Creationist argument about DNA and information

[turingtest]

Jesus wept. "Goddidit!" is not an answer, it's a placeholder for one. These folks want to sit back serenely self-satisfied and say "there, that's done," when all they've done is substitute one unknown for another, and established a boundary beyond which inquiry need not stray.

And there's no essential difference between that and helplessly wringing your hands with "we don't have a freakin' clue!"- one justifies clinging to (literal) ignorance, the other positively embraces, and even seems to worship, the ignorance.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

As things currently stand, science cannot explain what anything actually is, where everything actually comes from, what you are, or how you (or science) can explain anything at all!

This in a nutshell seems to be the root of some people's problems. The idea that if science cannot yet explain everything then it can explain nothing.

It's analogous to the old canard of Creationists arguing that finding a transitional fossil just creates two more gaps.

"The more we know the more we realise how little we know" might well be a truism but that doesn't devalue the worth of the bit we do know nor does it mean that we learnt nothing in the entire history of science.

Perhaps the pseudo-philosophers should stick to their pseudo-philosophy and stay out of science. Or use their questioning nature to attack some of the obviously bogus claptrap that they seem quite happy to give a free ride to?

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Interesting. I have ideological zeal.

But from the masses of words I don't actually read any answer. If everything has information, then it's the same as no information.

I and with me hundreds of others have experimentally verified that by stringing together random nucleotides in an RNA polymer, you can get specific biological function linked to the sequence needed to reproduce that function. And that this function is highly varied.

Now the scientific explanation for this effect is that the polymerisation is a simple chemical reaction and the part that polymerizes is apart from the bit that differentiates the nucleotides. And due to the flexible backbone of the RNA it can take shapes that occasionally randomly happen to perform a function. There is no design or guidance needed, all that is needed is a large enough pool of random strings.

Others have shown that such reactions could occur in a pre-biotic earth.

Yet others have shown that the formation of nucleotides or analogues performing similar functions can also occur on a pre-biotic earth.

You can dance around the definition of information for ever and ever, but until you invalidate those actual experiments, what reason is there to assume that a similar sequence of events did NOT take place on ancient earth?

 

[tsig]

This in a nutshell seems to be the root of some people's problems. The idea that if science cannot yet explain everything then it can explain nothing.

It's analogous to the old canard of Creationists arguing that finding a transitional fossil just creates two more gaps.

"The more we know the more we realise how little we know" might well be a truism but that doesn't devalue the worth of the bit we do know nor does it mean that we learnt nothing in the entire history of science.

Perhaps the pseudo-philosophers should stick to their pseudo-philosophy and stay out of science. Or use their questioning nature to attack some of the obviously bogus claptrap that they seem quite happy to give a free ride to?

Annnnoid keeps mistaking language for reality.

 

[annnnoid]

At the simple sentence level, yes.

It seems to me that you and I are "talking past each other". I'll try to establish some common ground, from which we may start to have a meaningful discussion.

Allow me, please, to start here:

Observations are made, and data from them recorded. The process is carefully documented. The data are published. Openly. With this, anyone can repeat the observations, check the data, etc. This is called - by me, in the discussion that you (annnnoid) and me are having, objective and independently verifiable.

Models are developed. They are tested against the objective, independently verifiable observations. They match. The models predict some things. New observations are made. They also match the models. The models are scrutinized for internal consistency. They are shown to be internally consistent. With one important caveat (which I'll get to later), this is called - by me, in the discussion that you (annnnoid) and me are having, the models are consistent with all relevant observations within their domains. And this consistency is objective and independently verifiable.

This is what "science explains" means.

If you are OK with this, then we can continue; if not, please say, as clearly as you can, what parts you do not agree with.

That’s all good…as long as it can be acknowledged that there are vast areas where this methodology simply has no strategic application. There are consequences to reductionism that explicitly limit and even exclude its application.

And…that there are legitimate ways of achieving, experiencing, and exploring knowledge that are just as relevant (in their particular domain) as anything science can generate. The fact that this is trivially true seems to be inversely proportional to the tendency of many skeptics to completely overlook it.

Jesus wept. "Goddidit!" is not an answer, it's a placeholder for one. These folks want to sit back serenely self-satisfied and say "there, that's done," when all they've done is substitute one unknown for another, and established a boundary beyond which inquiry need not stray.

