Turns out Random is Better (Evolution)
by xeno6696 
, Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, February 10, 2010, 22:20 (5398 days ago)
Though this article is dealing with network transportation, it underlines the counterintuitive notion I discussed earlier in dealing with cryptography: Randomness improves your chances. Eat that, Dembski. Though the article doesn't state it, this result will have a significant future impact on biological study as networks are at the heart of cellular and biochemical modeling. -http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2010/network-coding-part1.html
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Turns out Random is Better
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, February 17, 2010, 14:44 (5392 days ago) @ xeno6696
As everyone has appeared to ignore this post, perhaps I should try to bring my thoughts a bit more into focus.-The paper that the article references is on a method to increase the chances of information getting out to its destination. It turns out that a process of truly random selection in terms of only sending small bits of the information through ( in this case, three) receivers improves the reception of the overall message--more information gets through when compared to the current method. [EDIT] The current method being that we've traditionally selected the cell tower with the strongest signal as the preferential one to send a message through, in other words, "intelligently."-Since biological information can also be modeled as bits, this result impacts biology in these ways:-1. Introducing randomness in the transmission process of genetic information means that randomness increases the chances that information will be successfully transferred to its target. -2. Those that would assert life is designed now have to mathematically justify how they would tell the difference between a random transmission and an intelligent one.-[EDITED]
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Turns out Random is Better
Matt has referred us again to a method showing that a process of random selection increases the chances of information getting to its destination. He concludes:-1. Introducing randomness in the transmission process of genetic information means that randomness increases the chances that information will be successfully transferred to its target.-2. Those that would assert life is designed now have to mathematically justify how they would tell the difference between a random transmission and an intelligent one.-Fortunately I don't make any such assertions, but unfortunately I'm out of my depth in such discussions. This need not deter me, however, from asking a naïve question:-Where does the information come from in the first place?
Turns out Random is Better
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Thursday, February 18, 2010, 01:25 (5391 days ago) @ dhw
Matt has referred us again to a method showing that a process of random selection increases the chances of information getting to its destination. He concludes: > > 1. Introducing randomness in the transmission process of genetic information means that randomness increases the chances that information will be successfully transferred to its target. > > 2. Those that would assert life is designed now have to mathematically justify how they would tell the difference between a random transmission and an intelligent one. > > Fortunately I don't make any such assertions, but unfortunately I'm out of my depth in such discussions. This need not deter me, however, from asking a naïve question: > > Where does the information come from in the first place?-A very valid question, but it doesn't impact the scenario I'm discussing here. This isn't abiogenesis I'm talking about. David uses Dembski regularly, and Dembski uses arguments based (poorly) on information theory to try and argue that life processes aren't random. What a result like this one will suggest (to the mathematically inclined) is that randomizing information transmission increases the chances of success.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Turns out Random is Better
MATT: Those that would assert life is designed now have to mathematically justify how they would tell the difference between a random transmission and an intelligent one.-DHW: Fortunately I don't make any such assertions, but unfortunately I'm out of my depth in such discussions. This need not deter me, however, from asking a naïve question: Where does the information come from in the first place?-Matt: A very valid question, but it doesn't impact the scenario I'm discussing here. This isn't abiogenesis I'm talking about. David uses Dembski regularly, and Dembski uses arguments based (poorly) on information theory to try and argue that life processes aren't random.-It seems you're not going to get a reply, even from Dembski! I fully appreciate that abiogenesis is not the line you want to follow, but I do feel that your statement runs the risk of so many anti-design arguments: namely, that they begin at Chapter 2 and try to ignore Chapter 1. The problem for most of us is that we rely on experts to enlighten us. Information theory is a foreign field for me, but I suspect that your original statement, made with authority, might be misleading. Fortunately in this case I can ask the expert, so regardless of Dembski, here's the question:-If I argue (playing God's advocate) that life was designed in such a way that all the necessary information could be effectively transmitted by random procedures, would I have to mathematically justify how to tell the difference between a random transmission and an intelligent one?-Please don't take this question as anything but an attempt to get clarification. (You know what a stickler I am for clarity!) Whatever information theory can tell us about the evolutionary process itself will be of immense value. It's just the impact on the design theory that I'm querying, and so if my doubts are justified, how would you rephrase your original statement?
Turns out Random is Better
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Saturday, February 20, 2010, 19:00 (5388 days ago) @ dhw
dhw, -It turns out that your issue with my thrust is the same issue I have with Dembski's thrust. -He attacks evolution in terms of looking at all the parts we have NOW. He has no more access to abiogenesis (whatever its form) than we do. He glosses over that fact. The real question SHOULD be "How did these processes form in the first place," yet at least in his case, he's more concerned with showing that life is directed, and essentially extrapolating this all the way backwards to abiogenesis. -He attempts to circumvent this by advancing arguments in a proof-like mathematical language to try to demonstrate once and for all that if life has this property 'x,' and this property is essential to life, then it isn't possible to remove or reduce this feature because the system breaks. The issue is a classic one, that has changed time and time again; Dembski argues that there's no way such a system could "evolve" because all the components needed to maintain life have to exist together. He would never call it this, but his Baptist background provides the answer he claims: Life was created at one time, and by God Almighty. -The problem is that he is studying life as it is now and trying to apply that backwards all the way to the beginning, to a time that is presently clouded in mists. -It is also important for me to note that these objections are outside of an attack on some of his blatantly wrong application of Kolmogorov and Shannon information theorems. I won't discuss those here (just not in scope). -The divide between "Chapter 1" and "Chapter 2" is what I'm stating that Dembski doesn't cover either. If he asserts that life is too complex to have evolved, then he needs to provide us with a mechanism... in short, he needs to provide more than the same problem restated. He needs to explain how inorganic and organic components come together in a way that *doesn't* involve a similar process to evolution.-Part of the problem on this debate as that both sides assert that their positions are default. "Because life was either created or evolved, all we need to demonstrate something in the other position that is flawed, thus our position is proven. While mathematically, this is something that can be used to gain bits of data on the mechanism of origins (a separate problem) we don't have the capability to generalize from that data--in a real sense. -Not in the current thought process is that both positions need to not only demonstrate holes in their opponent's line, but to build the case for their own. This is where in my view ID (as in Dembski and Behe) begin to fail because though they poke relentlessly at what they view as an evil scientific paradigm--they aren't actually finding out how their mechanism of creation actually works. Both sides are guilty of gross over-generalization, but at least on the "materialist" side, they are actually working to tease out these mechanisms. In short, ID advocates are bitching about the problem without actually providing a solution. Dembski has even argued that our designer could be space aliens--but "coulds" don't fill the explanation gap. Another way I'd phrase it is that ID advocates seem more interested in attacking materialism than they are in finding out more about how things are working.-With those bits of qualification handled, I'll address your question in how I'd rephrase the question.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Turns out Random is Better
