alternatives to common descent with modification

[TomS]

It is obvious that "common descent with modification" is an
explanation for the "nested hierarchies of traits" of biological
taxonomy. Whether there is evidence for this explanation (even
if there were no evidence), it is a possibility. Whatever be the
causes of the modifications.

With appropriate interpretation of "descent", this also works as
a explanation in linguistics (as in the construction of the
tree of Indo-European languages) and in philology (as in the
"lower criticism" of the Bible).

My question is whether there is any "alternative" explanation
(no matter how poorly supported by the evidence) for a "nested
hierarchy of traits" in *any* field of study. (I exclude as a
non-explanation anything like "that's the way it happened to
turn out".)


--
---Tom S.

[Richard Norman]

There is always the goddidit explanation or the related "it was
designed that way". However for evolution there is an enormously well
researched mechanism for common descent with modification: genetics.
It is more than a "possibility". It is observed fact.

For linguistics there is cultural inheritance as the language tree
generally corresponds with historically or anthropologically recorded
changes in the culture or migrations.

[John S. Wilkins]

Well there's the numerological views of Lull and others in the 16th
century, where things were nested because Aristotleian categories were,
and the microcosm was a mirror of the macrocosm, so what applied in the
reasoning of things would apply in the wider world.
--
John S. Wilkins, Honorary Fellow, University of Melbourne
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre

[Mark Isaak]

It is possible that one nested hierarchy could cause another. For
example, if I am working on a project exclusively on my computer, its
nested hierarchy file system might influence me to create data of the
project to conform with the file system. The fact that I cannot think
of any specific example leads me to think, though, that such a cause is
unlikely. On the other hand, coevolution of parasites with their hosts
might qualify as such an example.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Keep the company of those who seek the truth; run from those who have
found it." - Vaclav Havel

[Kalkidas]

On 12 Apr 2014 08:10:49 -0700, TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:

Sure, replace "common descent" with "common design". Then allow for
"modification" to include the possibility of injection of new
instructions by an intelligent agent from outside the organism.

[hersheyh]

I would say that design by one or more designers would be possible *if* and only *if*
said designers were only very rarely capable of horizontal information transfer
and could not invent elegant solutions but could only modify existing inventions to
produce "new" functionality to form "kludged" solutions. These designers can only
work from the immediately pre-existing life forms. IOW, a designer(s) that
has/have limited intelligence and very little imagination. But one that is also so
brilliant that it can generate living organisms out of clay or some other inanimate
material any time it wants to. I know it sounds like a contradiction, but you didn't
require me to present a "good" solution. Just one that is reasonably consistent with
the evidence.
>
> ---Tom S.

[TomS]

"On Sat, 12 Apr 2014 13:20:28 -0700 (PDT), in article
<56de3f49-2aa6-4650...@googlegroups.com>, hersheyh stated..."

Yes, I purposely did not specify a good solution. And I was going along
your description of the designer until "so brilliant ...". I don't see
how this (paradoxical as it seems) is needed.


--
---Tom S.

[TomS]

"On Sun, 13 Apr 2014 02:24:37 +1000, in article
<1lk0ryd.zgs02612ngdc0N%jo...@wilkins.id.au>, John S. Wilkins stated..."

>
>TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>> It is obvious that "common descent with modification" is an
>> explanation for the "nested hierarchies of traits" of biological
>> taxonomy. Whether there is evidence for this explanation (even
>> if there were no evidence), it is a possibility. Whatever be the
>> causes of the modifications.
>>
>> With appropriate interpretation of "descent", this also works as
>> a explanation in linguistics (as in the construction of the
>> tree of Indo-European languages) and in philology (as in the
>> "lower criticism" of the Bible).
>>
>> My question is whether there is any "alternative" explanation
>> (no matter how poorly supported by the evidence) for a "nested
>> hierarchy of traits" in *any* field of study. (I exclude as a
>> non-explanation anything like "that's the way it happened to
>> turn out".)
>
>Well there's the numerological views of Lull and others in the 16th
>century, where things were nested because Aristotleian categories were,
>and the microcosm was a mirror of the macrocosm, so what applied in the
>reasoning of things would apply in the wider world.

Good find! I have to remember this.


--
---Tom S.

[TomS]

"On Sat, 12 Apr 2014 09:09:05 -0700, in article
<6soik9d9tj6oactsl...@4ax.com>, Richard Norman stated..."

I group "It was designed that way" as another way of saying "It happened
to turn out that way", as a non-explanation - unless there is specified
something about the design process that makes "that way" more suited
than "some other way".

I think that I can fully agree with the rest of what you say.


--
---Tom S.

[TomS]

"On Sat, 12 Apr 2014 10:19:25 -0700, in article <libsiv$q4h$1...@dont-email.me>,
Mark Isaak stated..."

>
>On 4/12/14 8:10 AM, TomS wrote:
>> It is obvious that "common descent with modification" is an
>> explanation for the "nested hierarchies of traits" of biological
>> taxonomy. Whether there is evidence for this explanation (even
>> if there were no evidence), it is a possibility. Whatever be the
>> causes of the modifications.
>>
>> With appropriate interpretation of "descent", this also works as
>> a explanation in linguistics (as in the construction of the
>> tree of Indo-European languages) and in philology (as in the
>> "lower criticism" of the Bible).
>>
>> My question is whether there is any "alternative" explanation
>> (no matter how poorly supported by the evidence) for a "nested
>> hierarchy of traits" in *any* field of study. (I exclude as a
>> non-explanation anything like "that's the way it happened to
>> turn out".)
>
>It is possible that one nested hierarchy could cause another. For
>example, if I am working on a project exclusively on my computer, its
>nested hierarchy file system might influence me to create data of the
>project to conform with the file system. The fact that I cannot think
>of any specific example leads me to think, though, that such a cause is
>unlikely. On the other hand, coevolution of parasites with their hosts
>might qualify as such an example.
>

You give me something to think over.


--
---Tom S.

[Roger Shrubber]

TomS wrote:
> "On Sat, 12 Apr 2014 13:20:28 -0700 (PDT), in article
> <56de3f49-2aa6-4650...@googlegroups.com>, hersheyh
> stated..."
>>
>> On Saturday, April 12, 2014 11:10:49 AM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
>>> It is obvious that "common descent with modification" is an
>>> explanation for the "nested hierarchies of traits" of biological
>>> taxonomy. Whether there is evidence for this explanation (even if
>>> there were no evidence), it is a possibility. Whatever be the
>>> causes of the modifications.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> With appropriate interpretation of "descent", this also works as
>>> a explanation in linguistics (as in the construction of the tree
>>> of Indo-European languages) and in philology (as in the "lower
>>> criticism" of the Bible).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> My question is whether there is any "alternative" explanation (no
>>> matter how poorly supported by the evidence) for a "nested
>>> hierarchy of traits" in *any* field of study. (I exclude as a
>>> non-explanation anything like "that's the way it happened to turn
>>> out".)
>>>
>> I would say that design by one or more designers would be possible
>> *if* and only *if* said designers were only very rarely capable of
>> horizontal information transfer

This is the special key to a nested hierarchy.
The focal question is, what prevents innovation in one branch
from being used in a separate branch? The nested hierarchy
is an observation.

Languages do borrow from each other, English being one of
the greatest thieves. Automobile design demonstrates
extensive lateral transfer. Computer languages show
extensive lateral transfer.

>> and could not invent elegant solutions but could only modify
>> existing inventions to produce "new" functionality to form
>> "kludged" solutions. These designers can only work from the
>> immediately pre-existing life forms. IOW, a designer(s) that
>> has/have limited intelligence and very little imagination. But one
>> that is also so brilliant that it can generate living organisms out
>> of clay or some other inanimate material any time it wants to. I
>> know it sounds like a contradiction, but you didn't require me to
>> present a "good" solution. Just one that is reasonably consistent
>> with the evidence.
>
> Yes, I purposely did not specify a good solution. And I was going
> along your description of the designer until "so brilliant ...". I
> don't see how this (paradoxical as it seems) is needed.

