Aquamarine on feldspar and mica, with smoky quartz in the background, from Diane's Pocket, Mt. Antero, Chaffee County, Colorado. Geology Museum, Colorado School of Mines, May 2011.
113 Comments
Mike Elzinga · 3 October 2011
Lovely!
Just look at all the emergent properties in that picture. So much from such simplicity!
Imagine what can happen with something even slightly more complex.
https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 3 October 2011
I want!
OK, the aquamarine's not in the greatest condition, but still looks great in context. Looks like a bigger piece.
So much CSI, too. Or wait, don't they say that we can detect it only if we already know it's there? So I guess I need to know if it's there first, and if it is, the explanatory filter can detect it (it's why it works so well for life, because they already know CSI is there, because they can just see it (after reading John 1, anyhow)).
Imagine what can happen with something even slightly more complex.
It might become irreducible!
harold · 4 October 2011
Serious question for Steve P., Joe Bozorgmehr, FL, Fittest Meme, IBIG, and any other lurking creationists.
Was the structure illustrated here intelligently designed or not, and how can you tell?
Mike Elzinga · 4 October 2011
harold said:
Serious question for Steve P., Joe Bozorgmehr, FL, Fittest Meme, IBIG, and any other lurking creationists.
Was the structure illustrated here intelligently designed or not, and how can you tell?
Yes; not just the physical composition, but the artistic composition as well.
Flint · 4 October 2011
Maybe we should tote up all the gods for whom this is clear evidence, and all the gods for whom it isn't, and see which set is larger. Only Christian gods, for this exercise.
SWT · 4 October 2011
harold said:
Serious question for Steve P., Joe Bozorgmehr, FL, Fittest Meme, IBIG, and any other lurking creationists.
Was the structure illustrated here intelligently designed or not, and how can you tell?
All snark aside, I would like to see how this question gets answered. We could, just possibly, have an actual discussion about detection of intelligently designed items.
harold · 5 October 2011
SWT said:
harold said:
Serious question for Steve P., Joe Bozorgmehr, FL, Fittest Meme, IBIG, and any other lurking creationists.
Was the structure illustrated here intelligently designed or not, and how can you tell?
All snark aside, I would like to see how this question gets answered. We could, just possibly, have an actual discussion about detection of intelligently designed items.
The question is absolutely serious, of course. I'd also love to see an answer. Even if someone thought I was being snarky, they could make that look pretty silly with an intelligent answer. Or even an explanation of how the question could hypothetically be answered.
SWT · 5 October 2011
Sorry if I was unclear -- my comment about snark was about me, not you. You've posed an excellent question, and the answer can lead to some interesting and potentially useful discussion. I note that Steve P. has been busy in another thread but hasn't yet graced us with his response to your question.
https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 5 October 2011
harold said:
Serious question for Steve P., Joe Bozorgmehr, FL, Fittest Meme, IBIG, and any other lurking creationists.
Was the structure illustrated here intelligently designed or not, and how can you tell?
Well we know that you can't tell that it wasn't designed by finding all of the predicted effects of non-teleological evolution in those objects (not that you would).
The mere fact that no designer has never been known to modify entities for billions of years in a way that mimics the effects of non-teleological evolution is no argument against such a thing happening. Because...
I have to admit that at this point I get stuck.
Glen Davidson
Mike Elzinga · 5 October 2011
SWT said:
harold said:
Serious question for Steve P., Joe Bozorgmehr, FL, Fittest Meme, IBIG, and any other lurking creationists.
Was the structure illustrated here intelligently designed or not, and how can you tell?
All snark aside, I would like to see how this question gets answered. We could, just possibly, have an actual discussion about detection of intelligently designed items.
Well, I think I can give the ID/creationists a start.
Aquamarine is a compound Be3Al2(SiO3)6 with a dipyramidal structure.
Feldspar is usually one of KAlSi3O8 or NaAlSi3O8 or CaAl2Si2O8 with triclinic or monoclinic structure.
Mica comes in the form X2Y4 - 6Z8O20(OH, F)4) with X = K, Na, or Ca, or less commonly Ba, Rb, Cs; Y= Al, Mg, or Fe, or less commonly Mn, Cr, Ti, Li; and Z = Si, or Al, or Fe3+ or Ti.
And of course quartz is SiO2.
So all they have to do is use a uniform random selection distribution of these elements from all the elements in the periodic table, and then calculate the probability that these specified structures with their specified bond angles and crystalline forms will occur out of a random mixture of inert atoms just lying around or blown about by tornadoes in junkyards.
And then they would have to multiply by the probability of this specified structure we see in the photograph.
Henry J · 5 October 2011
Inert atoms? I didn't see anything from group VIII of the periodic table in any of those formulas. :)
eric · 5 October 2011
harold said:
The question is absolutely serious, of course. I'd also love to see an answer. Even if someone thought I was being snarky, they could make that look pretty silly with an intelligent answer. Or even an explanation of how the question could hypothetically be answered.
Here's an answer, but I'm afraid it won't make you look silly.
(1) You go out and see if any designers are actually creating these crystals. If you can't do that, then you come up with a hypothesis as to how a designer would go about doing it. Said hypothesis must be specific enough to yield testable predictions.
(2) You extract from your observation or hypothesis the types of independent evidence such action would leave behind. Things like toolmarks. Or actual tools. Or evidence of a manufacturing technique (in the case of crystals, an illustrative example might be that growing it in an artificial bath gives different elemental or isotopic ratios than "natural" versions).
(3) Then you look to for evidence of those things (toolmarks, tools, manufcaturing techniques) in the sample itself.
IDers do none of this.
They avoid (1) because their answer - God - shows their idea is religious in nature.
They avoid (2) because their answer - untraceable magic - shows their idea is not science.
They avoid (3) because they aren't actually interested in doing science. ID is proselytization. Testing their hypothesis would be a waste from two different angles: it is time not spent promoting Jesus, and its time collecting data they aren't going to use anyway since the bible is the only data they consider authoritative.
Mike Elzinga · 5 October 2011
Henry J said:
Inert atoms? I didn't see anything from group VIII of the periodic table in any of those formulas. :)
In ID/creationism, all atoms are inert. They just jostle around randomly, waiting to be chosen with a uniform sampling distribution and put into a “specified complex” arrangement using “information” from an “intelligent designer.”
Atoms are so dumb that they just wander off to infinity if someone doesn’t round them up and place them in pretty arrangements.
Henry J · 5 October 2011
Of course, if those atoms really were inert, putting them into pretty arrangements wouldn't cause them to do anything except sit there looking pretty.
harold · 5 October 2011
harold said:
Serious question for Steve P., Joe Bozorgmehr, FL, Fittest Meme, IBIG, and any other lurking creationists.
Was the structure illustrated here intelligently designed or not, and how can you tell?
Well, I got some good replies, but all I'm getting from you guys is...
[sound of crickets chirping]
I guess we all agree that ID/creationism is a bunch of BS.
fnxtr · 5 October 2011
Not to be difficult or anything, just wondering if non-living, differentially-permeable membranes occur naturally...
Mike Elzinga · 5 October 2011
fnxtr said:
Not to be difficult or anything, just wondering if non-living, differentially-permeable membranes occur naturally...
Naturally occurring differential filters from inorganic materials can and do occur. Usually the natural process will involve some inorganic material in a very fine polycrystalline state in which the microcrystals making up the material are jumbled and together bound together but with defects, dislocations, and vacancies throughout.
Sintering doesn’t have to be “intelligently designed.” It can take place wherever fine-grained materials are fused together at temperatures just below the melting temperatures of the compounds or when trapped air or water prevent the material from forming a solid crystal.
For example, some kinds of pumice can be used as differential filters. The only problem is that the natural process doesn’t necessarily produce something that consistently differentiates molecular sizes that humans may want do differentiate.
Dave Luckett · 6 October 2011
Dawkins remarked that the simplest filtering membrane was a hole. It lets lumps smaller than it is through, and prevents lumps larger than it is from passing through.
Holes occur naturally, in non-living things.
stevaroni · 6 October 2011
eric said:
Here's an answer, but I'm afraid it won't make you look silly.
(1) You go out and see if any designers are actually creating these crystals. If you can't do that, then you come up with a hypothesis as to how a designer would go about doing it. Said hypothesis must be specific enough to yield testable predictions.
Actually, I work in digital design, and I have friends who do, in fact, create crystals.
Mind-bogglingly large ones, made of silicon.
The testable prediction (in this day of sub-micron sized photolitography) is they will be freakin perfect on any practically measurable scale, because if they're not, they're pretty much useless.
By this logic, the crystals in the picture are not the product of a designer because they have obvious flaws.
Sadly, these days the same not-designed argument seems to also apply to my knee.
harold · 6 October 2011
On the BW, FL said -
All snark aside, I would like to see how this question gets answered. We could, just possibly, have an actual discussion about detection of intelligently designed items.
Sure. What you see in the photograph (the aquamarine/mica) doesn’t display any specified complexity, doesn’t display any CSI.
There's no such thing as CSI. It's a meaningless string of words. Prove me wrong. I said "how do you know" (you didn't have the cojones to blockquote that part).
Give me a reproducible way to measure CSI that I can use independently, to check your assertion. If you can't, that means CSI doesn't exist in any meaningful way*. (*Assuming FL makes a good faith effort to go to the necessary sources or recruit the necessary experts, and exhausts those possibilities.)
If you can, it doesn't mean that I agree that CSI is a marker for "design", but right now I think that the concept is literally undefined and meaningless (and I've seen the absurd "CSI calculations" at Uncommon Dementia - the couldn't even agree with each other). If there is no such thing as CSI we can dispense with this argument right now.
Doesn’t mean that God isn’t the Creator of the aquamarine/mica, just means that those information-markers aren’t there as far as we know. So the photograph doesn’t display the known markers of intelligent design, and we simply say so.
Wait a second. You're saying that you can't be sure that God created the entire universe. You're not as sure that God created aquamarine as you are that he created cells. Therefore you're at least less than perfectly sure that he created aquamarine. You are saying that, and you can't weasel out of it.
And your reasoning for accepting God as the creator of cells is wrong - it's based on CSI, but there is no such thing as CSI.
You're essentially an agnostic.
Contrast that situation with the huge genetic cookbook written inside your cells.
You may have your doubts about who created the universe, but you sure believe in the voodoo magic of simple analogies. Sorry. If I call DNA a "cookbook", it doesn't make it a literal cookbook. Any more than if I call a creationist a weasel, it means that he literally becomes a small, furry, crafty animal that chickens are afraid of.
eric · 6 October 2011
fnxtr said:
Not to be difficult or anything, just wondering if non-living, differentially-permeable membranes occur naturally...
To add to what Mike said, lots of natural minerals make excellent media for anionic, cationic, or size exclusion chromatography columns. Tuff is a standard column material - but it's also just a type of dirt. And it will have the same properties in a field as it will in a glass column, chemically separating any liquid passing through it.
Now, I don't know whether you consider loosely packed dirt to be a 'membrane,' but it's certainly got the 'natural' and 'differentially-permeable' aspects down pat (so to speak).
fnxtr · 6 October 2011
Sure. I guess charcoal form forest fires would count, too. :-) Thanks for the ideas.
fittest meme · 6 October 2011
harold said:
Serious question for Steve P., Joe Bozorgmehr, FL, Fittest Meme, IBIG, and any other lurking creationists.
Was the structure illustrated here intelligently designed or not, and how can you tell?
If you happened to find instruction for making this exact formation of these materials close to the formation itself what would you conclude?
Would you consider such evidence to be of the type eric describes in his post?
(2) You extract from your observation or hypothesis the types of independent evidence such action would leave behind. Things like toolmarks. Or actual tools. Or evidence of a manufacturing technique (in the case of crystals, an illustrative example might be that growing it in an artificial bath gives different elemental or isotopic ratios than “natural” versions).
eric · 6 October 2011
fittest meme said:
harold said:
Serious question for Steve P., Joe Bozorgmehr, FL, Fittest Meme, IBIG, and any other lurking creationists.
Was the structure illustrated here intelligently designed or not, and how can you tell?
If you happened to find instruction for making this exact formation of these materials close to the formation itself what would you conclude?
If it were written in ink on paper, and someone followed the recipe and got the same result, yes. Because ink and paper do not reproduce themselves, and are independently known to be produced by human designers.
But if you are using "instruction for making this material" as a metaphor for the fact that certain inherent properties of the atoms themselves and the molecules they form allow for crystal growth, then no, observation of those properties is not observing "an instruction for making the material," and not evidence of design.
DNA molecules and the molecules which read them have inherent molecular properties which allow them to replicate and produce proteins. They fall in the latter category, not the former ink-and-paper category.
Mike Elzinga · 6 October 2011
fittest meme said:
harold said:
Serious question for Steve P., Joe Bozorgmehr, FL, Fittest Meme, IBIG, and any other lurking creationists.
Was the structure illustrated here intelligently designed or not, and how can you tell?
If you happened to find instruction for making this exact formation of these materials close to the formation itself what would you conclude?
Aquamarine is a compound Be3Al2(SiO3)6 with a dipyramidal structure.
Feldspar is usually one of KAlSi3O8 or NaAlSi3O8 or CaAl2Si2O8 with triclinic or monoclinic structure.
Mica comes in the form X2Y4 - 6Z8O20(OH, F)4) with X = K, Na, or Ca, or less commonly Ba, Rb, Cs; Y= Al, Mg, or Fe, or less commonly Mn, Cr, Ti, Li; and Z = Si, or Al, or Fe3+ or Ti.
And of course quartz is SiO2.
Do you consider these as instructions? If so, how would you calculate the "complex specified information" in these instructions?
If not, how complicated does a molecule have to be in order to "contain instructions?" Does the molecule have to include certain elements such as carbon?
If more complicated molecules are different from simpler molecules in how they are constructed, what are those differences? Where do the laws of chemistry and physics leave off and "instructions" enter the picture?
Is there a level of complexity in molecules where the laws of physics and chemistry stop?
Is there a level of complexity in molecules where the laws of chemistry and physics are "not enough?"
At what level of complexity does "complex specified information" enter the structure of a molecule?
As a spokesman for the ID/creationist community, surely you have been taught all this.
fittest meme · 6 October 2011
eric said:
If it were written in ink on paper, and someone followed the recipe and got the same result, yes. Because ink and paper do not reproduce themselves, and are independently known to be produced by human designers.
But if you are using "instruction for making this material" as a metaphor for the fact that certain inherent properties of the atoms themselves and the molecules they form allow for crystal growth, then no, observation of those properties is not observing "an instruction for making the material," and not evidence of design.
DNA molecules and the molecules which read them have inherent molecular properties which allow them to replicate and produce proteins. They fall in the latter category, not the former ink-and-paper category.
So is it the fact that the paper instructions can't replicate themselves that keeps them from falling into your "second category?" of information?
Maybe I'm not understanding what your talking about when you describe "molecular properties which allow them it replicate and produce proteins."
Aren't you attributing characteristics of life to molecules which we would agree aren't living?