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Saturday, February 20, 2010, 19:50 (5388 days ago) @ dhw
If you assert that life was designed, your overall problem to solve is to demonstrate that randomness simply doesn't exist in the internal process; you have to prove that life *always* goes in the *intelligent* direction. But there's many complexities to this, and I will try to illuminate what I think are the valid points. -1. You have to prove that the underlying system has a distinct goal in mind.-2. You have to prove that their is a large number of possible actions (degrees of freedom) to reach the goal. -This last one bears some explanation. A good test of intelligence would be one where you have many choices to reach a particular goal. If we're going to be objective we have to show that out of hundreds of possibilities, the system we're studying always chooses a path that completes its task, and if we study two similar systems (or specimens) that they display differences in the choice of task. (Intelligence to me means creativity.) If there is only 3 choices, there isn't a great a case for creativity because there isn't enough degrees of freedom to allow an intelligence to be displayed. -3. You have to prove that at NO POINT in the system, can randomness influence the next step of the system. There's a big reason for this.-The degrees of freedom. If you go out to run in the morning, and you have 4 pairs of shoes, you multiply 4 x the number of ways to tie your shoe (2) x the number of shoes per pair (2) times the number of ways to leave your apartment (1). IN this simple example the total degrees of freedom are 4 x 2 x 2 x 1 = 16. In terms of dealing with the system, we can throw out going through the door, because if there's only one way to do something, it doesn't impact anything at all on the system. Now as the situation stands, randomly picking between 4 pairs of shoes is an isolated incident--if you have four pairs of running shoes there's going to be no impact on your run. But if your pool of shoes includes Snow shoes, hiking shoes, running shoes, and lady's heels, there's going to be a huge impact on the rest of your run, especially how far you'll get and how much time it will take. But if you really don't care and will simply use whatever, by rolling a four-sided die, then intelligence essentially leaves the system and the end results will be directly impacted by the random chance taken at step 1--and you will not be able to exclude it from consideration. -But then there's the caveat of creativity. What if you decide to fashion shoes out of layering duct tape around your feet? (OUCH!) This is clearly intelligence of a human kind, would seem entirely random, and would clearly impact everything else in the system. If you can't exclude randomness, you can't rule that a system is acting intelligently.- Once we've done this we identify the two kinds of intelligence that we observe in the natural world: Perceptual and abstract (human) reasoning. These are the only two kinds of intelligence we're aware of, and in order to decide if life requires intelligence, we need to discuss the types of intelligence we know and compare them to decisions we see made in life's processes. If we can determine an analogical intelligence type to life's processes we should be able to put a boundary on how much intelligence is needed.-[EDIT]-A good question to ask ID advocates is how they feel they can detect intelligence when it is quite possibly the most difficult thing that man has ever tried to do?
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Turns out Random is Better
by David Turell , Saturday, February 20, 2010, 22:01 (5388 days ago) @ xeno6696
> If you assert that life was designed, your overall problem to solve is to demonstrate that randomness simply doesn't exist in the internal process; you have to prove that life *always* goes in the *intelligent* direction. But there's many complexities to this, and I will try to illuminate what I think are the valid points. > > 1. You have to prove that the underlying system has a distinct goal in mind. > > 2. You have to prove that their is a large number of possible actions (degrees of freedom) to reach the goal. - But it appears to me that there is randomness in the process, if not in the directionality. In the application of convergence, for example, there are 5-6 different type of eyes, not to talk about different forms of light-sensing spots. What if there is an internal guidance system to direct the evolutionary process toward the goal of H. sapiens? But the system allows random attempts to get there? That gives us a fixed non-random control mechanism at the core of the process, but randomness in seeking the goal. -On the other hand I still don't see how a chance process can get where we are today. The degrees of freedom then reach infinity.
Turns out Random is Better
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, February 21, 2010, 17:38 (5387 days ago) @ David Turell
> > If you assert that life was designed, your overall problem to solve is to demonstrate that randomness simply doesn't exist in the internal process; you have to prove that life *always* goes in the *intelligent* direction. But there's many complexities to this, and I will try to illuminate what I think are the valid points. > > > > 1. You have to prove that the underlying system has a distinct goal in mind. > > > > 2. You have to prove that their is a large number of possible actions (degrees of freedom) to reach the goal. > > > But it appears to me that there is randomness in the process, if not in the directionality. In the application of convergence, for example, there are 5-6 different type of eyes, not to talk about different forms of light-sensing spots. What if there is an internal guidance system to direct the evolutionary process toward the goal of H. sapiens? But the system allows random attempts to get there? That gives us a fixed non-random control mechanism at the core of the process, but randomness in seeking the goal. > > On the other hand I still don't see how a chance process can get where we are today. The degrees of freedom then reach infinity.-No, because it isn't possible for say, an amino acid to spontaneously convert to benzene or some other component; there is a stiff restriction in the degrees of freedom here. Plants also don't spontaneously sprout legs and move. There are restrictions on the degrees of freedom, and they can be enumerated. -All this boils down to, if a design hypothesis is valid, we must be able to differentiate it from chance, which becomes harder and harder to do the more randomness allowed in a given scenario, and the more restriction faced via degrees of freedom, the harder to argue intelligence over chance. (Or chance over intelligence.) The system becomes a tangle of vicious knots that restrict what we can ultimately say about the system under investigation.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Turns out Random is Better
by David Turell , Sunday, February 21, 2010, 20:53 (5387 days ago) @ xeno6696
> > On the other hand I still don't see how a chance process can get where we are today. The degrees of freedom then reach infinity. > > No, because it isn't possible for say, an amino acid to spontaneously convert to benzene or some other component; there is a stiff restriction in the degrees of freedom here. Plants also don't spontaneously sprout legs and move. There are restrictions on the degrees of freedom, and they can be enumerated.-I must apologize, I mispoke in the use of the term 'degrees of freedom'. I'm not a great statistician as you know. The restrictions of degree of freedom really make my point as I view it. Like Gould, I view evolution as a series of contingencies. The more restrictions at each step, the slower the process. This eats up much of the available time for life to appear, or to get from original life to us. > > All this boils down to, if a design hypothesis is valid, we must be able to differentiate it from chance, which becomes harder and harder to do the more randomness allowed in a given scenario, and the more restriction faced via degrees of freedom, the harder to argue intelligence over chance. (Or chance over intelligence.) -I would state just the opposite,. Degrees of freedom limit the probabilities that chance alone can get the evolution process from inorganic material to us. If DNA is designed to push forward, with all the layers of epigenetic help that have turned up, in place, that solves the problem of limited time. Darwin and Einstein thought the universe was eternal. Hubble changed all that. The Darwin theory developed against that background of belief. George's recent post indicating that eukaryotic cells (with nucleus) developed at 3.2 billion years ago, is startling, a tremendous speed in covering that step toward multicellar organisms. I still find the Cambrian Explosian even more startling. Both points support my idea of a driving force behind evolution built into the genome, that is, design.