And there's no essential difference between that and helplessly wringing your hands with "we don't have a freakin' clue!"- one justifies clinging to (literal) ignorance, the other positively embraces, and even seems to worship, the ignorance.

Do you ever have anything but strawmen and fallacies to fling about? Where have I ever encouraged ignorance of any kind? All I do is illustrate where ignorance actually occurs. Primarily cause so many of you folks make so much effort in pretending it doesn’t (there’s a useful word for that…and it’s not a river in Egypt). If you have some issue with the conclusions that I’ve presented…then present an actual argument, don’t whinge on the sidelines! Most credible scientists actually have no problem acknowledging areas of mystery. I can only wonder why you so frequently do.

This in a nutshell seems to be the root of some people's problems. The idea that if science cannot yet explain everything then it can explain nothing.

It's analogous to the old canard of Creationists arguing that finding a transitional fossil just creates two more gaps.

"The more we know the more we realise how little we know" might well be a truism but that doesn't devalue the worth of the bit we do know nor does it mean that we learnt nothing in the entire history of science.

Perhaps the pseudo-philosophers should stick to their pseudo-philosophy and stay out of science. Or use their questioning nature to attack some of the obviously bogus claptrap that they seem quite happy to give a free ride to?

…and perhaps the pseudo-scientists should actually take a look at the facts. Where have I ever argued anything remotely resembling that we can explain nothing!

There is at present an insurmountable epistemological gap between what we do know and how we know it…and what we don’t know. The biggest thing that we don’t know (besides what everything even is / where it came from), is how we know anything at all. The problem you folks seem to have is that many of you utterly fail to comprehend that this is even an issue. You fail to appreciate that there even are two categories…let alone the relevance of them.

We have models (and our as-yet utterly inexplicable ability to produce them [weren’t you the one who was going to produce some evidence that it is not utterly inexplicable…did I miss that somewhere????])…and we have what-is-modeled. So far the connection between those two is utterly and completely unbridgeable. Understand that and you will have made some progress in understanding how fundamentally flawed your arguments are.

Interesting. I have ideological zeal.

But from the masses of words I don't actually read any answer. If everything has information, then it's the same as no information.

A card-carrying reductionist. You forgot the third possibility: Everything is some variety of thing that we call ‘information’ that we do not know the ‘thingness’ of.

The correct word would then be: Mystery

I and with me hundreds of others have experimentally verified that by stringing together random nucleotides in an RNA polymer, you can get specific biological function linked to the sequence needed to reproduce that function. And that this function is highly varied.

Now the scientific explanation for this effect is that the polymerisation is a simple chemical reaction and the part that polymerizes is apart from the bit that differentiates the nucleotides. And due to the flexible backbone of the RNA it can take shapes that occasionally randomly happen to perform a function. There is no design or guidance needed, all that is needed is a large enough pool of random strings.

Others have shown that such reactions could occur in a pre-biotic earth.

Yet others have shown that the formation of nucleotides or analogues performing similar functions can also occur on a pre-biotic earth.

You can dance around the definition of information for ever and ever, but until you invalidate those actual experiments, what reason is there to assume that a similar sequence of events did NOT take place on ancient earth?

Did it?

…and you can dance around your ‘evidence’ all you like. The simple fact is that any grade 8 physics / chemistry student could look at any of those molecules and immediately conclude that there is vast amounts of information inherent in their structure and activity (essentially…design and guidance in another vocabulary). The fact that they even exist could by itself generate a vast range of laws of physics that describe their condition. No activity of any kind, however spontaneous it may seem, could ever occur where it not for those elementary facts.

…the most glaring of which is, of course…that no-one knows what the elementary facts actually are. But…one thing is damn sure: No one is going to argue that some manner of elementary facts (laws of physics, information, whatever) don’t exist!

 

[MikeG]

........There are consequences to reductionism that explicitly limit and even exclude its application. ........

And…that there are legitimate ways of achieving, experiencing, and exploring knowledge that are just as relevant (in their particular domain) as anything science can generate...........

Declaring it thus doesn't make it so.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

That’s all good…as long as it can be acknowledged that there are vast areas where this methodology simply has no strategic application. There are consequences to reductionism that explicitly limit and even exclude its application.