If your talking about the molecular properties that would for instance attract base to base then you must know that none of the letters of the genetic alphabet have any particular attraction to any other as they are aligned in a string of DNA. The molecular properties are important but they are more akin to the bond of ink to paper than any property that results in information.
Whether it is on paper, magnetic media, or spoken word we recognize coded information and rightly identify it as the product of a designer.
It seems to me you are identifying code which is recorded in the most efficient manner ever discovered and with the ability to replicate itself to be less the result of design than that which is obviously more basic.
Maybe what's go you so troubled is not so much that you don't think it's designed but that it's designed so well it seems to display evidence of a designer more adepts than any mere mortal.
fittest meme · 6 October 2011
fittest meme said:
Maybe what's go(t) you so troubled . . . evidence of a designer more adept (no s) than any mere mortal.
As you are all aware by now, proofreading is not one of my strong points. There's probably more of these that should be corrected (typos that is . . . :)).
Mike Elzinga · 6 October 2011
fittest meme said:
Maybe I'm not understanding what your talking about when you describe "molecular properties which allow them it replicate and produce proteins."
Aren't you attributing characteristics of life to molecules which we would agree aren't living?
If your talking about the molecular properties that would for instance attract base to base then you must know that none of the letters of the genetic alphabet have any particular attraction to any other as they are aligned in a string of DNA. The molecular properties are important but they are more akin to the bond of ink to paper than any property that results in information.
I’m rather surprised that you think like molecules can’t attract.
Do water molecules attract other water molecules? If not, how do you explain liquid water and ice?
Do copper atoms attract copper atoms? How about iron with iron? Lead with lead? Oxygen with oxygen? Ever heard of liquid oxygen or liquid nitrogen? How about liquid helium?
Do you know anything about the complexity of the attraction of ink to paper?
fittest meme · 6 October 2011
Mike Elzinga said:
fittest meme said:
Maybe I'm not understanding what your talking about when you describe "molecular properties which allow them it replicate and produce proteins."
Aren't you attributing characteristics of life to molecules which we would agree aren't living?
If your talking about the molecular properties that would for instance attract base to base then you must know that none of the letters of the genetic alphabet have any particular attraction to any other as they are aligned in a string of DNA. The molecular properties are important but they are more akin to the bond of ink to paper than any property that results in information.
I’m rather surprised that you think like molecules can’t attract.
Do water molecules attract other water molecules? If not, how do you explain liquid water and ice?
Do copper atoms attract copper atoms? How about iron with iron? Lead with lead? Oxygen with oxygen? Ever heard of liquid oxygen or liquid nitrogen? How about liquid helium?
Do you know anything about the complexity of the attraction of ink to paper?
Where did I say I didn't think molecules "can't attract?"
Did you read my post? I was addressing eric's claim that molecules had properties that allowed them to "replicate and produce proteins."
If you and he are asserting that the properties that cause different molecules to attract each other is all that's needed to create information I think you are badly mistaken.
Your vast knowledge of chemical compositions and such is really impressive, (you've got a big hard-drive). I think you'd benefit however by allocating a few more of those resources to processing (you need to upgrade your RAM).
No, I don't know anything about the complexities of ink's attraction to paper. I do know that these attractions don't determine the letters that are written on the page. That seems to be enough for the purpose of this discussion.
fittest meme · 6 October 2011
fittest meme said:
Where did I say I didn't think molecules "can't attract?"
Argh!
Should be: Where did I say I thought molecules "can't attract?"
SWT · 6 October 2011
Kauffman, S.A., "Autocatalytic Sets of Proteins," J. Theor. Biol.119 (1986) 1-24.
From the abstract:
This article investigates the possibility that the emergence of reflexively autocatalytic sets of peptides and polypeptides may be an essentially inevitable collective property of any sufficiently complex set of polypeptides.
Science Avenger · 6 October 2011
fittest meme said:
harold said:
Serious question for Steve P., Joe Bozorgmehr, FL, Fittest Meme, IBIG, and any other lurking creationists.
Was the structure illustrated here intelligently designed or not, and how can you tell?
If you happened to find instruction for making this exact formation of these materials close to the formation itself what would you conclude?
Would you consider such evidence to be of the type eric describes in his post?
Responding to the question with other questions is a dodge, and a rather obvious one.
Mike Elzinga · 6 October 2011
fittest meme said:
Where did I say I didn't think molecules "can't attract?"
Did you read my post? I was addressing eric's claim that molecules had properties that allowed them to "replicate and produce proteins."
Where is this “information” that pushes atoms and molecules into complex arrangements?
And just why do you think “information” is required for molecules to reproduce?
What happens if you lower their temperature?
I was asking in a post just previous to that last one what it is that you think is different with the complex molecules in, say, living organisms compared with complex inorganic or organic molecules.
If you and he are asserting that the properties that cause different molecules to attract each other is all that's needed to create information I think you are badly mistaken.
Where does physics and chemistry become “insufficient” for continuing right on up the chain of complexity to the molecules of living organisms?
You seem to be suggesting either a “barrier” or something “extra.”
I am just trying to understand where you are coming from and what your understanding of chemistry and physics is.
eric · 6 October 2011
fittest meme said:
So is it the fact that the paper instructions can't replicate themselves that keeps them from falling into your "second category?" of information?
That's part of it. But another part is that we observe agents leaving messages using paper and ink.
Maybe I'm not understanding what your talking about when you describe "molecular properties which allow them it replicate and produce proteins."
Aren't you attributing characteristics of life to molecules which we would agree aren't living?
No, I am attributing chemical properties that we know organic molecules have to organic molecules.
If you think organic reactions are a characteristic of life, you have your work cut out for you explaining why organic non-life reacts in the exact same way.
If your talking about the molecular properties that would for instance attract base to base then you must know that none of the letters of the genetic alphabet have any particular attraction to any other as they are aligned in a string of DNA. The molecular properties are important but they are more akin to the bond of ink to paper than any property that results in information.
This is just wrong. A and T form a base pair (i.e. have a particular attraction to each other), as are C and G. And ester bonds are what forms the polymer - ester bonds are the property that results in the string, which is what the information is - the sequence of base pairs.
It seems to me you are identifying code which is recorded in the most efficient manner ever discovered
No, I would say that uranium ore in secular equilibrium with its nuclear daughter products is far more efficient. Its on the scale of atoms rather than kilodaltons, so mass-wise it's several thousand times smaller, and it contains extremely precise information on the date of the ore.
In fact most of chemistry involves extraction information about nature which is more compact than DNA, since its contained on much smaller molecular scales. When a chemist extracts information about the type and history of some rock, or the age of a campsite, or what went into some primitive cave painting's paint, he/she is probably looking at ratios of atoms and presence of molecules no more than a couple hundred AMU in weight.
But I'm not going to say that even that is the "most efficient" manner of information storage, lest some physicist come along and top it. No doubt some nerd, somewhere, has extracted immense information about some solar or cosmological historical event from a few photons (no mass at all!)
Polymers are big, clunky molecules. And storing "information" on the outer, active surface of a folded polymer requires immense lengths of useless matter (the stuff on the inside when it folds, which will have no activity). To us big, kilogram-weight apes it might seem very efficient. But on the atomic scale, it really isn't.
Maybe what's go you so troubled is not so much that you don't think it's designed but that it's designed so well it seems to display evidence of a designer more adepts than any mere mortal.
I answered your question about what I'd consider evidence for design. I think you're just getting huffy because you couldn't quote mine it into support for ID or God.
Mike Elzinga · 6 October 2011
fittest meme said:
fittest meme said:
Where did I say I didn't think molecules "can't attract?"
Argh!
Should be: Where did I say I thought molecules "can't attract?"
In addition to eric’s reply, I would also note that you are making a mistake about the meaning of the word “information” when it is applied to complex systems of molecules.
If we are to take the ID/creationists’ word for it, we would have to believe that “information” is temperature dependent.
I’m not sure ID/creationists appreciate the fact that the behaviors of complex systems of molecules – especially organic molecules and those complexes found in living organisms – are temperature dependent.
You must have heard of things like hypothermia and hyperthermia. At some time in your life you certainly would have encountered soft organic materials and you would have observed the changes in them as their temperatures are raised and lowered.
Do you know what that is telling us about the bonds and interactions among atoms and molecules and molecular complexes?
Does “information” behave like that?
fittest meme · 6 October 2011
Mike Elzinga said:
Where does physics and chemistry become “insufficient” for continuing right on up the chain of complexity to the molecules of living organisms?
You seem to be suggesting either a “barrier” or something “extra.”
I am just trying to understand where you are coming from and what your understanding of chemistry and physics is.
I think most of what you're doing is actually just trying to confuse people and derail the conversation from the simple and obvious truth to unimportant minutia where you think you have an advantage. I'll answer this question because it is actually pertinent to the topic.
The barrier is where specified information is required to order these molecules (using the physically and chemically understood forces of attraction) to produce purposeful, functional products. We know that such information is encoded in every living organism in the form of DNA. Therefor one of the barriers. . . one of the "something extras" that can't be provided by the laws of physics and chemistry alone is coded information that we have only ever witnessed to have been created by an intelligent agent.
fittest meme · 6 October 2011
eric said:
This is just wrong. A and T form a base pair (i.e. have a particular attraction to each other), as are C and G. And ester bonds are what forms the polymer - ester bonds are the property that results in the string, which is what the information is - the sequence of base pairs.
The phosphate bonds that create the string are unaffected by which base is attached to the sugar. Of course the selective binding of the bases to each other is what creates the possibility for code. I think most here understand the way DNA works enough to understand the point I was making.
No, I would say that uranium ore in secular equilibrium with its nuclear daughter products is far more efficient. Its on the scale of atoms rather than kilodaltons, so mass-wise it's several thousand times smaller, and it contains extremely precise information on the date of the ore.
Oh really. Characteristics of the ore which a scientist uses to determine its date is not comparable to the specified and coded information in DNA. Tell me please what product has been produced (like a specific protein) from information coded in uranium ore?
DS · 6 October 2011
fittest meme said:
I think most of what you're doing is actually just trying to confuse people and derail the conversation from the simple and obvious truth to unimportant minutia where you think you have an advantage. I'll answer this question because it is actually pertinent to the topic.
The barrier is where specified information is required to order these molecules (using the physically and chemically understood forces of attraction) to produce purposeful, functional products. We know that such information is encoded in every living organism in the form of DNA. Therefor one of the barriers. . . one of the "something extras" that can't be provided by the laws of physics and chemistry alone is coded information that we have only ever witnessed to have been created by an intelligent agent.
And there it is folks, the big lie. FM knows that information is produced in the genome by such processes as random mutation and natural selection. He knows that no intelligent agent is required in order to produce this information. He is just trying the old creationist poly of equating the information in living organisms with the information written by intelligent beings. He has already been told that DNA is fundamentally different, he just ignored the important distinction. Is there anyone, anyone at all who is going to be fooled by this blatant dishonesty? I don't think so.
Mike Elzinga · 6 October 2011
fittest meme said:
Mike Elzinga said:
Where does physics and chemistry become “insufficient” for continuing right on up the chain of complexity to the molecules of living organisms?
You seem to be suggesting either a “barrier” or something “extra.”
I am just trying to understand where you are coming from and what your understanding of chemistry and physics is.
I think most of what you're doing is actually just trying to confuse people and derail the conversation from the simple and obvious truth to unimportant minutia where you think you have an advantage. I'll answer this question because it is actually pertinent to the topic.
The barrier is where specified information is required to order these molecules (using the physically and chemically understood forces of attraction) to produce purposeful, functional products. We know that such information is encoded in every living organism in the form of DNA. Therefor one of the barriers. . . one of the "something extras" that can't be provided by the laws of physics and chemistry alone is coded information that we have only ever witnessed to have been created by an intelligent agent.
So you think I am trying to confuse and derail the conversation, do you?
Do you know what “specified information” is? Can you explain how it can push atoms and molecules around? Do you even know what kind of energies are involved?
Did you even try to understand what temperature has to do with anything? Do you know what temperature tells us about molecular bonding? Do you even know anything about the strength of interactions among molecules? Do even know within an order of magnitude want kind of potential well depths are involved?
Does a few hundredths to a few tenths of an electron volt mean anything to you? Do you know anything about the thermal kinetic energies of atoms and molecules in complex systems at room temperature?
Do you know what energy levels are easily detectable with current technology?
When you make naive claims and people who know some things ask you questions, why do you choose to make matters worse by making absurd accusations?
There is no science of intelligent design/creationism. It is a bunch of made-up mumbo-jumbo to get around the courts.
Please learn some chemistry and physics before swallowing that pseudo-science hook, line, and sinker.
phhht · 6 October 2011
fittest meme said:
Therefor one of the barriers. . . one of the "something extras" that can't be provided by the laws of physics and chemistry alone is coded information that we have only ever witnessed to have been created by an intelligent agent.
A honey bee encodes distance and direction in its dance. Is a honey bee an intelligent agent?
How about a slime mold?
apokryltaros · 6 October 2011
fittest meme said:
eric said:
This is just wrong. A and T form a base pair (i.e. have a particular attraction to each other), as are C and G. And ester bonds are what forms the polymer - ester bonds are the property that results in the string, which is what the information is - the sequence of base pairs.
The phosphate bonds that create the string are unaffected by which base is attached to the sugar. Of course the selective binding of the bases to each other is what creates the possibility for code. I think most here understand the way DNA works enough to understand the point I was making.
No, I would say that uranium ore in secular equilibrium with its nuclear daughter products is far more efficient. Its on the scale of atoms rather than kilodaltons, so mass-wise it's several thousand times smaller, and it contains extremely precise information on the date of the ore.
Oh really. Characteristics of the ore which a scientist uses to determine its date is not comparable to the specified and coded information in DNA. Tell me please what product has been produced (like a specific protein) from information coded in uranium ore?
And yet, fittest meme, the onus is on you to explain to us how and why the Intelligent Designer, aka "God of the Bible," designs everything, including pushing atoms and molecules in place to form minerals and DNA and proteins.
I also noticed that you constantly refuse to do this (or even bother to explain how Intelligent Design is supposed to be more scientific than actual science in the first place).
apokryltaros · 6 October 2011
phhht said:
fittest meme said:
Therefor one of the barriers. . . one of the "something extras" that can't be provided by the laws of physics and chemistry alone is coded information that we have only ever witnessed to have been created by an intelligent agent.
A honey bee encodes distance and direction in its dance. Is a honey bee an intelligent agent?
How about a slime mold?
Are the chlorine and sodium atoms in a salt solution intelligent agents?
What about quartz crystals?
fittest meme · 6 October 2011
phhht said:
fittest meme said:
Therefor one of the barriers. . . one of the "something extras" that can't be provided by the laws of physics and chemistry alone is coded information that we have only ever witnessed to have been created by an intelligent agent.
A honey bee encodes distance and direction in its dance. Is a honey bee an intelligent agent?
How about a slime mold?
Honey bees - yes, the honey bee is acting as an intelligent agent by purposefully creating and transmitting coded information.