Turns out Random is Better
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, February 21, 2010, 22:38 (5387 days ago) @ David Turell
David > > All this boils down to, if a design hypothesis is valid, we must be able to differentiate it from chance, which becomes harder and harder to do the more randomness allowed in a given scenario, and the more restriction faced via degrees of freedom, the harder to argue intelligence over chance. (Or chance over intelligence.) > > I would state just the opposite,. Degrees of freedom limit the probabilities that chance alone can get the evolution process from inorganic material to us. If DNA is designed to push forward, with all the layers of epigenetic help that have turned up, in place, that solves the problem of limited time. Darwin and Einstein thought the universe was eternal. Hubble changed all that. The Darwin theory developed against that background of belief. George's recent post indicating that eukaryotic cells (with nucleus) developed at 3.2 billion years ago, is startling, a tremendous speed in covering that step toward multicellar organisms. I still find the Cambrian Explosian even more startling. Both points support my idea of a driving force behind evolution built into the genome, that is, design.-This might be considered semantic, but as you stated that you aren't a "great statistician" I feel I need to make this point. First, constraints make things more likely to happen, not less. In ANY system of probability, the more narrow your set of choices the more likely you are to get one of them to happen. This is a mathematical property of randomness that is independent of any and all systems. When you bring in Bayesian probability as you are, and you say "We are at state A. What are the chances given A that we'll get B?" You ignore all the previous probabilities that lead to A as it is out of scope of the hypothesis of "If A then B." There is also another VERY important distinction that I never made with you here--but it is absolutely important as I've yet to see a formal statistical treatment on the odds that you use all the time. -Statistics works via a NULL hypothesis, whereas in natural science you usually make the hypothesis, "if A, then B" and then conduct experiments to support this claim, in statistics things are much more, ahem, "probable." We'll assert "if A, then NOT B," and assert "if A then B" as our null. If the data looks reasonable under the null hypothesis, then no conclusion is made. I cannot stress this enough. It is accepted purely as a default position and no more statement need be said about its nature of truth/untruth. If it turns out that "if A then NOT B" is TRUE, then and only then we reject the null and search for a new hypothesis. There is no automatic acceptance of alternates (although you will see political scientists do this all the time.) -Going back to Bayes, if "A" is a completely random event, all future probabilities calculated from B onward will exponentially increase the influence of the random event on the whole calculation, and it therefore becomes impossible to separate random from nonrandom causation. Therefore, if you cannot specifically separate the random element and track it through the rest of the system, you cannot make the claim that the entire system "couldn't be a random event." The randomness needs to be evaluated through its entire path through the system. -The two pieces of evidence you provide simply state that evolution can happen incredibly quickly--there is no formal justification to make the kind of conclusion that you make here. You need to do more than state that the current explanation is incomplete, you need to detect the intelligence you claim, otherwise it's a "lazy induction." What other processes in the world do we accept claims with as little direct evidence?
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Turns out Random is Better
by David Turell , Monday, February 22, 2010, 01:08 (5387 days ago) @ xeno6696
> This might be considered semantic, but as you stated that you aren't a "great statistician" I feel I need to make this point. First, constraints make things more likely to happen, not less. I've yet to see a formal statistical treatment on the odds that you use all the time.-For statistics you'd have to read the books I've read or the quotes in my book.- In fact I read all the time and definitions of degrees of freedom include restraint as you say, but an article I just reviewed, from my interest in the Climategate scandal, was entited, "Degrees of Freedom at Copenhagan", and explained why the restraints made it fail. So I am continue to be confused by advanced mathematical terms.- > > The two pieces of evidence you provide simply state that evolution can happen incredibly quickly--there is no formal justification to make the kind of conclusion that you make here. You need to do more than state that the current explanation is incomplete, you need to detect the intelligence you claim, otherwise it's a "lazy induction." What other processes in the world do we accept claims with as little direct evidence?-The argument about chance is time vs. chance. Chance stumbles along slowly. Is there anough time to have all the mutations and other layers of the genome create what we now see in the tme allotted? My argument is: were did that speed come from, just as the Cambrian raises the same issue in spades?-As for proving the 'intelligence' behind all this, God is concealed. This is where the 'leap of faith' comes from. There will never be the proof you want. Only Adler's approach 'by a preponderance of evidence', which, by the intelligence concealment, means it is a positive proof that chance can't work in the time allotted and therefore, negatively, since design is the only other choice, there must be an intelligence doing its job somewhere. I think that won't satisfy you, and I don't think you will ever satisfy yourself. There will never be hard proof. I've accepted that as did Adler.