In for a penny, in for a pound. If you begin with a story about
how some external agent is responsible for creating/designing
new species from existing species, you extrapolate it to the
very first initiation of life. You could instead hypothesize
some compromised version where a minor deity is capable
of some level of genetic engineering on existing life forms,
provided you place severe constraints on this deity, perhaps
religious prohibitions, so that they only rarely do anything
that our current science would recognize as horizontal transfers.

But that's a great deal of special pleading.

[Walter Bushell]

In article <407343684.000...@drn.newsguy.com>,

TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:

> >It is possible that one nested hierarchy could cause another. For
> >example, if I am working on a project exclusively on my computer, its
> >nested hierarchy file system might influence me to create data of the
> >project to conform with the file system. The fact that I cannot think
> >of any specific example leads me to think, though, that such a cause is
> >unlikely. On the other hand, coevolution of parasites with their hosts
> >might qualify as such an example.
> >
>
> You give me something to think over.

It might be that as you nest topics the resultant structure of the
resulting paper is likely to reflect the file structure.

--
Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greed. Me.

[Darwin123]

On Saturday, April 12, 2014 11:10:49 AM UTC-4, TomS wrote:

> It is obvious that "common descent with modification" is an
>
> explanation for the "nested hierarchies of traits" of biological
>
> taxonomy. Whether there is evidence for this explanation (even
>
> if there were no evidence), it is a possibility. Whatever be the
>
> causes of the modifications.
>
>
>
> With appropriate interpretation of "descent", this also works as
> a explanation in linguistics (as in the construction of the
> tree of Indo-European languages) and in philology (as in the
> "lower criticism" of the Bible).
>

Your qualifier, 'with appropriate interpretation of descent', leaves a big
hole in any answer. Just about any hierarchy can be explained by modification
with descent provided that descent is interpreted 'properly'.

There are in fact a lot more examples of 'nested hierarchies' than you let
on. I conjecture that every structure that can be described by a fractal model
can also be characterized by a 'modification with descent' model. Let me give you an example.

Water channels (ponds, rivers, streams) have a branching structure.
One river can be fed by two rivers, each of which is fed by by multiple rivers.
River systems have been modified by a fractal model.

Here is an 'appropriate' set of definitions. 'Descending from' means
'feeding' when in comes to rivers. After all, the river that feeds another river
is in a sense caused by the other river. Unless the river had a sink to grab its
access water, it couldn't form in the first place. 'Modification' refers to the characteristics
of the river that descends from the first river. For instance, the angle it makes with the first
river is in a sense a variation. We can go on. However, rivers can be said to evolve by natural
selection. The most stable river system satisfies a 'fractal' law.

I think you are looking for an 'aggregation' model. There are mathematical models that
use the physically justified concept of separate systems aggregating. These are used to
justify fractal laws that have been seen in a large number of physical systems.

By nested hierarchy, I include both dendritic structures and reticulated structures. I
think that evolution going far back to the first cells is better described by a network than
a tree diagram. There is too much symbiosis and cross breeding around to exclude reticulated
diagrams from evolution. So cladograms are not the only way of describing evolution. This makes
it a little unclear what is meant by 'nested hierarchies'.

Maybe your question is a tautology. I suspect a modification with descent model can
be developed for any nested hierarchy by definition.

Even if a so called Designer is involved, one has to explain how this Designer came to like
nested hierarchies. I know with human beings, this is easy. Our brain cells themselves have
a nested hierarchy. So we our thought processes tend toward 'nested hierarchies'. Now, this
is harder to justify in a spirit.

Does God have nerve cells that provide a nest hierarchy? The question itself shows us
what sort of pitfalls await those who look for 'scientific proof' of God.

[Greg Guarino]

That is of course Behe's argument, but it's still common descent.

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

[jillery]

The problem with "common design" is that it should apply design
features according to need, as opposed to according to shared ancestry
from "common descent". The patterns between the two are entirely
different.

[Burkhard]

On Saturday, April 12, 2014 9:20:28 PM UTC+1, hersheyh wrote:
> On Saturday, April 12, 2014 11:10:49 AM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
>
> > It is obvious that "common descent with modification" is an
> > explanation for the "nested hierarchies of traits" of biological
> > taxonomy. Whether there is evidence for this explanation (even
> > if there were no evidence), it is a possibility. Whatever be the
> > causes of the modifications.
>

<snip>

>
> I would say that design by one or more designers would be possible *if* and only *if*
> said designers were only very rarely capable of horizontal information transfer

But that is easily explained: a strong system of Intellectual property law! Several,
probably at times antagonistic designers (just as Hesiod's theogony describes the
gods of Greece), whose invention are protected by a rigid and well enforced
IP regime. In that sort of setting, horizontal transfer happens only on those
rare occasions where a short-lived coalition forms, or one of them is taken over/
killed by another.

And that fits all the data better than the naturalistic model, which has to explain away
the cases where horizontal transfer of ideas occurs through a rather ad hoc-ish and
rather sterile (in term sod generation of new research hypothesis etc) "convergent
evolution" which has no more empirical content than to say: ideas are not transferred
horizontally unless they are.

> and could not invent elegant solutions but could only modify existing inventions t

> produce "new" functionality to form "kludged" solutions. These designers can only
> work from the immediately pre-existing life forms. IOW, a designer(s) that
> has/have limited intelligence and very little imagination. But one that is also so

> brilliant that it can generate living organisms out of clay or some other inanite

[TomS]

"On Sun, 13 Apr 2014 02:00:44 -0400, in article
<6q9kk9h008mtt6jki...@4ax.com>, jillery stated..."

Another problem with "common design" is that does not address the
*differences*. If everything were the same, "common design" might
be worth considering. And if the agency behind the design were not
able to use more than one design. And if .... No, "common design"
shows no prospect.


--
---Tom S.

[TomS]

"On Sat, 12 Apr 2014 17:56:25 -0700 (PDT), in article
<cb2e651f-1117-464f...@googlegroups.com>, Darwin123 stated..."
[...snip...]

That pretty much shot down any idea that I had.

Thanks. (Seriously, thanks for saving me much time and effort before
I went off on an unproductive idea.)


--
---Tom S.

[jonathan]

"TomS" <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:407315449.000...@drn.newsguy.com...

ALL self-organized (sutainable) [complex] systems are
examples of nested hierarchies. Anytime you observe
a 'duality', you're observing the effects of a nested
hierarchy.




Complexity and Scales: The Challenge
for Integrated Assessment


''Complexity,'' in science, can be linked to the need of using, in
parallel, not reducible models ( the coexistence of non-equivalent
descriptive domains required) for a useful representation of a
certain phenomenon. This is always the case, when dealing with:
(1) nested hierarchical systems (in which relevant patterns are
detectable only on different space-time scales); and
(2) socioeconomic systems ( in which agents are not only
non-equivalent observers, but also reflexive).

An intriguing definition of ''complexity,'' given by Rosen
[1: p. 229], can be used to introduce the topic of this paper:
''a complex system is one which allows us to discern many
subsystems...(a sub-system is the description of the system
determined by a particular choice of mapping only a certain
set of its qualities=properties)... depending entirely on
how we choose to interact with the system.''

''A stone can be a simple system for a person kicking it when
walking in the road, but at the same time be an extremely
complex system for a geologist examining it during an
investigation of a mineral site'' [

2.2. Self-Organizing Systems are Made of
Nested Hierarchies and Therefore Entail
Non-Equivalent Descriptive Domains

All natural systems of interest for sustainability (e.g.,
complex biogeochemical cycles, ecological systems and
human systems when analyzed at different levels of
organization and scales above the molecular one) are
'disspative systems' That is they are self-organizing, open
systems, away from thermodynamic equilibrium. Because
of this they are necessarily ''becoming systems'' [8],
that in turn implies that they: (i) are operating in parallel
on several hierarchical levels (where patterns of
self-organization can be detected only by adopting different
space-time windows of observation); and (ii) will change
their identity in time.

