The Scientific Juggernaut that is BIO-Complexity

[AV1611VET]

Frankly it's the kind of story from the gospels that ultimately "broke the spell" as it were for me and deposited the Jesus miracles in the same bin with the other supernatural events I didn't accept as real or plausible.

Don't you think you're being just a little harsh on the supernatural?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Don't you think you're being just a little harsh on the supernatural?

No. I let it off easy.

 

[Astrid]

I've heard that claim. I don't buy it, but I've heard it.

Frankly it's the kind of story from the gospels that ultimately "broke the spell" as it were for me and deposited the Jesus miracles in the same bin with the other supernatural events I didn't accept as real or plausible.

[I know you didn't ask me, but if I stay in this thread long enough, my turn would certainly come.]

Easier for me, I never did believe any of it.

I like dragons better, but don't really believe in them either.

 

[AV1611VET]

I like dragons better, but don't really believe in them either.

Just so you know, 2024 is the Year of the Dragon in China.

 

[Mr Laurier]

Glad you like it!

Have you heard that Jesus walked on water?

Helios flies in a golden chariot, pulled by winged horses.

 

[Mr Laurier]

I think it was Steve Martin that once told a joke about how we can become an instant millionaire:

Step One: Get a million dollars.
Step Two: Deposit it in the bank.

How to become an evolutionist:

Step One: Get a primeval atom.
Step Two: Get a law that makes it expand.
Step Three: Add laws as necessary to make all this ylem come together in the right sequence.
Step Four: Add time as necessary.
Step Five: Discard anything that might hinder configuring the universe to how we see it today.

So, to become an evolutionist, you have to reject all of known science, and be an all powerful magical being. Essentially a god.

 

[AV1611VET]

Helios flies in a golden chariot, pulled by winged horses.

Helios was sent packing when God pwned all sun gods at once, twice.

Exodus 10:22 And Moses stretched forth his hand toward heaven; and there was a thick darkness in all the land of Egypt three days:

Mark 15:33 And when the sixth hour was come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour.

Let's see the Muses explain that in college!

 

[AV1611VET]

So, to become an evolutionist, you have to reject all of known science, and be an all powerful magical being. Essentially a god.

No comment.

 

[Astrid]

So, to become an evolutionist, you have to reject all of known science, and be an all powerful magical being. Essentially a god.

To be a creationist, you have to be consumate master of
all of the physical sciences, knowing in fact more than
any scientist as a creationist knows evolution and deep time
are completely wrong. Scientists don't know anything.
They do guesses.

Creationists know the correct "different" interpretation
of all manner of data.
This ability is infallible and profoundly surpasses
all science with its assumptions and probabilities.
Creationists go straight to Truth, with no time spent
on tedious study.
Creationists know the one True reading of all matters
scriptural.

This capacity is clearly supernatural

 

[AV1611VET]

To ve a creationist, you have to be consumste master of all of the physical sciences,

Nope -- you just have to believe something's antithesis.

 

[Mr Laurier]

Helios was sent packing when God pwned all sun gods at once, twice.

given that God did no such thing...

Exodus 10:22 And Moses stretched forth his hand toward heaven; and there was a thick darkness in all the land of Egypt three days:

wow. bible babble.

Mark 15:33 And when the sixth hour was come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour.

more bible babble

Let's see the Muses explain that in college!

given that the Muses are not in any college...

 

[PhantomGaze]

The thing is, if something is more viable than it's previous iteration, it tends to stick around. We don't wipe the slate clean and start again. What is a slight improvement is kept and used again. So if you want to deal a full pack of cards in suit and number order in a single deal then the odds are factorial 52 (52x51x50x49 etc). A HUUGE number. It would take you longer than the universe has existed to do it. That's where the big numbers come from in creationst web sites.

But...lay a few simple ground rules (this atom combined with that atom is an improvement, this molecule adjacent to that molecule is an improvement, this card next to that card is an improvement).Then dealing that full pack in order happens in an hour or so as opposed to gazzilions of years.