And…that there are legitimate ways of achieving, experiencing, and exploring knowledge that are just as relevant (in their particular domain) as anything science can generate. The fact that this is trivially true seems to be inversely proportional to the tendency of many skeptics to completely overlook it.




Do you ever have anything but strawmen and fallacies to fling about? Where have I ever encouraged ignorance of any kind? All I do is illustrate where ignorance actually occurs. Primarily cause so many of you folks make so much effort in pretending it doesn’t (there’s a useful word for that…and it’s not a river in Egypt). If you have some issue with the conclusions that I’ve presented…then present an actual argument, don’t whinge on the sidelines! Most credible scientists actually have no problem acknowledging areas of mystery. I can only wonder why you so frequently do.




…and perhaps the pseudo-scientists should actually take a look at the facts. Where have I ever argued anything remotely resembling that we can explain nothing!

There is at present an insurmountable epistemological gap between what we do know and how we know it…and what we don’t know. The biggest thing that we don’t know (besides what everything even is / where it came from), is how we know anything at all. The problem you folks seem to have is that many of you utterly fail to comprehend that this is even an issue. You fail to appreciate that there even are two categories…let alone the relevance of them.

We have models (and our as-yet utterly inexplicable ability to produce them [weren’t you the one who was going to produce some evidence that it is not utterly inexplicable…did I miss that somewhere????])…and we have what-is-modeled. So far the connection between those two is utterly and completely unbridgeable. Understand that and you will have made some progress in understanding how fundamentally flawed your arguments are.




A card-carrying reductionist. You forgot the third possibility: Everything is some variety of thing that we call ‘information’ that we do not know the ‘thingness’ of.

The correct word would then be: Mystery




Did it?

…and you can dance around your ‘evidence’ all you like. The simple fact is that any grade 8 physics / chemistry student could look at any of those molecules and immediately conclude that there is vast amounts of information inherent in their structure and activity (essentially…design and guidance in another vocabulary). The fact that they even exist could by itself generate a vast range of laws of physics that describe their condition. No activity of any kind, however spontaneous it may seem, could ever occur where it not for those elementary facts.

…the most glaring of which is, of course…that no-one knows what the elementary facts actually are. But…one thing is damn sure: No one is going to argue that some manner of elementary facts (laws of physics, information, whatever) don’t exist!

True. But nature as it is exists. This is the equivalent of a texas sharpshooter argument. Or the puddle claiming it fits in the hole.
And with nature as it exists there is no evidence to show anything BUT unthinking processes leading to the universe as it exists.

Even IF your god made it, it clearly made it in such a way as to be indistinguishable from a non-intelligently created universe. So it clearly wants us to not find it's influence. Who are you to dispute it's clear wish to not be found?

 

[turingtest]

...

Do you ever have anything but strawmen and fallacies to fling about? Where have I ever encouraged ignorance of any kind? All I do is illustrate where ignorance actually occurs. Primarily cause so many of you folks make so much effort in pretending it doesn’t (there’s a useful word for that…and it’s not a river in Egypt). If you have some issue with the conclusions that I’ve presented…then present an actual argument, don’t whinge on the sidelines! Most credible scientists actually have no problem acknowledging areas of mystery. I can only wonder why you so frequently do.
...

You haven't presented any conclusions to argue with except wordy reiterations of "we don't have a freakin' clue!" and I don't see any need to be as wordy in countering the superficial dressed as the substantial. The only ones whinging from the sidelines are folks like you who sit outside the science and make a fetish of mystery itself. I have no problem acknowledging areas of mystery; your attitude encourages ignorance, even if you're careful to avoid endorsing it as explicitly as "goddidit!" There's a useful word for pretending you're doing anything more effective...

 

[JeanTate]

That’s all good

Good.

Thanks.

…as long as it can be acknowledged that <snip>

This is both unnecessary and irrelevant.

Let's keep focused on the fact that I am trying to establish some common ground, from which we (you and I) can have a rational, meaningful discussion of "Science cannot explain X, therefore goddidit".

Do you have any concerns/difficulties/whatever with the negation of "Science explains" (i.e. "Science cannot explain X")? If so, please say what they are, in as concise and clear a fashion as you can.