Turns out Random is Better
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Monday, February 22, 2010, 22:59 (5386 days ago) @ David Turell
> > This might be considered semantic, but as you stated that you aren't a "great statistician" I feel I need to make this point. First, constraints make things more likely to happen, not less. I've yet to see a formal statistical treatment on the odds that you use all the time. > > For statistics you'd have to read the books I've read or the quotes in my book. > > In fact I read all the time and definitions of degrees of freedom include restraint as you say, but an article I just reviewed, from my interest in the Climategate scandal, was entited, "Degrees of Freedom at Copenhagan", and explained why the restraints made it fail. So I am continue to be confused by advanced mathematical terms. > -I would have to read the formals--as you can expect, the general methods of statistics allow you to play logic games to your heart's content. There's an unlimited number of ways to phrase a question in order to match that "if A then NOT B" and that's where I suspect the constraints come into play with the climate issue. -> > > > > The two pieces of evidence you provide simply state that evolution can happen incredibly quickly--there is no formal justification to make the kind of conclusion that you make here. You need to do more than state that the current explanation is incomplete, you need to detect the intelligence you claim, otherwise it's a "lazy induction." What other processes in the world do we accept claims with as little direct evidence? > > The argument about chance is time vs. chance. Chance stumbles along slowly. Is there anough time to have all the mutations and other layers of the genome create what we now see in the tme allotted? My argument is: were did that speed come from, just as the Cambrian raises the same issue in spades? > -If chance "stumbles along slowly" then why do cryptographers use it to solve some problems in a more rapid manner? Why does a purely random selection of three different weak signals result in better reception? And if you learn more about mathematical chaos theory, you also learn that some things simply *appear* random. Maybe its just the different paths we have, but I don't see this as a black/white issue as you appear to. That recent finding in network coding is going to reap big rewards and I think that it can be applied to biological information transfer as well. - > As for proving the 'intelligence' behind all this, God is concealed. -A euphemism for "God works in mysterious ways..."-A better question is to ask you how you know God is concealed? Where is the evidence of this? Where did you get this information? -This is where the 'leap of faith' comes from. There will never be the proof you want. Only Adler's approach 'by a preponderance of evidence', which, by the intelligence concealment, means it is a positive proof that chance can't work in the time allotted and therefore, negatively, since design is the only other choice, there must be an intelligence doing its job somewhere. I think that won't satisfy you, and I don't think you will ever satisfy yourself. There will never be hard proof. I've accepted that as did Adler.-We're getting into theological hot water here. Why hide creation? Especially if God had no idea where things were going to take it like you or dhw has suggested. The only reason to hide something is if you have a plan and don't want someone to find out. I'd find it more likely that creation got away from him. -I've pieced together Adler's argument from how he reasoned in "The Difference..." and it isn't a logical conclusion to draw; if God has a physical component--and you're directly suggesting this--then you need to demonstrate it, plain and simple, or it isn't acceptable to believe it. I will reiterate that there is no other phenomenon in existence that we use this method of argument for, it directly attempts to use empiricism to back up a non-empirical claim. Adler comes from the Aristotelian line of thinking that it is enough to be able to reason about a phenomenon, that empiricism is optional. -If God influences the world still, there will be evidence of it. Anything that happens in our physical world is detectable, and if God exists and interacts--there WILL be direct evidence for it. Otherwise it's more likely that if a theism exists it'll be of my old Deist type.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Turns out Random is Better
by David Turell , Tuesday, February 23, 2010, 01:11 (5386 days ago) @ xeno6696
> you need to detect the intelligence you claim, otherwise it's a "lazy induction." What other processes in the world do we accept claims with as little direct evidence? -I'm not inducting anything. Except for Abraham and the burning bush, God doesn't appear much. But since I don't except the fairy tales in the Bible, I know we won't find the bush's ashes anywhere. I don't need to do what you need to do. I'm very content with my position. God is concealed, and He wants it that way. You need absolute proof, I don't. > > > > The argument about chance is time vs. chance. Chance stumbles along slowly. Is there anough time to have all the mutations and other layers of the genome create what we now see in the tme allotted? My argument is: were did that speed come from, just as the Cambrian raises the same issue in spades? > > > > If chance "stumbles along slowly" then why do cryptographers use it to solve some problems in a more rapid manner?-Again a simplistic answer that doesn't explain the speed of the Cambrian Explosion. Cryptographers can use huge computers and use some approaches at random and de-code or en-code at will.- > > And if you learn more about mathematical chaos theory, you also learn that some things simply *appear* random. -I read a couple books on Chaos and I know your point. Butterfly effect, fractal formulas, etc., but chance is by definition at random, as I view it.- > > That recent finding in network coding is going to reap big rewards and I think that it can be applied to biological information transfer as well. -Which again raises the question: Where did the information in DNA/RNA come from. Since we find it in the simplest organisms it had to be there with the first life. > > > > As for proving the 'intelligence' behind all this, God is concealed. > > A euphemism for "God works in mysterious ways..."-That is your interpretation, not mine. As far as I am concerned and comfortable with, He is concealed. > > A better question is to ask you how you know God is concealed? Where is the evidence of this? Where did you get this information? > > This is where the 'leap of faith' comes from. There will never be the proof you want. Only Adler's approach 'by a preponderance of evidence', which, by the intelligence concealment, means it is a positive proof that chance can't work in the time allotted and therefore, negatively, since design is the only other choice, there must be an intelligence doing its job somewhere. I think that won't satisfy you, and I don't think you will ever satisfy yourself. There will never be hard proof. I've accepted that as did Adler. > > We're getting into theological hot water here. Why hide creation? Especially if God had no idea where things were going to take it like you or dhw has suggested. The only reason to hide something is if you have a plan and don't want someone to find out. I'd find it more likely that creation got away from him. -God is not creation. He is God. Creation was the big Bang. I don't understand the question. > > I've pieced together Adler's argument from how he reasoned in "The Difference..." and it isn't a logical conclusion to draw; if God has a physical component--and you're directly suggesting this--then you need to demonstrate it, plain and simple, or it isn't acceptable to believe it. -It is acceptable for me to believe it. I'm content to state that He is a universal intelligence at a quantum level of reality, which we can't get to anyway. > > If God influences the world still, there will be evidence of it. Anything that happens in our physical world is detectable, and if God exists and interacts--there WILL be direct evidence for it. Otherwise it's more likely that if a theism exists it'll be of my old Deist type.-Can you detect my thoughts? They happen in MY physical world, but hidden from YOUR physical world.