But they don't tell you that. Most of the creationists know it but they don't tell you. Most creationist sites lie to you on the assumption that you are too gullible, too entrenched in your views, or not smart enough to contradict them.

Another problem with creationists is that they assume that what we have was intended. When it's actually random. It's like 'someone will win the lottery today' versus 'this person will win the lottery today'. The first statement is a given. It's bound to happen. The second is randon - a one in a few million chances. So if you assume that man was the intended result of evolution then it's beyond chance that that happened. But someone always wins the lottery - and it was us. No big deal - unless you are the winner. And then gee, you certainly feel special!

But you're just one of a bazzilion other outcomes.

This misses the ID/Creationist point of argument though. It's not any particular outcome, as most outcomes would have very similar results. We're comparing abiogenesis (some might even argue organized matter itself requires such fine tuning) to a lack of life entirely. (Or organized matter depending upon your argument.) This is a highly specific functional outcome which is in no way like its alternatives other than that it has a probability, and is governed by rules. It is less akin to a random drawing of cards, but more like being dealt a specific functional set (like a royal flush) ten times consecutively out of your standard 52 card deck.

 

[PhantomGaze]

Well, fellow reality-based science folks (aka evolution accepters), our reign is coming to an end..

That amazing clearinghouse for Intelligent Design Science - BIO-Complexity - listed their amazing evolution-overturning output for the year 2020. We are so screwed:

View attachment 297126

They're publishing and developing their ideas as opposed to making theme parks and Sunday school singalongs like some creationist groups. I'd say that's good.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Easier for me, I never did believe any of it.

I like dragons better, but don't really believe in them either.

I used to love the work of Anne McCaffrey. Then she made the mistake of listening to fans that pointed out how her dragons would not have worked. So she tried to change her stories to justify them instead of being satisfied with a good mythology. Her justifications made the impossibilities of her dragons ever more obvious.

Just ignore the elephant in the room and enjoy the story is sometimes the best way to go.

 

[Bradskii]

This misses the ID/Creationist point of argument though. It's not any particular outcome, as most outcomes would have very similar results. We're comparing abiogenesis (some might even argue organized matter itself requires such fine tuning) to a lack of life entirely. (Or organized matter depending upon your argument.) This is a highly specific functional outcome which is in no way like its alternatives other than that it has a probability, and is governed by rules. It is less akin to a random drawing of cards, but more like being dealt a specific functional set (like a royal flush) ten times consecutively out of your standard 52 card deck.

First up, life isn't a specific point that one might reach in a random process. There are many characteristics that we use to determine if something is 'alive'. Reproduction, homeostasis, growth etc. So assuming abiogenesis took place, we didn't go from matter having zero characteristics of life to having the 10 or 12 or however many characteristic are nominated on the web site of your choice that is relevant to this.

For example, there is an argument that a virus is not 'alive'. They reproduce and adapt to their environment, which are two of the characteristics.required. But they don't grow, which is a requirement; they aren't cellular, which is a requirement; there's no mechanism for the production of energy, which is a requirement.

So when all the primordial soup was throwing up umpteen gazillion different combos of molecules and structures every second of every day for millions of years, there may well have been some 'groups of matter' that weren't alive but had some of the characteristics of life. Even if it had a single characteristic then that might well have been a benefit in it surviving (if we allow for that word being able to reference innanimate material).

So the principle that the process builds on that which has already been produced stands. I mean, it's the very basis for the creation of suns and planets and galaxies. For the creation of the universe itself.

What you are proposing is to collect all the cards, shuffle them and deal one hand. And if we don't get the complete combination of materials and characteristics that we want to define life from that deal, then we collect all the cards, shuffle them and deal another. And that's where the huuuge numbers come from. But it's not the way it happens.

