Why I do not accept evolution part one

[Speedwell]

Philosophically, I think that's where materialism puts up it's own roadblocks- a theist has no fear of discovering that there is actually MORE to nature, to our understanding, than we thought! humbling I know!

Is that supposed to be an argument for ID?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... if an information processing system receiving creative input from an invisible external source.. IS supernatural, arguably smart phones violate that also

Not sure what your point is here - we know how smart phones get their input and we know that there are no fields, forces, or particles in the standard model of physics that could transmit information into the brain without being detectable. You can posit some influence outside that model, but then you need to explain how it originates, is maintained, and is transmitted, and how can interact with the protons, neutrons, and electrons that make up the brain in a significant yet undetectable way. The interactions of protons, neutrons, and electrons have been exhaustively studied - theoretically and empirically they are known - they fit the model and the model has no 'holes' for other significant interactions. IOW, any significant novel influence would have been detected. See The Laws Underlying the Physics of Everyday Life are Completely Understood.

The other issue is that AFAIAA, every significant facet of what we recognise as consciousness can be qualitatively modified by influencing the brain. If the brain-as-receiver model held good, we might expect to see quantitative changes in consciousness by interfering with the brain, but not qualitative ones. The TV analogy holds here - poking around in the back of a TV might degrade the picture but would not change the news presenter, the plot of the movie, or the studio decor.

...they don't necessarily have to interact if one can create another:

Andre Linde, principle in modern inflationary theory, considers it feasible that we may one day be able to reverse engineer our own universe to the point of creating our own. Hence we cannot rule out (this is his argument) that this could explain the origin of our own universe.

Sure, so what? If that is the kind of creative intelligence you mean, I don't have a problem with it; similarly with the 'simulation hypothesis' that we're a computational simulation of a universe run by another civilisation.

Both are at least superficially plausible in terms of known physics. But they remain highly speculative hypotheses until they make some testable predictions, and the origins of the proposed creating civilisation still need to be accounted for, i.e. it just kicks the origin can down the road.

At this point faith in an intelligence-free origin for our own universe, depends on the curious belief in an 'immaculate conception' of the multiverse, rather than one of the mundane 'copies' that would inevitably arise thereafter- I dunno- seems kinda like special pleading?

It's not a question of faith, it's just a question of what we verifiably know and what we can reasonably extrapolate from that. We don't know the origins of the universe, but given its fundamental physics, there is a variety of potential explanations consistent with that physics. No need to invoke ill-defined, untestable, inexplicable intelligent entities. Parsimony and consistency are a useful rule of thumb.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Again Dawkins is making an analogy here. Personally, I think Dawkins actually over-exaggerates the comparison which is probably where some of the confusion here lies. I've read other articles from biologists that actually dislike the way such analogies are used, because it muddies the waters when people treat them overly literally.

The equivocation is happening over words like "code" and "information". Yes, DNA can be considered a code. Yes, DNA can be considered to contain information.

^ so we agree, we also agree computers are usually made of plastic and DNA isn't- that has no bearing on the information system similarities

Just a very brief example of just how 'interchangeable' the mediums are in terms of the digital information processing capabilities themselves- and touching on parity bit error checking capacity- but much much more you can research on this if you are interested


DNA computing is an emerging new research field that uses DNA molecules instead of traditional silicon based microchips. The first researcher to demonstrate the computing capability of DNA was Leonard Adelman, who in 1994 developed a method of using DNA for solving an instance of the directed Hamiltonian path problem [4]. In 1997, Ogihara and Ray demonstrated that DNA computers can simulate Boolean AND and OR gates [5]. The advantage of DNA computers is that they are smaller and faster than traditional silicon computers, and they can be easily used for parallel processing. DNA has also been used as a tool for cryptography and cryptanalysis, using molecular techniques for its manipulation [3]. Bogard et al. describe how multiple sequence alignment can be used for error reduction in DNA computing [6].

****

Of the 16 nucleotide bases that could pair up to make DNA, why do only A, T, G, and C make up the genomic alphabet? Researchers have long put it down to the composition of the primordial soup in which the first life arose. But Dónall Mac Dónaill of Trinity College Dublin says the choice incorporates a tactic for minimizing errors similar to that used by error-coding systems incorporated into credit card numbers, bank accounts, and airline tickets.