Slime mold - I don't know . . . are you thinking of some kind of code they transmit?
apokryltaros said:
Are the chlorine and sodium atoms in a salt solution intelligent agents?
What about quartz crystals?
chlorine and sodium - no
quartz crystals - no, the order that each of these display is not purposeful, and is not authored by them, it does not include code that transmits a particular message.
Scott F · 6 October 2011
fittest meme said:
Honey bees - yes, the honey bee is acting as an intelligent agent by purposefully creating and transmitting coded information.
Do I understand correctly? Are you saying that "purposefully creating and transmitting coded information" is a sign of an "intelligent agent"? At what point is a number of connected neurons considered to be "intelligent"? Are neurons even required?
Ants create and transmit coded information to each other through chemical signals. They leave a trail of chemical "bread crumbs" so that they can find their way back to the nest, or they leave different chemical signals so that others can follow them back to food. Are ants intelligent agents?
Are corals intelligent agents? Corals produce rather beautiful, purposeful constructs. They also create and transmit coded information to each other.
Bacteria create and transmit lots of coded information to each other through chemical signals. Bacteria can cause other bacteria to change their behaviour in response to these coded signals. Are bacteria intelligent agents?
Are trees intelligent agents? Trees create and transmit coded information. It's called "seeds".
phhht · 6 October 2011
fittest meme said:
phhht said:
fittest meme said:
Therefor one of the barriers. . . one of the "something extras" that can't be provided by the laws of physics and chemistry alone is coded information that we have only ever witnessed to have been created by an intelligent agent.
A honey bee encodes distance and direction in its dance. Is a honey bee an intelligent agent?
Honey bees - yes, the honey bee is acting as an intelligent agent by purposefully creating and transmitting coded information.
So a single ant, which encodes trail spoor in pheromones, is an intelligent agent?
phhht · 6 October 2011
Scott F said:
fittest meme said:
Honey bees - yes, the honey bee is acting as an intelligent agent by purposefully creating and transmitting coded information.
Do I understand correctly? Are you saying that "purposefully creating and transmitting coded information" is a sign of an "intelligent agent"? At what point is a number of connected neurons considered to be "intelligent"? Are neurons even required?
Ants create and transmit coded information to each other through chemical signals. They leave a trail of chemical "bread crumbs" so that they can find their way back to the nest, or they leave different chemical signals so that others can follow them back to food. Are ants intelligent agents?
Are corals intelligent agents? Corals produce rather beautiful, purposeful constructs. They also create and transmit coded information to each other.
Bacteria create and transmit lots of coded information to each other through chemical signals. Bacteria can cause other bacteria to change their behaviour in response to these coded signals. Are bacteria intelligent agents?
Are trees intelligent agents? Trees create and transmit coded information. It's called "seeds".
Exactly.
The claim that an "intelligent agent" is necessary to produce "encoded information" is spurious.
Scott F · 6 October 2011
Scott F said:
fittest meme said:
Honey bees - yes, the honey bee is acting as an intelligent agent by purposefully creating and transmitting coded information.
Do I understand correctly? Are you saying that "purposefully creating and transmitting coded information" is a sign of an "intelligent agent"? At what point is a number of connected neurons considered to be "intelligent"? Are neurons even required?
Ya' learn something new every day. So, we have a lower limit of around 960,000 neurons for "intelligent agent" Bee. Ants have only about 250,000 neurons, so maybe they don't count. I was amazed to find that lobsters have about as many neurons (100,000) as fruit flies! And that elephants have twice as many neurons as humans do. Pretty cool. :-)
Mike Elzinga · 7 October 2011
fittest meme said:
chlorine and sodium - no
quartz crystals - no, the order that each of these display is not purposeful, and is not authored by them, it does not include code that transmits a particular message.
So it is not possible for crystals to grow; is that right?
There is no “information” that tells where the next atoms or molecules are supposed to go or how to lock onto the others; is that right?
Does that apply to benzene also? How about hydrocarbon chains and sheets?
What is the minimum complexity that requires “information” to push atoms and molecules around?
fittest meme · 7 October 2011
Scott F said:
fittest meme said:
Honey bees - yes, the honey bee is acting as an intelligent agent by purposefully creating and transmitting coded information.
Do I understand correctly? Are you saying that "purposefully creating and transmitting coded information" is a sign of an "intelligent agent"? At what point is a number of connected neurons considered to be "intelligent"? Are neurons even required?
Ants create and transmit coded information to each other through chemical signals. They leave a trail of chemical "bread crumbs" so that they can find their way back to the nest, or they leave different chemical signals so that others can follow them back to food. Are ants intelligent agents?
Are corals intelligent agents? Corals produce rather beautiful, purposeful constructs. They also create and transmit coded information to each other.
Bacteria create and transmit lots of coded information to each other through chemical signals. Bacteria can cause other bacteria to change their behaviour in response to these coded signals. Are bacteria intelligent agents?
Are trees intelligent agents? Trees create and transmit coded information. It's called "seeds".
Yes all of these are acting as intelligent agents. What you may be troubled by is that they all appear to be acting according to instructions that are already coded into their genetic make-up. Such an argument doesn't negate the presence and significance of the information itself, it simply pushes the authorship to a higher level. The honey bee is still an "agent" of this information.
In a sense, I guess I was wrong to say that the honey bees "created" the information. Just like I would be wrong to say that the tree "created" the information in its seed. Ultimately, if you really put some thought into it, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that the information that directs the actions of any living organism must have been created by some intelligent designer who's neural capabilities are of a magnitude that is much greater than your's, mine, or the honey bee's.
Fortunately, nobody but Mike seems to still put "Aquamarine on feldspar with mica" in the same category of design as living organisms.
Rocks, crystals and other minerals can display order as they are assembled according to uniform chemical and physical forces; but, lacking evidence of the "extra ingredient" of specified coded information that produces a purposeful result, they cannot be considered to be "designed." Living organisms on the other hand do provide evidence of this "extra ingredient" . . . in every cell of their body. Wow. Amazing.
SWT · 7 October 2011
fittest meme said:
harold said:
Serious question for Steve P., Joe Bozorgmehr, FL, Fittest Meme, IBIG, and any other lurking creationists.
Was the structure illustrated here intelligently designed or not, and how can you tell?
If you happened to find instruction for making this exact formation of these materials close to the formation itself what would you conclude?
I notice that you didn't actually answer what appears to me to be the clear intent of harold's question.
Can you tell from the object itself if it was intelligently designed or not?
SWT · 7 October 2011
fittest meme said:
Fortunately, nobody but Mike seems to still put "Aquamarine on feldspar with mica" in the same category of design as living organisms.
Are you just not reading posts by other people in this thread?
Dave Luckett · 7 October 2011
fittest, you're hopelessly waffling. There is no "extra ingredient" of "specified coded information". There is no evidence whatsoever for it. Living creatures do not have any such thing. There is no "force vitale". It doesn't exist.
Dave Lovell · 7 October 2011
fittest meme said:
Fortunately, nobody but Mike seems to still put "Aquamarine on feldspar with mica" in the same category of design as living organisms.
Rocks, crystals and other minerals can display order as they are assembled according to uniform chemical and physical forces; but, lacking evidence of the "extra ingredient" of specified coded information that produces a purposeful result, they cannot be considered to be "designed." Living organisms on the other hand do provide evidence of this "extra ingredient" . . . in every cell of their body. Wow. Amazing.
The only "category" Mike is talking about is self-ordering molecules. You are the one trying to categorise the whole spectrum of complexity this covers into two categories: either with or without a "special ingredient". Is an abalone shell or even a natural pearl a designed object or is it just "assembled according to uniform chemical and physical forces" from the secretions at the edge of a living organism? What about the vestigal shell of some gastropod molluscs, or even the calcification of an artery?
DS · 7 October 2011
fittest meme said:
Yes all of these are acting as intelligent agents. What you may be troubled by is that they all appear to be acting according to instructions that are already coded into their genetic make-up. Such an argument doesn't negate the presence and significance of the information itself, it simply pushes the authorship to a higher level. The honey bee is still an "agent" of this information.
In a sense, I guess I was wrong to say that the honey bees "created" the information. Just like I would be wrong to say that the tree "created" the information in its seed. Ultimately, if you really put some thought into it, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that the information that directs the actions of any living organism must have been created by some intelligent designer who's neural capabilities are of a magnitude that is much greater than your's, mine, or the honey bee's.
Fortunately, nobody but Mike seems to still put "Aquamarine on feldspar with mica" in the same category of design as living organisms.
Rocks, crystals and other minerals can display order as they are assembled according to uniform chemical and physical forces; but, lacking evidence of the "extra ingredient" of specified coded information that produces a purposeful result, they cannot be considered to be "designed." Living organisms on the other hand do provide evidence of this "extra ingredient" . . . in every cell of their body. Wow. Amazing.
What you may be troubled by is that no intelligent designer is necessary in order to account for the origin of the information. Random mutations and natural selection are account for that. Making up boogey men that no one has any evidence for and ignoring natural processes that are well documented is foolish at best. Give it up man. Random mutations and natural selection can produce information, deal with it.
harold · 7 October 2011
Fittest Meme -
You didn't answer my question. Pardon me for saying this, but you come across as if you are trying to peddle bullshit that you yourself don't believe in, but are trying to sell to others with a lot of verbosity. I'm not saying you are doing that, I'm just telling you that evasion and a lot of off topic flim flam gives that impression.
Furthermore, you owe me several answers from prior threads.
In the name of the most basic common courtesy and civility, I ask you to address all my questions. If you can't answer them, say so. Please answer them in an organized way, ideally in the order they are written in. Please don't be like a whiner and say "I don't have to answer your questions"; we all obviously know that you don't have to, nor have to comment here at all, what I am asking is that, having chosen to engage in discussion, you do so in a civil, courteous, mature manner, and that includes making your points clear to others.
1. Directly answer this question please - are the mineral formations in the photograph "designed" or not, and how do you know?
2. Related - previously, you claimed that "rocks and dirt" are not designed, yet you also claimed that the designer created the entire universe. Have you resolved that paradox?
3. We all realize that "species" is a hard concept to define precisely. Having said that, a) do you have an operational definition of species that you prefer to work with? Can you accept the way the concept is usually used, as explained, for example, in the Wikipedia article on "speciation"? If not, what is your definition? b) What would you accept as a valid example of biological speciation?
4. Precisely what did the designer do, and mechanistically, how did the designer do this, and how can we test this assertion?
5. WHEN did the designer do this? Also, how old is the universe? The earth?
6. Who is the designer? If we assume for the sake of argument that there is a "designer", what evidence supports your identification over anyone else's identification of the designer?
Mike Elzinga · 7 October 2011
fittest meme said:
Fortunately, nobody but Mike seems to still put "Aquamarine on feldspar with mica" in the same category of design as living organisms.
Rocks, crystals and other minerals can display order as they are assembled according to uniform chemical and physical forces; but, lacking evidence of the "extra ingredient" of specified coded information that produces a purposeful result, they cannot be considered to be "designed." Living organisms on the other hand do provide evidence of this "extra ingredient" . . . in every cell of their body. Wow. Amazing.
Finally we get an ID/creationist to explain some ID/creationist “chemistry and physics.”
So, according to ID/creationists, simple molecules like HF, HCl, H2SO4 are governed by physics and chemistry, but living molecules are governed by “information.”
Atoms and simple molecules are pushed around by physics and chemistry.
Living atoms and molecules are so complicated that physics and chemistry are not enough; “information” is required to push them around.
So, is the conclusion we can draw from this is that simple molecules like HF are inert to living systems? Can one therefore pour HF over one’s hand and nothing will happen?
Did you do the experiment?
How could the entire world of research chemists and physicists have missed all that?
eric · 7 October 2011
fittest meme said:
Oh really. Characteristics of the ore which a scientist uses to determine its date is not comparable to the specified and coded information in DNA. Tell me please what product has been produced (like a specific protein) from information coded in uranium ore?
You're moving the goalposts. The CSI defnition never had a "must produce a product" caveat to it before this - where did you get this requirement?
***
Personally, I think producing and maintaining a stable amount of Polonium 214 over billions of years - despite the fact that it's half-life is 16 microseconds - is a fairly useful "product" of the uranium decay chain. We humans can't duplicate this feat - except by copying nature's trick. If Paley had known about it, he probably would've offered it as an example of purpose, since it's a very elegant and remarkable solution to how one could maintain a constant supply of something over millions of years when that something decays in microseconds. And yet, it is entirely and perfectly well understood as an outcome of physics and chemistry. No designer needed, just (as Dembski puts it) chance and law.
fittest meme · 7 October 2011
harold said:
1. Directly answer this question please - are the mineral formations in the photograph "designed" or not, and how do you know?
I would say no, Because I see no evidence of a purpose or a plan to its form or function.
2. Related - previously, you claimed that "rocks and dirt" are not designed, yet you also claimed that the designer created the entire universe. Have you resolved that paradox?
The rocks and dirt are results of the forces a designer used in his creative process. Like the wood chips that fall to the floor when one whittles; the rocks, dirt, aquamarine crystals and pearls are not designed but they are the result of the forces initiated by a purposeful designer. I think the abalone's shell on the other hand would be considered to be designed because it has an obvious purpose for the organism that produces it and the plans for it's design are present in the DNA of that organism.
3. We all realize that "species" is a hard concept to define precisely. Having said that, a) do you have an operational definition of species that you prefer to work with? Can you accept the way the concept is usually used, as explained, for example, in the Wikipedia article on "speciation"? If not, what is your definition? b) What would you accept as a valid example of biological speciation?
Didn't you just accuse me of getting off topic? If there is another thread that deals with speciation I may participate and repeat what I covered in great detail just a week or two ago in the "A New Species of Sparrow" thread. You're the one who said we could have an interesting discussion on design if I would answer your question. I did so by way of asking you a couple questions and then expanding on my thoughts in later posts. Now your first response to me is to change the subject? Why don't you give me the common courtesy of answering my questions?
4. Precisely what did the designer do, and mechanistically, how did the designer do this, and how can we test this assertion?
5. WHEN did the designer do this? Also, how old is the universe? The earth?
I don't know the answer to these questions for sure. But just like you I have theories. That fact that these questions haven't yet been answered completely provides great incentive for continued scientific research and discovery. My theories and discovery are based upon using scientific evidence, reason and the study of recorded written history. You do the same except that you exclude the most scrutinized and tested written work there is. I think you discard this written record because it challenges your belief that there is no God.
6. Who is the designer? If we assume for the sake of argument that there is a "designer", what evidence supports your identification over anyone else's identification of the designer?
My critical study of all options leads me to believe it is the God of Israel; the Holy Trinity of the Christian faith, who has revealed himself to us through his created order and through the old and new testament books of the Bible. My evidence comes from the sources listed above (scientific evidence, reason, and study of various written histories). As I continue to try to better understand the nature of this Designer I am confident that reality of His nature will be consistent with all sources of truthful evidence.
