Annoying creationists

[hammegk]

By whose fiat is god not science? Is this the damn category error you keep mentioning?

Yes. I believe you finally got it.

And if you say to a materialist "assume god is not material" then I'm sure he would agree that god cannot exist. Unless, of course, he is only taking materialism as a reasonable assumption, pending some evidence that distinguishes materialism from idealism.

Paulie, you are free to embrace dualism as it apparently please you (unless materialism is True; then none of us may have any choice in our 'private behaviors').

Again, this statement is based on your dogmatic pseudo-definition of god.

Who can define god? I can't. You may choose to (or be forced to) as the case may be.

 

[joobz]

The word "data" is well defined.

I take the data used in that prebiotic evolution to be prebiotic data and I take that evolutionary process to have been rank0 evolution. Rank1 evolution is DNA based evolution. Sensory data is data acquired through the sense organs and I take the evolution associated with it, which occurs in the brain, to be rank2 evolution.

I take social data to be the data that codes for communally inherited knowledge, such as language and shared skills. That leads to rank3 evolution.

I do not see how one statement follows the other. I stated that "Data" is a more nebulous catch-all compared to a gene, which has a specific known biological context. Your statement is an effect saying that evolution had to occur prior to the gene formation, which is self understood.

Until very recently, most biologists entirely dismissed multilevel selection theories and insisted on reducing every analysis to the "fundamental genes." Since genes cannot possibly be fundamental to any evolution but rank1, that is not sensible. So far as I know, I am the only person who has yet identified data as the foundation of all evolution and as the basis from which you can generalise evolutionary theory.

This isn't true now. Again, you gave a term to a concept that's been "evolving" in the literature already. Your complaint of genes may have been accurate 20 years ago, but I do not think you'll find anyone claiming that genes must be the beginning or sole portion of evolutionary theory.

If your theory can provide some weighting effect that each rank has. Or if your theory has an ability to differentiate what defines the different ranks or when the different ranks evolve ( I assume in your theory we can't have rank1 without rank0, or rank2 without rank1 or rank0...) it may be quite interesting. But if it just a vocabulary change you are inacting, I'd be a little suspect in it's utility.

 

[joobz]

God (not science) vs ev theory (science) comparisons start with a category error.

Uncertainty in a god is not apriori illogical; it's only illogical for a materialist who should be 100% certain god cannot exist. Dualism -- the stance materialism reaches iff the existence of god is only uncertain -- is itself apriori illogical.

Isn't this only the case of god is unknowable. If we are simply uncertain, I do not see how that can be considered an illogical stance. If we allow for the fact that god isn't supernatural.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

God (not science) vs ev theory (science) comparisons start with a category error.
...
Who can define god? I can't.

All righty then. You contradicted yourself in the space of two posts.

~~ Paul

 

[kjkent1]

Who can define god? I can't. You may choose to (or be forced to) as the case may be.

Why do you interject God into a scientific discussion? You're smart enough to know that God is not measurable via any scientific methodology, so how is God relevant, except as a distraction?

 

[John Hewitt]

I do not see how one statement follows the other. I stated that "Data" is a more nebulous catch-all compared to a gene, which has a specific known biological context. Your statement is an effect saying that evolution had to occur prior to the gene formation, which is self understood.

Understood by whom? Most theories of prebiosis just speculate that genes emerge by one form or another of chance. I know of no work apart from my own that proposes any prebiotic selective process at all.

This isn't true now. Again, you gave a term to a concept that's been "evolving" in the literature already. Your complaint of genes may have been accurate 20 years ago, but I do not think you'll find anyone claiming that genes must be the beginning or sole portion of evolutionary theory.

No? Come on, they reduce evolution to fundamental genes - which is the same thing.

If your theory can provide some weighting effect that each rank has. Or if your theory has an ability to differentiate what defines the different ranks or when the different ranks evolve ( I assume in your theory we can't have rank1 without rank0, or rank2 without rank1 or rank0...) it may be quite interesting. But if it just a vocabulary change you are inacting, I'd be a little suspect in it's utility.

This is getting way of topic but here's a little bit of a reply.

All data, in all ranks is subject to interpretation into information and selection into knowledge, which is encoded as data for transmission to the next generation.
I categorize ranks of evolution on the basis of where the selective process takes place. Rank0, is a catch-all for prebiotic chemistry; rank1 is evolution that selects data encoded on DNA. Rank2 arises from sensory data and when interpretations are selected with a receiving organism. Rank3 occurs when the selection is performed by the transmitter - thus leading to social knowledge. Rank4 evolution and occurs when selection is determined by neither a transmitter nor a receiver but by the mandate of a shared body of selective rules. This is subcultural evolution and, among other things, leads to professional bodies of knowledge.

This description implies that there can be more than one evolution at each rank - for example, rank2 evolution in humans involves two Darwinian machines, the brain and the immune system. These I refer to are separate orders of evolution within the same evolutionary rank.

Evolving data sets must be interpreted in such a way as to make them self-bounding and therefore competitively separable.