Turns out Random is Better
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Tuesday, February 23, 2010, 03:24 (5386 days ago) @ David Turell
> > you need to detect the intelligence you claim, otherwise it's a "lazy induction." What other processes in the world do we accept claims with as little direct evidence? > > I'm not inducting anything. Except for Abraham and the burning bush, God doesn't appear much. But since I don't except the fairy tales in the Bible, I know we won't find the bush's ashes anywhere. I don't need to do what you need to do. I'm very content with my position. God is concealed, and He wants it that way. You need absolute proof, I don't. > > > > > > The argument about chance is time vs. chance. Chance stumbles along slowly. Is there anough time to have all the mutations and other layers of the genome create what we now see in the tme allotted? My argument is: were did that speed come from, just as the Cambrian raises the same issue in spades? > > > > > > > If chance "stumbles along slowly" then why do cryptographers use it to solve some problems in a more rapid manner? > > Again a simplistic answer that doesn't explain the speed of the Cambrian Explosion. Cryptographers can use huge computers and use some approaches at random and de-code or en-code at will. > -Touche, but unanswered is the challenge to the increase of information via a random process. -> > > > > And if you learn more about mathematical chaos theory, you also learn that some things simply *appear* random. > > I read a couple books on Chaos and I know your point. Butterfly effect, fractal formulas, etc., but chance is by definition at random, as I view it. > > > > > > That recent finding in network coding is going to reap big rewards and I think that it can be applied to biological information transfer as well. > > Which again raises the question: Where did the information in DNA/RNA come from. Since we find it in the simplest organisms it had to be there with the first life. > > -But we know the origins question lies in the middle ground between organic and biochem. However it arose. -> > > > > As for proving the 'intelligence' behind all this, God is concealed. > > > > A euphemism for "God works in mysterious ways..." > > That is your interpretation, not mine. As far as I am concerned and comfortable with, He is concealed. > > -On who's authority and knowledge? What makes your claim stronger and better than your Hasidic counterparts, when it is ultimately based on a "lack" of evidence? And don't give me the cop out that its your personal belief only, we've advanced it into public scrutiny at this point. I want to hear your answer on this. How is your claim to theistic knowledge any superior?-> > A better question is to ask you how you know God is concealed? Where is the evidence of this? Where did you get this information? > > -> God is not creation. He is God. Creation was the big Bang. I don't understand the question. > > -Again, on who's authority? As for the deeper question, if you assert that God influences life, then you have to demonstrate the physical nature of God, plain and simple. -> > I've pieced together Adler's argument from how he reasoned in "The Difference..." and it isn't a logical conclusion to draw; if God has a physical component--and you're directly suggesting this--then you need to demonstrate it, plain and simple, or it isn't acceptable to believe it. > > It is acceptable for me to believe it. I'm content to state that He is a universal intelligence at a quantum level of reality, which we can't get to anyway. > > -On a personal level, believing in Leprechauns is just as fair. But this is the realm of public discourse: Why should I be convinced? I've gotten more of a "divine influence" while reading about my ancestors' gods, why is yours any better? -> > If God influences the world still, there will be evidence of it. Anything that happens in our physical world is detectable, and if God exists and interacts--there WILL be direct evidence for it. Otherwise it's more likely that if a theism exists it'll be of my old Deist type. > > Can you detect my thoughts? They happen in MY physical world, but hidden from YOUR physical world.-You should rephrase that as "Can I decode your thoughts?" Thoughts can be detected, we just don't understand the coding principle behind it. The physical component is what can be detected on PET scans. I won't go so far as to say that the story ends there, but I'd like to think so. If God influences the world we should be able to trace a physical phenomenon just like PET scans. In my estimation this has never been done, so either God doesn't influence the world or...
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Turns out Random is Better
by David Turell , Tuesday, February 23, 2010, 21:55 (5385 days ago) @ xeno6696
edited by unknown, Tuesday, February 23, 2010, 22:16
> > Which again raises the question: Where did the information in DNA/RNA come from. Since we find it in the simplest organisms it had to be there with the first life. > > > > > But we know the origins question lies in the middle ground between organic and biochem. However it arose.-Information in code requires an underlying code language to develop first, which then can be encoded or decoded. Code must be applied to the language which already exists. You haven't answered how that might work in the interval between organic and biochemical. I have no answer and think the question is unanswerable, unless language comes first and coding second. And then the issue of mistake correction. Evolution goes nowhere if trranslation is 99% correct. It needs to be 99.9999% or better. Did the correction modules exist from the moment early translation began? And how about the epigenetic rapid-change modules. Were they present in the earliest organisms at 3.5 bya when the Earth was still cooling, asteroids were still bombarding and volcanic activity was still in violent eruptions? All of the genome suite must be present or it won't work. > As far as I am concerned and comfortable with, He is concealed. > > > > > On who's authority and knowledge? What makes your claim stronger and better than your Hasidic counterparts, -I'm so far from a Hasid in thinking. My sideburns could never curl!
) - > > > A better question is to ask you how you know God is concealed? Where is the evidence of this? Where did you get this information? -My answer is no one has found Him far and proved it by any means, epecially the ones you demand. The only proof as I think about it is a negative proof: design is the only way that can work in the finite time alloted, given the two choices of random chance or design. > > I'm content to state that He is a universal intelligence at a quantum level of reality, which we can't get to anyway. > > On a personal level, believing in Leprechauns is just as fair.- We know Leprechauns don't exist in any form, except imagination. I have given you reasons why I think design is the only way to go in understanding evolution. > > You should rephrase that as "Can I decode your thoughts?" Thoughts can be detected, we just don't understand the coding principle behind it. In my estimation this has never been done, so either God doesn't influence the world or...-You are correct, 'decode' is a better way of stating my point. PET scans will never find God any more than further scans will ever interpret thought, only detect it. -I don't know of anyone who has declared that God, if He exists, is detectable by any method, other than by disproving any other source of what we observe in reality.
Turns out Random is Better
MATT: Those that would assert life is designed now have to mathematically justify how they would tell the difference between a random transmission and an intelligent one.-DHW: If I argue (playing God's advocate) that life was designed in such a way that all the necessary information could be effectively transmitted by random procedures, would I have to mathematically justify how to tell the difference between a random transmission and an intelligent one? [...] If my doubts are justified, how would you rephrase your original statement?-You have once again launched an attack on Dembski, prefaced by the honest acknowledgement that my objection to your argument is the same as your own to Dembski's ... namely, that both arguments begin at Chapter 2 of life. But Dembski is not my point of focus. I'm trying to find out if your own thesis stands up to analysis-Although I know you're not committed to either side, your attack is specifically on the design argument, and from my neutral perspective it's based on an unnecessary presupposition: "You have to prove that the underlying system has a distinct goal in mind." Why? If we begin at the beginning, which is where one should always begin, is it not conceivable that a designer created a mechanism simply with a view to seeing where it would lead? You like analogies, and so mine would be the writer or artist beginning with an idea, and then allowing it to develop its own impetus. Like the writer/artist, a designer might occasionally step in to direct the flow, but it would nevertheless be a constant process of discovery. No distinct goal. Just see where it leads. This removes the need for your second and third points (degrees of freedom to reach the goal, the exclusion of randomness). -It seems to me that you're attacking one particular concept of design ... namely, that the designer knew from the start what he was aiming at. Personally, I much prefer the idea that God learns as he goes along. If I were a believer, this would be the sort of design I would envisage, partly because God would be bored stiff knowing the outcome of his experiment, and partly because it would explain the enormous variety of life that preceded our own form. If we were the "goal", why did he bother with all those now extinct species?-You complain that "ID advocates are bitching about the problem without actually providing a solution", whereas at least materialists "are actually working to tease out these mechanisms". Scientific research into the origin of life should not have anything to do with materialism v. religion, and no matter what scientists eventually discover, it will still be open to interpretation: theists will say they have uncovered how God did it, and atheists will say they've discovered how chance did it. Only if scientists were able to prove through experiments that the components really could assemble themselves spontaneously (though "experiments" and "spontaneity" sound like a contradiction in terms), would materialists have a positive case. Otherwise, it's one faith versus another. -It seems to me that my proposal removes the obligation asserted by your original statement. I had asked you how you would rephrase it, but you didn't quite get round to that! For my scenario I would suggest: "Those who would assert that life was designed with a particular goal right from the outset now have to mathematically justify how they would tell the difference between a random transmission and an intelligent one." However, David has offered you a different scenario which allows for an initial goal as well as a degree of randomness. That's a lot more complicated than my suggestion, and at least for the time being I'll leave you two to slug it out!
