis at the domain and motif level of proteins. It is based actually on papers by evolutionists who have pointed out that the problem of “Promiscuous Domains” remains an unsolved problem in evolutionary biology.
When I put Promiscuous Domains on the table in the Common Design vs. Common Descent thread, the TSZ Darwinists ignored the problem and then declared victory. I viewed their non-response as evidence they didn’t understand the problem and/or preferred to ignore it.
Perhaps pictures are worth ten thousand words. From the NIH, that great source inspiration for the Intelligent Design community, we have the CDART database viewer.
From the CDART viewer, I provide a few of the thousands of diagrams that show the promiscuity of protein domains. The diagrams below show the classical zinc finger ZF-C2H2 “ZF” domain and the Plextrin Homology “PH” domains. Note how the location of domains is “shuffled” to different locations in different proteins. It’s as if proteins are made by different lego-like parts in different order and position. My preliminary look into small 4-amino acid motifs that are the target of phosphorylating kinases suggests the the problem of promiscuity goes all the way down to small motif levels.
Such promiscuity is more consistent with common design than common descent.
Click to Enlarge Classical ZF-C2H2 Zinc Finger Page 5
Click to Enlarge Classical ZF-C2H2 Zinc Finger Page 157
Click to see all CDART Classical ZF-C2H2 Zinc Finger Architectures
exactly my point
peace
exactly my point
peace
How do you think I heard about them?
peace
You disagree that “I like apples” is a statement concerning the state of mind of the utterer? Seriously? Or that a person might change their mind about liking apples? Really?
In the case of counting toes, multiple independent observers can verify the number of toes, while “The apple was delicious” is only found in the mind of the utterer.
Regardless, we have shown what we sought to show about your view. It is based on a fundamental precept that the vast majority of readers will rightly reject, that there is no epistemological difference between someone saying “The apple was delicious” and “There are five toes on that foot.”
ETA: Eppur si muove
Now I am confused. Is convergence your word for the re-use of modules or did you mean convergent evolution of all the individual protein domains from unrelated sequences (which would be an enormous strawman).
I would certainly invoke recombination and transposition events. They are well described and explain the observed patterns perfectly fine. If you want to dispute that, you need to put some meat on that claim. For example, you could demonstrate that the exact architecture of these proteins is invariant among species as they are intolerant of all mutations without losing coherent function (Spoiler: no they are not).
That’s funny, I was going to say something similar about Common Design.
I disagree that a person can change his mind at any time.
I think that one changes his mind only when circumstances change.
I don’t think I could simply decide to quit liking apples.
That “Zac likes apples” can be verified by multiple independent observers.
The conclusion that there is an apple in my hand is reached in the minds of the folks who conclude thusly.
yes yours is the majority viewpoint at a website frequented by atheists who in the main hold to empiricism.
That tells you very little about the idea’s validity. It tells you nothing about why anyone who does not hold to that school of thought should find the statement “special creation would not result in the objective nested hierarchy we see” to be a compelling argument.
peace
Actually your point is everything is equally subjective.
People’s tastes do change.
Sure, they hold the thought in their minds, but it is independently verifiable, unlike “The apple was delicious.”
It does for those who reject your solipsism. Sure, everyone could be a p-zombie. Sure, the universe could just be a movie playing in your mind. And while such ideas are food for thought, they are scientifically vacuous.
In any case, we can define science methodologically. Assume the universe exists. Assume other observers exist. Define subjectivity as the individual perception, and define objectivity as the ideal from a defined process of minimizing subjectivity through independent verification. Define the scientific method as a specific iterative means of testing hypotheses.
Now, you can believe whatever you want. You can adhere to your solipsism, handwaving to your heart’s content. You don’t have to believe the system converges on answers, or that it matters in the least. You can be Zen, and believe that there are no distinct entities, that the universe is One — as long as you act as if entities exist.
You don’t like apples. That is just your subjective opinion.
Actually ,I believe fifth’s point is without the justification of omniscience and the power of revelation to impart objective knowledge to humans, all man’s efforts can be reduced solipsism.
I’d start by asking them to solve the cart-before-the-horse problem with “design.” ID supposedly takes clues to design from human design, but they forget a tiny little detail: they’re trying to explain things that make our capacity to design possible.
For example, regulatory interactions are required for our brain development, for the expression of genes related to brain function, for the very workings of our brain activities. Since design requires such things, design cannot be their source.
This is where ID breaks down into revealing its true nature: mere religious fanaticism/fantasy.
The problem I’m encountering right now is identifying the intron exon boundaries of ZNFP genes. Some genes are nicely annotated and recorded and the introns and exons are automatically shown and highlighted in the gene in the chromosomes. Not so, apparently for the ZNFP genes I’m looking at so far. Ugh!
All human experience can be reduced to solipsism, with or without revelation, revelation being just another experience of a “brain in a vat“. All systems of knowledge have to have some assumptions to form a logical foundation. Fifthmonarchyman rejects certain of these assumptions in lieu of others that put his personal revelation in a privileged position.
