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
There are no steps that I can take.
Only God can make objective pronouncements.
For me to do so would be to put myself in the place of God. That is the original sin.
peace
I thought you had already agreed that God can reveal truth to us through nature. Can’t science be considered the discovery of revealed truth through examination of the world?
So you think that the existence of carbon atoms, for example, is a mere tentative placeholder, a subjective judgment, and you’re agnostic about whether there’s really such a thing as carbon?
science can help you to know that you are not mistaken in what you think has been revealed but by it’s very nature it can’t get you to objectivity.
when we get to the atomic level our limitations are especially prevalent.
It’s very difficult to say that any particular atom exists. What we can do is make approximations based on statistical modeling.
Carbon exists in at least 15 isotopes each slightly different from the others.
The individual subatomic components of each particular hypothetical carbon atom are even more difficult pin down.
from a distance if you squint just right it all adds up to the probable existence of a unique separate element that we call carbon.
none of this means that science is not useful. It just does not deal in absolutes
peace
Can revelation get you to objectivity?
All of that seems like avoidance of the question. Nobody was talking about “any particular atom”. I asked about the element carbon. You say that it exists in at least 15 isotopes, as if that matters to its existence. Still, what do you mean by “it exists”? That sounds awfully certain to me. Do you mean that the idea of carbon’s existence is a tentative placeholder, or is it something more than that? Is it true that there is carbon? Is it true that there are atoms? Or are you agnostic on the subject? Methinks you are like a weasel.
Yes, God because he is omnipotent can reveal something to you so that you can know it for certain.
That follows necessarily from the definition of God.
You can never point me to the element carbon. What you can do is point me to a collection of individual atoms that will more or less approximate the description of atoms of the element carbon.
I mean that as far as science goes it’s a tentative placeholder.
If I know for certain anything exists that knowledge did not come from science.
peace
Are you asking about my own subjective opinion or are you asking about what can be known through science?
In my own limited subjective biased opinion atoms exist.
Science tells me that from what we know right now it’s probable that atoms exist.
peace
Perhaps then you should think of it as the reduction of subjectivity, the departure from subjectivity.
And perfect is not required to be useful. Just like the scientific process.
Closer is good right, maybe closer is the goal. Provisional upon new developments.
True, better to wait around and hope for a revelation? Worked well for the Black Death.
‘Objective means actually objective’? You probably mean has actual existence. Sure. There’s some conflict between saying the objective evidence supports the existence of the apple, and that the apple exists as an objective reality. Our use of the term more closely aligns with the quality and mode of evidence.
Did you respond? If 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. Is that not so? Nearly everyone would say so, and that indicates that it is your use of the term “objective” that is heterodox in this context.
You had said “anything that can be categorized will form an objective nested hierarchy.” If you have modified your views, then that’s fine. Anything can be grouped into an arbitrary nested hierarchy.
That is incorrect. We provided an example. There is a bowl containing red marbles, blue marbles, and green marbles. We can objectively categorize the marbles by color, but the objective categorization is non-hierarchical. Any hierarchical classification is arbitrary.
We made clear our use of the term “objective”. 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). But if you don’t like using the term objective here, what would you call the difference in knowledge betwixt the two?
This is not a continuum. It’s binary.
You have either subjective or objective.
You can’t have 80% subjective 20% objective.
It’s not a departure from the subjective it’s simple an increase in the probability.
I agree, science can be very useful.
it just can’t lead you to the objective truth.
Closer is definitely good as long as it’s not misrepresented as absolute or objective or something like that.
A process that leads you ever closer is good as long as it’s not used to the exclusion of what leads you to objective truth then it’s bad.
Who said anything about waiting for anything??
peace
Something like that.
Are these rules arbitrary or is there reasoning behind them?
Can’t you? Why not? Seems to me you are suggesting objectivity is an unattainable goal. But scientific endeavour produces better (more objective) models as a result of progress in a particular field. For example Earth Flat, to Earth round and geocentrism to Earth as an oblate spheroid and relativity.
