Why I do not accept evolution part one

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

exactly, no argument here. And no surprise that creationists would refer to it- since that's what they and other skeptics predicted all along.

I was simply clarifying that an apparent implication of that quote in your post - i.e. that Dawkins thought the Cambrian creatures appeared suddenly and mysteriously - is not correct.

Of course I could quote a 'creationist' for the same observation (and then have the source attacked), so Dawkins being a staunch Darwinist- just highlights the bi-partisan agreement here does it not?

I don't follow your logic here. Dawkins was simply stating the situation as known at the time - a Pre-Cambrian gap in the fossil record. We now have better evidence of the creatures of that time, e.g. Ediacarans, etc., so the gap in the fossil record is being bridged.

 

[pitabread]

DNA similarly works in this hierarchical fashion- again this is really just scratching the surface, the software strategy sillimanites run much much deeper than this.

How does DNA work in a hierarchical fashion?

If you want to equate it to software then explain in detail how that is the case. And specifically with respect to the function of DNA itself in the protein encoding process.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Explain to us then what the hierarchy is in the genetic code. I'm not a geneticist, but I don't recall hearing anything about the structure of the genome that would indicate a hierarchical storage system.

One example would be the GRN- gene regulatory network which serves in the activation of other genes- various mechanisms control what control genes apply to what results etc
just as my tweaking the text parameter info activates more code at a different level of the software hierarchy (I cannot use the text parameters to alter anything other than text)

just one very simple example- and of course the mediums are still different

just as I could write this sentence in rocks on a beach if I wanted- the information system and code convention I would be using is entirely independent of the medium- it is the info system itself we are comparing- not the medium- as fantastically sophisticated as that engineering is- it is a separate point

 

[pitabread]

It not just any information, it is absolutely a hierarchical digital information system, an entirely objective and definitive phenomena. It is not merely an 'analogy' and Dawkins goes out of his way to make this point below- not saying he is the ultimate authority, but obviously not 'batting for ID'

It is an analogy. Dawkins is trying to explain a conceptual understanding of DNA using a relatable concept (e.g. computers and computer code).

When you get into the nitty-gritty of how each thing functions (computer software vs DNA), the differences become apparent.

As he fleshes out- it is a true code, because there is a code convention- i,e, it's not the characters in the code that directly produce the result, they represent actual information which is copied and interpreted for a specific result. As a book is interpreted by a common code convention that the author and the reader share- it's not the 'ink on the page' that actually tells the story, but the information it describes- do you see the distinction?

The fundamental difference (and this is where the analogy breaks down) is that DNA does not exist for the purpose of conveying ideas in an abstract sense. Using your language example, language exists as a way of conveying ideas in an abstract form (symbolic language). Those abstract ideas are what you are describing as information in this context.

There is no symbolic language in DNA. It literally is a molecule undergoing chemical reactions in the formation of proteins.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I was simply clarifying that an apparent implication of that quote in your post - i.e. that Dawkins thought the Cambrian creatures appeared suddenly and mysteriously - is not correct.

yes agreed, I did not mean to imply that he did- just that the observation is the same- of course he provides his own speculative explanation for that observation

I don't follow your logic here. Dawkins was simply stating the situation as known at the time - a Pre-Cambrian gap in the fossil record. We now have better evidence of the creatures of that time, e.g. Ediacarans, etc., so the gap in the fossil record is being bridged.

you can also argue the opposite- more recent burgess shale finds etc, have made the explosion ever more explosive- either way the Cambrian explosion is not merely an artifact of an incomplete record- as originally predicted by ToE

 

[Ophiolite]

No actually html only accounts for a small part of what you see, it usually makes reference to separate databases of CSS code that actually produce the styles and layouts- which in turn is interpreted by your browser software, which in turn relies on your operating system which in turn relies on your computers bios software

Precisely. You agree with me: "The HTML code is responsible for what you see." The HTML code calls up other program code. It's code all the way down. . . . . . .
Until you get to the hardware through which the code is expressed. (I wonder if there are still J-K flip flops and the like, embedded in the micro-circuitry to implement Boolean logic.)

 

[Job 33:6]

yes agreed, I did not mean to imply that he did- just that the observation is the same- of course he provides his own speculative explanation for that observation



you can also argue the opposite- more recent burgess shale finds etc, have made the explosion ever more explosive- either way the Cambrian explosion is not merely an artifact of an incomplete record- as originally predicted by ToE

As noted in my prior post, as more and more fossils have been uncovered, the Cambrian explosion really was something that unfolded over the course of greater than 30 million years. And there isn't anything incompatible with this observed rate of change and the theory of evolution.

