FMM: Purposeful intervention is pretty much the opposite of random mutation.
FMM notes in the same comment:
If there in nothing about an idea that distinguishes it from it’s alternative it seems to be superfluous.
So the idea is “non designed mutations” and the alternative is “purposeful intervention”.
Give that, and given FMM has not discarded the idea of purposeful intervention there must be something that distinguishes it from non designed mutations.
What is that distinguishing factor? What is the actual evidence for “purposeful intervention” regarding mutations?
And, more broadly, what is the evidence for “purposeful intervention” in any area of biology? Apart from, of course, wishful thinking.
Entropy,
The problem here is the sequential nature of DNA and protein synthesis. Without the target, the sequence will most likely break down after random change. This is what Bill and Johns argument in the 4 highlighted ops is about. What avoids the sequence breakdown is DNA repair and purifying selection but ultimately that limits variation.
This is an after the fact observation with the assumption evolution is true. Your hypothesis is that they have evolved. What experiment do you propose to test this?
Have you seen translation mechanisms produced by nature (other than man :-))outside biology? Biologies ability to produce these is evidence of design in biology. Nature may produce these structures but what is the origin of these structures before a copying mechanism originated?
I gave it to you the pattern is “π”.
It’s a transcendental number defined as the ratio of a circle’s circumference to its diameter.
I think so but then again i think everything is designed.
For the purpose of our conversation the only thing that is important is that you can’t get all the way to it with an algorithm.
peace
So if I can build an algo that produces “π” as an output, and doesn’t take “π” as an input (and doesn’t contain it “a priori”), what will you say then?
dazz, to fifth:
He’ll make excuses and shift the goalposts again.
What the hell is a “transcendental number”? Are there non-transcendental numbers?
Incidentally, all your ideas sound like number two
Yeah, FMM’s responses are most definitely algorithmic
hahahahaha, comedy gold
dazz,
It’s a number that isn’t the solution to a nonzero polynomial equation with integer coefficients.
“Transcendental number” is a mathematical term, not theological gobbledygook.
fifth,
Neither can a human, under the same conditions.
Your criterion fails.
Ouch, thanks for clarifying
fifth:
dazz:
Fifth, do you understand why dazz is laughing?
(I am too, by the way.)
dazz,
You acknowledged your mistake, which puts you light years ahead of fifth.
I will say you are pretty talented and ask if you have heard of Joseph Liouville
peace
From here:
How do you suppose he smuggled those 22 trillion digits into the algorithm, fifth?
You are one confused dude.
In genetic parlance, DNA is transcribed, and (messenger) RNA gets translated. I reject your suggestion that DNA is designed, just because parts of a genome can be transcribed into RNA that is translated to polypeptides (you won’t be surprised, I think). When you find secret messages of the Designer encoded into the human genome, let me know and I may change my mind.
But I do agree with you that, in order to demonstrate design, we need to consider function. Fifth’s claim that we can tell just by looking at patterns is ultimately unconvincing, I think.
You distinguish between intentional and non-intentional events in the non-theological sense (boy this is getting complicated) by invoking the purpose of the event. “Yes, my hat blowing off was by intent but God had another purpose for that gust of wind”. So, extrapolating to your test, we need not only be able to spot the intent in a pattern, but also whether that pattern was the purpose of the intent. In my mind, we are now moving into good ol’ watchmaker terrritory again where we infer design of a trait by guessing its purpose.
So the randomized strings are just permutations of a sample of original sequences. That is easy enough to set up, no? Why don’t you generate some pairs of strings?
01010010 01000001 01001110 01000100 01001111 01001101
This looks like a random sequence to me, don’t you think?
That is not what I’m doing. I’m simply saying that I infer intent when presented with certain phenomena and don’t when presented with other phenomena.
It’s not about the purpose it’s about the pattern. An unexpected gust of wind is not the same thing as an unexplained rustle in the bushes.
You seem to be having difficulty with understanding why I can affirm that there is no such thing as randomness and at the same time not “feel” the intent of everything in exactly the same way. That seems to me to be just silly.
We already discussed that you can affirm that all your mothers actions toward you are loving yet at the same time understand that some of her actions might not feel like it.