Put it in another way, the very concept of self-organization
in dissipative systems (the essence of living and evolving systems)
is deeply linked to the idea of: (1) parallel levels of organization
on different space-time scales; and (2) evolution (which implies
that the identity of the state space, required to describe their
behaviour in a useful way, is changing in time).

Actually the idea of parallel levels of organization is
directly linked to the de?nition of hierarchical systems given
by O' Neill [9]: a dissipative system is hierarchical when it
operates on multiple spatio-temporal scales - that is when
different process rates are found in the system. Another
useful de?nition of hierarchical systems referring to their
analysis is: ''systems are hierarchical when they are
analyzable into successive sets of subsystems''[10: p. 468] -
in this case we can consider them as near-decomposable.

Finally a de?nition of hierarchical systems more related to
the epistemological dimension: ''a system is hierarchical
when alternative methods of description exist for the
same system'' [11]. The existence of different levels
and scales at which a hierarchical system is operating
implies the unavoidable existence of non-equivalent ways of
describing it.

For example (Fig. 1), we can describe a human being at
the microscopic level to study the process of digestion of
nutrients within her=his body. When we look at a human
being at the scale related to the level of an intestine cell we
can even take a picture of it with a microscope (Fig. 1A).
However, this type of description is not compatible with the
description which would be required to catch the quality
''face'' of the same human being


http://journals.sfu.ca/int_assess/index.php/iaj/article/viewFile/33/121






>
>
> --
> ---Tom S.
>

[jillery]

Another excellent point.

[eridanus]

the catholic authorities at present have not this problem. God created
the first life, and let it free to evolve.
Eri

[RonO]

This isn't really an alternative. It is just biological evolution with
tinkering and tinkering with severe limitations. Essentially we have
common ancestors with all other life on earth, but some tinkerer can put
in "specified" mutations every once in a while in such a way that we
can't determine if the tinkerer exists or not.

The main problem with this notion is that the tinkerer is severely
limited in what it can do. Why are land vertebrates stuck with an eye
evolved in water? How come the tinkerer didn't give at least some
vertebrates the mollusc eye with no blind spot and all the support cells
behind the photoreceptors like they should be instead of in front and
obstructing the photoreceptors? This is likely the biggest issue of the
Tinker hypothesis. Why is horizontal transfer of innovations so rare?
Why is the Tinker limited to descent with modification? It is as if the
Tinker has to work with the limitations of biological evolution. Once
speciation occurs horizontal transfer is limited as if the Tinker is
limited by breeding, just normal biology. It looks like things like the
HOX genes only evolved once and then were modified in various lineages.
It is as if the Tinker is just natural selection. Certainly, not much
more than selective breeding. If the Tinker could do more, why hasn't
it done more? Look at things like the Flagellum. Why did they only
evolve twice in the entire history of life? The eubacterial flagellum
grows the tail of the flagellum from the tip out and the archea
flagellum grows the tail from the base. Why only twice? Why not
multiple flagellum with independent origins? There were likely many
lineages of bacteria that could have benefitted, but we had just two
lineages evolve flagella and out compete and diversify, likely
displacing (driving to extinction) some poor species left out of the
Tinker's largess.

Look at the blood clotting systems of lifeforms. We have various
lineages with some basal system, but they have evolved additions over
time. Why are the additions only shared in a way that is consistent
with descent with modification? Why can't the additions be shared
across diverse lineages. Why are the additions often due to gene
duplication and modification? Why bother with gene duplication and
modification if you already have something that works somewhere else in
the biosphere? Why is there a limit to what innovations can be shared?
Why is that limit obviously biological?

Why is there only one species of Homo left on earth? Why aren't there a
half dozen or more brother species that benefitted in parallel with all
the new innovations that made us Human? Why do we have other great ape
lineages that obviously share a common ancestor with us, but the Tinker
did not give them a modern human brain? Why did it take so long to
evolve the modern human brain? How many different trial lineages did it
take? It wasn't just a straight line ladder of advance. Why was there
so much failure?

It looks like the Tinker is limited to selecting mutations as they
appear by chance within a species and building on what already exists.
So what is different from calling it natural selection or the Tinker?

Ron Okimoto

[TomS]

"On Sun, 13 Apr 2014 06:50:31 -0400, in article
<pa6dncqTu4q38dfO...@giganews.com>, jonathan stated..."
[...snip...]

>ALL self-organized (sutainable) [complex] systems are
>examples of nested hierarchies. Anytime you observe
>a 'duality', you're observing the effects of a nested
>hierarchy.

[...snip...]

Thank you.


--
---Tom S.

[Kalkidas]

On Sun, 13 Apr 2014 01:41:35 -0400, Greg Guarino <gdgu...@gmail.com>
wrote:

It is not at all what evolutionists mean by "common descent with
modification".

[Kalkidas]

On 13 Apr 2014 03:16:06 -0700, TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:

What I had in mind:

A "master organism" or prototype, which contains all the genetic
material for every future organism. Future organisms are "descended"
from the prototype by selective removal or loss of genetic material.

The nested hierarchy is retained, since all descendents share at least
some genetic material with the prototype.

In other words, devolution rather than evolution.

[jillery]

That doesn't work either. Besides the obvious problem of maintaining
genes which provide no functionality for billions of years (what good
are genes to digest nylon before the existence of nylon?), there is
also the problem that devolution would create a correlation between
chromosome number and complexity, and there is none:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_organisms_by_chromosome_count>


I suppose some humans act simpler than potatoes, but it would be hard
to reasonably conclude they are less genetically complex. And how do
you account for adders-tongue ferns?

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 12 Apr 2014 12:31:45 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub>:

Sure. But first it might be useful to demonstrate the
existence of the designer or intelligent agent (or, if you
prefer, "Designer or Intelligent Agent").

Now post your usual non-response.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[RonO]

Behe proposed something like this, but it doesn't work out. There is no
means of maintaining the genetic material for billions of years before
it is needed. Just look at the sequence between coding genes and intron
sequences. Introns are the pieces of DNA between the exons and exons
are the coding regions of the genes. There are some conserved parts of
introns, but most of the sequence is not selectively maintained and by
the time you get to something like the difference between cows and
humans (around 80 million years) there isn't very much similarity left.
In fact you have trouble lining up the sequences because they are so
different.

To get this scenario to work you need to have some means of maintaining
all the genetic material that you need until something like the Cambrian
explosion or when the flagellum evolved over a billion years after the
first signs of life on earth.

You also have to identify this initial organism and tell us how it
worked and stored all this genetic information when eukaryotes took
hundreds of millions of years to evolve. Was it preserved in one big
circular genome until linear chromosomes evolved? How was all this
genetic material preserved in prokaryotes?

What you should be doing is getting someone to look for an organism with
all this genetic material in it. If the system was good enough to
preserve all the genetic information needed for the Cambrian explosion
for over 3 billion years there should still be some lineage with the
system still intact. Wouldn't you expect to find some sponge or
something with this system still functioning? Why would it disappear if
the organism hadn't reached it's full potential yet?

Ron Okimoto

[broger...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, April 13, 2014 4:56:48 PM UTC-4, Kalkidas wrote:

>
>
>
> What I had in mind:
>
>
>
> A "master organism" or prototype, which contains all the genetic
>
> material for every future organism. Future organisms are "descended"
>
> from the prototype by selective removal or loss of genetic material.
>
>
>
> The nested hierarchy is retained, since all descendents share at least
>
> some genetic material with the prototype.
>
>
>
> In other words, devolution rather than evolution.