I am always interested in identifying more properties that are generally required for evolving data sets. Suggestions are welcome.

Its utilty is in what it can do.

 

[joobz]

Understood by whom? Most theories of prebiosis just speculate that genes emerge by one form or another of chance. I know of no work apart from my own that proposes any prebiotic selective process at all.

I've just started looking into the literature (hence the reason for the delay in answering your former question). But i haven't seen the concept proposed as a pure chance development of genes. It seems that self-propagating chemstry in the development of genes is the most commonly considered avenue of speculation. The one that comes to mind first is the RNA directed formation of ribose, but I just pulled the article.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Uncertainty in a god is not apriori illogical; it's only illogical for a materialist who should be 100% certain god cannot exist. Dualism -- the stance materialism reaches iff the existence of god is only uncertain -- is itself apriori illogical.

Only if your materialist is 100% certain of materialism. If he is provisionally 99.99% convinced that materialism is the correct explanation of the state of the universe then your word-game argument falls apart. As is usually the case, you are dueling a dualist straw man.

 

[John Hewitt]

I've just started looking into the literature (hence the reason for the delay in answering your former question). But i haven't seen the concept proposed as a pure chance development of genes. It seems that self-propagating chemstry in the development of genes is the most commonly considered avenue of speculation. The one that comes to mind first is the RNA directed formation of ribose, but I just pulled the article.

And, just by CHANCE, this self-propagating chemistry (the details of which I look forward to reading) happens to produce a ribozyme, a piece of RNA which has the amazing property of being able to copy itself, from precursors that had the equally amazing properties of being present in the first place and of not diffusing off into the prebiotic soup.

Sorry, I think maybe I'm in a bad mood today.

 

[Yahzi]

What is more, and as I have mentioned to you previously, what I look for is an intelligent discussion directed to the subject.

I would say most of the subject matter of evolutionary psychology, (excepting my own work on sexuality and humour) most of social evolution (including all of memetics), most ideas about the origins of sense organs and nervous systems and all theories about the origin of life - apart my own work.

See, again we stumble over your basic illiteracy.

The word you were looking for was not "discussion;" but rather, "monologue."

 

[Yahzi]

Why would an uncertainty in a god be viewed as illogical world view when uncertainty in the evolutionary theory isn't?

Hey! Hey! Are you using logic?

None of that stuff in here, buster! Take it outside!

 

[Yahzi]

And, just by CHANCE,

Remember when you asserted you were more scientifically literate than me?

I know that evolution doesn't happen by chance. I learned this from granola.

Shake a box of granola gently, and what happens? The the little flakes sink to the bottom, and the big pieces float to the top where you can eat them by hand. Some time ago I noticed this sorting effect happens every single time. And, not being scientifically illiterate, I realized it wasn't because of chance.

I'm not sure how to characterize your scientific expertise, given that apparently my breakfast habits have yielded superior insights.

Sorry, I think maybe I'm in a bad mood today.

That's a good thing. It's the first sign that your cognitive dissonance is breaking down. It's like taking out a splinter; it hurts coming out, but afterwards there's a huge sense of relief.

Just take a big breath and admit that order can arise from simplicity if energy is injected into the system. Just let that fact lie there, like your granola, until it gets mushy. Just accept it for today.

And then, tomorrow, you can start working out what it means for everything else.

 

[hammegk]

Only if your materialist is 100% certain of materialism. If he is provisionally 99.99% convinced that materialism is the correct explanation of the state of the universe then your word-game argument falls apart.

No, that's what causes the problem ... unless you'd like to contend that 99.99=100.

As is usually the case, you are dueling a dualist straw man.

In this case, you are wrong; but keep trying ... you may eventually get it.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

And, just by CHANCE, this self-propagating chemistry (the details of which I look forward to reading) happens to produce a ribozyme, a piece of RNA which has the amazing property of being able to copy itself, from precursors that had the equally amazing properties of being present in the first place and of not diffusing off into the prebiotic soup.

Come on. No one is saying that a ribozyme appeared by chance. Just Google "evolution of ribozymes". And search for it at PubMed, too.

I really think you've got a narrow view of the modern synthesis.

~~ Paul

 

[John Hewitt]

Remember when you asserted you were more scientifically literate than me?

I know that evolution doesn't happen by chance. I learned this from granola.

Shake a box of granola gently, and what happens? The the little flakes sink to the bottom, and the big pieces float to the top where you can eat them by hand. Some time ago I noticed this sorting effect happens every single time. And, not being scientifically illiterate, I realized it wasn't because of chance.

I'm not sure how to characterize your scientific expertise, given that apparently my breakfast habits have yielded superior insights.

That's a good thing. It's the first sign that your cognitive dissonance is breaking down. It's like taking out a splinter; it hurts coming out, but afterwards there's a huge sense of relief.

Just take a big breath and admit that order can arise from simplicity if energy is injected into the system. Just let that fact lie there, like your granola, until it gets mushy. Just accept it for today.