The only reason “purpose” came up was because I was speculating as to why the feeling was different in the case of the gust of wind than it is with the explained rustle.
I would bet you would be shocked to how many sets of strings I have compared over the last couple of years. 😉
As I told you earlier I have already compared a DNA sequence with a randomized copy and found it easy to distinguish between the two.
What we really need is multiple strings compared by multiple observers some with no skin in the game.
Once we were finished all we would really know is if a sequence of DNA can be distinguished from a randomized copy.
What I think is necessary to do beforehand is establish why that information would be important to know.
I hope working with reported weather will get me closer to that goal.
peace
I would say it’s too short to tell one way or the other with out additional context.
peace
That is 100% correct.
There are many, many hidden premises in that statement. Let’s just say that I do not accept that you “feeling” intent emanating from a sequence of numbers is in any way comparable to feeling a mother’s love from her actions towards you. That shouldn’t surprise you too much.
In my book, naturally encountered sequences are always a mix of regular and stochastic elements. Your claim that “intent” adds something extra to the mix that we can observe is what needs to be established.
Yes, but I already have my doubts about that, so would be good to establish.
Anyway, looking forward to your results
I believe Bill has the required context 😉
Sure. Which is why I explicitly said that there’s targets. Pretty broad ones. Do you really not see that reproduction and survival work as pretty broad targets?
Sure it limits variation. But take a look around. There’s still quite a bit of variation. Right?
Only if you forget to read what I wrote right after that, which explained the kinds of things we see that show that these things evolved. I mentioned “scars” for duplications, I mentioned recombination spots that look like they’d recombine easily, etc.
Checking for clues. For example, the kinds of variations that can be expected if the sequences diverged from a common ancestor, for example, looking carefully at the codons and their differences in terms of synonymous and non-synonymous substitutions given the limitations imposed by purifying selection, or checking for potential positions where recombination could have occurred looking for the “scars” normally left by recombination, etc, etc, etc.
Depends on what you call “translation mechanisms.” There’s plenty of chemistries going on that substitute one thing for another.
No it isn’t. Any designer you may point to will be a biological organism. You’re therefore trying to explain biology with what a single member of the group can do: design. The very designers you’re using too “support” your idea are made of the very things you propose to be the products of design. That would make the question “who-designed-the-designer?” a very appropriate question to ask (to show the fault in the reasoning). Given that limitation: designers being made of the very components you pretend to be designed, the most philosophically appropriate position would be that nature is first, designers just one of many of its products.
Obviously nature itself.
I don’t know, I think purpose works, function not so much. Function that has purpose, ok, but mere function gets you animism and creationism.
What’s the function of the sun? To cause plants to grow, and to light the world, among its greatest functions. Its purpose? Well, there’s no apparent one at all.
What’s the function of the wind? To carry moisture about, to turn windmills, to cool us down. Purpose? Again, none evident, it seems to be the result of thermal differentials and the Coriolis Effect.
Function of the DNA code? Store information, encode sequences. Purpose? Again, none, it seems, the information evolves without any apparent purposeful or intelligent input, save the little we effect.
Wooists have claimed otherwise for all of these, but they haven’t come close to providing the requisite evidence.
Glen Davidson
Reasonable enough, so I am inclined to agree. Perhaps I should have said intended function. I think we both agree that merely observing patterns gets you nowhere, which was my main gripe.
Don’t forget replication. That is the game changer.
It makes a difference, all right.
Glen Davidson
Entropy,
Can you think of a program where you could test your hypothesis that a broader target is better then a specific target? For this to work functional space must almost equal total sequential space. Currently, the evidence for this is weak. The sequential space of the Wiesel program is very small compared to any human proteins AA sequence.
Sure observing is easy the cause is the challenge.
Interesting discussion. I would like to understand this better. Do you have any recommended reading on genetic recombination?
We have lots of data that nature can copy information but little that it can create information without human assistance.
I understand that a designer contradicts what you think is philosophically accurate and your point about what caused the designer is a valid discussion as it starts an infinite regress. When does the quantity of evidence for design get to the point where your current philosophical beliefs need to be reconsidered? Are there assumptions that drive your philosophy that might be in error?
Corneel,
The evidence for design is not just the function or the object but the observation that function or object was generated by code. The whole system of translation from code to function is evidence of design.
