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
As I said before I think I’m quite familiar with metaphor. In order for metaphor to work there needs to be a literal/factual basis for the language.
In this case you have offered none.
You just assert that DNA can have “subjectivity” with out explaining what you mean by the metaphor.
I have no problem with saying that some facts are objective.
I have a problem with you saying that you can demonstrate that your choice is objective while mine is not.
You simply don’t have that luxury with out appealing to a divine standard.
no I’m saying that you need a divine standard in order to say something is objectively correct.
Except the individual nodes on the tree are species and not earlobes or elbows.
bingo.
Except for the “personally” part. God can if he chooses use intermediaries or other means to communicate with us.
peace
Hey sal,
I think you can invoke the entity when the phenomena in question is necessary for your existence or the existence of the entity.
In Christian parlance I would say if the phenomena has particular significance in redemptive history.
That gives you things like the origin of life, the origin of the world/universe, the origin of humanity, the incarnation and the resurrection.
peace
In science, at least, objectivity is gained by a process which attempts to minimize the effects of individual perceptions, personal feelings, and prejudices. It typically involves multiple observers, with differing perspectives, and with various methodologies. It’s not an absolute.
If you and John and other neutral observers take pictures, cut it up, taste a bit, measure the parts, note the colors, compare the attributes to other such objects that we have previously named, and finally agree that the object in your hand is an apple and not a tomato, then we can tentatively say that the object is *objectively* an apple, and treat it as a provisional fact.
—
“The fact that we live at the bottom of a deep gravity well, on the surface of a gas covered planet going around a nuclear fireball 90 million miles away and think this to be normal is obviously some indication of how skewed our perspective tends to be.”
— Doug AdamsYou can’t gain objectivity. There is no such thing as 99% objective.
You either have it or not. It’s a lot like being pregnant.
Then it’s not objective. It might be popular or the general consensus or something like that.
Tentative and provisional are antithetical to objective.
You can’t get there from here
this is all basic logic 101
peace
If two isolated rednecks agree that Africans are less than human does that mean they are entitled to tentatively say that their conclusion is objectively correct and should be accepted as a provisional fact?
think man
peace
Well, that’s the root of the disagreement. In science, there are degrees of objectivity, as noted by Doug Adams.
Black and white thinking. Tentativeness and provisionality are at the heart of the scientific endeavor. Even direct observations can be fraught with subjective biases. That doesn’t mean we can’t reach reasonably objective conclusions. Eppur si muove (even if all observers are living at the bottom of a deep gravity well).
Then “science” is equivocating on core terminology.
peace
You just said they were isolated and biased, not neutral. Nor did they provide any objective criteria. They just n-worded to their preconceived conclusion. You actually illustrated the point that objectivity is gained by a process which attempts to minimize the effects of individual perceptions, which was ignored in your example.
You are also conflating the different senses of philosophical and scientific objectivity.
It’s not equivocation when the term is *explicitly* defined for a particular meaning. Gravity also means seriousness.
I have great respect for many things, craftsmanship, bravery, kindness ,humor, preservence, your beliefs about God to name a few.
Interesting about your emphasis on worthiness, your subjective judging of a deity to determine if He meets your standards for worship.
Many test by deeds not words.
Exactly what Ive been saying, I’m glad we are in agreement
“reasonably” is a subjective term. Reasonable to who? Why to the particular folks making the judgement of course.
Other folks may disagree or the entire enterprise might be the result of our cultural bias.
That realization does not mean that science is not useful.
peace
Again, black and white thinking. To you, there is only objective and subjective, and never the twain should meet. But there is a difference between saying you like apples (subjective), and the determination that there is an apple in your hand (which can be ascertained with a reasonable degree of objectivity).
Reasonable is defined as being in accordance with reason, being of sound judgment. In this case, it refers to being in accord with objective scientific practice; that is, independent observers, differing perspectives, and various methodologies.
I don’t recall ever asserting that DNA can have subjectivity. Anyway, the metaphor in question wasn’t mine, and you consistently treated it as if it were intended literally. I’m not sure what you mean by “literal/factual basis”, but metaphors by definition are not literally true.