DS · 7 October 2011
fittest meme said:
I would say no, Because I see no evidence of a purpose or a plan to its form or function.
Actually, I happen to know that this particular structure is the key to the underground prison on Ura Pente. You just couldn't tell, because you didn't know who the designer was or what purpose this object was created for. Likewise, you would also have false positives without any knowledge of all possible natural processes.
The rocks and dirt are results of the forces a designer used in his creative process. Like the wood chips that fall to the floor when one whittles; the rocks, dirt, aquamarine crystals and pearls are not designed but they are the result of the forces initiated by a purposeful designer. I think the abalone's shell on the other hand would be considered to be designed because it has an obvious purpose for the organism that produces it and the plans for it's design are present in the DNA of that organism.
Exactly. Life could be the result of natural forces , no =designer required. You just assume that you can tell the difference between when supernatural intervention is required and when it is not. Obviously, you can't.
I don't know the answer to these questions for sure. But just like you I have theories. That fact that these questions haven't yet been answered completely provides great incentive for continued scientific research and discovery. My theories and discovery are based upon using scientific evidence, reason and the study of recorded written history. You do the same except that you exclude the most scrutinized and tested written work there is. I think you discard this written record because it challenges your belief that there is no God.
Then you have no testable hypothesis, let alone a theory. Don't pretend to be doing science. And don't project your religious presuppositions on others.
My critical study of all options leads me to believe it is the God of Israel; the Holy Trinity of the Christian faith, who has revealed himself to us through his created order and through the old and new testament books of the Bible. My evidence comes from the sources listed above (scientific evidence, reason, and study of various written histories). As I continue to try to better understand the nature of this Designer I am confident that reality of His nature will be consistent with all sources of truthful evidence.
Fine. But once again, this is a religious explanation, not science. Don't pretend otherwise. It also happens to v=be contradicted by all of the evidence, but that's another issue.
eric · 7 October 2011
fittest meme said:
4. Precisely what did the designer do, and mechanistically, how did the designer do this, and how can we test this assertion?
5. WHEN did the designer do this? Also, how old is the universe? The earth?
I don't know the answer to these questions for sure. But just like you I have theories. That fact that these questions haven't yet been answered completely provides great incentive for continued scientific research and discovery.
Continued? When did you start? I can't recall a single journal paper being published describing any what/how/when-specific designer hypotheses. Not a single publication describing an experiment one could do to test an earlier presented hypothesis. Not a single publication describing the results - positive or negative - of any experiment that was actually run. Perhaps you can point me to them.
But I think we have a grain of compromise here. If you would just agree not to present your ID theory in HS science classes until you run such tests, get positive results, publish them, and pass peer review, we'd be perfectly fine with it. (IMO) Science's big beef with creationism is not that individuals hold such beliefs, but that you engage in a form of false advertising when you claim a scientific credibility that you haven't earned yet. If you haven't done the tests, you shouldn't represent your idea as if it had already passed them. Advertise your completely untested hypothesis as a completely untested hypothesis, and stop making false claims about evolution, and we'll probably have little issue.
My theories and discovery are based upon using scientific evidence, reason and the study of recorded written history. You do the same except that you exclude the most scrutinized and tested written work there is.
By which you mean the bible. I can only hope that if or when you get called to the courtroom stand and asked what evidence ID uses to bolster it's case, you will speak as loudly and as proudly as you do in this forum, and say the bible, just as you did here. You'll be doing us all a public service by making the case go quicker and reducing legal fees for all sides.
I hope you will also join with me in vilifying those liars who go on the stand and don't disclose where their evidence for ID comes from. They are not doing science, law, or society any favors by lying in court. You agree?
harold · 7 October 2011
harold said:
1. Directly answer this question please - are the mineral formations in the photograph “designed” or not, and how do you know?
I would say no, Because I see no evidence of a purpose or a plan to its form or function.
What would you accept as "evidence of a purpose or plan to form or function"? Do malaria parasites show such evidence?
Do you just declare that all biological organisms show this, so that you can use circular reasoning to deny evolution (i.e. "seeming purpose or plan means it didn't evolve; biological means purpose or plan, therefore no biological evolution")?
2. Related - previously, you claimed that “rocks and dirt” are not designed, yet you also claimed that the designer created the entire universe. Have you resolved that paradox?
The rocks and dirt are results of the forces a designer used in his creative process. Like the wood chips that fall to the floor when one whittles; the rocks, dirt, aquamarine crystals and pearls are not designed but they are the result of the forces initiated by a purposeful designer. I think the abalone’s shell on the other hand would be considered to be designed because it has an obvious purpose for the organism that produces it and the plans for it’s design are present in the DNA of that organism.
Precisely what was the designer designing that caused rocks and dirt to be generated as waste products, and mechanistically how was the designer doing this? How can we test this?
3. We all realize that “species” is a hard concept to define precisely. Having said that, a) do you have an operational definition of species that you prefer to work with? Can you accept the way the concept is usually used, as explained, for example, in the Wikipedia article on “speciation”? If not, what is your definition? b) What would you accept as a valid example of biological speciation?
Didn’t you just accuse me of getting off topic? If there is another thread that deals with speciation I may participate and repeat what I covered in great detail just a week or two ago in the “A New Species of Sparrow” thread. You’re the one who said we could have an interesting discussion on design if I would answer your question. I did so by way of asking you a couple questions and then expanding on my thoughts in later posts. Now your first response to me is to change the subject? Why don’t you give me the common courtesy of answering my questions?
If I'm thinking about buying a car, I ask about the transmission, the says he has to take a meeting, we meet later and he refuses to talk about the transmission again, what message does that type of behavior send? That is the message that you send.
The reason I had to ask this question again was because you wouldn't answer it the first time.
If your answer is "I will never accept any evidence of speciation because my dogma says it can't happen", then just fucking say so. If it isn't, then say what you would accept. Damn.
4. Precisely what did the designer do, and mechanistically, how did the designer do this, and how can we test this assertion?
5. WHEN did the designer do this? Also, how old is the universe? The earth?
I don’t know the answer to these questions for sure. But just like you I have theories. That fact that these questions haven’t yet been answered completely provides great incentive for continued scientific research and discovery. My theories and discovery are based upon using scientific evidence, reason and the study of recorded written history. You do the same except that you exclude the most scrutinized and tested written work there is. I think you discard this written record because it challenges your belief that there is no God.
Sorry, but this is evasive again. What ARE your theories, and precisely what research could be done to rule them in or out?
How do you deal with the fact that the evidence supports the theory of evolution, not your theory (whatever it is)?
As for believing in god, no, I don't, but a number of the science supporters here do, as do such prominent scientists as Ken Miller and Francis Collins. We all agree about the science. And you know that. Therefore, we can both see that this comment isn't honest, is it? Clearly, belief in god is not the factor here. Furthermore, my belief or disbelief in a god does NOT change the scientific evidence.
6. Who is the designer? If we assume for the sake of argument that there is a “designer”, what evidence supports your identification over anyone else’s identification of the designer?
My critical study of all options leads me to believe it is the God of Israel; the Holy Trinity of the Christian faith, who has revealed himself to us through his created order and through the old and new testament books of the Bible. My evidence comes from the sources listed above (scientific evidence, reason, and study of various written histories). As I continue to try to better understand the nature of this Designer I am confident that reality of His nature will be consistent with all sources of truthful evidence
You say "scientific evidence, reason, and the study of 'various written histories'", but then again, you EVADE. We all agree that the Bible says it's the God of Israel, so there's no need to dwell on that part. But precisely what is this "scientific evidence", what was the "reason" you used, and what "various written histories" are you talking about? Please be more precise.
Science Avenger · 7 October 2011
Yes all of these are acting as intelligent agents. What you may be troubled by is that they all appear to be acting according to instructions that are already coded into their genetic make-up. Such an argument doesn't negate the presence and significance of the information itself, it simply pushes the authorship to a higher level. The honey bee is still an "agent" of this information.
This is a nonfalsifiable, circular argument. No matter how simple, how mindless a process we present that appears to create information, you will simply say we haven't looked hard enough for the real author, who is intelligent somewhere behind the scenes. There is no possibility of overturning your hypothesis that an intelligent agent is required to produce information, and that's being generous and treating these like the well-defined terms they aren't. This is not science, it is dogma. Were it science, it would be overturned by the mere observation of a spider web, clearly containing information as you are using the term, but with no evidence of any intelligent source. The spider is the source, and spiders are not intelligent, end of hypothesis.
If we're going to be scientific, which you clearly have no interest in.
SWT · 7 October 2011
fittest meme said:
harold said:
1. Directly answer this question please - are the mineral formations in the photograph "designed" or not, and how do you know?
I would say no, Because I see no evidence of a purpose or a plan to its form or function.
OK. Suppose I manufacture, using tools and intelligence, an exact replica of the formation. Is my replica designed?
eric · 7 October 2011
SWT said:
OK. Suppose I manufacture, using tools and intelligence, an exact replica of the formation. Is my replica designed?
How about we just go right to the extreme. Let's say I use tools and intelligence to make a random* string of DNA bases. Then I turn it on. Is the random DNA string that's produced designed? And if so, it seems to me there is no real way to eliminate design for anything. As SA says, it becomes unfalsifiable.
*Nothing mathematically fancy. I don't need "true" randomness, just a close proximity. In fact, a close proximity might be harder to tell from non-design than true randomness, since the latter is hard to achieve. :)
Henry J · 7 October 2011
OK. Suppose I manufacture, using tools and intelligence, an exact replica of the formation. Is my replica designed?
Yes. No. Maybe. Dang.
Or more seriously, how about saying it was deliberately constructed (or manufactured). The word "designed" sort of implies that somebody or something contemplated it without having an exact (or nearly so) replica to examine, and was responsible for producing it out of available materials.
Of course, that implies that the somebody or something had some motive for designing and then manufacturing the thing in question. One can note that some animal species has some trait or other that seems to benefit it, but unless there is somebody or something with bioengineering ability that would also get some benefit from the design, it makes no sense to presuppose outwardly imposed design for traits in living things.
Henry
SWT said:
OK. Suppose I manufacture, using tools and intelligence, an exact replica of the formation. Is my replica designed?
How about we just go right to the extreme. Let's say I use tools and intelligence to make a random* string of DNA bases. Then I turn it on. Is the random DNA string that's produced designed? And if so, it seems to me there is no real way to eliminate design for anything. As SA says, it becomes unfalsifiable.
*Nothing mathematically fancy. I don't need "true" randomness, just a close proximity. In fact, a close proximity might be harder to tell from non-design than true randomness, since the latter is hard to achieve. :)
This has probably been one of the single most informative threads on PT.
We can conclude that creationists do not have "evidence for design".
They ignored my question until I was forced to provoke a response (as I had anticipated), and then, the defensive responses, still only from two of them, were non-informative.
It's critical to understand that ID is nothing a fig leaf for evolution denial.
Evolution denial is a dog whistle. The real meaning, in every case I have encountered, has been "I support homophobic, misogynistic, ethnically biased, militaristic, authoritarian right wing politics, justified by a post-modern distortion of traditional Christianity". (Whether, in individual cases, the social/political preferences came first, and caused adoption of the post-modern version of evangelical Christianity, of vice versa, is irrelevant. There are undoubtedly both types of cases. Some disordered personalities turn to magical thinking in order to control impulses to abuse substances or engage in other harmful acts. Others start out with harsh, selfish tendencies and seek a religion that fits that.)
The bottom line to remember is that evolution denial has been chosen as the common denominator code. it's a bit like "Iraq has WMD's". It was decided that everyone who supported dropping bombs on Muslims in Iraq for every reason would go along with that, and it would be the most respectable and non-controversial justification in ostensibly neutral venues. Likewise, rather than openly advocate "Leviticus justice", openly claim a 6000 year old earth, etc, it has been tacitly the case for the last 20 years or more that "evolution" will be the symbolic target. If you're an authoritarian minded member or ally of the "religious right", and you hear me say something like "evolution can't explain the complexity of life", you can autofill all the blanks about gay marriage, contraception, economic policy, military policy, etc. I've given the password.
It's all just denial of the overwhelming evidence of evolution and common descent.
When there was a chance to discuss "detection of design" in a non-biological context, removing memorized evolution sound bites from the conversation, ID/creationism had nothing.
Marilyn · 8 October 2011
This display is beautifully designed if not intelligently designed. Would anyone know if these formations often grow together and what would attract either of them to each other or is this display a random choice of any of them. Would any of you know which would have started to form first whereas to attract the other, or are they not connected in any way apart from them all being minerals. Something knew or the aquamarine knew where to place itself to display itself quite admirably that being where as it stands out from the others and compliments the others as well. Intelligent design is proof that intelligence has been put to use, hopefully to good use and not to bad use, I would think that intelligence needs to be guided.
Mike Elzinga · 8 October 2011
Marilyn said:
This display is beautifully designed if not intelligently designed.
Would anyone know if these formations often grow together and what would attract either of them to each other or is this display a random choice of any of them. Would any of you know which would have started to form first whereas to attract the other, or are they not connected in any way apart from them all being minerals. Something knew or the aquamarine knew where to place itself to display itself quite admirably that being where as it stands out from the others and compliments the others as well.
Intelligent design is proof that intelligence has been put to use, hopefully to good use and not to bad use, I would think that intelligence needs to be guided.
From one of my previous posts:
Aquamarine is a compound Be3Al2(SiO3)6 with a dipyramidal structure.
Feldspar is usually one of KAlSi3O8 or NaAlSi3O8 or CaAl2Si2O8 with triclinic or monoclinic structure.
Mica comes in the form X2Y4 - 6Z8O20(OH, F)4) with X = K, Na, or Ca, or less commonly Ba, Rb, Cs; Y= Al, Mg, or Fe, or less commonly Mn, Cr, Ti, Li; and Z = Si, or Al, or Fe3+ or Ti.
And of course quartz is SiO2.
If you look at the chemical compostions of those crystals, you can see that they are likely to occur together in places where there are sufficiently high concentrations of the same atoms.
The conditions and temperatures at which these crystals grow would have to be similar also.
harold · 8 October 2011
Marilyn said:
This display is beautifully designed if not intelligently designed.
Would anyone know if these formations often grow together and what would attract either of them to each other or is this display a random choice of any of them. Would any of you know which would have started to form first whereas to attract the other, or are they not connected in any way apart from them all being minerals. Something knew or the aquamarine knew where to place itself to display itself quite admirably that being where as it stands out from the others and compliments the others as well.
Intelligent design is proof that intelligence has been put to use, hopefully to good use and not to bad use, I would think that intelligence needs to be guided.
I notice that your comments are less formulaic and negative than the "mainstream" creationist comments.
Listen, it looks beautiful to you, it looked beautiful to the guy who took the picture.
Something did create that impression - the human brain. The human sensory system processed the picture and when all the signals were integrated, one of the effects was that the human brain had a positive aesthetic experience.
I have no interest in making anyone into an atheist if they aren't already - I don't even call myself "atheist", although technically, I probably qualify by most standards, I just don't want to be confused with members of the "atheist movement".