Moving on ... "therefore goddidit": By definition, goddidit is not part of science. That makes this part of the 'god of the gaps' logical fallacy about the logic. An alternative to "therefore" is "it is indisputable that", or "(goddidit) follows as the only logical consequence/conclusion" (there are quite a few other ways to express this). Are you OK with this? If not, if not please say, as clearly as you can, what parts you do not agree with.

The simple fact is that any grade 8 physics / chemistry student could look at any of those molecules and immediately conclude that there is vast amounts of information inherent in their structure and activity (essentially…design and guidance in another vocabulary).

(my bold)

"Entropy in thermodynamics and information theory" is the WP article I earlier said I'd provide a link to; here's the link. I like this because not only does it presents a case that "information" in the two are equivalent but also has a lot of references which anyone can explore to learn more about this.

annnnoid, what is the meaning of "information" in the part of your post I quoted? If it is not equivalent to how it is defined in either thermodynamics or information theory, would you please explain - as clearly and in as much detail as you can - just what you mean by the term?

 

[Daniel]

If everything has information, then it's the same as no information.

1. 'everything' doesn't have Information. Which will become clear when you...

2. Define Information....?

I and with me hundreds of others have experimentally verified that by stringing together random nucleotides...

1. Begging The Question Fallacy: where'd you get Nucleotides?? Please start with how you get Nucleosides --- 'Naturally' spontaneously from it's building blocks. Start here...

The DeltaG for Nucleosides wickering themselves together from bases and sugars is "POSITIVE" as is the Phosphorylation into Nucleotides. Sunlight is a severe demonstrable antagonist to ALL of it (as it destroys Nucleo-Bases and Amino Acids). That's not even speaking to: Stereoisomerization, Hydrolysis/Brownian Motion, pH, Oxidation, and Cross Reactions from here to Christmas. I'd also like to see the precursors for those Bases (purines and pyrimidines) all "Natural" like within the constraints of 2LOT.

2. Who strung them together?? Are you an Intelligent Agent? And Where/How on Earth did you get the Idea of "Stringing them Together" in the first place? Was that Random?

2a. Were the conditions EXACTLY the Same as was on Pre-biotic Earth? If so, what were the conditions on Pre-Biotic Earth that you reproduced i.e., how did you VALIDATE those conditions...?

Yet others have shown that the formation of nucleotides or analogues performing similar functions can also occur on a pre-biotic earth.

"We conclude that the direct synthesis of the nucleosides or nucleotides from prebiotic precursors in reasonable yield and unaccompanied by larger amounts of related molecules could not be achieved by presently known chemical reactions."
Gerald F. Joyce, and Leslie E. Orgel, "Prospects for Understanding the Origin of the RNA World," p. 18 The RNA World, R.F. Gesteland and J.F. Atkins, eds. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, 1993.

I and with me hundreds of others have experimentally verified that by stringing together random nucleotides in an RNA polymer, you can get specific biological function linked to the sequence needed to reproduce that function. And that this function is highly varied.

Baloney: SEE Above.

There is no design or guidance needed, all that is needed is a large enough pool of random strings.

1. You don't have 'Random Strings' because you can't even form Nucleosides, "Naturally".

2. Large enough Pool, eh? Here it is...

"Unless the molecule can literally copy itself, that is, act simultaneously as both template and catalyst, it must encounter another copy of itself that it can use as a template. If two or more copies of a particular 50-mer RNA are needed, then a much larger library, consisting of 10⁵⁴ RNAs and weighing 10³⁴ grams, would be required. This amount far exceeds the mass of the earth." (emphasis mine)
Gerald F. Joyce, and Leslie E. Orgel, "Prospects for Understanding the Origin of the RNA World," p. 11. The RNA World, R.F. Gesteland and J.F. Atkins, eds. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, 1993

You can't even get ONE 30 mer "Functional" RNA to wicker itself together from it's building blocks 'Naturally', so all this is moot and a "Whistl'n Past The Graveyard" from Jump Street.

Others have shown that such reactions could occur in a pre-biotic earth.

SHOW....? Then show the Time Machine they used, including: Make /Model /Serial#...?

You can dance around the definition of information for ever and ever...

Dance around it?? I'm the only one that actually provided a Definition for "IT"...