But also, as noted before as well, trilobite trace fossil s/trackways predate the Cambrian explosion and the appearance of shells by some 10 million years. Much of the pre-cambrian and early Cambrian fauna are soft bodied and/or microscopic, which lends further credence to the explanation that life didn't instantaneously appear, but rather the evolution of hard parts is the true cause, in-part of the explosion.

We know that much of life before the Cambrian explosion was soft bodied and/or microscopic because we have, in rare instances, discovered fossils of this nature that predate the explosion. So what we've found, supports this conclusion. That the explosion was a product of the evolution of hard parts and shells.

And also as noted above, most phyla actually appear in the fossil record before and after the Cambrian explosion, not during it.

Our finds of fossils of soft bodied, or of microscopic size, do in fact justify predictions made by the theory. As do the nature of the fossils.

 

[Speedwell]

Forget about all of the equivocation over "information," "message" or "code," and the lame analogies, etc. That's all just noise; "radio static."

Here is the critical assertion:

The fact that we can replicate some of this software architecture artificially, proves the point that it can be done, artificially- we just don't know how it could possibly be done by naturalistic forces

This is 100% pure argument from incredulity, nothing more.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...think of it this way, if you could force somebody to be 'good' by implanting a chip- are they really 'good' if they have no ability to be 'bad'? Without that choice, the distinction has no meaning.

One neurologist put it in an interesting way- that 'bad temptations' seem to appear automatically in brain activity, before being actively suppressed by more conscious thought.
i.e. we don't so much have 'free will' as 'free won't'

Of course, it depends how you define 'free' in this context. That a more sophisticated evaluation of some scenario results in the suppression of simpler impulses doesn't, of itself, say anything about freedom or choice. It could be argued that if there is some reason for an action, i.e. it is the result of an evaluation of some situation with respect to an individual's internal state, then (for all practical purposes) it is deterministic, and if not, it is random; neither suggest 'freedom' or 'choice' except to those who are not aware of the detailed circumstances, i.e. the individual themselves and any observers. By this reckoning, the ideas of freedom and choice are born of incomplete knowledge of the circumstances.

Just a thought.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

It is an analogy. Dawkins is trying to explain a conceptual understanding of DNA using a relatable concept (e.g. computers and computer code).

When you get into the nitty-gritty of how each thing functions (computer software vs DNA), the differences become apparent.



The fundamental difference (and this is where the analogy breaks down) is that DNA does not exist for the purpose of conveying ideas in an abstract sense. Using your language example, language exists as a way of conveying ideas in an abstract form (symbolic language). Those abstract ideas are what you are describing as information in this context.

There is no symbolic language in DNA. It literally is a molecule undergoing chemical reactions in the formation of proteins.

I think one sentence from that excerpt clarifies the substance of the point best

"it's not the characters in the code that directly produce the result, they represent actual information which is copied and interpreted for a specific result"

^ this is the crux of the matter, and what makes specified information specified information- regardless of whether it uses electronics or biology or rocks on the beach
this is what I mean by a symbolic code convention using symbolic markers "a quaternary code, with four symbols" as Dawkins puts it

if it were simply the chemicals which directly produced results, then yes, I take your point- water molecules are structured in a way that they naturally turn to solid when freezing- no symbolic code convention, copying, translation, error checking of symbolic code is involved. - nobody would describe this as 'uncannily computer like'

I know the implications do not exactly lean in favor of your position, and as always- it's not in itself meant to be a 'slam dunk' for anything
but to be fair, you can surely at least concede the distinction here?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Forget about all of the equivocation over "information," "message" or "code," and the lame analogies, etc. That's all just noise; "radio static."

Here is the critical assertion:


This is 100% pure argument from incredulity, nothing more.

quite the opposite, it is an argument in the affirmative

it is not that we do not know how hierarchical digital information systems with symbolic code conventions are created.

We DO, we have many examples of it, we are even using one right now!
What we cannot fathom is how natural mechanisms alone could possibly ever achieve this same system

Not to say it is impossible, but not nearly as scientifically validated at this time.

 

[Speedwell]

quite the opposite, it is an argument in the affirmative

it is not that we do not know how hierarchical digital information systems with symbolic code conventions are created.