Science does not argue with, or deal with, the concept of god. A number of the world's most prominent scientists are religious.
Science can explain how certain things happened, from a framework of basic fundamental forces, without the need for intervention of supernatural beings. That includes formation of mineral crystals that humans perceive as attractive. It doesn't mean that a magical being didn't create the crystals, but it does mean that if they did, they "made it look exactly like what fundamental forces would do".
None of this should prevent anyone from enjoying the picture to the fullest extent that they can.
Mike Elzinga · 8 October 2011
harold said:
Marilyn said:
This display is beautifully designed if not intelligently designed.
Would anyone know if these formations often grow together and what would attract either of them to each other or is this display a random choice of any of them. Would any of you know which would have started to form first whereas to attract the other, or are they not connected in any way apart from them all being minerals. Something knew or the aquamarine knew where to place itself to display itself quite admirably that being where as it stands out from the others and compliments the others as well.
Intelligent design is proof that intelligence has been put to use, hopefully to good use and not to bad use, I would think that intelligence needs to be guided.
I notice that your comments are less formulaic and negative than the "mainstream" creationist comments.
Listen, it looks beautiful to you, it looked beautiful to the guy who took the picture.
Something did create that impression - the human brain. The human sensory system processed the picture and when all the signals were integrated, one of the effects was that the human brain had a positive aesthetic experience.
My impression of Marilyn’s comment is that she sees a separate aesthetic composition that the photographer brought to the formation. And that is usually a conscious process in the mind of someone setting this sample up for display in order to draw attention to it.
Of the thousands of possible samples one could select from in making such a display, a photographer or museum worker would choose something that not only catches the eye, but also illustrates something even deeper that Marilyn seems to have grasped.
The fact that those crystals are found locked together in the same conglomerate of crystals is because the various atoms that go into their structure were all together in the same heated environment.
Most importantly, it illustrates that the same collection of atoms came together in a variety of ways to form crystalline structures that are all quite different from each other. The same melting pot of atoms produces many different products.
That’s what matter does; it condenses into literally billions of forms depending on the atoms present, stoichiometry, temperature, and the conduction and convection processes that move material around and allow it to condense and anneal. It is all explained by physics and chemistry; and it is beautiful.
This is the part that all ID/creationists miss. They mischaracterize atoms and molecules as just inert things engaging in an ugly, random jostling about that cannot possibly produce anything interesting. Yet when you ask them if they believe in liquids and solids, they think you are being stupid for even asking the question.
Scott F · 9 October 2011
Science Avenger said:
Yes all of these are acting as intelligent agents. What you may be troubled by is that they all appear to be acting according to instructions that are already coded into their genetic make-up. Such an argument doesn't negate the presence and significance of the information itself, it simply pushes the authorship to a higher level. The honey bee is still an "agent" of this information.
This is a nonfalsifiable, circular argument. No matter how simple, how mindless a process we present that appears to create information, you will simply say we haven't looked hard enough for the real author, who is intelligent somewhere behind the scenes. There is no possibility of overturning your hypothesis that an intelligent agent is required to produce information, and that's being generous and treating these like the well-defined terms they aren't. This is not science, it is dogma. Were it science, it would be overturned by the mere observation of a spider web, clearly containing information as you are using the term, but with no evidence of any intelligent source. The spider is the source, and spiders are not intelligent, end of hypothesis.
If we're going to be scientific, which you clearly have no interest in.
I think that "fittest meme" missed (or dodged) the entire point. Yes, there is, in a sense, "information" in the genetics of the bee or ant. But that's not the point. The bee is responding to the environment, and is creating new "information" that is not in the genetic code, and is communicating that information to its fellow bees. Likewise, the ant is laying down chemical information, both for itself and its fellow ants so they can find the food again.
Even if God had placed the genetic "information" in the genes, that information is only about how to create a new bee or ant, or about how to dance or how to lay chemical trails. The new "information" the insects are creating has nothing to do with that. God did not create the bee's individual dance, nor did God create the ants' individual chemical trail. God did not create the information that the other insects use to find the food that the scout found. The insects created that new information, by themselves, without God's help.
It's like saying that God gave you a computer. You used the computer to write a comment on a blog site. God gave you the tools to create new information. But, God did not create the blog comment. You did. Unless "fittest meme" is claiming that, because God created Man, then God also created all of the computers that Man made, and all the blog comments that Man ever wrote.
And the insects are not intelligent.
Therefore, intelligence is not required to create new information.
[As a meta-comment] the more I think about it, the more I like this line of argument. Any comments? Can anyone shoot some holes in this reasoning? I can imagine extending this argument both up and down the scale, from mammals communicating to bacteria communicating. The only arguments against it that I can see is that at some point the "kind" of communication ceases to be "information", or at some point (if you insist that "information" must come from "intelligence") that you have to declare that bacteria are intelligent, or (as FM has attempted to do) you have to declare that the tools for communicating are themselves the source of the "information". The logic doesn't require any fancy knowledge of chemistry or physics or scary-big numbers, nor precise definitions of "information" or "intelligence". I think the argument relies only on an intuitive understanding of the concepts and the creatures involved, and the argument inevitably leads to the conclusion that intelligence is not required to create new information. It's only a step on the path, but I think it helps negate the "information implies intelligence" meme.
Taken one step further (one step removed from living creatures), one could argue that a robot taking a picture of a Martian landscape is creating "information": the picture. Man created the robot and the camera, but those are just tools. Because Man created the tools, does that then mean that Man then created the picture? If we're talking about the picture of the crystals in the OP, I think one could argue that the photographer created the picture, just as if the photographer had used paints and a brush. But, by the same token I think one could argue that the robot created the picture (the "information") of Mars. No intelligent agent ever set foot on Mars, no intelligent agent told the robot what picture to take, and so could not possibly have created the picture. (Yes, yes, sometimes a human does tell the robot to take a specific picture, but that's not my point.) This is getting a little dicey, but I think the argument still holds together. Though, it's getting close to running afoul of the creationist argument that a scientist, by the very act of creating or even observing an experiment, has somehow inserted "intelligence" into whatever "information" comes out of the experiment.
I'm still liking the argument. Though whether it is effective on real people or not would be an open question. I remember arguing logic with my mom. "A" leads to "B" leads to "C" leads to "D". She would agree with every step along the way. But she would then flatly deny that "A" could ever possibly lead to "D". It was very frustrating, and feels just like trying to "reason" with creationists.
Mike Elzinga · 9 October 2011
Scott F said:
[As a meta-comment] the more I think about it, the more I like this line of argument. Any comments? Can anyone shoot some holes in this reasoning? I can imagine extending this argument both up and down the scale, from mammals communicating to bacteria communicating. The only arguments against it that I can see is that at some point the "kind" of communication ceases to be "information", or at some point (if you insist that "information" must come from "intelligence") that you have to declare that bacteria are intelligent, or (as FM has attempted to do) you have to declare that the tools for communicating are themselves the source of the "information". The logic doesn't require any fancy knowledge of chemistry or physics or scary-big numbers, nor precise definitions of "information" or "intelligence". I think the argument relies only on an intuitive understanding of the concepts and the creatures involved, and the argument inevitably leads to the conclusion that intelligence is not required to create new information. It's only a step on the path, but I think it helps negate the "information implies intelligence" meme.
Taken one step further (one step removed from living creatures), one could argue that a robot taking a picture of a Martian landscape is creating "information": the picture. Man created the robot and the camera, but those are just tools. Because Man created the tools, does that then mean that Man then created the picture? If we're talking about the picture of the crystals in the OP, I think one could argue that the photographer created the picture, just as if the photographer had used paints and a brush. But, by the same token I think one could argue that the robot created the picture (the "information") of Mars. No intelligent agent ever set foot on Mars, no intelligent agent told the robot what picture to take, and so could not possibly have created the picture. (Yes, yes, sometimes a human does tell the robot to take a specific picture, but that's not my point.) This is getting a little dicey, but I think the argument still holds together. Though, it's getting close to running afoul of the creationist argument that a scientist, by the very act of creating or even observing an experiment, has somehow inserted "intelligence" into whatever "information" comes out of the experiment.
I'm still liking the argument. Though whether it is effective on real people or not would be an open question. I remember arguing logic with my mom. "A" leads to "B" leads to "C" leads to "D". She would agree with every step along the way. But she would then flatly deny that "A" could ever possibly lead to "D". It was very frustrating, and feels just like trying to "reason" with creationists.
At some point you have to get into the mechanisms of how “information” or “intelligence” pushes stuff around. Whether it is the atoms in the nervous system or the organization of material objects in the environment of an organism, you have to postulate something outside the natural world interacting with things in the natural world. Once that happens, work is done and the laws of physics and chemistry are violated.
While vitalism has a long and interesting history, it has been so thoroughly discredited that one has to wonder if ID/creationists know anything about this history.
The fittest meme troll came about as close as any ID/creationist I have seen to actually asserting that this “vital force” or “something extra” exists in the complex, organic macromolecules of living organisms but not in simpler molecules. This is usually implied but never specifically asserted by most ID/creationists; you cannot usually get them to say it.
But that particular idea fell out of favor after the manufacture of urea and acetic acid from non-living, inorganic processes.
One of the easiest refutations of this notion is the fact that simple molecules that have no vital force can interact strongly with molecules that supposedly contain this additional vital force. You simply can’t dodge the implications of this.
What is more, the macromolecules of living organisms are extremely temperature sensitive. Cooling them down a few degrees causes them to stop working. Warm them up, and they come apart. These temperature ranges correspond to changes in thermal kinetic energies on the order of a few hundredths of an electron volt, something that is easily measurable. And you simply cannot dodge the implications of this. This, along with the above fact that simple molecules interact with macromolecules, sets the range of energies we are dealing with when someone asserts that vital forces do this.
ID/creationists clearly have not learned even the most basic physics and chemistry; nor have they made even the most elementary observations that discredit the notion of a vital force. It’s simply far beyond their ability to think about and comprehend. This is one of the most stubbornly persistent and annoying characteristics I have found in every ID/creationist going all the way back to Henry Morris in the 1970s.
harold · 9 October 2011
Yes, there is, in a sense, “information” in the genetics of the bee or ant.
True, but we have to define what we mean by information.
I'm satisfied with the treatment in standard mathematical information theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory.
Under standard mathematical treatment, information is defined by the observer.
The types of information a human can observe about bee genetics are quite diverse.
For example, one might sequence bee genomes. In this case, the information would be the number and order of nucleotides. Other aspects would not be observed, and might create noise.
Or one could look at a karyotype of bee chromosomes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karyotype
This would also provide genetic information, but at a very different level of resolution.
Either could be the more useful approach, depending on the situation.
The creationist concept of information has no clear meaning for me, and appears to simply be a form of circular reasoning.
The claim is made that "only intelligence creates information*". There is no rationale for this. An explosion, which creationists famously use constantly as the example of something which "cannot create and only destroys information", actually generates abundant information - if someone observes it, or its aftermath. In fact, most explosions (typically they are accidental) in developed countries are extensively investigated.
Then the circular claim is made that since something "contains" information, it must have been "designed by intelligence". Since anything could theoretically be observed by a human mind and everything "contains information" if observed (a heat dead universe contains the information that it is a heat dead universe), it is just a circular claim that anything that humans observe was designed.
(And then what is more remarkable is that they are inconsistent. We have been discussing the information contained in this mineral formation all through the thread. Yet, while it blatantly "contains" abundant information, they say that they cannot tell that it was "designed".)
Scott F · 9 October 2011
Mike Elzinga said:
At some point you have to get into the mechanisms of how “information” or “intelligence” pushes stuff around.
True, but with this argument I'm only trying to refute the notion that "intelligence" is required to create "information" in the first place. Break that link, and you've weakened the argument for, "If information, therefore intelligence. If intelligence, therefore God."
One of the easiest refutations of this notion is the fact that simple molecules that have no vital force can interact strongly with molecules that supposedly contain this additional vital force. You simply can’t dodge the implications of this.
What is more, the macromolecules of living organisms are extremely temperature sensitive. Cooling them down a few degrees causes them to stop working. Warm them up, and they come apart. These temperature ranges correspond to changes in thermal kinetic energies on the order of a few hundredths of an electron volt, something that is easily measurable. And you simply cannot dodge the implications of this. This, along with the above fact that simple molecules interact with macromolecules, sets the range of energies we are dealing with when someone asserts that vital forces do this.
ID/creationists clearly have not learned even the most basic physics and chemistry...
Again, all true, but a refutation is only "easy" in the eye of the beholder. When you start throwing molecular formulas and thermal kinetic energies into the argument, eyes glaze over, or you're accused of being one of those "elites" just trying to confuse the situation (as FM has also done in this thread). With this line of reasoning, I'm trying to keep it at an intuitive level where even the least educated have some framework to which to attach the argument. The usefulness of an argument depends on the target audience.
Scott F · 9 October 2011
harold said:
True, but we have to define what we mean by information.
I'm satisfied with the treatment in standard mathematical information theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory.
Under standard mathematical treatment, information is defined by the observer.
...
The creationist concept of information has no clear meaning for me, and appears to simply be a form of circular reasoning.
What I'm trying to do with this line of reasoning is to avoid defining "information" or "intelligence" altogether. I've seen many threads here where posters have tried to nail the troll down to a definition of either. It doesn't happen. "I know it when I see it", is the only definition that they have.
The intuitive concept of "information" does not depend on the observer. A book contains "information"; a code contains "information"; any kind of communication contains "information". That's "obvious". The intuitive concept of "intelligence" is also pretty clear: humans are "intelligent", insects and bacteria are not.
The claim is made that "only intelligence creates information*". There is no rationale for this.
So my thought was to work with those intuitive definitions, and see if there was some line of reasoning that would lead them to a contraction in the claim that "only intelligence created information", even using their intuitive irrational definitions.
If it is possible to show that communication takes place, that "information" is exchanged, even between entities that the troll "knows" are not "intelligent", that should weaken the first claim.
I think that's why FM had to back peddle and, once he had admitted that bees, ants, and bacteria are all "acting as intelligent agents" by exchanging "information", he had to start doing handstands to try explain how God had built that information into the bees, ants, and bacteria through their genes. He knew intuitively that they were exchanging information, and he knew they weren't intelligent. That's where I saw the weak point.
phhht · 9 October 2011
Scott F said:
harold said:
True, but we have to define what we mean by information.
I'm satisfied with the treatment in standard mathematical information theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory.
Under standard mathematical treatment, information is defined by the observer.
...
The creationist concept of information has no clear meaning for me, and appears to simply be a form of circular reasoning.
What I'm trying to do with this line of reasoning is to avoid defining "information" or "intelligence" altogether. I've seen many threads here where posters have tried to nail the troll down to a definition of either. It doesn't happen. "I know it when I see it", is the only definition that they have.
The intuitive concept of "information" does not depend on the observer. A book contains "information"; a code contains "information"; any kind of communication contains "information". That's "obvious". The intuitive concept of "intelligence" is also pretty clear: humans are "intelligent", insects and bacteria are not.