And then, tomorrow, you can start working out what it means for everything else.

The problem with understanding the origin of life is not that of understanding the orgin of inanimate order but that of biological complexity. I am sorry you are unable to understand that distinction.

I repeat that what I would like is a dialogue directed to the topic. I think you just engage in ad hominems all the time.

 

[John Hewitt]

Come on. No one is saying that a ribozyme appeared by chance. Just Google "evolution of ribozymes". And search for it at PubMed, too.

I really think you've got a narrow view of the modern synthesis.

~~ Paul

No, I don't need to google it. I've read up on this field and attended a recent conference on it. Scientists may avoid those exact words, but chance is pretty much exactly what they are saying.

All these experiments on catalysed RNA sythesis begin with energy activated precursors, whose origin is not specified. In the laboratory, these precursors are kept together in containers, to stop them diffusing away. The clay cataysts are selected and treated to remove impurities that would stop the catalysis. Such carefully controlled conditions could never appear by chance in the prebiotic oceans and yet, even under those conditions, nothing resembling an autocatalytic ribozyme has been produced.

Consider Monod's options - chance or necessity - he could have added design but, so far as science is concerned, there are two options - origin by necessity, which means selection, or origin by chance. These studies on RNA synthesis do not specify a selective mechanism which leaves just chance as the origin of ribozymes - chance that we must happened not in a carefully controlled test tube but in the wide expanses of the prebiotic oceans.

I think the whole thing is a complete fantasy. My preference is to look for a selective mechanism.

 

[joobz]

And, just by CHANCE, this self-propagating chemistry (the details of which I look forward to reading) happens to produce a ribozyme, a piece of RNA which has the amazing property of being able to copy itself, from precursors that had the equally amazing properties of being present in the first place and of not diffusing off into the prebiotic soup.

Sorry, I think maybe I'm in a bad mood today.

No need to apologize, always happy to hear your thoughts.

But I again think it strange you acknowledge a rank0 form of selection that had to precede the rank1(gene based evolution). But you dismiss attempts to define what this rank0 as mere chance descriptions. Again, unless we know what data means in a physical sense, saying data is the basic unit of evolution doesn't add any "information".

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

No, I don't need to google it. I've read up on this field and attended a recent conference on it. Scientists may avoid those exact words, but chance is pretty much exactly what they are saying.

All these experiments on catalysed RNA sythesis begin with energy activated precursors, whose origin is not specified. In the laboratory, these precursors are kept together in containers, to stop them diffusing away. The clay cataysts are selected and treated to remove impurities that would stop the catalysis. Such carefully controlled conditions could never appear by chance in the prebiotic oceans and yet, even under those conditions, nothing resembling an autocatalytic ribozyme has been produced.

When I search around, I seem to find a more varied selection of experiments.

So what's your first step in discovering the selection pressures that you're talking about?

~~ Paul

 

[articulett]

John, you say: "The problem with understanding the origin of life is not that of understanding the origin of inanimate order but that of biological complexity. I am sorry you are unable to understand that distinction" to Yahtzi's clever explanation. But biological complexity arises from atoms...matter that responds to forces. There is no single point where we can say this is alive and this isn't when we go along the evolutionary path--some things have some properties of life but not others...sperm for example--viruses--prions--amino acides--blood cells--stem cells--the brain dead, tumors, fungi spores, etc. There really isn't a dividing line where something becomes alive just as speciation takes years and there is no moment where we can say--that is the first "human". You seem to think there is something added to the continuum of natural events to make life different than non life because on a macroscopic level the two seem very different--you seem to think there needs to be intelligence behind replication--that natural laws couldn't account for it--but that just means that you stop looking for the answer. All of our greatest scientific knowledge were powers once attributed to gods--we were told we couldn't understand--and yet we do--weather, inheritance, atoms, gravity, etc.

The ancestors of you didn't plan for or know you--and the further you go back in time the more you understand how true that is--they don't need to...it turns out that life can get made without anyone intending it and does so all the time. There's so much that came before you and so much that will come after and stuff in the bottom of the ocean that we are still discovering and so many weird viruses in the ocean that there are theories that viruses lead to life and not the other way around. What good does it do to believe that it's special or mysterious or beyond human understanding--other than make you feel more self important, I mean.

Yahtzi's point was merely that you are purposely and artificially making a difference between that which we call alive and that which is not so that you can point to a lack of knowledge as argument that an "intelligent designer" must be added to the "alive" side of the equation. But there is no such dividing line between alive and unalive--between conscious and unconscious...between awareness and lack thereof. It's a continuum.

 

[articulett]

And isn't the "selective mechanism" you are looking for always your "intelligent designer"--it's never chance coupled with natural selection...the way mountains get built and planets get formed and so forth? You won't allow yourself to even imagine this as a possibility because life is too different than those things--but it's not so different when you look at all the life-ish things mentioned above. It's ratcheting...one teeny tiny change on top of another and endless opportunities for experimentation just so long as energy is coming into the system...