Turns out Random is Better
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, February 21, 2010, 18:07 (5387 days ago) @ dhw
dhw, > ... it's based on an unnecessary presupposition: "You have to prove that the underlying system has a distinct goal in mind." Why? ... > -While the artistic scenario might be possible--we are limited to non-subjective tools here. Dembski asserts that a goal IS in mind, and most ID advocates also claim a teleology based on the evidence that life seems to "move upwards" in terms of complexity. And some ID advocates claim that God is actively working on his creation as we move forward. This means that to prove their case, they need to prove a goal exists. -The ultimate goal for ID is to demonstrate that intelligence is *necessary* for life to take the forms it has, that without intelligence nothing that we see would be possible. So therefore, assuming that intelligence is necessary, one must then detect intelligence, as at least in my case I cannot accept a mere observation that life is complex and use a lazy induction to generalize the claim. The onus is on the ID position to demonstrate exactly what kind of intelligence is needed, because I will argue that biochemical systems at best use only a perceptual intelligence, and if THAT is the only kind of intelligence needed for basic life processes, then what exactly does it say about the intelligence of God?-An often repeated argument that you use a form of, is that if it takes "Nobel-winning" intellect to deduce the mechanisms of life, then it must have taken a similar intellect to have manufactured the mechanism. There are many reasons I oppose this argument, but for the one related to this discussion--It matters not that water is made of hydrogen and oxygen for it to be useful, and it certainly requires no intelligence to use it. And it requires no intelligence to make it--it's made and destroyed regularly on the moon through what is essentially a mechanical interaction that requires no intelligence. (Going back to an old article I posted here.) -> It seems to me that you're attacking one particular concept of design ... namely, that the designer knew from the start what he was aiming at. Personally, I much prefer the idea that God learns as he goes along. If I were a believer, this would be the sort of design I would envisage, partly because God would be bored stiff knowing the outcome of his experiment, and partly because it would explain the enormous variety of life that preceded our own form. If we were the "goal", why did he bother with all those now extinct species? > -When I start with an idea to solve a programming problem, I will often (when not formally designing) try several ideas and methods, more or less settling on the one that best achieves my goal. Maybe the creator's goal was to create an intelligent species and continuously ran into roadblocks in those "dead end" creatures. Mammals had a unique brain structure compared to all other animals, perhaps it took that long just to find the "right" branch to start creating his goal of humans. -> ...would materialists have a positive case. Otherwise, it's one faith versus another. > -Science is based on a very high degree upon materialism. Materialism is often used synonymously for scientific naturalism, and vice-versa. If you're going to prove a case via science, you have to accept some of the materialist assumptions or you can't really trust science. I used to think that you could draw a line between Materialism and naturalism, but we humans have made these terms so synonymous that I don't know what specifically to use anymore. -My complaint is really (surprise) of a practical nature. ID advocates haven't done much to further any techniques or systems to help tease out intelligence from nature. From a researcher's perspective it has been a dead-end. (Like String Theory.) It's a philosophical interpretation of dubious utility. -> ... "Those who would assert that life was designed with a particular goal right from the outset now have to mathematically justify how they would tell the difference between a random transmission and an intelligent one." ...-I'd accept that rephrasing, but how to phrase David's in a form that is actually useful from a research perspective I shall leave to him!
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Turns out Random is Better
MATT: Dembski asserts that a goal IS in mind, and most ID advocates also claim a teleology [...].-For the discussion going on between you and me, I really think you should forget about Dembski, along with the other ID teleologists. I was only challenging statements you made about design: i.e. the obligation to distinguish between a random transmission and an intelligent one, and to prove that the underlying system has a distinct goal. Since you're prepared to accept my rephrasing of your original statement, you and I can put that issue to bed.-MATT: An often repeated argument that you use a form of, is that if it takes a 'Nobel-winning' intellect to deduce the mechanisms of life, then it must have taken a similar intellect to have manufactured the mechanism.-The analogy you offer is water (and lightning in your discussion with David). You might as well compare the call of the cuckoo to Beethoven's 9th. We're talking here of a mechanism which at one and the same time is animate, reproduces itself, is potentially capable of adaptation and innovation, and has led from inanimate matter to us. That's my amateur way of putting it. David has given you a more scientific response. The origin of life, heredity and evolution in our experience is unique, still unfathomed, maybe even unfathomable, and there is no analogy to its mechanisms. However, in your discussions with me, you need to keep in mind that I can only deal in negatives: for reasons you already know, my agnosticism consists in not believing in the chance creation of life, and not believing in a designer. "Must have..." is therefore too conclusive for me. "We can't discount..." is closer to my way of thinking.-MATT: Science is based on a very high degree upon materialism. [...] If you're going to prove a case via science, you have to accept some of the materialist assumptions or you can't really trust science.-Agreed, if you're talking about technology, medicine, architecture, and the material universe as we know it. I don't think theists would disagree either. But not all cases can necessarily be proven by science, and until they are, materialist assumptions can lead to prejudgement. In relation to the origin of life, David says "there will never be the proof you want", and acknowledges the leap of faith necessary from disbelief in chance to belief in a designer. By the same token, I would argue that until materialists provide proof, they too must take a leap of faith from disbelief in a designer to belief in the creative power of chance. But I have never yet met an atheist who acknowledges this. -MATT: My complaint is really (surprise) of a practical nature. [...] From a researcher's perspective it [ID] has been a dead end. As I said earlier, I don't see why an ID-er shouldn't emulate the great religious scientists of the past in investigating origins and processes in order to illuminate the way God may have put things together. You don't have to be an atheist to study nature. But if scientists of any persuasion manipulate their findings to fit their theories, then they're not true scientists, and they deserve to come to a sticky end as well as a dead one.