That's an idea, anyway. I guess it would imply that the divinely created first cell contained in its genome all the genes required to produce a sequoia trunk, an elephant trunk, an octupus eye, a mammalian eye, a chimpanzee brain, etc, etc..but that at first there were genetic elements which repressed the expression of all those genes, and then, during the course of "devolution" those repressor elements were selectively lost from the genomes in different branches of the taxonomic tree, leading to an appearance of descent with modification.

And all modern, simple organisms, bacteria, archaea, protozoa, would have lost the genes for all those structures found in multi-cellular eukaryotes, so that there is no trace of the original, divinely created first genome.

Not particularly falsifiable, but not bad as an alternative. Better than just saying "common design" for sure.

[TomS]

"On Sun, 13 Apr 2014 13:56:48 -0700, in article
<o9ulk9p9jj6ibap9p...@4ax.com>, Kalkidas stated..."
[...snip...]

>What I had in mind:
>
>A "master organism" or prototype, which contains all the genetic
>material for every future organism. Future organisms are "descended"
>from the prototype by selective removal or loss of genetic material.
>
>The nested hierarchy is retained, since all descendents share at least
>some genetic material with the prototype.
>
>In other words, devolution rather than evolution.
>

AIUI, what you are proposing is "common descent with modification".
It differs from what evolutionary biology offers today, but it is
I think under the umbrella of theories that I proposed.

Whether or not there is evidence for against it is not relevant to
my question.


--
---Tom S.

[Greg Guarino]

On 4/13/2014 4:30 PM, Kalkidas wrote:
>>>> My question is whether there is any "alternative" explanation
>>>> >>>(no matter how poorly supported by the evidence) for a "nested

>>>> >>>hierarchy of traits" in*any* field of study. (I exclude as a

>>>> >>>non-explanation anything like "that's the way it happened to
>>>> >>>turn out".)
>>> >>
>>> >>Sure, replace "common descent" with "common design". Then allow for
>>> >>"modification" to include the possibility of injection of new
>>> >>instructions by an intelligent agent from outside the organism.
>>> >>
>> >That is of course Behe's argument, but it's still common descent.
> It is not at all what evolutionists mean by "common descent with
> modification".
>

The issue at hand is, when we find a natural nested hierarchy, is there
any plausible explanation other than descent with modification of
existing "structures" ? As far as I know, there is not. Whatever the
mechanism of modification may be, only descent with modification
produces such a pattern.

No sort of "common design" by designers we know about produces a natural
nested hierarchy, and - ruling out deceit - it's easy to see why.
Designers use whatever collection of features they think will work best,
or look best, or sell best. They don't restrict themselves to "lineages"
or to only reshaping existing parts.

Behe, as I understand it, accepts common descent for the same reason
biologists do; the pattern we find in the traits of life on Earth
demands it. He simply posits a different mechanism, a "designer who
tweaks his designs from time to time and, for unknown reasons, limits
himself as no known designer does.

[Robert Camp]

Okay...so where is the "design?"

It seems to me that in your scenario "design" is synonymous with "poof,"
or "let there be..." or whatever euphemism you choose for magic.

You don't offer any goals or visions the design is envisaged to fulfill.
You don't describe any methods used in the conception or implementation
of the design. You don't outline any limitations or characteristics of
reality that correspond to aspects or qualities of the design. In short,
you give us no justification for the use of the term.

How is your use of "design" in "common design" anything more than a bald
attempt to import your ideology?

[Kalkidas]

Um, all around you...

>
>It seems to me that in your scenario "design" is synonymous with "poof,"
>or "let there be..." or whatever euphemism you choose for magic.

You mean like "by natural selection", or "by chance"?

>You don't offer any goals or visions the design is envisaged to fulfill.
>You don't describe any methods used in the conception or implementation
>of the design. You don't outline any limitations or characteristics of
>reality that correspond to aspects or qualities of the design. In short,
>you give us no justification for the use of the term.

a. Design is all around you.
b. You evidently can't perceive it.
c. What is the use of giving details of something to someone who can't
even perceive its existence?

>How is your use of "design" in "common design" anything more than a bald
>attempt to import your ideology?

How is your ideology anything more than a transparent attempt to
justify your blindness?

[TomS]

"On Mon, 14 Apr 2014 09:22:42 -0700, in article <lih20j$kpi$1...@dont-email.me>,
Robert Camp stated..."
[...snip...]

>Okay...so where is the "design?"
>
>It seems to me that in your scenario "design" is synonymous with "poof,"
>or "let there be..." or whatever euphemism you choose for magic.
>
>You don't offer any goals or visions the design is envisaged to fulfill.
>You don't describe any methods used in the conception or implementation
>of the design. You don't outline any limitations or characteristics of
>reality that correspond to aspects or qualities of the design. In short,
>you give us no justification for the use of the term.
>
>How is your use of "design" in "common design" anything more than a bald
>attempt to import your ideology?
>

ISTM that "common design" functions as "that's the way it is".

ISMT that "design" is not only a bust as science, it is also no
good as philosophy or theology.

Unless "design" means something other than what the common term
means.

"Design" is an inept synonym for "create".

And "design" is something other than "produce". We can design
plenty of things which we never get around to making, or that
we not have the means or material to make, or turn out to be
impossible to make.

So until the advocates of "Intelligent Design" tell us what they
mean by "design", all that we have to go on is our ordinary
experience of designs, and they don't work to explain anything
about real living things.


--
---Tom S.

[Robert Camp]

Umm, ideology is not an answer to a definitional question.

>> It seems to me that in your scenario "design" is synonymous with "poof,"
>> or "let there be..." or whatever euphemism you choose for magic.
>
> You mean like "by natural selection", or "by chance"?

Well, no. Since both natural selection and stochasticity are empirically
demonstrable phenomena - utterly unlike magic - I don't mean anything
like that.

>> You don't offer any goals or visions the design is envisaged to fulfill.
>> You don't describe any methods used in the conception or implementation
>> of the design. You don't outline any limitations or characteristics of
>> reality that correspond to aspects or qualities of the design. In short,
>> you give us no justification for the use of the term.
>
> a. Design is all around you.

If, by design, you are referring to the examples of human activity that
are all around me, then sure, but of course that's not a point in favor
of your position. If by design you mean the natural world, then you are
exhibiting the convenient misapprehension often demonstrated by those
who have no argument.

> b. You evidently can't perceive it.

In fact I have no trouble perceiving design. I've even gone to some
lengths to characterize our meanings and definitions when we use the
word, and I just don't see how it can be considered synonymous with
magic. I'm asking you to explain that to me, to little avail so far.

> c. What is the use of giving details of something to someone who can't
> even perceive its existence?

What is the use of believing in something when you cannot even describe
it competently to someone who doesn't share that belief? I'm mystified
by a rhetorical justification that hinges upon the opening assertion,
"Well, once you truly believe in it, you'll see how true the belief is!"

>> How is your use of "design" in "common design" anything more than a bald
>> attempt to import your ideology?
>
> How is your ideology anything more than a transparent attempt to
> justify your blindness?

That's easy to explain: my ideology consists of one assumption - that
the universe is real, measurable and understandable. Thus, my
"blindnesses" end up being small, personal peccadillos like not liking
sweet potatoes or believing that dropped screws roll under cabinets more
often for me than for others. I make no existential claims that I am
forced to defend with empty claims about transcendental designers.

Barring having the sack to give substantive answers to legitimate
questions, you should consider the above approach, it's intellectually
liberating.