Information -- that which Informs or Instructs, the basis of all communication. Neither Matter/Energy: it's Semiotic.

...but until you invalidate those actual experiments, what reason is there to assume that a similar sequence of events did NOT take place on ancient earth?

1. There are no Experiments, you're conjuring them. To refute, please post EACH Experiment i.e., Show the Formal Scientific Hypothesis and Highlight the Independent Variable for every last one....?

1a. Please post the "Materials and Methods" Section of each for review.


2. We don't 'ASSUME' in Science, we Hypothesis TEST. That's what differentiates "Science" from "Just So" Stories (Fairytales).

regards

ps. Most of the requests here are Rhetorical...because you have been challenged REPEATEDLY to Support your claims without response; save for re-posting the same claims over and over again.


regards

 

[MikeG]

..........Dance around it?? I'm the only one that actually provided a Definition for "IT"..........

And what a convenient self-serving definition it was too.

 

[MikeG]

......."Unless the molecule can literally copy itself, that is, act simultaneously as both template and catalyst, it must encounter another copy of itself that it can use as a template. If two or more copies of a particular 50-mer RNA are needed, then a much larger library, consisting of 10⁵⁴ RNAs and weighing 10³⁴ grams, would be required. This amount far exceeds the mass of the earth." (emphasis mine)........

Yep, that's all you need. As the quote goes on to demonstrate. After that, lots of time and you end up with a planet covered in life. Simple.

 

[RussDill]

Once again, Daniel *must* go to abiogenesis. The evidence for evolution is simply too strong. We can not only observe new functions evolving, we greatly fear it in the case of antibiotic resistance. We even know exactly how it happens, so when we started using the antibotic colistin that could attack previously resistant superbugs, we declared, "This is a last line of defense, do not use it in any other case". Chinese farmers went and used it widely on livestock with the expected result.

And he specifically goes after the RNA world hypothesis is this case. Is your argument Daniel, that God created RNA self replicators billions of years ago and then life evolved into it's present form?

(ETA: and of course he must go to a 1993 paper to do so, and a paper that discusses many possibilities for abiogenesis)

The discussion so far, even though highly speculative, is still conservative in overall outlook. It supposes that the original information-accumulating system that led to the evolution of life on earth was either RNA or some linear copolymer that replicated in an aqueous environment in much the same way as RNA. There remains a lingering doubt that we are on the right track at all; maybe the original system was not an organic copolymer (Cairns-Smith 1982), or maybe it replicated in a nonaqueous environment and RNA is an adaptation that permitted invasion of the oceans. Perhaps systems of high complexity can develop without any need for a genome in the usual sense (Kauffman 1986; Wächtershäuser 1988; De Duve 1991).

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

And…that there are legitimate ways of achieving, experiencing, and exploring knowledge that are just as relevant (in their particular domain) as anything science can generate.

You'll have to provide examples please.

…and perhaps the pseudo-scientists should actually take a look at the facts. Where have I ever argued anything remotely resembling that we can explain nothing!

There is at present an insurmountable epistemological gap between what we do know and how we know it…and what we don’t know. The biggest thing that we don’t know (besides what everything even is / where it came from), is how we know anything at all. The problem you folks seem to have is that many of you utterly fail to comprehend that this is even an issue. You fail to appreciate that there even are two categories…let alone the relevance of them.

The problem seems to be that you insist that it a huge issue. One that presumably all/most/a lot of science should be focused on understanding and yet nobody within science actually seems all that bothered about it because science actually works regardless.

We have models (and our as-yet utterly inexplicable ability to produce them [weren’t you the one who was going to produce some evidence that it is not utterly inexplicable…did I miss that somewhere????])…and we have what-is-modeled. So far the connection between those two is utterly and completely unbridgeable. Understand that and you will have made some progress in understanding how fundamentally flawed your arguments are.

And yet the science works and continues work. Feel free to navel gaze I suppose it's a worthwhile exercise for some folk. However, the people who appear to be doing real science seem to be making real progress on understanding real questions with real applications. I'm glad they haven't stopped to first consider how they know anything at all and why the models work and why every old piece of philosophical claptrap must be OK because of that.

You can ponder the mystery all you like. Other people are getting on with understanding the world while you comment from the peanut gallery.

