DNA and Information

[TRoutMac]

Troutmac, I have been sort of following this discussion off and on. It is interesting. I don't have an ax to grind in this debate one way or another but, I'd like to ask you this.

 

I appreciate your question.

 

It appears to me that the designs brought about as a result of evolution do appear to have some rhyme and reason to them.

 

With all due respect (as your reply was certainly respectful) I'm sure you must realize that I disagree with the premise here… I reject the idea that any designs were brought about as a result of evolution, unless you're limiting "evolution" to random "horizontal" genetic variation or "micro-evolution"– but even then I'd have to point out that micro-evolution simply tweeks existing designs, so even it cannot account for the presence of the designs in the first place.

 

But, couldn't the "intelligence" that we ascribe to those designs be intrinsic and natural?

 

Intelligence is exactly what it means: Intelligence. That is, the ability and capacity to obtain knowledge and utilize and apply that knowledge to solve problems. Intelligence is abstract and intangible, which makes it difficult to discuss. This reminds me of an interesting analogy I once heard…

 

Think of a computer with an empty hard drive. No operating system. There's no way to start up the computer without the operating system software. And yet, that system software is intangible. It has no "mass". Our bodies are the hardware, including our brains, and yet there's something intangible there… like an operating system. Without it, we're not here. In short, the "real you" is software, not hardware.

 

As you have pointed out, cells have evolved, developed, however we want to phrase it, into very complex things.

 

Again, respectfully… I have never stated that cells evolved or developed into very complex things. Although Darwin and his contemporaries believed the cell was very, very simple, this conclusion was due to a lack of evidence, which in turn was due to a lack of technology. They had no way to look into a cell.

 

In addition, the structure of a single cell is such that it could not have developed from something more simple. A single cell is already as simple as it could be and still function. It needs every part it has in order to survive… a cell is "irreducibly complex"… you cannot simplify it further. A single cell had to arise just as we see them today.

 

They possess and seemingly process information. It is not difficult for me to imagine that our intelligence is a natural progression of evolution. Of course, I want to see this proved and demostrated scientifically.

 

Nothing "seemingly" about it. Process information they do. It would seem more reasonable that intelligence could have "evolved" if we could directly observe and account for its existence. But in fact, although we "know" with certainty that intelligence exists, no one has ever seen it, touched it, tasted it, smelled it or heard it. We can only observe the effects of intelligence, the products of intelligence. This gives intelligence even at the human level a somewhat "supernatural" flavor. If we cannot observe intelligence directly, then how can we possibly account for its existence?

 

You might be interested to read this fantastic article by David Berlinski called "On the Origins of the Mind".

 

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=388

 

The problem I have with ID is that we can't know of any other origin but natural. We can't produce the alien that designed us. God doesn't seem to want to come around and discuss it with us. I don't intend this in a mean spirited or unkind way at all. But, where did God go? Why have the aliens abondoned us? The only thing that we have that we can study is nature. In the absence of evidence of aliens or God, the only thing we have is a natural explanation even if it appears to be intelligent.

 

Well, this is certainly a theological issue, not a scientific one, since it presupposes that the Intelligent Designer is, in fact, God. (a premise which I do accept, by the way) Without getting into speculation about where God might be, which again is theological (study of God) I can simply say that the location of the designer is, strictly speaking, irrelevant. If you get off the boat at Easter Island and you see those statues sitting there, you don't reject Intelligent Design as an explanation for those statues simply because the civilization which created them is no longer present, do you? If you see footprints on the beach but you don't see another human anywhere, you don't presume that the feet got there by some other natural means, do you? No, of course not. It doesn't matter where the human who put the footprints there has gone… you recognize that those are human footprints and you know someone was there.

 

Anyway, please know that I am not trying to be offensive here. I do very much appreciate diverse opinions and ideas. I do learn and enjoy the conversation and postings here.

 

No worries… no offense taken, these are reasonable questions to ask.

[jkellmd]

The lot of you cannot conjure up a logically coherent reason why Intelligent Design doesn't pass scientific muster.

 

Several member have done just that, even though it is your role as challenger of the established paradigm to do so.

 

I've demonstrate very clearly why those who embrace methodological naturalism are closed-minded and subjective, while those who reject it are open-minded and objective. Collectively, you have avoided that issue.

 

We are too polite to respond to such unmitigated arrogance, until now. The entire scientific world is blinded? You are the only one with sight, and everyone else must be small minded and crazy? Listen to yourself! Curtem supellex.

 

Your claim to have "demonstrated" anything, much less to have done so "clearly," is an empty one. Your arguments are only clear when major points are taken as matters of faith. Seeing beauty and coherence in nature, and even an intelligence behind its design, are not wrong in themselves - I see these things myself. The problem occurs when it is passed off as science.