In the error-coding theory first developed in 1950 by Bell Telephone Laboratories researcher Richard Hamming, a so-called parity bit is added to the end of digital numbers to make the digits add up to an even number. For example, when transmitting the number 100110, you would add an extra 1 onto the end (100110,1); the number 100001 would have a zero added (100001,0). Because the most likely transmission error--switching a single digit from 1 to 0 or vice versa--causes the sum of the digits to be odd, the recipient of an odd number can assume that an error occurred.

Mac Dónaill asserts, in a forthcoming issue of Chemical Communications, that a similar process was at work in the choice of bases in the genetic alphabet. To demonstrate this, he represented each nucleotide as a four-digit binary number. The first three digits represent the three bonding sites that each nucleotide presents to its partner. Each site is either a hydrogen donor or acceptor; a nucleotide offering donor-acceptor-acceptor sites would be represented as 100 and would only bond with an acceptor-donor-donor nucleotide, or 011. The fourth digit is 1 if the nucleotide is a single-ringed pyrimidine type and 0 if it is a double-ringed purine type. Nucleotides readily bond with members of the other type.

Mac Dónaill noticed that the final digit acts as a parity bit: The four digits of A, T, G, and C all add up to an even number. Banishing all odd-parity nucleotides from the DNA alphabet reduces errors, Mac Dónaill says. For example, nucleotide C (100,1) binds naturally to nucleotide G (011,0), but it might accidentally bind to the odd parity nucleotide X (010,0), because there is just one mismatch. Such a bond would be weak compared to C-G but not impossible. However, C is highly unlikely to bond to any other even-parity nucleotides, such as the idealized amino-adenine (101,0), because there are two mismatches.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

As we have been talking about, information itself is used as evidence for intelligent agency, in forensic science, archeology and by SETI to name a few

And, as I already said, we know how the information in question, i.e. the arrangement of DNA, is generated.

Philosophically, I think that's where materialism puts up it's own roadblocks- a theist has no fear of discovering that there is actually MORE to nature, to our understanding, than we thought! humbling I know!

I take it by 'materialism' you mean science (your statement doesn't make sense otherwise), but that's a complete opposite of how scientists see it - they're driven to discover new things, to replace existing models and theories with better ones - and not just for the accolades that might produce. But, even for falsification, it's a high bar. You don't overturn a well-tested theory unless you've got another well-tested theory that does a better job (by a number of important criteria). There's a justifiable inertia to the scientific body of knowledge and an understandable enthusiasm to revise it for the better.

 

[Ophiolite]

a theist has no fear of discovering that there is actually MORE to nature, to our understanding, than we thought!

How ironic then, that you choose to reject the marvels of evolution discovered via the work of tens of thousands of researchers in a score of sciences. Ironic and sad.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Is that supposed to be an argument for ID?

More that skepticism of materialism generally makes for a less restrictive assumption in scientific investigation

It is no coincidence that Georges Lemaitre and Max Planck were notable skeptics of atheism- that's what it took to break through the barriers of 'conventional wisdom'

 

[Guy Threepwood]

How ironic then, that you choose to reject the marvels of evolution discovered via the work of tens of thousands of researchers in a score of sciences. Ironic and sad.

I think we both acknowledge the scientific parts of evolution, the fossil record, DNA, direct experimentation.

I only disagree with some of the speculative parts- like natural mechanisms being able to mimic what we know can be done with creative intelligence re. these digital info systems- we have no direct empirical evidence of this yet

 

[Speedwell]

Invoking that argument is an admission of defeat on Guy Threepwood's part. It is on the face of it vacuous, because not all scientists who reject ID are atheists.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

And, as I already said, we know how the information in question, i.e. the arrangement of DNA, is generated.

Origins of DNA is the most confounding question facing origin of life studies- even given that, accounting for the diversity in the biosphere through pure random error- is entirely speculative.

There is no way to repeat a 'bacteria to human' experiment with this method

I take it by 'materialism' you mean science (your statement doesn't make sense otherwise), but that's a complete opposite of how scientists see it - they're driven to discover new things, to replace existing models and theories with better ones - and not just for the accolades that might produce. But, even for falsification, it's a high bar. You don't overturn a well-tested theory unless you've got another well-tested theory that does a better job (by a number of important criteria). There's a justifiable inertia to the scientific body of knowledge and an understandable enthusiasm to revise it for the better.

ideally, of course, we can all respect that principle

Meanwhile back in reality:

“Science advances one funeral at a time.”