What happens is that you deal a hand, and if two cards fit each other in a complimentary way then you keep them and deal another pack of cards. And if another card suits the first two in some way, then you keep that. What you might be looking for is the equivalent of a Royal Flush (equating life). A single ace is not alive. But it's a step in the right direction. And if we build on that using only a rule that says if something 'survives' better then we stick with it and if something improves it we add it then you eventually you'll win the jackpot. So you might win a hand with that ace (you survive) and you might get a card that will improve your chances to survive in the next round (you evolve).

Second point: You can't start with what we have now and work out what the chances are of getting there from a standing start. When the process runs it is blind. It's not aiming for a specific result. So we can't actually use the royal flush as an example of what we want. All we need to do is stay in the game. And as you know if you've played poker, you don't need the nuts every hand to do that. And sometimes the guy with the best cards on one deal will be out in the next. He's extinct. But you're still plodding along. And that's the aim of the game. Not to win. But to stop getting knocked out.

A quick anecdote which is relevant: I was playing poker with a couple of friends and my son in a local bar. I'd been knocked out so I was watching my boy. His deal came up and the flop and turn were the 4 aces and the river was a king. Out came all the phones and everyone was taking pictures. Gee, what were the chances of that! Well, exactly the same chances as a rainbow set of low cards. It's only because we all know what is required for a good hand that the odds appear to be off the chart.

Don't get fooled by big numbers and large odds.

 

[tas8831]

They're publishing and developing their ideas as opposed to making theme parks and Sunday school singalongs like some creationist groups. I'd say that's good.

I would be tempted to agree but I really have not seen ID or IDC progress - at all - since I first became aware of the ideology 15+ years ago. Dembski now pushes bible stories at some Podunk bible school in backwater TX.. Meyer is stuck on the lecture circuit and social media, where he just keeps flogging the horse corpse that died before Kitzmiller. Behe pretends that he does science, but he still sticks up for his buddy Wells' lies about Haeckel's embryos and such. Gauger and Axe spend more time churning out right-wing political essays than working in their million-dollar lab.
I just see no progress at all - though I did see Meyer hawking a book that claims to have evidence for God, so they appear to have progressed beyond pretending ID is not a religious endeavor.
So I guess there's that.

 

[Shemjaza]

I would be tempted to agree but I really have not seen ID or IDC progress - at all - since I first became aware of the ideology 15+ years ago. Dembski now pushes bible stories at some Podunk bible school in backwater TX.. Meyer is stuck on the lecture circuit and social media, where he just keeps flogging the horse corpse that died before Kitzmiller. Behe pretends that he does science, but he still sticks up for his buddy Wells' lies about Haeckel's embryos and such. Gauger and Axe spend more time churning out right-wing political essays than working in their million-dollar lab.
I just see no progress at all - though I did see Meyer hawking a book that claims to have evidence for God, so they appear to have progressed beyond pretending ID is not a religious endeavor.
So I guess there's that.

The wedge document and poor search replace skills have always kind of put "cdesign proponentsists" on the back foot as far as hiding their ultimate religious motivations.

 

[PhantomGaze]

First up, life isn't a specific point that one might reach in a random process. There are many characteristics that we use to determine if something is 'alive'. Reproduction, homeostasis, growth etc. So assuming abiogenesis took place, we didn't go from matter having zero characteristics of life to having the 10 or 12 or however many characteristic are nominated on the web site of your choice that is relevant to this.

For example, there is an argument that a virus is not 'alive'. They reproduce and adapt to their environment, which are two of the characteristics.required. But they don't grow, which is a requirement; they aren't cellular, which is a requirement; there's no mechanism for the production of energy, which is a requirement.

So when all the primordial soup was throwing up umpteen gazillion different combos of molecules and structures every second of every day for millions of years, there may well have been some 'groups of matter' that weren't alive but had some of the characteristics of life. Even if it had a single characteristic then that might well have been a benefit in it surviving (if we allow for that word being able to reference innanimate material).