[Richard Norman]

On 12 Apr 2014 08:10:49 -0700, TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:

>It is obvious that "common descent with modification" is an
>explanation for the "nested hierarchies of traits" of biological
>taxonomy. Whether there is evidence for this explanation (even
>if there were no evidence), it is a possibility. Whatever be the
>causes of the modifications.
>
>With appropriate interpretation of "descent", this also works as
>a explanation in linguistics (as in the construction of the
>tree of Indo-European languages) and in philology (as in the
>"lower criticism" of the Bible).
>
>My question is whether there is any "alternative" explanation
>(no matter how poorly supported by the evidence) for a "nested
>hierarchy of traits" in *any* field of study. (I exclude as a
>non-explanation anything like "that's the way it happened to
>turn out".)

One possibility is illustrated by the game "twenty questions." One
person thinks of something that falls under one of the categories
animal, vegetable, or mineral, declaring the category. The
contestants have to identify the subject by asking at most twenty
yes-no questions. That produces a tree structure for the
possibilities with, of course, at most one million total endpoints. It
is amazing how often it is possible to find the answer.

Still, this serial binary choice, which is really the same concept as
a biological dichotomous key, produces a tree structure of
possibilities which is equivalent to a nested hierarchy.

Incidentally, a real biological dichotomous key to identify species is
often based on characters quite distinct from evolutionarily
significant branching points. It is a nested hierarchy that need not
represent at all the phylogeny. All that is necessary for such a key
is to end up with the species, not the route taken to get there. So a
plant key for interested amateurs might include things like "red
flowers or yellow", "opposite leaves or alternate". (OK, these are
not really dichotomous distinctions -- there are more than two
possibilities -- but any multiple choice situation can be made into a
series of yes-no questions.)

[jillery]

Non sequitur. There's nothing magical about either.

>>You don't offer any goals or visions the design is envisaged to fulfill.
>>You don't describe any methods used in the conception or implementation
>>of the design. You don't outline any limitations or characteristics of
>>reality that correspond to aspects or qualities of the design. In short,
>>you give us no justification for the use of the term.
>
>a. Design is all around you.
>b. You evidently can't perceive it.
>c. What is the use of giving details of something to someone who can't
>even perceive its existence?

What you identify as an inability to perceive by Robert is almost
certainly an inability to explain yourself.

>>How is your use of "design" in "common design" anything more than a bald
>>attempt to import your ideology?
>
>How is your ideology anything more than a transparent attempt to
>justify your blindness?

Your projection is overheating.

[Kalkidas]

On Mon, 14 Apr 2014 10:53:25 -0700, Robert Camp

Oh really? OK. Go ahead and "empirically demonstrate" Chance, i.e.,
some event that occurs without cause, i.e. is not an effect. remember
that you must show "empirically" that no cause is involved, hidden or
otherwise.

You can't do it, because something that happens without cause is, to
use your expression, "poof".

And given that "natural selection" is 99% imaginary reconstructions of
unobservable events, the same applies to it.

>>> You don't offer any goals or visions the design is envisaged to fulfill.
>>> You don't describe any methods used in the conception or implementation
>>> of the design. You don't outline any limitations or characteristics of
>>> reality that correspond to aspects or qualities of the design. In short,
>>> you give us no justification for the use of the term.
>>
>> a. Design is all around you.
>
>If, by design, you are referring to the examples of human activity that
>are all around me, then sure, but of course that's not a point in favor
>of your position. If by design you mean the natural world, then you are
>exhibiting the convenient misapprehension often demonstrated by those
>who have no argument.
>
>> b. You evidently can't perceive it.
>
>In fact I have no trouble perceiving design. I've even gone to some
>lengths to characterize our meanings and definitions when we use the
>word, and I just don't see how it can be considered synonymous with
>magic. I'm asking you to explain that to me, to little avail so far.

You think so highly of your own perceptual abilities. What can anyone
do? First come down off that high horse.

>> c. What is the use of giving details of something to someone who can't
>> even perceive its existence?
>
>What is the use of believing in something when you cannot even describe
>it competently to someone who doesn't share that belief? I'm mystified
>by a rhetorical justification that hinges upon the opening assertion,
>"Well, once you truly believe in it, you'll see how true the belief is!"

I'd like to see you learn, say, chemistry without "believing" in it in
the first place. You could not do it.

>>> How is your use of "design" in "common design" anything more than a bald
>>> attempt to import your ideology?
>>
>> How is your ideology anything more than a transparent attempt to
>> justify your blindness?
>
>That's easy to explain: my ideology consists of one assumption - that
>the universe is real, measurable and understandable.

Um, that's three assumptions. The first one is merely giving a synonym
(because you really don't know what "the universe" is, or what "real"
means). the second is a whopper, and the third is a mega-whopper.

I reject your ideology. The universe is not fully measurable, nor is
it fully understandable. To show this, I need only cite Quantum
Theory. And the terms "universe" and "real" are empty terms, capable
only of circular definitions.

Bear in mind that it's only an ideology that I'm rejecting; not a
truth, not a science, only an ideology.

>Thus, my
>"blindnesses" end up being small, personal peccadillos like not liking
>sweet potatoes or believing that dropped screws roll under cabinets more
>often for me than for others. I make no existential claims that I am
>forced to defend with empty claims about transcendental designers.

So your ideology is self-serving and is transparently designed to
justify your aversion to "transcendental designers". What a surprise.

>Barring having the sack to give substantive answers to legitimate
>questions, you should consider the above approach, it's intellectually
>liberating.

Considered and rejected.

[Kalkidas]

On Mon, 14 Apr 2014 06:01:53 -0700 (PDT), broger...@gmail.com
wrote:

Well, thanks at least for not immediately ridiculing the idea!

[Kalkidas]

On Mon, 14 Apr 2014 11:54:33 -0400, Greg Guarino <gdgu...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 4/13/2014 4:30 PM, Kalkidas wrote:
>>>>> My question is whether there is any "alternative" explanation
>>>>> >>>(no matter how poorly supported by the evidence) for a "nested
>>>>> >>>hierarchy of traits" in*any* field of study. (I exclude as a
>>>>> >>>non-explanation anything like "that's the way it happened to
>>>>> >>>turn out".)
>>>> >>
>>>> >>Sure, replace "common descent" with "common design". Then allow for
>>>> >>"modification" to include the possibility of injection of new
>>>> >>instructions by an intelligent agent from outside the organism.
>>>> >>
>>> >That is of course Behe's argument, but it's still common descent.
>> It is not at all what evolutionists mean by "common descent with
>> modification".
>>
>
>The issue at hand is, when we find a natural nested hierarchy, is there
>any plausible explanation other than descent with modification of
>existing "structures" ? As far as I know, there is not. Whatever the
>mechanism of modification may be, only descent with modification
>produces such a pattern.
>
>No sort of "common design" by designers we know about produces a natural
>nested hierarchy,

I don't know what you mean here by "natural", but there are a lot of
engineers, mathematicians, computer programmers, etc. who design
nested hierarchies every day.

> and - ruling out deceit - it's easy to see why.
>Designers use whatever collection of features they think will work best,
>or look best, or sell best. They don't restrict themselves to "lineages"
>or to only reshaping existing parts.

Was the Big Bang only a reshaping of existing parts? Does a
singularity have "parts"? Or, what is the Big Bang's "lineage".

At the singularity, there were no "existing structures", at least, not
in the singularity itself. And there was no time, so there was no
"before", so the Big Bang has no "lineage"

Or, what was the modification that produced the Big Bang, which in
turn produced the "nested hierarchy" of the universe?

So at least the cosmologists would disagree with you that Nature works
only through "lineages" and "reshaping existing parts".

Anyway, there comes a point at which a "reshaped part" becomes a "new
part", wouldn't you agree? How many hairs must a man have on his head
before you stop calling him "bald"?

>Behe, as I understand it, accepts common descent for the same reason
>biologists do; the pattern we find in the traits of life on Earth
>demands it. He simply posits a different mechanism, a "designer who
>tweaks his designs from time to time and, for unknown reasons, limits
>himself as no known designer does.