We DO, we have many examples of it, we are even using one right now!
What we cannot fathom is how natural mechanisms alone could possibly ever achieve this same system

Not to say it is impossible, but not nearly as scientifically validated at this time.

Certainly you seem unable--or unwilling--to fathom it. Others' mileage may vary. But I also see a suggestion of a theological error, one to which Protestants seem particularly prone: that a fully explanatory natural cause for a phenomenon excludes or denies Divine Providence.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Which is a result of and explained by biological evolution. Species evolved due the conditions on Earth.

That’s one hypothesis it’s not a proven fact.

 

[pitabread]

That’s one hypothesis it’s not a proven fact.

Strictly speaking nothing in science is "proven". However, the weight of the collective evidence strongly supports it. Our collective observations of species on Earth don't make sense otherwise.

 

[Ophiolite]

That’s one hypothesis it’s not a proven fact.

You must be aware by now that science does not have the arrogance to assert anything as proven. It is too open minded for that. Science prefers to offer the best possible explanation based upon well established evidence. If new evidence is obtained then that explanation may be adjusted, added to, or even abandoned and replaced.

Sometimes the evidence is so wide ranging, so substantial, so well validated, that for all practical purposes we may consider the conclusion as proven. Such is the case with the statement "species evolved because of conditions on Earth".

You may choose to ignore this correction, but you have nothing sensible* with which to refute it.

* sensible = perceptible to the senses or to reason or understanding (Merriam-Webster online definition 3)

 

[pitabread]

if it were simply the chemicals which directly produced results, then yes, I take your point- water molecules are structured in a way that they naturally turn to solid when freezing- no symbolic code convention, copying, translation, error checking of symbolic code is involved. - nobody would describe this as 'uncannily computer like'

Chemical reactions are precisely what we're talking about re: the process of protein production. The process literally is a series of chemical reactions. There is no abstraction or symbolic representation/interpretations occurring.

If you think there is then explain how that is with respect to protein production. Describe the process.

In all this discussion the one thing you haven't been talking about is DNA itself and how it functions re: protein production.

I know the implications do not exactly lean in favor of your position, and as always- it's not in itself meant to be a 'slam dunk' for anything
but to be fair, you can surely at least concede the distinction here?

This isn't about being favorable to any specific position. This is about avoiding equivocation and not misinterpreting analogies as literal equivalents.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Strictly speaking nothing in science is "proven". However, the weight of the collective evidence strongly supports it. Our collective observations of species on Earth don't make sense otherwise.

And that very same evidence equally points to intelligent design as well my friend.

 

[BNR32FAN]

You must be aware by now that science does not have the arrogance to assert anything as proven. It is too open minded for that. Science prefers to offer the best possible explanation based upon well established evidence. If new evidence is obtained then that explanation may be adjusted, added to, or even abandoned and replaced.

Sometimes the evidence is so wide ranging, so substantial, so well validated, that for all practical purposes we may consider the conclusion as proven. Such is the case with the statement "species evolved because of conditions on Earth".

You may choose to ignore this correction, but you have nothing sensible* with which to refute it.

* sensible = perceptible to the senses or to reason or understanding (Merriam-Webster online definition 3)

Like I told Pita that exact same evidence equally supports intelligent design.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... you can also argue the opposite- more recent burgess shale finds etc, have made the explosion ever more explosive- either way the Cambrian explosion is not merely an artifact of an incomplete record- as originally predicted by ToE

The majority of papers I've seen rather suggest that the Cambrian explosion was just one of a number of rapid diversification and radiation periods around that time - and provide evolutionary explanations in terms of the phenotypic developments and the environmental circumstances - check out Google Scholar for lots of interesting material.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Certainly you seem unable--or unwilling--to fathom it. Others' mileage may vary. But I also see a suggestion of a theological error, one to which Protestants seem particularly prone: that a fully explanatory natural cause for a phenomenon excludes or denies Divine Providence.

Again, it's actually the exact opposite

For the record I was raised a staunch atheist, by atheist parents, and remained so for about 3 decades
I used to argue avidly for naturalism and against any notion of an intelligent designer- & often not as respectfully and substantively as the fine folks here..

I've also been programming for the same amount of time and learned how humbling it is to argue with a computer over mathematical logic. The similarities in software design I (and Dawkins) describe hardly scratch the surface- they go far far deeper.

The implications of intelligent agency in physics and biology are extremely daunting to someone who wrote it off as 'theological error' for so long- not something I was rushing to embrace at all