The claim is made that "only intelligence creates information*". There is no rationale for this.
So my thought was to work with those intuitive definitions, and see if there was some line of reasoning that would lead them to a contraction in the claim that "only intelligence created information", even using their intuitive irrational definitions.
If it is possible to show that communication takes place, that "information" is exchanged, even between entities that the troll "knows" are not "intelligent", that should weaken the first claim.
I think that's why FM had to back peddle and, once he had admitted that bees, ants, and bacteria are all "acting as intelligent agents" by exchanging "information", he had to start doing handstands to try explain how God had built that information into the bees, ants, and bacteria through their genes. He knew intuitively that they were exchanging information, and he knew they weren't intelligent. That's where I saw the weak point.
One reason I proposed the waggle-dance example was to slip in the dependency of "information" on an observer. If a bee dances in solitude, what happens to the "information" in its dance?
Another aspect which the example highlights is the primacy of communication in "information." This aspect is often suppressed when the analogy of information is applied to the genome, but it underlies the intuitive version of "information" for the creationists just as surely as it did for Shannon.
I haven't seen it exploited, but I think there is another crack in the intuitive notion with regard to the difference between information and meaning.
Mike Elzinga · 9 October 2011
phhht said:
Scott F said:
harold said:
True, but we have to define what we mean by information.
I'm satisfied with the treatment in standard mathematical information theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory.
Under standard mathematical treatment, information is defined by the observer.
...
The creationist concept of information has no clear meaning for me, and appears to simply be a form of circular reasoning.
What I'm trying to do with this line of reasoning is to avoid defining "information" or "intelligence" altogether. I've seen many threads here where posters have tried to nail the troll down to a definition of either. It doesn't happen. "I know it when I see it", is the only definition that they have.
The intuitive concept of "information" does not depend on the observer. A book contains "information"; a code contains "information"; any kind of communication contains "information". That's "obvious". The intuitive concept of "intelligence" is also pretty clear: humans are "intelligent", insects and bacteria are not.
The claim is made that "only intelligence creates information*". There is no rationale for this.
So my thought was to work with those intuitive definitions, and see if there was some line of reasoning that would lead them to a contraction in the claim that "only intelligence created information", even using their intuitive irrational definitions.
If it is possible to show that communication takes place, that "information" is exchanged, even between entities that the troll "knows" are not "intelligent", that should weaken the first claim.
I think that's why FM had to back peddle and, once he had admitted that bees, ants, and bacteria are all "acting as intelligent agents" by exchanging "information", he had to start doing handstands to try explain how God had built that information into the bees, ants, and bacteria through their genes. He knew intuitively that they were exchanging information, and he knew they weren't intelligent. That's where I saw the weak point.
One reason I proposed the waggle-dance example was to slip in the dependency of "information" on an observer. If a bee dances in solitude, what happens to the "information" in its dance?
Another aspect which the example highlights is the primacy of communication in "information." This aspect is often suppressed when the analogy of information is applied to the genome, but it underlies the intuitive version of "information" for the creationists just as surely as it did for Shannon.
I haven't seen it exploited, but I think there is another crack in the intuitive notion with regard to the difference between information and meaning.
One should never allow an ID/creationist to redefine or misuse scientific or technical terms. They have been doing this since the 1970s, and they expect that everybody will be arguing on the basis of ID/creationist definitions.
I’m not sure it is wise to assume that information does not depend on the “observer.” That presumes that “information” is an objectively verifiable concept, like the existence of the moon, which all “observers” will agree upon.
Whenever there is some kind of interaction between two objects, there is a potential for using the concept of “information” to describe that interaction.
For example, going back to a simple gravitational interaction between two planets, one could cast that interaction into a description that says that one planet provides the information that tells the other planet which direction to move and by how much.
This is precisely what ID/creationists are doing when they misuse “information” as a “force” that directs the assembly of the molecules of life. It simultaneously denies what is already known about material interactions and it postulates a new “force” that only a supernatural, intelligent deity could provide.
ID/creationists would like you to agree that information is independent of observer. By doing that, they advance their argument that ID/creationism is a legitimate, objective science.
But the fact that ID/creationists can’t define information but nevertheless claim that it is responsible for design, which they also can’t define, is a very strong argument against ID/creationism.
Whenever the word “information” is used, there is always an implied sender of information and an implied receiver of that information. And there is always the assumption that what is sent has some “meaning” to the receiver.
But “meaning” in “information” simply means that whatever is exchanged may cause a change or a “response” in the receiver. It could be anything. And it could have absolutely no effect on another “receiver” which would NOT experience the exchange as providing any information or that the information has any meaning.
“Information” is about relationships. It can be about spatial relationships, it can be about dynamic interactions. It can be about temporal or spatial patterns, where “patterns” also have “meaning” to a “receiver,” such as another living organism by causing changes in its behavior.
harold · 9 October 2011
Scott F. -
What I’m trying to do with this line of reasoning is to avoid defining “information” or “intelligence” altogether.
I don't understand that motivation for that, but that is, of course, your business. Luckily, electrical engineering, computer science, and other such fields do work with defined concepts of information.
I’ve seen many threads here where posters have tried to nail the troll down to a definition of either. It doesn’t happen. “I know it when I see it”, is the only definition that they have.
You are being too generous. "If I want to deny that some feature of something could have evolved, I claim something about information, but refuse to define information or how it applies to the feature" is the implied "definition" that I have always received.
And receiving that is a very useful thing.
The (direct) objective of the trolls is, universally, at least so far, to deny biological evolution, mislead the public about biological evolution, and promote insertion of religious dogma into US public school science curricula.
The objective of the pro-science posters is to correct misinformation about the theory of evolution and to stand up for the first amendment.
When a troll makes a false argument using the term "information" in a meaningless way, and that is demonstrated conclusively to third party readers by challenging the troll to explain what he means by "information", and showing that he cannot, the pro-science objective is advanced.
The intuitive concept of “information” does not depend on the observer. A book contains “information”; a code contains “information”; any kind of communication contains “information”. That’s “obvious”.
Here is an excellent example of why it is often much better to define than to rely on intuition.
To me it is very, very intuitively obvious that the observer defines information. Your examples only reinforce this. What "information" does a book contain? An almost infinite variety. Perhaps I am measuring or weighing books, doing some research on the typical dimensions of books (commonly done by the publishing industry). Then those features are the information, to me. Perhaps I am studying the chemical composition of the paper or ink. Perhaps I am simply counting the number of pages.
To my mind, you are confusing the concept of "deliberately communicated message" with the concept of "information". They are quite different things. All deliberately communicated messages contain information (including, but not remotely limited to, the deliberate message), but most information is not a deliberately communicated message.
This is why, to me, it makes more sense to agree on what terms mean, rather than rely on intuition.
The intuitive concept of “intelligence” is also pretty clear: humans are “intelligent”, insects and bacteria are not.
I didn't say anything about the definition of intelligence, but I disagree with you to some degree here, too. Not with your examples, even putting aside the fact that social insects use communication and learning, but with the idea that the concept of intelligence is in some way intuitively obvious.
"Intelligence" is a very hard to define term. In fact, I often deliberately use terms like "learning" and "behavioral flexibility" for greater clarity.
Mike Elzinga · 9 October 2011
harold said:
Here is an excellent example of why it is often much better to define than to rely on intuition.
To me it is very, very intuitively obvious that the observer defines information. Your examples only reinforce this. What "information" does a book contain? An almost infinite variety. Perhaps I am measuring or weighing books, doing some research on the typical dimensions of books (commonly done by the publishing industry). Then those features are the information, to me. Perhaps I am studying the chemical composition of the paper or ink. Perhaps I am simply counting the number of pages.
To my mind, you are confusing the concept of "deliberately communicated message" with the concept of "information". They are quite different things. All deliberately communicated messages contain information (including, but not remotely limited to, the deliberate message), but most information is not a deliberately communicated message.
This is why, to me, it makes more sense to agree on what terms mean, rather than rely on intuition.
“The dog ate my homework” is a good example of the differences between the "receiver" and the "message."
Note especially the section on “Developing a Method of Study.”
All – I repeat; all - ID/creationists read with the intention of distorting the meaning in the information being transmitted by a scientific author.
Henry J · 9 October 2011
In common usage, information = data that is useful to somebody or something in some particular context.
Ergo, it's a subjective judgment whether any particular datum is information or not.
Another thing I like to point out is that an evolving gene pool has some of the attributes associated with intelligence - a method of trial and error (i.e., exploration), and a method of recording some of the results.
Defining intelligence, information (or life, for that matter) generally consists of listing attributes people associate with those concepts. The problem is reaching agreement about what attributes are essential for something to qualify as one of those concepts. Sometimes it's simpler to just say that the something has some of the associated attributes.
Henry
harold · 9 October 2011
In common usage, information = data that is useful to somebody or something in some particular context.
Which is synonymous with saying that information is defined by the observer.
Another thing I like to point out is that an evolving gene pool has some of the attributes associated with intelligence - a method of trial and error (i.e., exploration), and a method of recording some of the results.
Many things which seem "intelligent" to humans are not exclusive to anything we would call intelligence.
In fact, anthropomorphism is a problem that even honest people who sincerely want to understand science in general, and evolution in particular, need to overcome.
The immune system brilliantly learns to recognize pathogens, yet the immune system does not possess "intelligence" in the same sense that certain animal brains do, and species we consider lacking in "intelligence" have immune systems.
Bacteria populations challenged by antibiotics may become antibiotic resistant. Yet we must concede that bacteria don't have "intelligence" in the same sense that the brains of certain animals do. It looks like a conscious, brilliant, inventive response to a challenge, but it can be explained without reference to consciousness or intellectual brilliance.
Clearly, "the genome" does not have intelligence, as intelligence is usually defined.
Therefore we must conclude that these traits, broadly defined, are not exclusive to the operation of intelligence.
Incidentally, this rather interesting exchange is completely unrelated to standard creationism. Creationists do not argue that genomes have intelligence, they argue that genomes were created by magic rather than by natural forces.
There may or may not be "new age" or dharmic philosophies that attribute some sort of emotional or "spiritual" qualities to "the genome", as to "the universe", etc. In general, I have no quarrel with this type of thing, even though I have no need of it myself. In fact, I lived in New Mexico for a couple of years, and no Santa Fe new ager ever molested me in the slightest. I find that many (although not all) such people hold beliefs that to me are not sufficiently supported by data, but I have not found them, in general, to deny accepted science (with the caveat that vaccine denial had not yet become trendy when I lived there). They certainly weren't, when I lived there, trying to incorporate science denial and sectarian dogma into publicly funded schools. New Mexico also has plenty of standard issue right wing authoritarian creationists, and those do deny accepted science and attempt to violate the rights of others.
fittest meme · 9 October 2011
Science Avenger said:
This is not science, it is dogma. Were it science, it would be overturned by the mere observation of a spider web, clearly containing information as you are using the term, but with no evidence of any intelligent source. The spider is the source, and spiders are not intelligent, end of hypothesis.
If we're going to be scientific, which you clearly have no interest in.
So then you have left the question of were the obvious design of the spider web comes from unanswered.
Each spider of a particular species spins a similar web. If not coded into the DNA of the spider where does the information come from that results in these webs? While you're at it maybe you can explain how the methuselah generation of Monarch Butterfly finds its way back down to Mexico without the instructions being coded into genetic information transfered from generation to generation. There is no arguing the fact that the instructions for this complicated process must be coded into the DNA of the eggs - that hatch into the caterpillars - that then metamorph into the butterflies that make this trip..
Please provide the logical and evidence based explanation of how incremental random mutations to the genetic structure of these insects could have resulted in the instructions for these complex activities to have arisen. The scientific theory of intelligent design uses the common understanding that we have never witnessed instruction of this type to have been created by anything but an intelligent designer. To just wave your "magic wand of chance and lots-of-time" doesn't clear the threshold required of real thinkers. If you think it's OK to propose such an answer it might be time for us to question your diligence for really discovering the truth.
Mike Elzinga · 9 October 2011
fittest meme said:
To just wave your "magic wand of chance and lots-of-time" doesn't clear the threshold required of real thinkers. If you think it's OK to propose such an answer it might be time for us to question your diligence for really discovering the truth.
Mischaracterizing science is not an argument against science.
Henry J · 9 October 2011
Some behavioral tendencies are inherited; i.e., produced by something in the DNA.
If the pattern of a web is caused by such tendencies, then it is indirectly encoded in that DNA.
What causes scientists to accept the theory is several overall patterns that are consistently observed, and which are directly explained by that theory. It does not depend on having every question answered in detail; there will always be questions about details that haven't been answered.
Sheesh.
Henry
apokryltaros · 9 October 2011
fittest meme said:
Science Avenger said:
This is not science, it is dogma. Were it science, it would be overturned by the mere observation of a spider web, clearly containing information as you are using the term, but with no evidence of any intelligent source. The spider is the source, and spiders are not intelligent, end of hypothesis.
If we're going to be scientific, which you clearly have no interest in.
So then you have left the question of were the obvious design of the spider web comes from unanswered.
No, the onus is on you to explain why and how GODDIDIT is supposed to a better explanation.
Scott F · 9 October 2011
harold said:
Scott F. -
What I’m trying to do with this line of reasoning is to avoid defining “information” or “intelligence” altogether.
I don't understand that motivation for that, but that is, of course, your business. Luckily, electrical engineering, computer science, and other such fields do work with defined concepts of information.
I’ve seen many threads here where posters have tried to nail the troll down to a definition of either. It doesn’t happen. “I know it when I see it”, is the only definition that they have.
You are being too generous. "If I want to deny that some feature of something could have evolved, I claim something about information, but refuse to define information or how it applies to the feature" is the implied "definition" that I have always received.
What's motivating me here is the anticipation of running into a creationist near where I live, in a situation where I can engage them. I don't expect them to be the died-in-the-wool trolls, like we see on PT, but the more "typical" sheep: someone who knows enough about creationist rationales to think they know enough, but hasn't really thought anything through. Say, a home-schooling mom. And I don't expect to have hours to discuss the finer points of evolution, but rather minutes to talk about one subject.
I don't have a degree in biology, physics, or chemistry, nor do I have Mike's encyclopedic level of knowledge. While I can follow your arguments, I can't come up with them on my own, so trying to explain them to others would not be a natural act :-). When I tell people here that I have a degree in Computer Science, their eyes glaze over, or they ask me why Windows lost that file they were trying to find the other day. So, getting down to any kind of technical level would just be a lost cause. I don't have the technical background to keep the details straight, and I would quickly lose the audience that expect I might run into.
What I'm on the lookout for are lines of reasoning that can be more "intuitively" understood by my anticipated audience, so that I can make those arguments quickly, without having to plough through all the groundwork first.
The intuitive concept of “information” does not depend on the observer. A book contains “information”; a code contains “information”; any kind of communication contains “information”. That’s “obvious”.