 

[JeanTate]

<snip>

Dance around it?? I'm the only one that actually provided a Definition for "IT"...

Information -- that which Informs or Instructs, the basis of all communication. Neither Matter/Energy: it's Semiotic.

<snip>

I have no intention of engaging Daniel in a discussion, and in any case I think he has me on Ignore.

However, he has provided a Danielscience definition of information ("that which Informs or Instructs, the basis of all communication"). Ignoring the caps - I think we've learned that Daniel uses punctuation in a rather odd way - we can look at how useful this is, in terms of doing science.

First, if no one (or nothing) is informed or instructed, that means there is no information, right? So, if a tree falls in a forest and no one hears (or sees) it, there is no informing and no instructing, therefore no information. Right?

Second, how to tell if there is (or has been) any informing or instructing? Take DNA: in living cells undergoing division, the DNA is copied; any informing or instructing happening? In normal cells not undergoing division, most of the DNA does nothing (except hold the structure it is in together), so no informing or instructing, right?

Third, as a crystal grows, can we say that the seed crystal (etc) has informed or instructed the atoms/molecules which are added to the crystal? If so, this is a direct contradiction of what Daniel has posted (more than once if I am not mistaken): crystals contain no information. If not, why not?

There's lots more to explore, but that's a sufficient start, I think.

 

[RussDill]

So let me get this straight, since information is that which informs or instructs, and being informed or instructed must require a knower, DNA does not contain information, as it does not inform or instruct observers. Am I following along properly?

 

[annnnoid]

Declaring it thus doesn't make it so.

…and disputing it does not an argument make. Only a fool would fail to recognize the implications of reductionism…and only a fool would insist that science is the only legitimate epistemology (I don’t know a single credible scientist who wouldn’t disagree with such a claim). It is trivially easy to demonstrate the validity of either of these conclusions. I am going to assume you will make the effort to understand why this is so rather than waste my time insisting I demonstrate the flaws in your position.

True. But nature as it is exists. This is the equivalent of a texas sharpshooter argument. Or the puddle claiming it fits in the hole.
And with nature as it exists there is no evidence to show anything BUT unthinking processes leading to the universe as it exists.

Even IF your god made it, it clearly made it in such a way as to be indistinguishable from a non-intelligently created universe. So it clearly wants us to not find it's influence. Who are you to dispute it's clear wish to not be found?

It is in every way distinguishable from a non-intelligently created universe, and becoming more-so every day.

It is generally agreed that we discover the laws of physics…meaning…that they must be instantiated in reality in some fundamental form or other (if they weren’t somehow there, we couldn’t somehow discover them). Perpetual student (among others) goes further and explicitly claims that mathematics itself exists in reality (not an unreasonable claim, except that there is no direct causal evidence to support it).

What is it that creates mathematics and the laws of physics?

…conscious, intelligent, thinking, human beings. How is ‘consciousness’ typically defined?...information processing.

To the degree that anyone has the slightest idea what reality actually is, it is described as ‘information’. IOW…there is no such thing as matter or energy…there is something else. Something described by the word ‘information’. Something within which are instantiated the laws of physics.

…because…it is out of reality (information) that we create them (neurologically speaking) and it is by observing reality (information aka: matter / energy) that we infer / deduce them and it is by processing information (consciousness) that we create them.

So…reality is basically a massive case of ‘information processing’. Which, by the strangest of coincidences….just happens to be the most common definition of consciousness…the very thing that creates the laws of physics as we know them.

We have already established that, so far, the only thing with the capacity to generate / comprehend a ‘law of physics’ is something that has the capacity for intelligent thought (aka: a conscious human being..a thing that ‘processes information’).

Thus…it is entirely reasonable to describe ‘reality’ (the ‘informational substrate within which the laws of physics are instantiated’) as some manner of intelligent system.

…what else but ‘intelligence’ can create laws of physics? Intelligence is the ONLY thing we know of with the ability to create such things. You somehow find it possible to argue that nothing about reality implicates intelligence…while at the very same time insisting that something (the laws of physics) that cannot be created WITHOUT intelligence is effectively instantiated in this very same reality.

You are flatly contradicting yourself!