Designers limit themselves all the time! And they also produce designs
which contain functions not pertinent to the job they are supposed to
do. Tail fins on a Cadillac!

[Robert Camp]

Another convenient misapprehension, or do you really not understand?

That the occurrence of some phenomenon evinces a random probability
distribution does not mean that it has no cause. Additionally, it is
obvious that in this context stochastic does not refer to ultimate
cause, it means with respect to other parameters, such as, in the case
of mutations and selection, need.

> You can't do it, because something that happens without cause is, to
> use your expression, "poof".

Indeed it is, and that is another reason to reject your ideology in
favor of science when we look for actual explanations of natural reality.

> And given that "natural selection" is 99% imaginary reconstructions of
> unobservable events, the same applies to it.

Your ignorance of evolution seems to have grown in your time here. How
is that possible absent a commitment to maintaining that ignorance?

>>>> You don't offer any goals or visions the design is envisaged to fulfill.
>>>> You don't describe any methods used in the conception or implementation
>>>> of the design. You don't outline any limitations or characteristics of
>>>> reality that correspond to aspects or qualities of the design. In short,
>>>> you give us no justification for the use of the term.
>>>
>>> a. Design is all around you.
>>
>> If, by design, you are referring to the examples of human activity that
>> are all around me, then sure, but of course that's not a point in favor
>> of your position. If by design you mean the natural world, then you are
>> exhibiting the convenient misapprehension often demonstrated by those
>> who have no argument.
>>
>>> b. You evidently can't perceive it.
>>
>> In fact I have no trouble perceiving design. I've even gone to some
>> lengths to characterize our meanings and definitions when we use the
>> word, and I just don't see how it can be considered synonymous with
>> magic. I'm asking you to explain that to me, to little avail so far.
>
> You think so highly of your own perceptual abilities. What can anyone
> do? First come down off that high horse.

Try not to be so cranky. I don't think any more highly of my perceptual
abilities than I do of my pizza-making skills. I do make better pizza
than most people, but that's because most people haven't been as
obsessive about pizza as I have. It's not like I've inherited the
pizza-making gene (unfortunately I did get the pizza-eating gene).

This isn't about the abilities, it's about the interest, as well as,
frankly, the absence of confounding existential commitments.

>>> c. What is the use of giving details of something to someone who can't
>>> even perceive its existence?
>>
>> What is the use of believing in something when you cannot even describe
>> it competently to someone who doesn't share that belief? I'm mystified
>> by a rhetorical justification that hinges upon the opening assertion,
>> "Well, once you truly believe in it, you'll see how true the belief is!"
>
> I'd like to see you learn, say, chemistry without "believing" in it in
> the first place. You could not do it.

I could, and I did. I had no belief in chemistry when I took it in
college. None of my professors ever claimed that I wouldn't be able to
understand valence electron configuration if I didn't first "believe" in
it. All that was required was trust that the information I was being
given reflected the best knowledge in the field.

That is, of course, quite different from what I was talking about.

>>>> How is your use of "design" in "common design" anything more than a bald
>>>> attempt to import your ideology?
>>>
>>> How is your ideology anything more than a transparent attempt to
>>> justify your blindness?
>>
>> That's easy to explain: my ideology consists of one assumption - that
>> the universe is real, measurable and understandable.
>
> Um, that's three assumptions.

Um, that's three different ways of saying the same thing. I wrote it and
thought, "No, he wouldn't be that petty would he?" Ah well..

> The first one is merely giving a synonym
> (because you really don't know what "the universe" is, or what "real"
> means). the second is a whopper, and the third is a mega-whopper.

Are you hungry?

> I reject your ideology. The universe is not fully measurable, nor is
> it fully understandable.

Gee, do you think anyone will notice that incredibly sly distortion of
my meaning?

> To show this, I need only cite Quantum
> Theory. And the terms "universe" and "real" are empty terms, capable
> only of circular definitions.
>
> Bear in mind that it's only an ideology that I'm rejecting; not a
> truth, not a science, only an ideology.

Yeah, well your ideology prevents you using those terms as most people
do, so I'll let that word salad stand on its own until you decide to get
into the weeds and actually define terms.

>> Thus, my
>> "blindnesses" end up being small, personal peccadillos like not liking
>> sweet potatoes or believing that dropped screws roll under cabinets more
>> often for me than for others. I make no existential claims that I am
>> forced to defend with empty claims about transcendental designers.
>
> So your ideology is self-serving and is transparently designed to
> justify your aversion to "transcendental designers". What a surprise.

In point of fact, my epistemology demands that I accept the existence of
transcendental designers should the evidence warrant such a conclusion.
Of course, I don't get to redefine "evidence" to suit my personal needs,
regardless of whether that refers to the color of a traffic light or the
nature of the universe.

Do you, at any point, intend your comments to refer to something I've
said or questions I've asked? Because if you're going to continue
talking to your mental strawmen I'll just let myself out.

[Greg Guarino]

On 4/14/2014 3:39 PM, Kalkidas wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Apr 2014 11:54:33 -0400, Greg Guarino <gdgu...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 4/13/2014 4:30 PM, Kalkidas wrote:
>>>>>> My question is whether there is any "alternative" explanation
>>>>>>>>> (no matter how poorly supported by the evidence) for a "nested
>>>>>>>>> hierarchy of traits" in*any* field of study. (I exclude as a
>>>>>>>>> non-explanation anything like "that's the way it happened to
>>>>>>>>> turn out".)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sure, replace "common descent" with "common design". Then allow for
>>>>>>> "modification" to include the possibility of injection of new
>>>>>>> instructions by an intelligent agent from outside the organism.
>>>>>>>
>>>>> That is of course Behe's argument, but it's still common descent.
>>> It is not at all what evolutionists mean by "common descent with
>>> modification".
>>>
>>
>> The issue at hand is, when we find a natural nested hierarchy, is there
>> any plausible explanation other than descent with modification of
>> existing "structures" ? As far as I know, there is not. Whatever the
>> mechanism of modification may be, only descent with modification
>> produces such a pattern.
>>
>> No sort of "common design" by designers we know about produces a natural
>> nested hierarchy,
>
> I don't know what you mean here by "natural",

I doubt I have the time to adequately explain it, but it is clear from
the rest of your post that you do not indeed understand what is being
discussed here, namely, what is special about a natural nested hierarchy
and why only descent with modification can be expected to produce such a
pattern in a class of "things".

There is a description here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#nested_hierarchy

but there are a lot of
> engineers, mathematicians, computer programmers, etc. who design
> nested hierarchies every day.

We can make an arbitrary hierarchy from any class of objects, but no
designers deliberately avoid, say, putting radial tires on any line of
car they like just because they originated on another "brand". That's
one of the factors that distinguishes a natural nested hierarchy; we
find certain structures only in the descendants of a certain lineage.

>
>> and - ruling out deceit - it's easy to see why.
>> Designers use whatever collection of features they think will work best,
>> or look best, or sell best. They don't restrict themselves to "lineages"
>> or to only reshaping existing parts.
>
> Was the Big Bang only a reshaping of existing parts? Does a
> singularity have "parts"? Or, what is the Big Bang's "lineage".

>
> At the singularity, there were no "existing structures", at least, not
> in the singularity itself. And there was no time, so there was no
> "before", so the Big Bang has no "lineage"

The Big Bang doesn't enter into this discussion, which is about
branching descent and the pattern of features it produces.

>
> Or, what was the modification that produced the Big Bang, which in
> turn produced the "nested hierarchy" of the universe?

As far as I know, the objects in the universe do not form the sort of
hierarchy we are discussing. Neither do the chemical elements, to choose
another example.

> So at least the cosmologists would disagree with you that Nature works
> only through "lineages" and "reshaping existing parts".

I never suggested that "Nature" works that way, merely life on Earth.