Turns out Random is Better
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, February 24, 2010, 16:06 (5385 days ago) @ dhw
dhw, didn't realize I hadn't answered this.-Throwing out teleological notions of a creator simplifies the number of subjective criteria, but leaves me in the position I hate being: The one in which I can find no purchase. I don't know how to argue for or against a creator in this line of thought. -Assumption 1: God has no goal for his creation. Is this assumption valid? One would beg the question on creating something with NO goal in mind, as even a painter has the goal of putting paint on a canvas.-Returning to the question you wanted me to return to, why would you have to mathematically justify randomness vs. intelligence, the fact remains that at the heart of this line is that life is created by an intelligent entity. If you're making a claim of randomness, you need to be able to demonstrate that the random pattern is truly random or that the creation of life absolutely requires intelligence. -Put into other words, if you're going to draw the line and say "Random vs. Designed" you need to have the means to demonstrate that one or the other is correct. If it's designed, its a game of detecting intelligence--the existence of self-assembling molecules itself isn't evidence--isn't far enough. If it's random, then we need to be able to truly quantify the randomness--which is a job for a mathematician. -In computer science there's big money to be had in creating a truly random random-number generator. What about the possibility that it requires an insane amount of intelligence to create a truly random process? I could build a similar argument to David's based on the knowledge that it takes intelligence to build something that's fully random.-If God is concealed from us, and doesn't want us to find it, what better way than to devise a mechanism for randomness? One that's built into the very fabric of the cosmos? This scenario I think is just as likely as David's creator. In this light random vs. designed are the same, and the division you seek is a false dilemma.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Turns out Random is Better
MATT: Throwing out teleological notions of a creator simplifies the number of objective criteria, but leaves me in the position I hate being: The one in which I can find no purchase. I don't know how to argue for or against a creator in this line of thought.-I think we have different starting-points, and different demands. You want something clear, testable, determinate, absolute, functional, quantifiable. Perhaps that is the hallmark of the mathematical brain. Your very next point illustrates the differences between us:-Assumption 1: God has no goal for his creation. Is this assumption valid?-"Assumption" doesn't come into my approach. Nor does your question. We're not dealing here with evidence or facts or validity, because teleology is only the second stage of our argument, and has nothing to do with "for or against a creator". The first stage is: does God exist? The second stage is: if he exists, what is his nature? That is when we can start speculating ... but not making assumptions or seeking validity ... about teleology. IF God exists, I speculate on what image fits in best with the only world we know. Well, one possibility is the artist who sets out with no particular goal. You say: "even a painter has the goal of putting paint on canvas". That would be the equivalent of God mixing the chemicals in order to create life. But like many artists, he might start out with a blob and then see how his blob develops. He might. I don't assume that he does. I would find that more convincing than the image of God determined to create man but working his way through millions of other creatures first. Maybe it's a mixed process ... God fiddling around with all kinds of life before he's able to get the form he's after. These are all speculations on which you don't need to get a purchase, because they're not what decides whether God exists or not. That for me is a separate subject. -This brings us to your next line of approach, which I think concerns the existence (not the nature) of God: "If you're making a claim of randomness, you need to be able to demonstrate that the random pattern is truly random or that the creation of life absolutely requires intelligence." You sometimes confuse David's arguments with mine! I make no claims, and I don't need to be able to demonstrate anything. But I'm going to stick up for David here, because if I've understood his arguments correctly, he doesn't believe one can reach the stage of "truly" or "absolutely" which you demand. One can only go so far, and the rest is faith, which he openly acknowledges. You say we need to "quantify the randomness ... which is a job for a mathematician", but unless you know precisely what led to life, including the conditions at the time, you can't do this. You are therefore compelled either to suspend your judgement (agnosticism) or take the leap of faith (design v. chance).-You write: "If God is concealed from us, and doesn't want us to find it, what better way than to devise a mechanism for randomness?" I have never mentioned concealment ... again that's David's argument ... but for me the idea works when applied to evolution, though consciousness remains a problem. Only your conclusion goes too far for me: "In this light random vs. designed are the same, and the division you seek is a false dilemma." Again you seem to me to be merging abiogenesis and evolution, and are too preoccupied with a need for absoluteness all the way through the process. From my standpoint, the division only applies to the mechanism. Do I believe it assembled itself by random processes, or do I believe that it was designed? To both questions my answer is no. I'm an agnostic. Do I believe that once the mechanism existed, it operated/operates at random? My personal preference here would be to say it's a mixture. Randomness is built into the general system (e.g. environmental changes, innovation through chance mutations) but the mechanism allows for adaptation and improvement, which brings in the non-random process of natural selection. What we see after life has started is exactly the same process whether it's been designed or not, so the only point at issue is whether we think the mechanism which allows for heredity, adaptation and improvement could have ORIGINATED by chance. I would argue that here the dilemma is real, and yet again that brings us back to the limits of our credulity, i.e. to personal faith in chance or in a designer.
Turns out Random is Better
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Thursday, February 25, 2010, 00:49 (5384 days ago) @ dhw
dhw,-I think maybe the way I structure my thought processes gets in your way here... I'm fully willing to start with a blank slate, but with any endeavor, you have to start with some assumptions. All forms of knowledge-gathering make assumptions (or assert axioms). In dealing with the creator, my view is that it's clear that he has a physical form or not, and anything and everything that we can do hinges upon that. I don't remember the philosopher, but he said that the way we ask the question frames our answer. To me this means constantly finding new ways to ask the same question, in order to gather different perspectives. You've referred to me as wearing "hats" before, maybe this one we should call my "Alice Hat." (As in jumping down different rabbit holes.) -> This brings us to your next line of approach, which I think concerns the existence (not the nature) of God: "If you're making a claim of randomness, you need to be able to demonstrate that the random pattern is truly random or that the creation of life absolutely requires intelligence." You sometimes confuse David's arguments with mine! I make no claims, and I don't need to be able to demonstrate anything. But I'm going to stick up for David here, because if I've understood his arguments correctly, he doesn't believe one can reach the stage of "truly" or "absolutely" which you demand. One can only go so far, and the rest is faith, which he openly acknowledges. You say we need to "quantify the randomness ... which is a job for a mathematician", but unless you know precisely what led to life, including the conditions at the time, you can't do this. You are therefore compelled either to suspend your judgement (agnosticism) or take the leap of faith (design v. chance). > -I think I just repeated a nearly similar response to David today...-This might help you. I know you're giving the appellation of "absolute" to my search, perhaps a better word that I should have used would be "beyond a reasonable doubt." We are, after all, still going to be talking about interpretations. -> ...My personal preference here would be to say it's a mixture. Randomness is built into the general system (e.g. environmental changes, innovation through chance mutations) but the mechanism allows for adaptation and improvement, which brings in the non-random process of natural selection. What we see after life has started is exactly the same process whether it's been designed or not, so the only point at issue is whether we think the mechanism which allows for heredity, adaptation and improvement could have ORIGINATED by chance. I would argue that here the dilemma is real, and yet again that brings us back to the limits of our credulity, i.e. to personal faith in chance or in a designer.-The only issue I have is that as far as I've seen on the website, the two adversaries are chance v. design, meaning that a distinct line has been drawn. Are we talking degrees or kind? Obviously randomness exists, but I've criticized many times that I think "chance" is a bit of a catch-all strawman, because even on THAT end of the spectrum, there's bits of determinism involved. My criticism still stands that I think in terms of causation, we don't quite know enough to forcefully declare the question is that of a binary nature.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Turns out Random is Better