You haven't presented any conclusions to argue with except wordy reiterations of "we don't have a freakin' clue!" and I don't see any need to be as wordy in countering the superficial dressed as the substantial. The only ones whinging from the sidelines are folks like you who sit outside the science and make a fetish of mystery itself. I have no problem acknowledging areas of mystery; your attitude encourages ignorance, even if you're careful to avoid endorsing it as explicitly as "goddidit!" There's a useful word for pretending you're doing anything more effective...

Correction, I haven’t presented any conclusions that you have the ability to argue with. I’ve illustrated a few of the biggest gaps in science: That no one has a clue what the true nature of reality is, where everything came from, what a human being actually is, how the physical activity of the brain generates ‘you’, how a ‘you’ generates science, and what the explicit relationship is between the laws of physics and the universe they describe.

This has got nothing to do with your vacuous strawmen about being overly wordy, or encouraging ignorance, or a mystery fetish. You simply don’t like to acknowledge the facts…so you get annoyed when anyone is so inconsiderate as to insist on them. I present these observations because you folks constantly insist that science has effectively got the whole thing sewn up. That the gaps into which any variety of God can be inserted are, effectively, either miniscule or about to be so.

Quite obviously, nothing could be further from the truth.

This is both unnecessary and irrelevant.

Let's keep focused on the fact that I am trying to establish some common ground, from which we (you and I) can have a rational, meaningful discussion of "Science cannot explain X, therefore goddidit".

…except that’s not my argument. My argument simply acknowledges the facts as they are known and the implications as they can be reasonably extrapolated. If you’re going to insist on childish clichés then I’m not going to bother.

It is also worth noting that there is much about science that is itself not scientific. Meaning, that summarily dismissing those other issues effectively emasculates science itself. But I’ll leave that aside for the moment.

Do you have any concerns/difficulties/whatever with the negation of "Science explains" (i.e. "Science cannot explain X")? If so, please say what they are, in as concise and clear a fashion as you can.

Science cannot explain ‘X’. Why are you bringing this up?

Moving on ... "therefore goddidit": By definition, goddidit is not part of science. That makes this part of the 'god of the gaps' logical fallacy about the logic. An alternative to "therefore" is "it is indisputable that", or "(goddidit) follows as the only logical consequence/conclusion" (there are quite a few other ways to express this). Are you OK with this? If not, if not please say, as clearly as you can, what parts you do not agree with.

Science is not a part of science. You may think this is academic, but in this case it is not. Each ‘gap’ has to be considered on its own. Ultimately, the argument is very simple.

"Entropy in thermodynamics and information theory" is the WP article I earlier said I'd provide a link to; here's the link. I like this because not only does it presents a case that "information" in the two are equivalent but also has a lot of references which anyone can explore to learn more about this.

annnnoid, what is the meaning of "information" in the part of your post I quoted? If it is not equivalent to how it is defined in either thermodynamics or information theory, would you please explain - as clearly and in as much detail as you can - just what you mean by the term?

Information is that which is processed by the conscious intelligence that generated those theories. Information is meaning. It would also seem to occur in some kind of fundamental form as the basis of reality. That the theories (meaning) are a direct result of a reality that itself seems to be meaning at the very least suggests something fundamentally relevant. So far no one can establish what that is.

Daniels definition of information I think is a response to QM. In that sense, it is perfectly reasonable. I would adjust my definition accordingly except I am not that familiar with QM. I guess mine is a more classical definition.

You'll have to provide examples please.

Wake up, open your eyes, get out of bed…etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

Are you doing science?

The problem seems to be that you insist that it a huge issue. One that presumably all/most/a lot of science should be focused on understanding and yet nobody within science actually seems all that bothered about it because science actually works regardless.

I’ll assume this is your ignorance speaking. If you want to see just how ‘huge’ an issue it is, go and spend a day in any cognitive science department or computer science department at any university anywhere in the world.

And yet the science works and continues work. Feel free to navel gaze I suppose it's a worthwhile exercise for some folk. However, the people who appear to be doing real science seem to be making real progress on understanding real questions with real applications. I'm glad they haven't stopped to first consider how they know anything at all and why the models work and why every old piece of philosophical claptrap must be OK because of that.

Understanding the real questions surrounding how the brain creates a human being and how a human being creates (just for example) science are, as I said, huge questions in numerous areas of scientific study. That you are ignorant of this indisputable fact says much about the credibility of your argument.