Remember Sal: Recombination doesn’t need to happen at exon boundaries. I suspect that for many zinc fingers, the original recombination events, even if they did happen at exon boundaries, happened long ago enough that the original boundaries might have been lost since.
That would be correct, however because one of his assumptions is it is logically possible that Divine Omnipotence can render an assumption into an objective fact and be known by revelation ,his foundation no longer rests on an assumption but by revealed truth, maybe. But maybe is better than any alternative.
I think the time may come when we can observe the liking. We have good operational definitions of liking. They involve observing preferences. It is not out of the question that we may develop ways of observing brain behavior.
Not my point at all.
My point is that everything that originates from finite biased human beings is equally subjective.
That does not make all our opinions worthless or equally warranted. It only means that they are all subjective.
Peace
Yes and apples decompose to the point that they are no longer apples.
It’s also important to keep in mind that peoples tastes don’t change for no or random reasons. And they can’t decide to change their tastes “at any time”
I’m not a sophist. Far from it. I think that sophism or absurdity is the necessary result of any worldview that consistently rejects God.
I’d love to see you support that claim, care to start an OP?
I agree. The existence of God is unique in that it is both an assumption and inescapable revelation.
Question assumptions other than the existence of God and you end up with sophism or absurdity.
Question the assumption that God’s existence is necessary for knowledge and you end up with renewed confidence that God does exist.
No, I endeavor to reject assumptions that inevitably lead to sophism or absurdity and accept those that are left.
I recommend that process to anyone who wants to be a consistent thinker
peace
You insist upon using the terms subjective and objective as a neat dichotomy, even though the terms are often used as a continuum, with objective being an ideal that is approximated by a process of independent verification. You want to call it a continuum of warrant, as if the word is what matters.
You are conflating the property of the person with a property of the apple. “The apple is delicious” is subjective, and will vary with the taster. “This is an apple” is objective, because it can be independently verified.
You won’t be surprised to know that I think you have it exactly backward.
The reason we recognize human artifacts as “designed” is because we recognize similarities with archetypal design in creation.
We can design because we are created in the image of our creator.
As such you would expect to find similarities between our behavior and his.
peace
Not by anyone who is not butchering language and flouting logic.
You might as well claim that “circle” and “square” exist in a continuum and therefor a circular square is possible.
I would not expect you to understand things like the law of noncontrdiction give your insistence to refer to yourself in the plural.
You are ……still not getting it
I think “The apple is delicious”
and
I think “This is an apple”
Are equally subjective.
That goes for the same sentences when the “I think” is silently implied
No it can’t.
All you can independently verify is that conditions consistent with the hypothesis that “this is an apple” seem to exist.
You can do exactly the same with any hypothesis, including the hypothesis that “the apple is delicious”
peace
From our comments, you should be able to gather we do understand the law of non-contradiction. Because you *define* subjective and objective as a neat dichotomy, if something is subjective it can’t be objective, and if something is objective, it can’t be subjective. However, in science, objective has a meaning as an ideal that can be approached through a process of independent verification. For whatever reason, you seem to reject this sense of the word.
Yes, we understand your position.
Independence generally means multiple observers, with differing perspectives, and with various methodologies. This is as opposed to the statement “The apple is delicious,” which is just an opinion of the apple that changes with each taster.
There’s no way to independently verify the apple is delicious. Different observers may have different opinions.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
newton,
But he cannot demonstrate revealed truth, and he remains limited by his being a simple human being. A mere claim doesn’t make his foundation anything but imaginary, giving him nothing but confidence in his imagined revelation (I’m leaving aside that, when examined carefully enough, his supposed foundations are absurd).
You guys concede too much. Shouldn’t a proper skeptic reject those scenarios, like matrix/brain-in-a-vat, the very same way we reject claims about gods? If someone thinks that they’re a brain in a vat, then they’re welcome to it. Nothing will convince them otherwise (not even claims about gods and revelation, they’d use those as even more convincing evidence that they’re brains in a vat). If they want to convince me that we’re brains in a vat, however, they’d need evidence.
Gods as solutions to solipsism? No, sorry, gods talking to you and revealing things to you would be reasons to suspect that you’re in trouble, not that you found a solution to a problem I don’t buy into in the first place.
Anyway, one of the funniest thing about FMM’s position, as with any other presuppositionalist, is that where-the-rubber-meets-the-road, they show that they’re just as limited as any other human being. All those grandiose claims about their superior philosophy, only to fail where they should be showing how all of that bullshit helps.
You are still trying to make this a human endeavor.
It’s not about you “finding a solution”. Trying to “find a solution” is what got you in this mess in the first place
It’s about passively recognizing what you already know. What has been graciously done for you.
and you are in trouble,
You are a social creation who has purposely separated himself from the primary relationship you were created for.
That is a heck of a predicament and there is no way for you to escape it by your own effort. The logical thing to do is surrender and beg your creator for mercy.
but you won’t do that.