Contradictory statements can’t both be objectively true. Is there a way to tell whether some classifications are better than others?
Please justify your claim that a divine standard is either necessary or sufficient in order to say that something is objectively correct.
Not true. The terminal nodes in a tree of DNA sequences are sequences taken from individuals. We common consider the individuals as exemplars of their species, but one can make trees with many individuals from the same species, or individuals claimed to belong to the same species, and this is frequently done. No assumption that the nodes represent species is necessary. You don’t know what you’re talking about.
Does he communicate with us by allowing us to examine the universe and derive reasonable conclusions from data? If not, how does God communicate with you?
Yet you seem to be the only one holding that holding that view. Any support for the view?
Everything a God creates could be categorized as something that God created.
Man creates them for his use. For instance, there are two kinds of people, the first kind who believes there are two kinds of people, and the second kind who don’t.
To me only the only absurd God would be one bound in His actions by human understanding.
He has plenty of support. He’s shown that the periodic table is a nested hierarchy, because atoms form molecules. And apparently that wasn’t intended as a joke.
I agree.
But in this discussion by objective you clearly mean actually objective because you are comparing your chosen nested hierarchy with others not constructed “scientifically” and declaring it to be superior for some reason.
If all you meant by “objective” is that folks who accept your particular chosen nested hierarchy agree that it’s correct then your argument for common decent would make no sense.
peace
let me go through it again.
1) anything that can be categorized can form a nested hierarchy. This is obvious with even a moments reflection. If you can make any division at all it will nest it into the larger whole.
2) If there is at least one nested hierarchy then there will be an objective (impartial, unbiased, unprejudiced etc) nested hierarchy
3) If there is an objective nested hierarchy then an omnipotent God will know it.
To me and to basic definitional logic.
Words have meanings and communication is not possible unless we recognize that.
peace
check it out
https://myscres.com/worksheet/composition-of-matter-elements-compounds-and-mixtures-worksheet-27.html
peace
Yep and we could create a nested hierarchy of things that exist that contains two elements.
Things that God has created and God
peace
According to who? Why according to the folks making the determination of course
peace
Those two groups nest quite nicely into the larger grouping of humanity
peace
Yep that is one way he communicates, it’s called general revelation
There are generally considered to be two modes of revelation.
General revelation accessible to all people and special revelation that is accessible to a smaller subset of folks.
Those are the ways that all communication are done whether communication from God or communication from John Harshman.
peace
Why stop at individuals and not tissues or cells?
Each of these would have slightly different DNA that would nest into the DNA of the individual as a whole.
peace
That isn’t the periodic table, is it?
One could do that, though it would be difficult given the low number of mutations per replication. So?
Then doesn’t science count as revelation, and thus we are able to detect God’s objective nested hierarchy? Particularly, are we not able to use the revelation of nature to discover the true tree of life, resulting from common descent?
Let’s test how you are doing achieving your goal of understanding your “opponents” position. What does Zach or John say the reason is that one particular nested hierarchy is viewed as better?
It is the reason they accept that is important, many nested hierarchies could be correct, why do they choose this one as better?
You said you accept common descent, what convinced you?
peace
Because this particular hierarchy is “objective” while other hierarchies are not.
By objective I think they are implying “real” or “universal” or “compelling” or “not personally biased” or something like that .
So far they have only established that this nested hierarchy more accepted by the people who accept this particular hierarchy because it adheres to rules set up by that particular group of folks.
I would say it’s because it leads to the conclusion they wish to reach. Or it’s because people they respect choose it. Or it’s because it was reached using a method that they prefer or feel is more useful as apposed to other methods.
none of those reasons are necessarily incorrect the problem is none of them are free from their own personal bias so they can’t be “objective”.
peace
peace
peace
sorry about the triple peaces
i’m in the middle of something right now
I would say the scientific method is one way to help make sure that we are understanding revelation properly. That goes for communication from God or John Harshman.
It’s not the only way and when we rely on it alone to the exclusion of other ways we are more apt to be mistaken,
That goes for communication from God or John Harshman.
peace
Do you think we’re mistaken? Can we learn whether there is a single, objective nested hierarchy of life using scientific methods? Have we in fact done so?