You can ponder the mystery all you like. Other people are getting on with understanding the world while you comment from the peanut gallery.

I think your ignorance of the scientific landscape illustrates quite clearly who it is who inhabits the peanut gallery.

 

[marplots]

(much snipped)

Only a fool would fail to recognize the implications of reductionism…and only a fool would insist that science is the only legitimate epistemology (I don’t know a single credible scientist who wouldn’t disagree with such a claim). It is trivially easy to demonstrate the validity of either of these conclusions.

The thing is, though, that reductionism is useful without having to burden the method with ultimate causes or commit to epistemological claims.

Mendel doesn't have to know about DNA (nor Darwin) to conceive of some underlying and as-yet-unidentified property in some living systems, to describe the "how it seems to work" and use the principles.

Reductionism removes the all-or-none burden and the need for final judgement from an investigation. It allows for a step-wise approach, meaning I can be wrong about some things and still be right about others. It offers a middle ground between true and false, allowing partial knowledge, and hence, isn't greatly embarrassed by occasionally farting in church.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Wake up, open your eyes, get out of bed…etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

Are you doing science?

No how about you actually state your example? Please.

To answer your question, no I'm actually not doing science.

Now you try to answer mine.

 

[Daniel]

Once again, Daniel *must* go to abiogenesis.

Well post the Scientific Theory of evolution and show HOW/WHY I'm in ERROR....?

The evidence for evolution is simply too strong.

'evolution", what's that?? AGAIN, Please post the Scientific Theory of evolution...?

We can not only observe new functions evolving...

(SEE above: "evolution", what's that....)

New Functions, eh? Like what for instance...post the Best of the Best?

...we greatly fear it in the case of antibiotic resistance.

1. As evidence for what??

2. Can you explain this...

"Scientists at the University of Alberta have revived bacteria from members of the historic Franklin expedition who mysteriously perished in the Arctic nearly 150 years ago. Not only are the six strains of bacteria almost certainly the oldest ever revived, says medical microbiologist Dr. Kinga Kowalewska-Grochowska, three of them also happen to be resistant to antibiotics. In this case, the antibiotics clindamycin and cefoxitin, both of which were developed more than a century after the men died, were among those used."
Ed Struzik, Ancient bacteria revived, Sunday Herald (Calgary, Alberta, Canada), 16 Sept. 1990.


Philip Skell PhD (Evan Pugh Professor of Chemistry Penn State University, Member of the National Academy of Sciences) and "the father of carbene chemistry"...

"Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming's discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.
I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss.
Philip Skell PhD; Why Do We Invoke Darwin, August 29, 2005


and this...

"On experimental grounds, I have shown that there are no known random mutations that have added any genetic information to the organism. I go through a list of the best examples of mutations offered by evolutionists and show that each of them loses genetic information rather than gains it. One of the examples that where information is lost is the one often trotted out by evolutionists nowadays in an attempt to convince the public of the truth of evolution. That is the evolution of bacterial resistance to antibiotics."
Dr. Lee Spetner; Not by Chance, 31 December 1997

So...let's say an unfortunate accident occurred and Jane Doe had to have both arms amputated (Mutation). 6 weeks after the accident, the police state ordered everyone in the town to be arrested with specific instructions that each person MUST have there hands behind their back in handcuffs for processing before Execution. Jane Doe is now thriving because she couldn't be arrested and avoids this most unfortunate fate. However, 2 days later the police state releases all the prisoners and everyone is allowed to return home. Jane Doe is now back in the population... what is her fitness level in comparison to the rest of the population?

Is your argument Daniel, that God created RNA self replicators billions of years ago and then life evolved into it's present form?

Nope. And SEE: ("evolved", what's that??) above.

(ETA: and of course he must go to a 1993 paper to do so, and a paper that discusses many possibilities for abiogenesis)

Well @ least I have something and can SUPPORT what I say. Do you have ANY Experiments that refute the '1993 Paper' or you just gonna leave this Argument to Age Fallacy floating 'naked and afraid' out here?


Yes, and I have many 'Possibilities' for the Burn Marks on my Garage Wall..the leading 'theory' (Directly analogous to the leading ones in that paper) is: Invisible Fire-Breathing Dragons Exist.

regards