Here is an excellent example of why it is often much better to define than to rely on intuition.
To me it is very, very intuitively obvious that the observer defines information. Your examples only reinforce this. What "information" does a book contain? An almost infinite variety. Perhaps I am measuring or weighing books, doing some research on the typical dimensions of books (commonly done by the publishing industry). Then those features are the information, to me. Perhaps I am studying the chemical composition of the paper or ink. Perhaps I am simply counting the number of pages.
To my mind, you are confusing the concept of "deliberately communicated message" with the concept of "information". They are quite different things.
Well, technically, yes. I wouldn't disagree. But for my target audience, I'm not trying to talk them into a better definition of "information". I'm trying to sow doubt about the story they've been told that "information" requires "intelligence", based on even their understanding of those terms, without getting bogged down in the details. In my mind, it's less important to convince them that the plant in front of them is a cactus, not a tree, than it is to convince them that they're standing in a desert, not a forest.
So, while I don't disagree with your statements, I don't think they would work well with the target audience I might expect to run into.
This is why, to me, it makes more sense to agree on what terms mean, rather than rely on intuition.
In a scientific or otherwise technical discussion, I agree. If I have the time, I would try. But I'd rather try to make the broader point than lose my audience.
Is that a good strategy? I don't know. But while I've learned a lot of great stuff reading PT over these few years, I've also learned that a creationist can easily derail any technical or detailed discussion.
Scott F · 9 October 2011
fittest meme said:
To just wave your "magic wand of chance and lots-of-time" doesn't clear the threshold required of real thinkers.
That is sooo true. Real thinkers just wave their magic wand of "magic". Stupid questions, like "how" and "when", are just a waste of the time of real thinkers, who have much more useful things to do with their time, like reinterpreting bible stories for the umpteenth time.
apokryltaros · 9 October 2011
Scott F said:
fittest meme said:
To just wave your "magic wand of chance and lots-of-time" doesn't clear the threshold required of real thinkers.
That is sooo true. Real thinkers just wave their magic wand of "magic". Stupid questions, like "how" and "when", are just a waste of the time of real thinkers, who have much more useful things to do with their time, like reinterpreting bible stories for the umpteenth time.
Yeah, all scientists are total idiots: here they've been, wasting time, money, and lives looking at the physical world when all of the answers have been staring them in their pasty faces from inside the Bible all this time.
Mike Elzinga · 9 October 2011
Scott F said:
Is that a good strategy? I don't know. But while I've learned a lot of great stuff reading PT over these few years, I've also learned that a creationist can easily derail any technical or detailed discussion.
I greatly empathize with your comment; and I have had many similar experiences in attempting to deal with the misconceptions spread by ID/creationists over a period of 40+ years.
A general rule of thumb you can always carry with you, when encountering an ID/creationist argument, is that their arguments mischaracterize the science, the scientific evidence, and the scientific process. So, even if you don’t have direct knowledge of the details that refute an ID/creationist assertion, you already know, without attempting to reply to it, that it is wrong. And, from the entire history of ID/creationism, it is wrong on purpose.
So the general idea when dealing directly with persons you know is to suggest to them that they may want to look more closely at what science really says and that you are aware that such assertions by creationists are always misrepresentative of science.
The other issue that many scientists have to deal with when taunted by ID/creationists – or any other pseudo-scientist for that matter – is keeping them off one’s coattails. Some of these critters can be real pests; showing up at colloquia or other public offerings and latching onto scientists in order to gain attention for themselves.
Another issue one has to avoid is the old mud-wrestling routine as we see the trolls attempting to do here. In face-to-face encounters, especially if one is dealing with people one knows and likes, plunging directly into technical/scientific rebuttals doesn’t work very well, as you apparently have noticed.
You have to steer them toward discovery on their own; with some guidance on your part. And that means you may have to do some digging and learning also. The corrections to ID/creationist misconceptions are not going to happen over a few minutes of “debate;” it takes time.
ID/creationist pushers are instinctively aware of the general lack of scientific education in the public at large; and they never hesitate to exploit it.
Matt Bright · 10 October 2011
I think Scott has a fruitful approach. There’s remarkable parallels here between the behaviour of amateur creationists when confronted with the flimsiness of their position and that of my daughter when I gently explain to her that if (for example) she’s too tired to do her music practice, she must also be too tired to play on her Wii. The result may be scales or a tantrum, but either way she knows she’s not getting away with anything…
DS · 10 October 2011
fittest meme said:
So then you have left the question of were the obvious design of the spider web comes from unanswered.
Each spider of a particular species spins a similar web. If not coded into the DNA of the spider where does the information come from that results in these webs? While you're at it maybe you can explain how the methuselah generation of Monarch Butterfly finds its way back down to Mexico without the instructions being coded into genetic information transfered from generation to generation. There is no arguing the fact that the instructions for this complicated process must be coded into the DNA of the eggs - that hatch into the caterpillars - that then metamorph into the butterflies that make this trip..
Please provide the logical and evidence based explanation of how incremental random mutations to the genetic structure of these insects could have resulted in the instructions for these complex activities to have arisen. The scientific theory of intelligent design uses the common understanding that we have never witnessed instruction of this type to have been created by anything but an intelligent designer. To just wave your "magic wand of chance and lots-of-time" doesn't clear the threshold required of real thinkers. If you think it's OK to propose such an answer it might be time for us to question your diligence for really discovering the truth.
So then you have left the question of were the obvious design of the spider web comes from unanswered.
Each spider of a particular species spins a similar web. This is obviously heritable and thus coded into the DNA of the spider. The information comes from random mutations and natural selection? While I'm at it I can explain how the methuselah generation of Monarch Butterfly finds its way back down to Mexico with the instructions being coded into genetic information transfered from generation to generation. There is no arguing the fact that the instructions for this complicated process must be coded into the DNA of the eggs - that hatch into the caterpillars - that then metamorph into the butterflies that make this trip. Once again, it is obvious that random mutations and natural selection are sufficient to produce this trait and any other heritable traits.
Please provide the logical and evidence based explanation of how the actions of some intelligent designer of these insects could have resulted in the instructions for these complex activities to have arisen. The unscientific theory of intelligent design uses the common understanding that we have never witnessed instruction of this type to have been created by anything but an intelligent designer, but that is an obvious logical fallacy. To just wave your "magic wand of GODDIDIT" doesn't clear the threshold required of real thinkers. If you think it's OK to propose such an answer it might be time for us to question your diligence for really discovering the truth. You have to remember that natural selection is not random. You do get that, right?
https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 10 October 2011
ID/creationist pushers are instinctively aware of the general lack of scientific education in the public at large; and they never hesitate to exploit it.
Nor to try to increase it.
They don't even really care much about teaching their myth, since it's so vulnerable to existing evidence, they really are primarily out to poison the well against evolutionary theory. Oh yes, they "want to teach more," like how to deny reasonable inference from the evidence by raising specious objections.
Doubt of science and its methods is their intended "contribution," since the social default is, for many in our society, their mythic claims.
Glen Davidson
fittest meme · 10 October 2011
DS said:
You have to remember that natural selection is not random. You do get that, right?
You do know that the mutations to the genes are random right? According to evolutionary theory natural selection "chooses" (assuming the "purpose" of survival I might add) which of these mutations are maintained in the code.
DS · 10 October 2011
fittest meme said:
DS said:
You have to remember that natural selection is not random. You do get that, right?
You do know that the mutations to the genes are random right? According to evolutionary theory natural selection "chooses" (assuming the "purpose" of survival I might add) which of these mutations are maintained in the code.
You do realize that that is all that is required don't you? What's your point?
eric · 10 October 2011
fittest meme said:
You do know that the mutations to the genes are random right? According to evolutionary theory natural selection "chooses" (assuming the "purpose" of survival I might add) which of these mutations are maintained in the code.
We don't assume survival is the purpose. We observe that animals which survive contribute more - on average - to the gene pool than those that don't. And we also understand that there are exceptional cases, which is why mainstream scientists also accept other mechanisms (such as sexual selection).
Look here, this is really quite simple. A cheetah chases and kills a gazelle. A bee goes to a flower based on how it looks. Do you think such actions are purposeful, or not? If you think they are, then unconcious nature can provide purpose without God. If you think they aren't, then gazelle and flower gene pools can evolve without any purpose being necessary. Either way, there is no issue with "purpose" in evolution.
The problem only comes when you confusingl switch between two different linguistic uses of the same term in the same argument. For example, calling the cheetah's action purposeful in one breath and then claiming that only intelligent agents can have purpose in the next. Pick a single meaning for the word, stick to it all the way through your argument, and you'll find that the whole purpose concept is not a problem.
fittest meme · 10 October 2011
DS said:
fittest meme said:
DS said:
You have to remember that natural selection is not random. You do get that, right?
You do know that the mutations to the genes are random right? According to evolutionary theory natural selection "chooses" (assuming the "purpose" of survival I might add) which of these mutations are maintained in the code.
You do realize that that is all that is required don't you? What's your point?
The instructions to build a spiders web or to navigate the route from an Iowa field back to Mexico are extremely complex. You do have an understanding of the number of base pairs required to code for even the simplest task within the cell don't you? To assume that random mutations to this genetic code result in incremental changes that are each by themselves beneficial enough to the organism to be retained in that code, as other required random mutations accumulate in the same manner is beyond reason.
At least it should present enough doubt so as to allow other theories into the discussion.
Really DS. Just relax and let yourself think about it.
fittest meme · 10 October 2011
eric said:
fittest meme said:
You do know that the mutations to the genes are random right? According to evolutionary theory natural selection "chooses" (assuming the "purpose" of survival I might add) which of these mutations are maintained in the code.
We don't assume survival is the purpose. We observe that animals which survive contribute more - on average - to the gene pool than those that don't. And we also understand that there are exceptional cases, which is why mainstream scientists also accept other mechanisms (such as sexual selection).
Look here, this is really quite simple. A cheetah chases and kills a gazelle. A bee goes to a flower based on how it looks. Do you think such actions are purposeful, or not? If you think they are, then unconcious nature can provide purpose without God. If you think they aren't, then gazelle and flower gene pools can evolve without any purpose being necessary. Either way, there is no issue with "purpose" in evolution.
The problem only comes when you confusingl switch between two different linguistic uses of the same term in the same argument. For example, calling the cheetah's action purposeful in one breath and then claiming that only intelligent agents can have purpose in the next. Pick a single meaning for the word, stick to it all the way through your argument, and you'll find that the whole purpose concept is not a problem.
Purpose is the problem when people attribute it to non living entities such as molecules. People have done that here on this board and my parenthetical insertion was addressed to them.
You won't find me questioning the fact that all living organisms do have an inherent purpose to survive. I agree that it does not have to be assumed in things that we know to be alive.
Mike Elzinga · 10 October 2011
fittest meme said:
Purpose is the problem when people attribute it to non living entities such as molecules. People have done that here on this board and my parenthetical insertion was addressed to them.
You won't find me questioning the fact that all living organisms do have an inherent purpose to survive. I agree that it does not have to be assumed in things that we know to be alive.
Whose words are you twisting now?
Do you think anyone is going to take you ID/creationists seriously when you keep mischaracterizing science?
Unfortunately you have picked up the tactic of ID/creationists to deliberately mischaracterize everything you read about science and scientific explanations.
Dave Lovell · 10 October 2011
fittest meme said:
The instructions to build a spiders web or to navigate the route from an Iowa field back to Mexico are extremely complex.
I have no idea how complex these instructions are, but since you do perhaps you could explain them. "Freeze to death or Fly south-west until you reach Mexico (or drown)" and "Walk around in ever increasing circles dragging a thread" seem pretty simple starting points.
You do have an understanding of the number of base pairs required to code for even the simplest task within the cell don't you?
No, do tell us. What is the simplest task in a cell, and how many base pairs does it take to encode it? How can you establish any correlation between the number of base pairs required and an subjective quantity like "complexity" if you don't understand exactly how something is implemented?
We went to the moon with a computer with far, far less code than your PC
needs to operate the Power-ON button.
To assume that random mutations to this genetic code result in incremental changes that are each by themselves beneficial enough to the organism to be retained in that code, as other required random mutations accumulate in the same manner is beyond reason.
Most of the code in your genome is not "retained because it is beneficial", rather it is "not eliminated because it is not detrimental"
At least it should present enough doubt so as to allow other theories into the discussion.
Any theory you might have as to how this happens would be welcome.
DS · 10 October 2011
fittest meme said:
The instructions to build a spiders web or to navigate the route from an Iowa field back to Mexico are extremely complex. You do have an understanding of the number of base pairs required to code for even the simplest task within the cell don't you? To assume that random mutations to this genetic code result in incremental changes that are each by themselves beneficial enough to the organism to be retained in that code, as other required random mutations accumulate in the same manner is beyond reason.
At least it should present enough doubt so as to allow other theories into the discussion.
Really DS. Just relax and let yourself think about it.
The instructions to build a spiders web or to navigate the route from an Iowa field back to Mexico are extremely complex. You do have an understanding of the number of base pairs required to code for even the simplest task within the cell is irrelevant don't you? You do know that you don't have to start from scratch don't you? It has been demonstrated that random mutations to the genome can result in incremental changes that are each by themselves beneficial enough to the organism to be retained in that code, and other required random mutations accumulate in the same manner. Or, even if they aren't individually beneficial, they can still increase in frequency by drift or hitchhiking. This is all completely reasonable and confirmed bu empirical evidence.
It should not present enough doubt so as to allow other theories into the discussion, especially in the complete absence of any real competing hypothesis.
Really fattest meme. Just relax and let yourself think about it.
DS · 10 October 2011
Matt,
I don't know how you can get so far off topic when discussing a rock, but FM seems to be deliberately trying to derail even this thread. I would suggest banning him to the bathroom wall once again. I know that any further responses to him by me will be posted there. Thanks for your kind consideration.
Mike Elzinga · 10 October 2011
Apparenly fittest meme hasn’t informed himself about the studies on insect navigation; for example, moth navigation.
What often appears to be purposeful behavior turns out to be a simple response to a stimulus that happened to get though a sieve of natural selection.
It appears that fittest meme is using exactly the tactics found on AiG. He/she may even be one of Ken Ham’s minions. The arguments in the “Answers Academy” have the same childish character.
Mike Elzinga · 10 October 2011
DS said:
Matt,
I don't know how you can get so far off topic when discussing a rock, but FM seems to be deliberately trying to derail even this thread. I would suggest banning him to the bathroom wall once again. I know that any further responses to him by me will be posted there. Thanks for your kind consideration.
Yes; that derailing tactic appears to be what fittest meme is using. He/she apparently can't focus on a topic long enough to see it through.
eric · 10 October 2011
fittest meme said:
Purpose is the problem when people attribute it to non living entities such as molecules. People have done that here on this board and my parenthetical insertion was addressed to them.