Can’t speak for anyone else, but none of those reasons apply to me. The first is in fact insulting. I pick one nested hierarchy as better than another when the data consistently support it. If, for example, I sample 20 genes at random and 19 of them support a particular tree, I suppose that tree to be true. One can also test whether the data violate any of the assumptions of a method used to analyze them. That method is most useful whose assumptions are not violated.
Considering your “gray animals” grouping, the problem with that is that you picked one character because it groups gray animals. Already you have displayed bias in choice of data. If you picked a bunch of characters without prior bias you would never arrive at a grouping of gray animals, even if you were incompetent at choosing valid characters. But any idiot can go find DNA sequences, without bias, analyze them also without bias, and come up with a group of foxes and another group of squirrels, but never a group of gray animals. I interpret that as displaying an objective property of life, i.e. its pattern of ancestry. Or, if you won’t allow that much interpretation, at least that it displays a real nested hierarchy. You don’t agree?
Actually I said I did not deny common descent. I’m agnostic right now. I’d say the jury is still out.
Common decent seems to make sense from an efficiency standpoint and I don’t see any insurmountable reproductive boundary between species.
I don’t have any theological objections to it. The idea of the animal kingdom being united in that way might have an ancillary relationship to Adam’s covenant headship of humanity and there could even be echos of the unity in diversity and we see in the Trinity.
Indeed the hypothesis of Common decent has a lot going for it in my opinion.
However It does not make the idea any more compelling to hear faulty arguments like. “Special creation would not result in the objective nested hierarchy we see”
In fact that sort of sloppy argumentation makes me wonder if the evidence for common decent is exaggerated.
peace
I don’t know.
Nope.
Like I explained to Zac you can’t get to objectivity by pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps.
As far as you can get with the scientific method is something like general consensus or a tentative placeholder till something better comes along.
None of that means that science is not useful
peace
I can’t help but wonder exactly what might bring your jury back in. Would it take the form of evidence, or the form of revelation (to whom?), or something else?
If I were in you shoes, I wonder if I would even be able to notice that my skepticism of science has solidly theological underpinnings, and that it’s not shared by those of different theological traditions. I wonder if I would notice that…
…is in fact pure projection, and that I would be assigning to others motivations that have become second nature to my worldview.
Yet you rejected data about the climbing habit of grey foxes because you assume that trait is not sufficiently heritable.
What other data have you excluded for similar reasons?? Do you even know??
You admitted your own bias for things that are you believe are heritable.
If you did not exclude the things you exclude you would never never arrive at the groupings you arrive at
He all have bias. It’s nothing to be ashamed of.
My bias in this case has to do with looking at practical things that I can personally observe like color, habitat ,diet and climbing habit.
And that is your own personal opinion you are entitled to it. you are just not entitled to call it objective.
Your nested hierarchy in this case is just as real as mine.
peace
The reason science can approach objectivity is because it rests on prediction and testing. All scientific hypothesis imply predictions, and if they are truly scientific they can be tested, at least in principle. And if they fail the tests, they can be discarded as incorrect. Science has a solid process for rejecting incorrect notions.
There is a reason why there is only one science, while there are tens of thousands of religions, and religious sects and cults — it’s because religion has no process to reject wrong ideas except either repression or schism. Science arrives at consensus NOT using the religious approach where you either agree or you found a new sect, but by the constant improvement of observation techniques and instrumentation until the evidence clarifies beyond any rational rejection.
Your characterization of science, repeated ad nauseum, paints science is nothing more than another religion, with all the religious processes that implies and no hint of understanding the scientific method. I’ll happily agree that if science were like religion, it would be as useless to explain our world as any other religion.
I don’t have any skepticism of science.
Science has not proven common decent anymore than it has proven anything. Science is not in the proving business.
What I do have is a healthy humility about the tentative and finite nature of human intellect.
I have no problem holding to common decent as a tentative conclusion of our best understanding to date.
To do more is to move beyond science.
I’m not sure what you are talking about here??