That’s what you ID-Creationists are supposed to be providing positive evidence for, not just repeating the evidence-free assertion ad nauseum.
And what would evidence for “not design” look like Bill?
The perennial bit of Fifth silliness is his assertion that strings have structure that is independent of context. In short, that “meaningful” strings can be detected without reference to context.
Are you serious? Do you really think that a broad target is harder to hit than a specific one? Harder to hit a one-millimetre target than a three-meters one?
Wrong. It’s enough that functional spaces are within the range of possibilities, and guess what? All experiments and data show that they are within the range pf possibilities! (Which should be expected, since we’re here talking about it.)
How would you know that? You seem to assume that a protein has to have a very specific sequence, and thus you’re contradicting yourself both ways: on the one side you complain that the target is specific in the Weasel program, on the other you complain because the sequence you want is specific? Which one is your problem? the specific or the non-specific?
I wholeheartedly agree. Which of all natural phenomena (known and unknown), or combination therein, might explain what we observe is a great question.
I think if you just google it you’ll find good resources. A very nice one is nature’s scitable.
That’s circular logic. I check around, and I see lots of information been “created” very naturally all the time. Each variant in a population is new information, each copy is new information too, since the copy also requires energy to be produced …
Which shows the poor philosophical background of the “design inference.”
It’s not beliefs, it’s doing philosophy properly. The evidence would have to include what we expect from designers, like evidence of designers being around by the times we see something happening that seems designed. It’s not enough to say, hey, humans do something like this, therefore a human-like form did it! You have to show the tools, where the designer took the pieces from, whether the designers made any plans, etc etc etc etc.
None that I’m aware of. I suspect that making philosophy properly would leave “designers” out of the question. too evidently made up, etc. I suspect that there’s no bridge precisely because these “designers” are fantasies. I have been trying to find that bridge, and have found nothing. I’d imagine that creationists would have found that bridge if any bridge was possible, but all I find is very poor philosophy in all of their claims. So, if creationists cannot honestly find that bridge, then I doubt that a bridge is even possible.
Entropy,
In this case it is. The most efficient way to find a sequence through a search is to know the sequence and generate sequences randomly and then compare the best fit to the target sequence and select the best fit. Then mutate that sequence several times per the selected mutation rate and again select the best fit.
This process avoids the sequence getting lost in very large search space. If the gene target is not clearly defined like in natural selection then the sequence can “get lost” in the large non functional space.
The sequence space is specifically defined as:
s=n^p
s is the sequential space
n is number of possible characters (numbers, letters, amino acids)
p is the length of the sequence
I am thinking about information differently. In this case I am thinking about new genes.
So are you discounting Thomism?
Gene duplication. There, all done for you.
That is not my claim.
My claim is that when presented with certain patterns we tend to infer intent. I’m not claiming that intent adds anything at all.
OK I understand that objection I’d like to get to the root of it.
1) Do you deny that we are hardwired to infer intent in certain circumstances. Even circumstances that are novel to us?
2) Do you have a problem with the idea that patterns can be presented in different ways and still convey similar information?
Some examples include a book that can be read or listened to and a piece of music song can be recorded on vinyl or noted on paper. A digital photograph is really just a series of ones and zeros
peace
I never said that strings have meaning absent context. Structure is not remotely the same as meaning
We can see structure in the voynich manuscript even if we have no clue what it means or what it’s function is.
peace
That is it,eh John?
It is pathetic when one really thinks of it…but you have to support the faith; right or wrong…
BTW: What do you gain after you pass from supporting this nonsense? You are not gaining anything now and people like me make fun of your unfounded birdie assumption because you have no scientific evidence to support your views now, you even resist the experiments that could prove your assumptions…
To me, you are in the same category of nonsense speculators… Larry Moran, PZ. Myers, Richard Dawkins, Jerry Coyne and many, many others that wish what they believe were true.. But the universe doesn’t work that way…
There seems to be no content in that post other than the message that I’m stupid. Why even bother?
Again, that assumes that only a specific sequence would do, but you first complained that specificity was a problem with the Weasel program. That it works because there’s a specific target. Now you complain that a specific target is a bad thing for evolution. Which is it?