'A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it'.Max Planck

 

[Speedwell]

Origins of DNA is the most confounding question facing origin of life studies...

That is actually better ground for you, as there is currently no coherent theory about how it happened. Logically, it is still possible to speculate that some sort of material divine intervention occurred.

...even given that, accounting for the diversity in the biosphere through pure random error- is entirely speculative.

Characterizing evolution as "pure random error" evinces such a poor understanding of the process and the evidence which supports it as to render your claim that it is "entirely speculative" to be an empty one.

 

[pitabread]

^ so we agree, we also agree computers are usually made of plastic and DNA isn't- that has no bearing on the information system similarities

I don't entirely agree with that, because it all comes down to specifics. There are fundamental functional differences in how computers perform information processing versus what happens in DNA.

And in that in turn rests on how one defines "information". Even in the context of DNA itself, there are multiple ways to define and quantify information.

Just a very brief example of just how 'interchangeable' the mediums are in terms of the digital information processing capabilities themselves- and touching on parity bit error checking capacity- but much much more you can research on this if you are interested

Oh, I've done the research and I'm familiar with the analogies. I'm trying to see how familiar you are, because I haven't seen any real discussion of the biology from you. Even the copy-pastes below don't really indicate an understanding of the material.

For example, let's contrast the following paragraph:

Mac Dónaill noticed that the final digit acts as a parity bit: The four digits of A, T, G, and C all add up to an even number. Banishing all odd-parity nucleotides from the DNA alphabet reduces errors, Mac Dónaill says. For example, nucleotide C (100,1) binds naturally to nucleotide G (011,0), but it might accidentally bind to the odd parity nucleotide X (010,0), because there is just one mismatch. Such a bond would be weak compared to C-G but not impossible. However, C is highly unlikely to bond to any other even-parity nucleotides, such as the idealized amino-adenine (101,0), because there are two mismatches.

With what you wrote here:

Parity bit error checking uses digital information to record whether the sum total of a digital stream of given length would give an odd or even result.

The same calculation is made after copying and, the parity bits are compared to make sure they match-
this allows for error checking large amounts of digital information by comparing very small amounts

Do you see the glaring differences in how these two things work?

(In fact, I'm questioning if something either got lost in translation in that article or if Mac Dónaill doesn't quite know how actual parity bit checking works in computers. It's at best a very loose analogy.)

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Not sure what your point is here - we know how smart phones get their input and we know that there are no fields, forces, or particles in the standard model of physics that could transmit information into the brain without being detectable. You can posit some influence outside that model, but then you need to explain how it originates, is maintained, and is transmitted, and how can interact with the protons, neutrons, and electrons that make up the brain in a significant yet undetectable way. The interactions of protons, neutrons, and electrons have been exhaustively studied - theoretically and empirically they are known - they fit the model and the model has no 'holes' for other significant interactions. IOW, any significant novel influence would have been detected. See The Laws Underlying the Physics of Everyday Life are Completely Understood.

Then our test of 'supernatural' phenomena relies purely on our ability to detect the exact cause and effect, by which rationale, of course a smart phone would appear 'supernatural' to a cave man
(no offense to cave men)
Not a great test for reality though is it?

You don't need new physics, EMFs can be directly observed to affect brain activity and behavior
and If you don't think microwave radiation can influence your DNA, try a vacation in Chernobyl!

The other issue is that AFAIAA, every significant facet of what we recognise as consciousness can be qualitatively modified by influencing the brain. If the brain-as-receiver model held good, we might expect to see quantitative changes in consciousness by interfering with the brain, but not qualitative ones. The TV analogy holds here - poking around in the back of a TV might degrade the picture but would not change the news presenter, the plot of the movie, or the studio decor.

And that is the argument from many neurologists, you can cut the brain in two and the person still exists, with very little detectable difference.

And that in other cases, the physical destruction, like the TV, only affects the capacity for the person to express themselves normally

Sure, so what? If that is the kind of creative intelligence you mean, I don't have a problem with it; similarly with the 'simulation hypothesis' that we're a computational simulation of a universe run by another civilisation.

Both are at least superficially plausible in terms of known physics. But they remain highly speculative hypotheses until they make some testable predictions, and the origins of the proposed creating civilisation still need to be accounted for, i.e. it just kicks the origin can down the road.