Instead you will continue to try and find a solution all alone by yourself in your own head.
peace
Hey, I’m not conceding, just indulging!
I have no problem with science using an obscure idiosyncratic definition for objective.
In that case the argument that
“Special creation would not produce the objective nested hierarchy that we see”
Is based on a blatant equivocation.
peace
So? Is it true that he ought to be able to demonstrate revealed truth, and who revealed that to you?
But this isn’t the claim. The claim is Special Creation could produce any scenario we might observe. There are no entailments.
Well, I don’t think he can. I think he’s in the same boat as everyone else.
Sure it is. look back at the beginning of this conversation.
That is exactly what John harshman claimed.
He even said that the only thing that would make him entertain the idea of special creation would be a lack of an objective nested hierarchy.
That is the entire reason that I chose to comment on this thread
peace
I’m pretty sure it isn’t.
Provide a link, please.
I’m sure John can speak for himself when he has an opportunity.
Well, I can see that. That’s not the same as saying “Design” claims are scientifically unentailed – untestable. If you could produce a hypothesis that ruled out a nested hierarchy, I’d be impressed. Maybe John would too.
I’m skeptical! 🙂
I do claim that we expect common descent to show an objective nested hierarchy, by which I mean one that exists in the world to be discovered, independent of our prejudices and biases. And that various other things that have been categorized do not display such a hierarchy despite FMM’s attempt to make everything the same. And that we are indeed capable of discovering objective facts about the world by examining the world.
Finally, I do claim that we would not expect a nested hierarchy of life to result from separate creation of species by an omnipotent being unless that being were attempting to convince us of common descent.
There followed vast clouds of equivocation and obfuscation on FMM’s part, to no profit whatsoever. I expect nothing else in the future.
This thread is about common decent verses special creation.
There are no “design claims” at issue here.
peace
And yet many 8-year-old children can readily distinguish between designed objects and natural objects.
quote:
We expect to see a nested hierarchy from common descent. We have no expectation of nested hierarchy from any other cause. Thus nested hierarchy is evidence of common descent.
end quote:
from here
quote:
Special creations of systems will not create nested hierarchies unless whoever creates them makes a particular point of creating a hierarchy for no necessary purpose.
end quote:
from here
quote:
That’s because you have no understanding of the difference between arbitrary nested hierarchies and nested hierarchies that result from hierarchical structure of the data. Some sorts of data actually do have such structure, and it can be objectively demonstrated that they do. That’s true for phylogenetic data, but it isn’t true for modes of transportation, musical instruments, etc. Would you agree that if what I say here is true, then what you said is wrong?
end quote
from here
@FMM
Clearer now?
*My emphasis.
Actually the eight year old recognizes human artifacts from things that are not made by humans.
He is likely to think that everything is designed for a purpose. Even as an adult he will at times slip up and fall back on that common sense hardwired notion
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121017102451.htm
peace
I’ve been reading ID-creationist claims for quite a while, and they talk about this as if it were really scientific, all based on what we know about design from our own activities. But I appreciate your honesty in revealing, directly, that it’s all religious fanaticism/fantasy, rather than needing my help to figure out how a simple philosophical problem reveals it so. Your case, unlike the ID-creationists case, is much more open to its true “foundations.”
No what does your emphasis have to do with his contention that special creation will not be expected to produce an objective nested hierarchy?
he said this after I showed him that anything whatsoever that can be categorized can be described as a nested hierarchy.
peace
Good grief! “unless … etc”!
I don’t disagree that we know about design from our own activities.
But our design activities are types of the archetypal design we see in nature.
There is nothing unscientific about that realization.
peace
Entropy,
You will be happy to know that I am right now trying to see if I can recognize the difference between algorithms and “design” in weather temperature measurements.
Nothing about proving that God exists just practical ID in action.
peace
fifthmonarchyman,
I suspect that you don’t understand what “a problem I don’t buy into in the first place” means. So much for that superior philosophy. Your god reveals things to you as poorly as if it were imaginary. How surprising.
unless what exactly??
He specifically said that the only way that he would entertain the idea of special creation is if life did not produce an objective nested hierarchy.
If you are admitting that there is no way whatsoever that you would entertain special creation then fine.
That is not John Harshman’s position.
And it’s certainly not very scientific
peace
Do you think it’s necessary for you to understand that you have a problem before you can have one.
If so that explains a lot
peace
Do you understand that your claiming so doesn’t mean that I have such a problem?
More importantly, do you understand that if I say that I don’t buy into it, it means that I’m not looking for a solution, as you claimed that I was?
So much for that superior philosophy. Your god reveals things to you as poorly as if it were imaginary. How surprising.
Entropy,
Can you support the claim his friend is imaginary.
Your god’s revelations don’t seem to last very long either. As if your god and its revelations were imaginary! How surprising!
I don’t need to. FMM does a very good job showing so all by himself.
Why? Do you, like FMM, get revelations, supposedly from an all-powerful omniscient being, that are, however, indistinguishable from the imagination of a not-that-bright individual?
WTF?