No, you are being dense. People use purpose-language to describe non-intelligent-agent actions because it is very convenient and natural in our language to do so. And everyone gets what is meant...except for creationists, who seem to delight in being obtuse on order to muddle the issue. No chemist is inferring desire to atoms when they say atoms "want" to become electronically neutal. And no normal student takes them to be inferring desire; they understand that the phrase is a convenient way to talk about subatomic electromagnetic forces.
People are not attributing intention or intelligence to molecules. They are using purpose language to conveniently describe electromagnetic mechanical behavior. Why do you insist on not understanding this?
You won't find me questioning the fact that all living organisms do have an inherent purpose to survive. I agree that it does not have to be assumed in things that we know to be alive.
If the responses of actions of trees, beetles, and cheetahs to their surroundings can have purpose, there is no need for intelligent agency, since you have basically accepted that unintelligent interactions may provide purpose.
fittest meme · 10 October 2011
eric said:
fittest meme said:
Purpose is the problem when people attribute it to non living entities such as molecules. People have done that here on this board and my parenthetical insertion was addressed to them.
No, you are being dense. People use purpose-language to describe non-intelligent-agent actions because it is very convenient and natural in our language to do so. And everyone gets what is meant...except for creationists, who seem to delight in being obtuse on order to muddle the issue. No chemist is inferring desire to atoms when they say atoms "want" to become electronically neutal. And no normal student takes them to be inferring desire; they understand that the phrase is a convenient way to talk about subatomic electromagnetic forces.
People are not attributing intention or intelligence to molecules. They are using purpose language to conveniently describe electromagnetic mechanical behavior. Why do you insist on not understanding this?
I appreciate this subtlety you mention above. I am more concerned when the emergence of life from chemicals and energy alone is attributed to the actions of supposed chemical "replicators." It is these "replicators" which are magically attributed with the purposeful desire to replicate that is unexplainable.
apokryltaros · 10 October 2011
I am more concerned when the emergence of life from chemicals and energy alone is attributed to the actions of supposed chemical “replicators.” It is these “replicators” which are magically attributed with the purposeful desire to replicate that is unexplainable.
Yet, you also, hypocritically, display no concern or desire to explain how saying GODDIDIT is supposed be a scientific explanation more scientific than actual scientific explanations.
SWT · 10 October 2011
fittest meme said:
eric said:
fittest meme said:
Purpose is the problem when people attribute it to non living entities such as molecules. People have done that here on this board and my parenthetical insertion was addressed to them.
No, you are being dense. People use purpose-language to describe non-intelligent-agent actions because it is very convenient and natural in our language to do so. And everyone gets what is meant...except for creationists, who seem to delight in being obtuse on order to muddle the issue. No chemist is inferring desire to atoms when they say atoms "want" to become electronically neutal. And no normal student takes them to be inferring desire; they understand that the phrase is a convenient way to talk about subatomic electromagnetic forces.
People are not attributing intention or intelligence to molecules. They are using purpose language to conveniently describe electromagnetic mechanical behavior. Why do you insist on not understanding this?
I appreciate this subtlety you mention above. I am more concerned when the emergence of life from chemicals and energy alone is attributed to the actions of supposed chemical "replicators." It is these "replicators" which are magically attributed with the purposeful desire to replicate that is unexplainable.
SWT said:
Kauffman, S.A., "Autocatalytic Sets of Proteins," J. Theor. Biol.119 (1986) 1-24.
From the abstract:
This article investigates the possibility that the emergence of reflexively autocatalytic sets of peptides and polypeptides may be an essentially inevitable collective property of any sufficiently complex set of polypeptides.
eric · 10 October 2011
fittest meme said:
I appreciate this subtlety you mention above. I am more concerned when the emergence of life from chemicals and energy alone is attributed to the actions of supposed chemical "replicators." It is these "replicators" which are magically attributed with the purposeful desire to replicate that is unexplainable.
Its not unexplainable or magical at all. Autocatalysis is a well understood and described phenomena that is taught about in basic organic and inorganic chemistry. It doesn't need life to happen. Heck, it doesn't even need organic molecules (see that link's entry for 'Tin pest'). It's been known for decades, if not centuries.
Nobody attributes purposeful desire to molecules that replicate,* even if chemists occasionally use words like 'want.'
*Except creationists, of course.
eric · 10 October 2011
D'oh! SWT beat me to it.
In any event: FM, in the future, try not to attribute to 'magic' phenomena that are explained in Chem 101, okay?
Mike Elzinga · 10 October 2011
fittest meme said:
I appreciate this subtlety you mention above. I am more concerned when the emergence of life from chemicals and energy alone is attributed to the actions of supposed chemical "replicators." It is these "replicators" which are magically attributed with the purposeful desire to replicate that is unexplainable.
What the hell are you talking about?
Where do you get the idea that physics and chemistry are “magic?” Is it because you are a primitive who doesn’t understand anything in the modern world? Do you think computers are magic also?
It is the ID/creationists who have abused chemistry, physics, biology, and geology. It is ID/creationists who have been misusing words like “information” and complexity in order to stick in a supernatural, magical designer that does things you never explain. That’s your shtick.
Instead of making up crap and mischaracterizing things you obviously know nothing about, try learning some real science for a change.
You obviously never read any of the replies to your taunting, do you.
113 Comments
Mike Elzinga · 3 October 2011
Lovely!
Just look at all the emergent properties in that picture. So much from such simplicity!
Imagine what can happen with something even slightly more complex.
https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 3 October 2011
I want!
OK, the aquamarine's not in the greatest condition, but still looks great in context. Looks like a bigger piece.
So much CSI, too. Or wait, don't they say that we can detect it only if we already know it's there? So I guess I need to know if it's there first, and if it is, the explanatory filter can detect it (it's why it works so well for life, because they already know CSI is there, because they can just see it (after reading John 1, anyhow)).
Glen Davidson
Henry J · 3 October 2011
harold · 4 October 2011
Serious question for Steve P., Joe Bozorgmehr, FL, Fittest Meme, IBIG, and any other lurking creationists.
Was the structure illustrated here intelligently designed or not, and how can you tell?
Mike Elzinga · 4 October 2011
Flint · 4 October 2011
Maybe we should tote up all the gods for whom this is clear evidence, and all the gods for whom it isn't, and see which set is larger. Only Christian gods, for this exercise.
SWT · 4 October 2011
harold · 5 October 2011
SWT · 5 October 2011
Sorry if I was unclear -- my comment about snark was about me, not you. You've posed an excellent question, and the answer can lead to some interesting and potentially useful discussion. I note that Steve P. has been busy in another thread but hasn't yet graced us with his response to your question.
https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 5 October 2011
Mike Elzinga · 5 October 2011
Henry J · 5 October 2011
Inert atoms? I didn't see anything from group VIII of the periodic table in any of those formulas. :)
eric · 5 October 2011
Mike Elzinga · 5 October 2011
Henry J · 5 October 2011
Of course, if those atoms really were inert, putting them into pretty arrangements wouldn't cause them to do anything except sit there looking pretty.
harold · 5 October 2011
fnxtr · 5 October 2011
Not to be difficult or anything, just wondering if non-living, differentially-permeable membranes occur naturally...
Mike Elzinga · 5 October 2011
Dave Luckett · 6 October 2011
Dawkins remarked that the simplest filtering membrane was a hole. It lets lumps smaller than it is through, and prevents lumps larger than it is from passing through.
Holes occur naturally, in non-living things.
stevaroni · 6 October 2011
harold · 6 October 2011
eric · 6 October 2011
fnxtr · 6 October 2011
Sure. I guess charcoal form forest fires would count, too.
:-)
Thanks for the ideas.
fittest meme · 6 October 2011
eric · 6 October 2011
Mike Elzinga · 6 October 2011
fittest meme · 6 October 2011
fittest meme · 6 October 2011
Mike Elzinga · 6 October 2011
fittest meme · 6 October 2011
fittest meme · 6 October 2011
SWT · 6 October 2011
Science Avenger · 6 October 2011
Mike Elzinga · 6 October 2011
eric · 6 October 2011
Mike Elzinga · 6 October 2011
fittest meme · 6 October 2011
fittest meme · 6 October 2011
DS · 6 October 2011
Mike Elzinga · 6 October 2011
phhht · 6 October 2011
apokryltaros · 6 October 2011
apokryltaros · 6 October 2011
fittest meme · 6 October 2011
Scott F · 6 October 2011
phhht · 6 October 2011
phhht · 6 October 2011
Scott F · 6 October 2011
Mike Elzinga · 7 October 2011
fittest meme · 7 October 2011
SWT · 7 October 2011
SWT · 7 October 2011
Dave Luckett · 7 October 2011
fittest, you're hopelessly waffling. There is no "extra ingredient" of "specified coded information". There is no evidence whatsoever for it. Living creatures do not have any such thing. There is no "force vitale". It doesn't exist.
Dave Lovell · 7 October 2011
DS · 7 October 2011
harold · 7 October 2011
Fittest Meme -
You didn't answer my question. Pardon me for saying this, but you come across as if you are trying to peddle bullshit that you yourself don't believe in, but are trying to sell to others with a lot of verbosity. I'm not saying you are doing that, I'm just telling you that evasion and a lot of off topic flim flam gives that impression.
Furthermore, you owe me several answers from prior threads.
In the name of the most basic common courtesy and civility, I ask you to address all my questions. If you can't answer them, say so. Please answer them in an organized way, ideally in the order they are written in. Please don't be like a whiner and say "I don't have to answer your questions"; we all obviously know that you don't have to, nor have to comment here at all, what I am asking is that, having chosen to engage in discussion, you do so in a civil, courteous, mature manner, and that includes making your points clear to others.
1. Directly answer this question please - are the mineral formations in the photograph "designed" or not, and how do you know?
2. Related - previously, you claimed that "rocks and dirt" are not designed, yet you also claimed that the designer created the entire universe. Have you resolved that paradox?
3. We all realize that "species" is a hard concept to define precisely. Having said that, a) do you have an operational definition of species that you prefer to work with? Can you accept the way the concept is usually used, as explained, for example, in the Wikipedia article on "speciation"? If not, what is your definition? b) What would you accept as a valid example of biological speciation?
4. Precisely what did the designer do, and mechanistically, how did the designer do this, and how can we test this assertion?
5. WHEN did the designer do this? Also, how old is the universe? The earth?
6. Who is the designer? If we assume for the sake of argument that there is a "designer", what evidence supports your identification over anyone else's identification of the designer?
Mike Elzinga · 7 October 2011
eric · 7 October 2011
fittest meme · 7 October 2011
DS · 7 October 2011
eric · 7 October 2011
harold · 7 October 2011
Science Avenger · 7 October 2011
SWT · 7 October 2011
eric · 7 October 2011
Henry J · 7 October 2011
Mike Elzinga · 7 October 2011
Baltimore orioles and beavers; oh my.
Bower birds, bees, and wasps on the fly.
Formica exsectoides,
Corvus monaduloides,
Intelligent designers? Say why.
harold · 8 October 2011
Marilyn · 8 October 2011
This display is beautifully designed if not intelligently designed.
Would anyone know if these formations often grow together and what would attract either of them to each other or is this display a random choice of any of them. Would any of you know which would have started to form first whereas to attract the other, or are they not connected in any way apart from them all being minerals. Something knew or the aquamarine knew where to place itself to display itself quite admirably that being where as it stands out from the others and compliments the others as well.
Intelligent design is proof that intelligence has been put to use, hopefully to good use and not to bad use, I would think that intelligence needs to be guided.
Mike Elzinga · 8 October 2011
harold · 8 October 2011
Mike Elzinga · 8 October 2011
Scott F · 9 October 2011
Mike Elzinga · 9 October 2011
harold · 9 October 2011
Scott F · 9 October 2011
Scott F · 9 October 2011
phhht · 9 October 2011
Mike Elzinga · 9 October 2011
harold · 9 October 2011
Mike Elzinga · 9 October 2011
Mike Elzinga · 9 October 2011
Here is a classic ID/creationist example of the difference between the “meaning” a “receiver” gets and the intended meaning by the sender.
Note especially the section on “Developing a Method of Study.”
All – I repeat; all - ID/creationists read with the intention of distorting the meaning in the information being transmitted by a scientific author.
Henry J · 9 October 2011
In common usage, information = data that is useful to somebody or something in some particular context.
Ergo, it's a subjective judgment whether any particular datum is information or not.
Another thing I like to point out is that an evolving gene pool has some of the attributes associated with intelligence - a method of trial and error (i.e., exploration), and a method of recording some of the results.
Defining intelligence, information (or life, for that matter) generally consists of listing attributes people associate with those concepts. The problem is reaching agreement about what attributes are essential for something to qualify as one of those concepts. Sometimes it's simpler to just say that the something has some of the associated attributes.
Henry
harold · 9 October 2011
fittest meme · 9 October 2011
Mike Elzinga · 9 October 2011
Henry J · 9 October 2011
Some behavioral tendencies are inherited; i.e., produced by something in the DNA.
If the pattern of a web is caused by such tendencies, then it is indirectly encoded in that DNA.
What causes scientists to accept the theory is several overall patterns that are consistently observed, and which are directly explained by that theory. It does not depend on having every question answered in detail; there will always be questions about details that haven't been answered.
Sheesh.
Henry
apokryltaros · 9 October 2011
Scott F · 9 October 2011
Scott F · 9 October 2011
apokryltaros · 9 October 2011
Mike Elzinga · 9 October 2011
Matt Bright · 10 October 2011
I think Scott has a fruitful approach. There’s remarkable parallels here between the behaviour of amateur creationists when confronted with the flimsiness of their position and that of my daughter when I gently explain to her that if (for example) she’s too tired to do her music practice, she must also be too tired to play on her Wii. The result may be scales or a tantrum, but either way she knows she’s not getting away with anything…
DS · 10 October 2011
https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 10 October 2011
fittest meme · 10 October 2011
DS · 10 October 2011
eric · 10 October 2011
fittest meme · 10 October 2011
fittest meme · 10 October 2011
Mike Elzinga · 10 October 2011
Dave Lovell · 10 October 2011
DS · 10 October 2011
DS · 10 October 2011
Matt,
I don't know how you can get so far off topic when discussing a rock, but FM seems to be deliberately trying to derail even this thread. I would suggest banning him to the bathroom wall once again. I know that any further responses to him by me will be posted there. Thanks for your kind consideration.
Mike Elzinga · 10 October 2011
Apparenly fittest meme hasn’t informed himself about the studies on insect navigation; for example, moth navigation.
What often appears to be purposeful behavior turns out to be a simple response to a stimulus that happened to get though a sieve of natural selection.
It appears that fittest meme is using exactly the tactics found on AiG. He/she may even be one of Ken Ham’s minions. The arguments in the “Answers Academy” have the same childish character.
Mike Elzinga · 10 October 2011
eric · 10 October 2011
fittest meme · 10 October 2011
apokryltaros · 10 October 2011
SWT · 10 October 2011
eric · 10 October 2011
eric · 10 October 2011
D'oh! SWT beat me to it.
In any event: FM, in the future, try not to attribute to 'magic' phenomena that are explained in Chem 101, okay?
Mike Elzinga · 10 October 2011