The biased subjective folks who put them together thought that they had valid reasons for doing so.
peace
The valid reasons are predictability. We can predict future observations of what will happen when the apple is cut, what type of seeds that will be contained within, what will grow from those seeds. We can reliably tell YOU what to expect when you bite the apple in your hand.
Because objective and subjective are exclusionary. They are mutually exclusive.
You can’t be a little subjective and a little objective at the same time and in the same respect. This is simply basic logic. the law of non-contradiction
It is an unattainable goal if you are beginning from a position of subjectivity and attempting to pull yourself up by your own bootstraps.
NO NO NO
Science can only produce more probable models. It can’t produce more objective models.
The only way to achieve objectivity is to be unbiased and omniscient.
There are no shortcuts
Each of these models involve a limited (read subjective) perspective.
They do get progressively better at making predictions for us but they don’t get you to objective.
None of this means that science is not cool and very useful it only means that we can’t expect it do what it was never intended to do.
peace
OK, you value predictability for some reason, other folks might value harmony or mystery or any one of a thousand other things.
That is what subjectivity is all about
You are proving my point for me
peace
Our position doesn’t depend on a value judgment. Object persistence, predictability, and so on, are at the root of objectivity. You don’t have to *care* about predictability to note that the apple in your hand has predictable characteristics that allows us to objectively classify it as an apple, and not a tomato.
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). But if you don’t like using the term objective here, what would you call the difference in knowledge ‘twixt the two?
That is your biased subjective opinion anyway
The two what???
The two fruits? The two statements? The two perspectives implied by the statements?
Just a fair warning before we get started.
I have a lot of difficultly understanding you with your insistence on using the plural and all. You will need to keep your comments very short and succinct or I will quickly loose the ability to follow you at all.
strike one
peace
Is there is a difference between saying “I like apples” and “I like to think that there is an apple in your hand”?
Or
Is there a difference between saying “it appears to me that apples are better” and “it appears to me that there is an apple in your hand”?
peace
With the implication that religion can.
Well, that’s a pity then. Because as we can all see, the world has been full of religions from the very start and as it’s a self evident objective truth that all they have discerned is there does not appear to be anything they can agree on.
Some stand on the shoulders of giants and it’s obvious even to you. He is legion!
Nope I’m not a fan of religion and it can’t get you to objective truth either.
Religion is basically man’s attempt to pull himself up to God by his own bootstraps and it is subject to the same limitations as Science.
God on the other hand is not subject to those limitations
That is because as I just said religions are subject to the same limitations as science
You can’t get there from here
Think about that for just a minute and the logical contradiction should hit you between the eyes.
If it doesn’t then that explains a lot 😉
peace
Hey fith,
How many protons do sodium atoms have? How about hydrogen? Or oxygen?
thanks in advance!
Do you mean the actual atoms or the purely hypothetical approximations we use to describe them?
peace
Since I have no idea what your “purely hypothetical approximations” refers to let’s go with the actual atoms.
No. It’s based on the how the term “objectivity” is used in a scientific context.
We have asked the same question several times now.
1) “I like apples” (typically called a subjective statement).
2) “There is an apple in your hand” (typically considered a claim subject to objective verification).
We noted the difference as normally construed. But if you don’t like using the term objective here, what would you call the difference in type of knowledge betwixt the two?
Again your choice to use a term in a particular way rather than another is pretty much the height of subjectivity.
There is nothing wrong with this sort of thing of course unless you equivocate your idiosyncratic usage in place of the more general definition.
As written one is a statement about your personal subjective preference for apples and another is a statement about your personal subjective opinion about what is in somebodies hand.
The difference is in the subject matter not in the epistemological weight of the statements. they are equal in that regard.
The only way the second statement can be objective is if you are God or if God told you that there was an apple in the hand.
peace
In that case you would need to show me one.
peace
This is an important point.
The difference “as normally construed” presupposes the existence of an omniscient deity that communicates with us.