Either way, what I’m saying is that, obviously, a broad target is much easier to hit, but, for some mysterious reason, you think that’s harder, which doesn’t make any sense (!!!!???). Anyway, the fact is: protein sequences have lots and lots of flexibility. Therefore they’re a much broader target, much easier to hit.
You’re not understanding this. The “target” is much less specific, meaning that many different sequences can do the job. We know this Bill. We see that every day. We know of proteins that have very few amino-acids in common and still perform the very same biochemical work. Lots of their variants perform the very same biochemical job too. Even proteins with completely different structures can perform the very same job. Therefore the “targets” are pretty broad. As I said, you cannot know if they’re more or less specific than the “target” in the Weasel program. Life doesn’t care about spelling or words or grammar. Life is just about chemistries. If the chemistries work, we’re done. That’s what makes it possible Bill, that it’s about the chemistries, not about specific words and sentences.
Entropy, to colewd:
Bill, did you ever read Arrival of the Fittest? Odds are you won’t understand it, but it does explain this in detail.
Entropy,
With a broad target like natural selection you are not selecting directing against the target sequence. It may take many changes before a duplicated gene will help with fitness. Even though there are 10 billion possible working genes if the protein is made of 300 AA the total search space is 20^300. Even though there are lots of solutions the non functional space is enormous. I can find this gene with the right parameters if I am searching against one specific sequence but I will never find any of the 10 billion possible working genes with a generic search like natural selection. The only possibility is that the functional space is almost as large as the non functional space. We know when proteins have multiple functions as nuclear proteins that this is exceeding unlikely.
This is just the beginning of the problems of claiming a mechanism that relies on trial and error can be responsible for the diversity of life.
The development of an embryo and the coordination of the regulatory requirements makes de novo gene formation look like a chip shot.
colewd,
Seems like I have to repeat:
Trial, error, and physics/chemistry Bill. The “problem” is not with the mechanisms that have produced the diversity of life, the problem is with your understanding (and poor philosophy).
Your ideas might make sense if the evolutionary process involved randomly jumping to any point in the “search space” with equal probability. But a single mutation takes you to a nearby point, which is likely to have a function very similar to the original sequence. If similar functions are clustered in sequence space (as they are), the size of the total space is irrelevant.
These things, and also the preferential preservation of the successful trials. Creationists never seem able to grasp the importance of this preservation, and its power as part of a positive feedback loop. Dawkins’ WEASEL program was written to illustrate the immense power of preferential preservation, and creationists completely (and perhaps deliberately) missed the point, instead dismissing the program for its failure to do something never intended in the first place. Bill just keeps repeating “trial and error” without ever even giving lip service to the importance of retaining the successful trials.
John Harshman,
A single mutation may or may not take you to a nearby point the question is how many mutations are required for the gene to change enough to add an advantage. What we are observing is a large variety of gene sequences so what you are claiming is contrary to the data.
Flint,
Trial and error does retain successful trials. What we see is a large diversity of functional sequences and they are in many cases very unique.
Hey Billy, it’s even worse than that, isn’t it? I mean to get to 300 AA’s that protein must have had to start much shorter, and could have been larger too at some point in the past. So the sequence space is the sum of all 20^X where X is anything between 1 and, I don’t know, 1000? 10000? 10 gazillions? almost infinity?
It’s such an impressive number that only Jesus could have conceived it! Now compare that to Satan’s lowly 666. And those stupid atheists keep saying there’s no evidence of ID!, heh
Entropy,
There is a lot chemistry involved but it is also about translatable sequences which are chemistry plus sequential information.
More non sequitur. What we observe is the condition a long time after duplication. You can’t say that divergence didn’t begin with a single change. A hill-climbing algorithm (to use a common metaphor) doesn’t have to reach a new peak in a single step, as long as there’s a slope.
Mmm, not quite true. The claim you stated above is trivially true; everybody will agree with it. But you have also been claiming that certain patterns more clearly show the intent of God, and you compared that to how a mother’s love is more clearly expressed in certain actions. That claim is of course what we are discussing.
1) Yes, I do. I would say that we are hardwired to recognise patterns, and that we may learn to associate certain patterns with intent.
2) No, no problem with that.