 

The FDA will not approve a drug until it is shown to be superior to what is currently available - a stance which is firmly grounded in the scientific method. Attempting to establish a theory with more holes in it than the established view already has, which makes use of ANY component of the supernatural to fill in the evidential gaps, is to deface inquiry itself. You posit the existence of an unprovable entity, something akin to phlogiston theory. To fall back on divine explanations of temporal phenomena embodies scientific laziness, and is better left in the ignorant past - whence it was relegated after the Scopes trial of the 1930's.

 

The enlightenment banished metaphysics from science for a reason, it is out of place.

 

ID is not science. Get over yourself.

 

And if you do not adhere to scientific principles, don't claim that you do. You are claiming scientific authority that you simply don't have.

 

Ditto.

[TRoutMac]

We are too polite to respond to such unmitigated arrogance, until now. The entire scientific world is blinded? You are the only one with sight, and everyone else must be small minded and crazy? Listen to yourself!

 

Well then you tell me: If science must limit itself to natural explanations of natural phenomenon, what happens when you find the natural explanation? Isn't it by definition a natural phenomenon? So then doesn't it need a natural explanation? And won't that natural explanation also be a natural phenomenon which needs a natural explanation? Where does it end? If I'm wrong, then you answer the question and put me right. You cannot. What I've described is circular reasoning, pure and simple. It ultimately leads nowhere.

 

Secondly, do not make the mistake of thinking that I alone am making these criticisms and that some scientists are not making the same criticisms. The Intelligent Design movement is more than just me… Hell, I'm not even a real player… I'm a nobody! Also, as I've pointed out, science has had to make some rather embarassing adjustments in the past. Copernicus' idea that the Earth revolved around the sun was hardly a majority view prior to his arrival. Scientifically correct answers are not determined by a census or majority vote.

 

Seeing beauty and coherence in nature, and even an intelligence behind its design, are not wrong in themselves - I see these things myself. The problem occurs when it is passed off as science.

 

If you think my conclusions -- and the conclusions of the ID movement -- are based on mere 'beauty and coherence', you sadly have not been paying attention.

 

To fall back on divine explanations of temporal phenomena embodies scientific laziness, and is better left in the ignorant past - whence it was relegated after the Scopes trial of the 1930's.

 

Once again, the ID theory does not identify the designer as divine. The divinity or lack thereof of the designer is not an issue. ID theorists recognize that the question of identity is not within the capabilities of science to answer. So we stay out of it.

[jkellmd]

Well then you tell me: If science must limit itself to natural explanations of natural phenomenon, what happens when you find the natural explanation? Isn't it by definition a natural phenomenon? So then doesn't it need a natural explanation? And won't that natural explanation also be a natural phenomenon which needs a natural explanation? Where does it end? If I'm wrong, then you answer the question and put me right. You cannot. What I've described is circular reasoning, pure and simple. It ultimately leads nowhere.

 

I made no circular argument. You seem to be confusing yourself, drowning in your own spittle.

 

The physical world can be explained without resorting to an outside influence. This has been the basis of scientific enquiry for three hundred years. Natural phenomena (combustion, reproduction) have scientific explanations (oxidation, DNA replication). This is what is "pure and simple."

 

Introducing unprovable, metaphysical variables into science in any way is not to be countenanced. By doing so, ID theory violates the most fundamental of scientific axioms, handed down from Aristotle, Newton and Galileo (among many others). As a result, it does not pass peer review, and is destined to remain a fringe fad theory.

[jkellmd]

Can we please move this into Theology, where it belongs?

[Boerseun]

Secondly, do not make the mistake of thinking that I alone am making these criticisms and that some scientists are not making the same criticisms. The Intelligent Design movement is more than just me… Hell, I'm not even a real player… I'm a nobody! Also, as I've pointed out, science has had to make some rather embarassing adjustments in the past. Copernicus' idea that the Earth revolved around the sun was hardly a majority view prior to his arrival. Scientifically correct answers are not determined by a census or majority vote.

No. We know you're not alone. You're one of a few people who hang on to a fringe goofball theory because you're disgusted with 'Scientific Materialism'. You want to introduce what you call an 'Intelligent Designer' into science, and then quite conveniently sidestep the issue of the 'Identity' of this 'Intelligence' in order to bypass US laws regarding Creationism. You say 'Hey, it can be God, or not. We don't care - could be anybody.' You don't seem to realise that introducing such an unknown, untestable, unprovable entity changes the whole thing and your whole approach to philosophy and metaphysics. Religion has been saying for years that everything was intentionally created - and yet they understood what belongs in science, and what does not belong there. ID is no different. Go ask the Pope. Or is he wrong as well?