I hope you can see why I think it’s important to examine our presuppositions
peace
“Let A be an apple” is not what is meant by subjective, but a means to communication. That the term objective has a scientific sense is just a fact.
The second statement is subject to verification. Are you really saying that we can’t verify that there is an apple in your hand? Observers might try comparing it to other apples. They could predict what would be seen if they cut it open. They could plant the seeds and predict the what the leaves of the tree would look like. It certainly seems like something that could reasonably be verified.
Is common descent also probable?
Uh, no. It doesn’t take a deity for people to agree on the use of terminology. You refuse to consider any other sense of the word objective, so we are asking for another term that might mean the difference between a subjective opinion, and a claim that is subject to independent verification. At this point, you can’t seem to see the difference.
I’m saying that all we can do “scientifically” is to say that conditions consistent with there being an apple in your hand seem to exist.
prediction is not verification.
Unless of course you subjectively choose to consider it as such
peace
I thought you said that revelation could come from observing nature, and revelation is objective. No?
Why would need to do that? And if I did show you an atom how would you recognize/determine it was a sodium atom and not, say, an oxygen or argon atom?
If two people agree on something it only means their decision is popular it says absolutely nothing about whether it is objective.
read carefully please
God (not revelation) is objective. God can if he chooses reveal things to us so that we can know them
“Revelation” does not come from observing nature. Revelation comes when a person communicates with us.
God can if he chooses communicate with us in lots of ways including by showing us things that occur in nature.
I hope that clears up your confusion
peace
So! There is a difference! The second statement is subject to being tested for conditions consistent with the hypothesis. Now you have it!
I’m not sure I could. I’m not a nuclear chemist after all
I’m doing the best I can though.
Because I would need to count the protons to tell you precisely how many there were in the particular atom you were asking about.
peace
So is the first. Your point was??
peace
So how is the first statement, “I like apples” subject to independent testing for conditions consistent with the statement?
All,
This sidetrack has went on entirely too long
I hope everyone is now fully aware of why it is incorrect to say that “special creation would not produce the objective nested hierarchy that we see”.
Perhaps we should move on from the talk about apples and sodium atoms and our subjective opinions about them.
peace
1) I could watch you to see if you ever ate an apple and your reaction to it.
2) I could ask your friends and family if they had ever heard you expressing an opinion about apples
3) I could do an internet search to see if you had ever expressed an opinion about apples
4) I could examine your grocery bills to see if you ever purchased apples
etc etc etc
none of these things would prove that you liked apples but they might demonstrate whether conditions consistent with that hypothesis seemed to exist
I hope you get the point
peace
Once you counted the number of protons how would that help you decide what atom you were observing?
Then why bother counting the number of protons in an atom if it doesn’t help you in determining what atom it is that you are observing?
Do you really hope? I have doubts. How do we know whether God is currently communicating with us by showing us things that occur in nature, or if we’re just seeing things in nature?
I for one have no idea. I doubt anyone else does either. Your attempted explanations only make your claims less clear. Doubtless this is the fault of all who read you, and you are blameless.
Not necessarily but it would tell me how many protons were in the actual atom I was looking at.
That was after all what you asked me was it not?
Because you asked me a weird off the wall question and I was being nice
peace
Ok
Step one: do you understand why objectivity is impossible for a finite biased human?
lets start with that one. It’s really very simple
If I would venture to guess I’d say it’s because the communication gap between our two worldviews is so large. baby steps
What is important is that we keep plugging away at it and not get distracted with talk about apples, sodium atoms or Shakespeare plays.
peace
Sounds like an objective assertion, if we grant it does it refute your statement?
Would you then have objective knowledge of the number of protons in that atom? Or would that only be a tentative notion of the number of protons you were looking at?
No.
Step two: rinse and repeat.
No, it wasn’t what I asked you but then you, I, and everyone following this thread know that wasn’t what question was asked of you.
Nothing weird at all about the question. If not answering and then being less than forthcoming about what was actually asked of you is considered nice it says a lot more about your worldview than anything else.