> Anyway, there comes a point at which a "reshaped part" becomes a "new
> part", wouldn't you agree? How many hairs must a man have on his head
> before you stop calling him "bald"?

Semantics. The point is we do not find structures in life that appear to
have been added de novo, without similar predecessors. Among designed
objects, that happens all the time. The first automobile radio was not a
repurposed part of the dashboard, it was simply added on.

>
>> Behe, as I understand it, accepts common descent for the same reason
>> biologists do; the pattern we find in the traits of life on Earth
>> demands it. He simply posits a different mechanism, a "designer who
>> tweaks his designs from time to time and, for unknown reasons, limits
>> himself as no known designer does.
>
> Designers limit themselves all the time!

Do they limit themselves to making modifications of previous structures
in the "lineage"? Or do they instead add on whatever features they think
will work best, or sell best, or be most cost effective, regardless
where they might have originated?

And they also produce designs
> which contain functions not pertinent to the job they are supposed to
> do. Tail fins on a Cadillac!

Quite so. Making my point. They borrowed the "look" from aircraft
designs (a different lineage). They did not need to reshape the fenders
of the previous model, they simply changed the design. And other car
manufacturers produced their own versions of tailfins, "stealing" the
idea. That's exactly the sort of "horizontal transfer" we expect from
designers, but not in (at least) animal life.

[Kalkidas]

On Mon, 14 Apr 2014 16:48:44 -0400, Greg Guarino <gdgu...@gmail.com>

On the contrary, I know exactly what is being discussed here. A
"nested hierarchy" is defined as "groups within groups". that's really
all it means.

And "groups within groups" can be constructed simply by grouping some
objects together and making subgroups out of them. No need to modify
anything if the objects are already existing. And no need for
"descent" if the objects are already existing.

Now, if you want to cheat (which is what the web page you cited does),
just tweak the definition of "nested hierarchy" to look more and more
like the definition of "common descent with modification" until the
two are practically identical. Then claim that one caused the other.

I really don't think there's anything else to be discussed here. I'm
not putting up with blather about "objective" and "subjective"
classifications, since the difference between the two is entirely
subjective.

[Kalkidas]

On Mon, 14 Apr 2014 13:28:32 -0700, Robert Camp

Priceless. You really are a textbook example.

[jillery]

That you state the above in apparent sincerity shows that you don't
know what what's being discussed here. What you describe above is
applying arbitrary groups, ex. flying organisms. But that approach
rapidly falls apart as the same organisms can be put into different
and conflicting arrangements, ex bats and birds both fly, but bats
have live birth, and birds lay eggs. Pick some other arbitrary
grouping, and you very quickly run into the same problem.

The nested hierarchy that identifies common descent is not arbitrary,
but is the one revealed from the collective properties of myriad
organisms. The expected organization from common design simply
doesn't fit the facts.

>I really don't think there's anything else to be discussed here. I'm
>not putting up with blather about "objective" and "subjective"
>classifications, since the difference between the two is entirely
>subjective.

You're absolutely right. There's no point in discussing this with
you. Your mind is made up, so don't confuse you with facts.


[...]

[Darwin123]

To my understanding, 'chance' can have a cause. If the definition of
chance was 'without cause', then I there would be nothing in science
which happened by 'chance'.

My understanding of the word 'chance' is 'unpredictable'.
However, I can also accept a definition for 'chance' which means
without 'purpose', 'meaning' or 'function'.


I suspect that you are really talking about the word 'random'. I have
never heard a scientist define 'random' as 'without cause'. In mathematics,
a 'random' event is defined in terms of correlations. Two types of events are
random with respect to each other if their mutual correlation is zero. This
definition is quantifiable, and falsifiable.

I read Darwin's 'Origin of the Species'. My impression was that
the word 'chance' referred to 'without purpose, meaning or predictability'.
I don't remember him saying anywhere that variations were without cause.

I think the reasons that Darwin's variations happened by chance is that
they occurred independent of their survival value. Placing an animal in an
environment where a variation could be beneficial doesn't change the probability
that this variation will occur.

Darwin thought there were exceptions to variations acting by chance. He even
wrote a book about such exceptions. The 'cause' he hypothesized was wrong,
which is why that book isn't published anymore. However,

>
>
> You can't do it, because something that happens without cause is, to
> use your expression, "poof".

This is a straw man argument. Do far as I know, there is no scientist who
uses the wod 'chance' to mean 'without cause'. So your criticism about scientists
is based on a false premise of how scientists operate.

>
>
>
> And given that "natural selection" is 99% imaginary reconstructions of
> unobservable events, the same applies to it.

Another straw man argument. The is no scientist who would restrict
'observe' only to those phenomena which are occurring at the moment.
Any statement about the past is by definition an 'imaginary event'. However,
scientists work on more than personal memory to reconstruct an event.

The reconstructions of scientists of past events is no more imaginary than
the reconstructions of detectives trying to recreate a crime. Detectives
make mistakes and so do scientists. However, few people consider a detectives
reconstruction as 'purely imaginary'.

One wonders what sort of events you consider observable and unimaginary.
Does all police work look to you like a frame up?

>
>
>
>
>
> I'd like to see you learn, say, chemistry without "believing" in it in
> the first place. You could not do it.

I don't believe that entropy is a gas. However, I use models where
entropy behaves like a gas. The mathematics of gases and entropy
are very similar in parts. I use quantum mechanics without being
comfortable with the Copenhagen interpretation. As long as it gives
me quantitative and unambiguous predictions, who cares?


I learn a lot of mythology without believing in any of it. I love the Norse
myths, the Greek myths, and sometimes Hebrew myths. Old Testament and
New Testament both. I find astrology interesting. I learn all of it without
believing any of it.

On the other hand, maybe you are using a different meaning for the word 'belief'.
I don't know what you mean by 'belief'.

>
>
>
> I reject your ideology. The universe is not fully measurable, nor is
> it fully understandable.

Then the universe is not fully designable. To be Designable, there has to be
an intelligent entity that can measure and understand it. Why do you hypothesize
that any such entity exists?

>To show this, I need only cite Quantum
> Theory. And the terms "universe" and "real" are empty terms, capable
> only of circular definitions.

Let me guess. You failed a physical chemistry, right? You couldn't
figure out the binding energy of a diatomic hydrogen molecule on the midterm.
And you have been blaming the Copenhagen Interpretation every since.

BTW: Quantum mechanics gives a fairly accurate answer to 'what is the
binding energy of diatomic hydrogen'. It even comes up with a pretty
good Raman spectrum for diatomic hydrogen, too.

>
>
>
> Bear in mind that it's only an ideology that I'm rejecting; not a
> truth, not a science, only an ideology.

Science is an ideology. Technology is not an ideology. So you like technology
but hate science. Typical.
>
>
>
> Considered and rejected.

You sound like you need a cult. You can find one that suits you in
'The Washington Times' classified.

[Roger Shrubber]

The problem here is equivocation around the word design.
If by _design_ you refer to a pattern, you are not invoking
the verb _to design_ and are not invoking a designer. You
might be invoking a patterner but the argument that patterns
require an agent is significantly weaker than that the
product of a design processes requires a designer.

>> It seems to me that in your scenario "design" is synonymous with "poof,"
>> or "let there be..." or whatever euphemism you choose for magic.
>
> You mean like "by natural selection", or "by chance"?
>
>> You don't offer any goals or visions the design is envisaged to fulfill.
>> You don't describe any methods used in the conception or implementation
>> of the design. You don't outline any limitations or characteristics of
>> reality that correspond to aspects or qualities of the design. In short,
>> you give us no justification for the use of the term.
>
> a. Design is all around you.
> b. You evidently can't perceive it.
> c. What is the use of giving details of something to someone who can't
> even perceive its existence?