I have Christian friends who accept common decent and Christian friends who reject it and friends who don’t give it much thought and friends who don’t care one way or the other.
That sort of thing is really not an issue in my particular circle.
peace
Approaching objectivity is not remotely the same thing as obtaining objectivity.
It’s like using an algorithm to approximate π.
You can get ever closer but you will never ever reach your goal.
It’s even possible that you will start out getting closer but diverge from the target and not know it for long periods of time if ever if you start with the wrong premise.
That is simply incorrect.
We can test religious ideas for internal consistency and coherence to reality.
The folks I hang with do that sort of thing all the time.
peace
rational according to whom?
Why the folks making the determination of course
peace
No it’s because humans are experts in suppressing the truth about God.
We have had lots of practice doing just that.
Suppressing the truth about dark matter or Quantum mechanics is just not that important to us. But that does not stop us from forming sects and arguing about those things 😉
peace
🙂
Nail on head! You’re no different, you’re not privileged in any way, you’re in the same boat as all of us;
You claim that you want to understand your opponents position before denigrating it. Then why don’t you yourself attempt to determine if the signal is in the data? Perform an analysis, determine for yourself if it’s all a lie. If it’s truly objective you’ll find the same signal as everyone else, if not you won’t. That’s what objective means. It’s there regardless. No assumptions necessary.
But the demonstration has happened. That you don’t understand it does not mean it does not exist.
This is a great example of trashing something you simply don’t understand. You think you do, but you don’t. And the more you talk, the worse you look.
The evidence for my claim you don’t understand what’s being discussed is above.
In fact I have recently come to the conclusion that FMM subconsciously knows that his religion is nonsensical and internally inconsistent but the effect is that at a conscious level he has doubled down on his facade of unwavering belief.
Someone being their own son sending themselves to be sacrificed to save a world it created in the first place knowing everything that would happen in advance? Zombie Jesus? It’s absurdity piled on absurdity and I think he knows it, deep down.
FMM’s inner atheism is causing cognitive dissonance that is surfacing as a doubling down of his theism.
The creator of an entire universe, who can create matter and energy ex nihilo to fill an entire universe, is apparently concerned with “efficiency” according to FMM.
It’s absurdities like this that lead me to believe FMM knows that “efficiency” and “creator of everything” cannot be reconciled and as such he does not believe any such thing.
In a similar way to climate change? 99%+ of scientist working in the field say common descent is supported and the Discovery Institute say it’s not. To you, that’s the jury being out.
Tell me, what respectable biologists say that common descent is unlikely to be the case? If you can’t on what basis is “the jury out”.
I believe that subconsciously you know that the “jury” is not out at all, which is why Morton’s daemon will not allow you to see my question. If you had evidence you’d be keen to provide it. You don’t and so my question will not exist to you. That’s because you are working subconsciously to suppress anything that might cause the divide between what your subconscious rejection of your theistic mess of a worldview and your strident theism to break.
Proclaiming something in front of a group of people makes it harder to break that public promise. It’s how WeightWatchers et al work. You’ve been proclaiming your faith in public all your life now FMM and at some point the internal stress will be unviable.
At some point your chickens will come home to roost.
They always leave themselves a way out. “Most” mutations are harmful. “Might” have a relationship.
Hey, FMM, what steps could you take to resolve that “might” into a “did” or a “did not”?
If you can’t specify such steps, admit that all you are doing here is theistic navelgazing.
Sure you do. Sure you do…..
Of course I am no better.
The privileged one in this context is God. Only he can make objective pronouncements. He can make them and he can communicate them to us if he chooses.
The problem arises when you want to act as if you are God and make those pronouncements yourself. That is the original sin.
peace
Just because I find the same signal as you do does not make that signal objective. It only means that two people agree about the signal.
Popular is not the same thing as impartial far from it.
peace
Of course he is. Why not?? God is not a God of disorder but of peace.
Likely to be the case is not remotely the same thing as is the case.
Science can never ever prove that something is the case. It’s all about probabilities.
You are treating science like it was in the proving business. That is the problem and that attitude is not scientific.
Peace