One prediction might be that these beings would use information systems that reflect creative intelligence. Beyond this, many cosmologists/ astrophysicists etc (inc. secular) have noted how curious it is, that the universe so lends itself to our own understanding.

A book written in French is intended to be understood, by Frenchmen

It's not a question of faith, it's just a question of what we verifiably know and what we can reasonably extrapolate from that. We don't know the origins of the universe, but given its fundamental physics, there is a variety of potential explanations consistent with that physics.

I'd agree

No need to invoke ill-defined, untestable, inexplicable intelligent entities..

Nor ill-defined, untestable, inexplicable unintelligent entities..

 

[Ophiolite]

I only disagree with some of the speculative parts- like natural mechanisms being able to mimic what we know can be done with creative intelligence re. these digital info systems- we have no direct empirical evidence of this yet

You have utterly failed to convince me that your views on this are based on a sound understanding of either information (in its many guises) or of biochemistry, or genetics. (e.g. See @pitabread in post #691.)

 

[Guy Threepwood]

That is actually better ground for you, as there is currently no coherent theory about how it happened. Logically, it is still possible to speculate that some sort of material divine intervention occurred.

I agree, the more definitive arguments against chance and for 'guidance' arise the closer you get to the origins of life.
But even far more intuitive transitions like like wolf to dog, dinos to birds, can get problematic on closer examination

Characterizing evolution as "pure random error" evinces such a poor understanding of the process and the evidence which supports it as to render your claim that it is "entirely speculative" to be an empty one.

'pure random error' IS the defining characteristic of Darwinian evolution, even in its modern synthesis

Practically every other theory involves various selection mechanisms also - I don't deny such mechanisms would begin to operate on the 'first animals leaving the ark'
arrival of the fittest has always been the question, not mere survival

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You have utterly failed to convince me that your views on this are based on a sound understanding of either information (in its many guises) or of biochemistry, or genetics. (e.g. See @pitabread in post #691.)

stick with it, you'll come around

 

[Ophiolite]

stick with it, you'll come around

Not as long as you post utter tosh such as this:

'pure random error' IS the defining characteristic of Darwinian evolution, even in its modern synthesis

If you wish to be taken seriously I recommend that you be serious. Rowan Atkinson can charm people with his clumsy Mr. Bean. Inept assertions are not working for you.

 

[Speedwell]

'pure random error' IS the defining characteristic of Darwinian evolution, even in its modern synthesis

No, it's not. Randomly distributed variation followed by natural selection are the defining characteristics of evolution.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I don't entirely agree with that, because it all comes down to specifics. There are fundamental functional differences in how computers perform information processing versus what happens in DNA.

And in that in turn rests on how one defines "information". Even in the context of DNA itself, there are multiple ways to define and quantify information.



Oh, I've done the research and I'm familiar with the analogies. I'm trying to see how familiar you are, because I haven't seen any real discussion of the biology from you. Even the copy-pastes below don't really indicate an understanding of the material.

For example, let's contrast the following paragraph:



With what you wrote here:



Do you see the glaring differences in how these two things work?

(In fact, I'm questioning if something either got lost in translation in that article or if Mac Dónaill doesn't quite know how actual parity bit checking works in computers. It's at best a very loose analogy.)

We have agreed all along that there are obvious differences in how abacuses, computers, DNA and slide rulers physically perform information processing

The point was about the actual patterns seen in the information processing itself- such processes might exist purely in your head before committing them to code in a computer- the logical patterns remain.

 

[Ophiolite]

The point was about the actual patterns seen in the information processing itself- such processes might exist purely in your head before committing them to code in a computer- the logical patterns remain.

So you will have no trouble presenting the logical patterns involved and showing the one-to-one match for both computers and DNA. I look forward to being educated.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

No, it's not. Randomly distributed variation followed by natural selection are the defining characteristics of evolution.

exactly-'randomly distributed' - is the part which defines Darwinism from other theories

Lamarckism acknowledges natural selection processes also, as does ID, but not 'complete fluke' being responsible for actually providing something to select!

Superior designs will tend to outperform, outlast, and be reproduced in greater numbers than inferior ones- nobody is debating this

It is precisely why we see more Ford Mustangs on the Road than Ford Pintos- it says nothing about them spontaneously appearing by random errors!