So the principle that the process builds on that which has already been produced stands. I mean, it's the very basis for the creation of suns and planets and galaxies. For the creation of the universe itself.

What you are proposing is to collect all the cards, shuffle them and deal one hand. And if we don't get the complete combination of materials and characteristics that we want to define life from that deal, then we collect all the cards, shuffle them and deal another. And that's where the huuuge numbers come from. But it's not the way it happens.

What happens is that you deal a hand, and if two cards fit each other in a complimentary way then you keep them and deal another pack of cards. And if another card suits the first two in some way, then you keep that. What you might be looking for is the equivalent of a Royal Flush (equating life). A single ace is not alive. But it's a step in the right direction. And if we build on that using only a rule that says if something 'survives' better then we stick with it and if something improves it we add it then you eventually you'll win the jackpot. So you might win a hand with that ace (you survive) and you might get a card that will improve your chances to survive in the next round (you evolve).

Second point: You can't start with what we have now and work out what the chances are of getting there from a standing start. When the process runs it is blind. It's not aiming for a specific result. So we can't actually use the royal flush as an example of what we want. All we need to do is stay in the game. And as you know if you've played poker, you don't need the nuts every hand to do that. And sometimes the guy with the best cards on one deal will be out in the next. He's extinct. But you're still plodding along. And that's the aim of the game. Not to win. But to stop getting knocked out.

A quick anecdote which is relevant: I was playing poker with a couple of friends and my son in a local bar. I'd been knocked out so I was watching my boy. His deal came up and the flop and turn were the 4 aces and the river was a king. Out came all the phones and everyone was taking pictures. Gee, what were the chances of that! Well, exactly the same chances as a rainbow set of low cards. It's only because we all know what is required for a good hand that the odds appear to be off the chart.

Don't get fooled by big numbers and large odds.

It seems a very strange thing to me to suggest that the particular value for the strength of gravity somehow "stuck around" due to the fact that it was the value needed for stars to form. Regarding biology, it's an interesting conceptual argument, and it might work on a cellular level once reproduction already exists (for selection and variation), but until we already have self-contained, reproducing structures, I fail to see how something can be selected. Also, the counter-analogy you provided seemed to beg the question on the probabilistic resources of nature to generate the selectable steps in question through stochastic processes to begin with, which as I understand it, is the primary point of contention.

 

[Bradskii]

It seems a very strange thing to me to suggest that the particular value for the strength of gravity somehow "stuck around" due to the fact that it was the value needed for stars to form. Regarding biology, it's an interesting conceptual argument, and it might work on a cellular level once reproduction already exists (for selection and variation), but until we already have self-contained, reproducing structures, I fail to see how something can be selected. Also, the counter-analogy you provided seemed to beg the question on the probabilistic resources of nature to generate the selectable steps in question through stochastic processes to begin with, which as I understand it, is the primary point of contention.

Gravity wasn't 'needed' for stars to form. If it had a different value they wouldn't have formed. But holes aren't designed for puddles.

And yes, you're right. We needed something to be able to reproduce (even if it was not classed as living) as one of the first stages required. Lucky us!

 

[PhantomGaze]

I would be tempted to agree but I really have not seen ID or IDC progress - at all - since I first became aware of the ideology 15+ years ago. Dembski now pushes bible stories at some Podunk bible school in backwater TX.. Meyer is stuck on the lecture circuit and social media, where he just keeps flogging the horse corpse that died before Kitzmiller. Behe pretends that he does science, but he still sticks up for his buddy Wells' lies about Haeckel's embryos and such. Gauger and Axe spend more time churning out right-wing political essays than working in their million-dollar lab.
I just see no progress at all - though I did see Meyer hawking a book that claims to have evidence for God, so they appear to have progressed beyond pretending ID is not a religious endeavor.
So I guess there's that.

I don't really keep track of personalities, but I'm imagining they are trying to get ID to grow beyond the DI, which is what they should have been doing to begin with rather than bothering about high school science teaching.