by David Turell , Sunday, February 21, 2010, 19:44 (5387 days ago) @ dhw
> Only if scientists were able to prove through experiments that the components really could assemble themselves spontaneously (though "experiments" and "spontaneity" sound like a contradiction in terms), would materialists have a positive case. Otherwise, it's one faith versus another. - Even if scientists develop a way to produce life directly from inorganic material, it does not prove that this is the way it originally happened. It may be a parallel method. It only proves that human intelligence can produce life.-Look at this article. Science has advanced to the point where a group of RNAzymes can feed and reproduce with some changes. Whether or not those changes are beneficial is not being tested against a challenge. Natural selection can only test life, not pre-life chemicals.-http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/3325/life-evolution-a-test-tube - Dr. Robert Shapiro, a self-declared agnostic and opponent of ID theories, wrote the following in his book Planetary Dreams (page 102) in 1999 regarding the future engineering of self sustained RNA systems:-"When that event takes place, the media probably will announce it as the demonstration of a crucial step in the origin of life. I would agree with one modification. The concept that the scientists are illustrating is one of Intelligent Design. No better term can be applied to a quest in which chemists are attempting to prepare a living system in the laboratory, using all the ingenuity and technical resources at their disposal...the search for ribozymes invokes the same feeling of achievement and beauty in me that I get when I see a skilled golfer playing a difficult course at well under par. To imagine that related events could take place on their own appears as likely as the idea that the golf ball could play its own way around the course without the golfer."- On 1/26/2010, Dr. Shapiro posted the following comment to an article by Carl Zimmer on the SCIENCE Magazine website under the heading "Origins, a history of begnnings". "Despite the clarity of his prose, Carl Zimmer has fallen into a trap that has impeded progress in the origin of life field for the last half century. He has confused the process of total organic synthesis with the abiotic chemical reactions that may have taken place on the early Earth. Total synthesis involves the preparation by skilled chemists in laboratories of substances that we isolate from biology. The late Nobel Laureate Robert Burns Woodward was a master of this endeavor... On the early earth, however, there were neither chemists nor laboratories. No driving force has been demonstrated that would direct complex mixtures of organic chemicals of modest size to assemble themselves into a functional RNA. According to Gerald Joyce and the late Leslie Orgel, such an event would constitute a near miracle..." (Taken from Uncomon Descent, 2/21/10)- I certainly agree. What we are seeing in the work done on RNAzymes is intelligence at work, human intelligence. It is an enormous jump from inorganic molecules, lying around, to a feedback mechanism supplying energy to organic compounds (amino acids) that can then receive the energy to combine in a non-enzyme world, to the appearance of simple enzymes, to finally some RNAzyme. Again, the probabilities against this are enormous, looking to chance as the only mechanism.
Turns out Random is Better
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, February 21, 2010, 22:51 (5387 days ago) @ David Turell
> > Only if scientists were able to prove through experiments that the components really could assemble themselves spontaneously (though "experiments" and "spontaneity" sound like a contradiction in terms), would materialists have a positive case. Otherwise, it's one faith versus another. > > > Even if scientists develop a way to produce life directly from inorganic material, it does not prove that this is the way it originally happened. It may be a parallel method. It only proves that human intelligence can produce life. > -So in other words, even if they manage to demonstrate that such systems were around some 4 billion years ago, it still couldn't be chance? I would say that at some point we'd have to let intelligence go as a cause. At what point would that be David, at what point would you be willing to set aside a designer? -It took intelligence and great ingenuity for man to be able to create lightning, but does that still mean that lightning requires a mind to happen naturally?
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Turns out Random is Better
by David Turell , Monday, February 22, 2010, 00:45 (5387 days ago) @ xeno6696
> > > Only if scientists were able to prove through experiments that the components really could assemble themselves spontaneously (though "experiments" and "spontaneity" sound like a contradiction in terms), would materialists have a positive case. Otherwise, it's one faith versus another. > > > > > > Even if scientists develop a way to produce life directly from inorganic material, it does not prove that this is the way it originally happened. It may be a parallel method. It only proves that human intelligence can produce life. > > > > So in other words, even if they manage to demonstrate that such systems were around some 4 billion years ago, it still couldn't be chance? I would say that at some point we'd have to let intelligence go as a cause. At what point would that be David, at what point would you be willing to set aside a designer?-I'd have to see a preponderance of proof that chance can accomplish it. > > It took intelligence and great ingenuity for man to be able to create lightning, but does that still mean that lightning requires a mind to happen naturally?-Lightning is simple stuff. Bad example.-Again, you misunderstand the point: we weren't there when life began. We can never relive it. Any production of life from inorganic matter by human intelligence is a method invented by human intelligence. It may not match the original method at all, or it might, but we can never know if it does. All that will be proven is intelligence, given the material at hand can create living matter. And remember starting with building blocks from living matter does not count. Currently science is working backward, the only way it can, but there are no guideposts. Did you read the quote I gave from Shapiro? He thinks most scientists in the field are on the worng track.
Turns out Random is Better
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Monday, February 22, 2010, 23:05 (5386 days ago) @ David Turell
> > > > Only if scientists were able to prove through experiments that the components really could assemble themselves spontaneously (though "experiments" and "spontaneity" sound like a contradiction in terms), would materialists have a positive case. Otherwise, it's one faith versus another. > > > > > > > > > Even if scientists develop a way to produce life directly from inorganic material, it does not prove that this is the way it originally happened. It may be a parallel method. It only proves that human intelligence can produce life. > > > > > > > So in other words, even if they manage to demonstrate that such systems were around some 4 billion years ago, it still couldn't be chance? I would say that at some point we'd have to let intelligence go as a cause. At what point would that be David, at what point would you be willing to set aside a designer? > > I'd have to see a preponderance of proof that chance can accomplish it. > > > > It took intelligence and great ingenuity for man to be able to create lightning, but does that still mean that lightning requires a mind to happen naturally? > > Lightning is simple stuff. Bad example. > > Again, you misunderstand the point: we weren't there when life began. We can never relive it. Any production of life from inorganic matter by human intelligence is a method invented by human intelligence. It may not match the original method at all, or it might, but we can never know if it does. All that will be proven is intelligence, given the material at hand can create living matter. And remember starting with building blocks from living matter does not count. Currently science is working backward, the only way it can, but there are no guideposts. Did you read the quote I gave from Shapiro? He thinks most scientists in the field are on the worng track.-And his quote underlines the fact that it is a damn shame that it isn't a question that attracts more brilliant minds, whether or not it recreates the process or not.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"