 

It is obvious that you're trying to garner some sort of scientific relevance and authority through a strategy including such silly analogies as the above, using Copernicus as a subtle way of attempting to put yourself in the same league.

 

Once again, you have not demonstrated to us how ID passes the five steps I've posted above. Rather, you reply with attacks, saying how everybody following scientific methodology is simply flat-out wrong, and only you and your friends have 'seen the light' of scientific truth. This is juvenile and not acceptable in the least. He who cries loudest is not necessarily right.

 

Behe's buddy (I forget his name now) invented the idea of 'Specified Complexity'. Keep in mind, this is philosophy that he's peddling as pure science. And anything fitting to his presupposed idea of 'Specified Complexity' points to an Intelligence. Keep in mind - this is his own personal definition of what is 'specified', and what is 'complex', and what you'll need to indicate Intelligent Design. He is biased. He does not understand biology at all. He does not understand what a feedback loop does to DNA. He does not understand that his simplified philosophy isn't appliccable in such cases. Rather, he regurgitates irrelevant analogy after irrelevant analogy in an attempt to provide ID supporters with vocal, emotionally abled ammunition.

 

By all means - you're not alone. You're just incredible arrogant and incredibly loud.

 

Start showing some respect for your fellow posters, for the scientific community in general, for opposing views, and the scientific method. If not, I'll move that you be banned from Hypography.

[Tormod]

Moved to the theology forum.

[TRoutMac]

I have a suggestion that would present a more honest solution… you could create a new forum entitled "Origin of Life Questions We're Afraid to Answer". Then you can shoehorn meaningful discussions about such important issues into that forum, and while preserving the "theology" forum for actual discussions about theology proper.

 

Unfortunately for many of you, science relies heavily on the uniform application of logic and reason. But your collective personal biases will not allow you to apply logic uniformly to all scientific questions. To many of you, logic is not a universal tool… it appears to merely a fair-weather friend… use it when it serves your purposes, abandon it when it doesn't.

 

So look… I'm gonna make you guys' day. I'm banning myself from Hypography. You see, when I first poked my head in here, I thought this was a science discussion forum. But I see that I was mistaken. This is a forum where, when the Origin of Life is at issue, many of you don't just walk away from science, you run.

 

Have a Happy New Year.

[Vending]

Well then you tell me: If science must limit itself to natural explanations of natural phenomenon, what happens when you find the natural explanation? Isn't it by definition a natural phenomenon? So then doesn't it need a natural explanation? And won't that natural explanation also be a natural phenomenon which needs a natural explanation? Where does it end? If I'm wrong, then you answer the question and put me right. You cannot. What I've described is circular reasoning, pure and simple. It ultimately leads nowhere.

 

This is not correct. Science is not circular, per se. It is, however, never ending. That is to say that there will always be some new phenomenon that needs explaining. Circular implies that the phenomenon refer back to themselves and rely on eachother for their definition. This is not the case, rather one is always adding layers to science within each scientific paradigm.

 

I should say, however, that this does not mean that science is the end all of everything. Far from it. Science can NEVER explain, in entirety, the world around us. Godel's incompleteness theory proves this. There will always be questions that cannot be answered. Which questions these are will depend on the paradigm that we are in.

 

 

But that is neither here nor there. I just thought it was interesting. Cool.

 

 

Unfortunately for many of you, science relies heavily on the uniform application of logic and reason. But your collective personal biases will not allow you to apply logic uniformly to all scientific questions. To many of you, logic is not a universal tool… it appears to merely a fair-weather friend… use it when it serves your purposes, abandon it when it doesn't.

 

I think this may be part of the source of your frustration. It seems that you almost equate science with logic. This is far from the truth. It is true that a scientific theory should be logically self-consistant. However, this by no means implies that a logically self-consistant theory is scientific. ID is certianly self-consitstant. However, it is not scientific. The main reason why it is not is that is it not falsafiable. There is no real way to prove that ID is not true. Thus, it cannot be science. Those are the rules.

 

You see, science is not some naturally occuring entity. It is a construct created by humans. A tool used to help explain the world around us. It is built on a series of axioms and assumptions. Basically, only things that fit specific criterion are adressable by science. These things MUST be;

 

1) Observable

2) Repeatable

 

Things that are not observable or repeatable are not able to be adressed by science. For convenince the thrid criterion is thrown in;

 

3) Fasifiable

 

If things cannot be proven false, then they have no part in science. This is the way it is. Does this mean that science is bad? No. It just means that it cannot deal with every concept that man invents.

 

Does the fact that ID is not a scientific theory mean that it is false? Clearly not. ID could certianly well be true. However, it is not science. I don't understand why people get so caught up in trying to make something science. Being science does not make something true. Nor does not be part of science make something automatically false.

 

 

THe problem here is that you are trying to argue ID as science, when it is not science, but philosophy. There is nothing wrong with that. THis does not mean that ID is false. However, it just means that it is not a scientific theory.

 

If you are able to demonstrate how ID can be observably and repeatidly proven faslse, then perhaps we can consider that it may be a scientific theory. Untill then it remain philosophy -- again there is nothing enherintly wrong with this.

 

 

So look… I'm gonna make you guys' day. I'm banning myself from Hypography. You see, when I first poked my head in here, I thought this was a science discussion forum. But I see that I was mistaken.

 

Well, first off, do not assume that everyone is glad to see you go. I for one will miss you. I apreciate people that make me thing about philosophy and by beliefs.

 

However, you were incorrect, this IS a science forum. I think that most people do not realize how narrow the scope of science really is. Science does not proport to understand everything. In fact, it does just the oposite. Science is effective BECAUSE it realizes that it cannot adress every question satisfactorily and it constrains itself so that it can answer but a few quenstion well.

 

It is a shame that you yourself are leaving, running away. I would have hoped that you could put up with a few slings and arrows. Not everyone in the scientific community is kind (most aren't). The key is for you to remain civil and ignore insults while adressing the pertinent questions.

 

ANyways, sorry i took so long to reply to this thread. I WAS enjoying our discussion, but i was on the farm for christmas with no internet. I was hoping to continue our discussion, as i had more questions. But i guess i do not have that to look forward to now. :)

 

Fare you well.

[Vending]

Well, somehow i managed to double post the above. Apologies all.

[jkellmd]

So look… I'm gonna make you guys' day. I'm banning myself from Hypography. You see, when I first poked my head in here, I thought this was a science discussion forum. But I see that I was mistaken. This is a forum where, when the Origin of Life is at issue, many of you don't just walk away from science, you run.

 

Have a Happy New Year.

 

TM, by leaving, you have not made my day. Personally, I thought long and hard about an appropriate response to your points, which were well presented - until the very end, at least. I admit to responding fiercely to being called "narrow-minded," for finding fault with the foundation on which ID is constructed. I enjoyed the debate immensely, until the end, and I hate to see you go.

 

You are correct about one thing, a new forum is needed for discussions like these, which present challenge theories. It would probably end up being the busiest of all. You argue that it does not belong in theology, and you are correct, but neither does it belong in biology.

[Celeste]

I too hate to see you (TroutMac) leave. I have only been here a short time, but I have thought highly of you for standing your ground when it came to your beliefs.

 

Standing for (what you believed to be) right when it is unpopular is a true test of moral character.

 

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes short again and again, who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause, who at best knows achievement and who at the worst if he fails at least fails while daring greatly so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat." ~~Theodore Roosevelt

[Boerseun]

You argue that it does not belong in theology, and you are correct, but neither does it belong in biology.

I reckon Strange Claims should do.

[my brain hurts]

I love this quote-

 

"Also, as I've pointed out, science has had to make some rather embarassing adjustments in the past. Copernicus' idea that the Earth revolved around the sun was hardly a majority view prior to his arrival. Scientifically correct answers are not determined by a census or majority vote."

 

 

Am I the only one who finds it ironic that the very people who would persecute the likes of a Copernicus, stifle all intellectual innovation, and threaten anyone not in lock step with their dogma with a horrible death would now offer his heliocentric view as proof that it is science that must keep an open mind? Holy friggin' crap!

 

 

One more thing- I, for one, am terrified by the mullet.

[pmaust]

I reckon Strange Claims should do.

 

Theoretical science is full of strange claims. Is it not?

[Boerseun]

Am I the only one who finds it ironic that the very people who would persecute the likes of a Copernicus, stifle all intellectual innovation, and threaten anyone not in lock step with their dogma with a horrible death would now offer his heliocentric view as proof that it is science that must keep an open mind? Holy friggin' crap!

The thing is - Scientific innovation is one thing. Innovation taking us forward in the pursuit of truth is to be viewed critically, go through the peer-review process, and become part of our body of scientific knowledge.

 

Something like 'ID', is to be put through the same process, regardless of the conclusion. If evidence is supplied, experiments performed, and conclusions reached that are not leaps of faith, it will become part of Science. We're waiting for the evidence. No more, no less. They can't provide it, though, and are now attacking Science itself as being narrow-minded.

 

Who would you say is at fault here?