The question is if you refer to a process of design that is
equivalent to what an architect does when planning the
convalescence of many functional aspects into a whole, or
are referring to a pattern. The former seems to require
a conceptual anticipation or experimentation to eliminate
the requirement of wasteful corporal experimentation to
eliminate substandard combinations. The latter requires
far less, just a simple repetitive operation.

So it would help if you clarified what you mean by design.

>> How is your use of "design" in "common design" anything more than a bald
>> attempt to import your ideology?

> How is your ideology anything more than a transparent attempt to
> justify your blindness?

It appears to me to be a distinction between two very different
meanings of _design_. The argument that asserts to have identified
the requirement of a designer invokes a conscious process of
anticipation or at least conceptual experimentation. The lesser
claim that patterns arise and are observable as "designs" lacks
the requirement for an entity that did any designing(verb).
So are you equivocating between the two or do you perhaps deny
the distinction between the two?

[John S. Wilkins]

Bugger design. I want a theory of intelligent manufacture.
--
John S. Wilkins, Honorary Fellow, University of Melbourne
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre

[John S. Wilkins]

Note that the twenty questions method derives from Aristotle's
Categories of the ten predicates, to you get much more than that. The
Animal, Vegetable, Mineral starting point is based on Linnaeus' Systema
Naturae, where he had those three kingdoms in the Empire of Nature. It
is roughly based on Aristotle's "topics".

[TomS]

"On Tue, 15 Apr 2014 13:43:02 +1000, in article
<1lk5cnv.sw23lwnzp4rhN%jo...@wilkins.id.au>, John S. Wilkins stated..."

Thank you.


--
---Tom S.

[TomS]

"On Mon, 14 Apr 2014 18:10:07 -0700 (PDT), in article
<96352580-c047-4d18...@googlegroups.com>, Darwin123 stated..."

[...snip...]

What can be more unpredictable than the actions of inscrutable, but
supremely powerful, "intelligent designers"?


--
---Tom S.

[Mark Isaak]

On 4/14/14 2:38 PM, Kalkidas wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Apr 2014 16:48:44 -0400, Greg Guarino <gdgu...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#nested_hierarchy
>
> On the contrary, I know exactly what is being discussed here. A
> "nested hierarchy" is defined as "groups within groups". that's really
> all it means.

Yes, that is what "nested hierarchy" means.

> And "groups within groups" can be constructed simply by grouping some
> objects together and making subgroups out of them. No need to modify
> anything if the objects are already existing. And no need for
> "descent" if the objects are already existing.

Yes again. I have a book which groups ants, apples, and accordions in
one group, and bears, beetles, and basilisks in another. Within the
first group, ants and antibiotics are grouped separately from apes and
apertifs. Like you say, no need for descent. And obviously, nothing to
do with biology.

> Now, if you want to cheat (which is what the web page you cited does),
> just tweak the definition of "nested hierarchy" to look more and more
> like the definition of "common descent with modification" until the
> two are practically identical. Then claim that one caused the other.
>
> I really don't think there's anything else to be discussed here. I'm
> not putting up with blather about "objective" and "subjective"
> classifications, since the difference between the two is entirely
> subjective.

Really? You believe that people, when asked whether to group a luna
moth with (a) other moths, or (b) hoofed mammals, or (c) bamboos, would
be equally likely to chose (b) or (c) over (a)? If you honestly believe
that, then I submit, in all seriousness, that you are insane, and
dreadfully so. More likely, I think you wrote the above without
thinking, because thinking will not give you the answers you want, and
getting the answers you want is all-important to you, much more
important that connecting in any way with reality.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Keep the company of those who seek the truth; run from those who have
found it." - Vaclav Havel

[Mark Isaak]

On 4/14/14 6:39 PM, Roger Shrubber wrote:

> Kalkidas wrote:
>>
>> a. Design is all around you.
>> b. You evidently can't perceive it.
>> c. What is the use of giving details of something to someone who can't
>> even perceive its existence?
>
> The question is if you refer to a process of design that is
> equivalent to what an architect does when planning the
> convalescence of many functional aspects into a whole, or
> are referring to a pattern. The former seems to require
> a conceptual anticipation or experimentation to eliminate
> the requirement of wasteful corporal experimentation to
> eliminate substandard combinations. The latter requires
> far less, just a simple repetitive operation.
>
> So it would help if you clarified what you mean by design.

I think you underestimate Kalkidas. When he says design, he means
intelligence planned and made it, and when he says he can perceive it,
he means he literally cannot see any way it could be otherwise.

His main failing concerns how he views other people. He recognizes that
others do not see design like he does, but his conclusion is not that
his view of design is subjective; rather he concludes that everybody
else is defective. His views, in short, are nothing but arrogance in
its purest form.

[TomS]

"On Mon, 14 Apr 2014 22:28:09 -0700, in article <liig1a$qnq$1...@dont-email.me>,
Mark Isaak stated..."

>
>On 4/14/14 6:39 PM, Roger Shrubber wrote:
>> Kalkidas wrote:
>>>
>>> a. Design is all around you.
>>> b. You evidently can't perceive it.
>>> c. What is the use of giving details of something to someone who can't
>>> even perceive its existence?
>>
>> The question is if you refer to a process of design that is
>> equivalent to what an architect does when planning the
>> convalescence of many functional aspects into a whole, or
>> are referring to a pattern. The former seems to require
>> a conceptual anticipation or experimentation to eliminate
>> the requirement of wasteful corporal experimentation to
>> eliminate substandard combinations. The latter requires
>> far less, just a simple repetitive operation.
>>
>> So it would help if you clarified what you mean by design.
>
>I think you underestimate Kalkidas. When he says design, he means
>intelligence planned and made it, and when he says he can perceive it,
>he means he literally cannot see any way it could be otherwise.
>
>His main failing concerns how he views other people. He recognizes that
>others do not see design like he does, but his conclusion is not that
>his view of design is subjective; rather he concludes that everybody
>else is defective. His views, in short, are nothing but arrogance in
>its purest form.
>

Whatever his motivations, there is a this problem: Just because something
is *true, that does not always mean that it is an *explanation.

Because it is true that the Mona Lisa was the result of an intelligent
design, that does not *explain (without plenty of additional details,
such that Leonardo da Vinci, a talented artist, painted it in early
16th Italy, using oils on canvas, etc.) anything of interest about it.
Why is it not more like an Elvis on velvet, the Supercolliding Super-
collider, or the Penrose triangle, other results of intelligent design?

Even if one believes that God is the Creator of humans, that does not
tell us anything about the human eye being a standard vertebrate eye,
rather than more like the eyes of insects or of octopuses or of potatoes.


--
---Tom S.

[Greg Guarino]

Your posts say otherwise. There's no particular shame in not
understanding the concept (yet), but you don't seem to be making the
attempt.

A
> "nested hierarchy" is defined as "groups within groups". that's really
> all it means.

Would you allow that there are different kinds of nested hierarchies?

>
> And "groups within groups" can be constructed simply by grouping some
> objects together and making subgroups out of them.

True enough. If we have a large family and frequently need to tow a
trailer, we can classify automobiles first by interior room, then by
engine capacity, then by brand, then by model then by color. Or perhaps
reliability and mileage are more important to us, in which case we might
classify them first by Consumer Reports maintenance rating, then by gas
efficiency, then by price etc.

But perhaps there are some sets of objects that suggest only one
sensible hierarchy?

No need to modify
> anything if the objects are already existing. And no need for
> "descent" if the objects are already existing.

You won't take my word for this, but the two sentences above demonstrate
beyond doubt that you do not understand this concept at all.

>
> Now, if you want to cheat (which is what the web page you cited does),
> just tweak the definition of "nested hierarchy" to look more and more
> like the definition of "common descent with modification" until the
> two are practically identical. Then claim that one caused the other.

That is possibly an interesting comment. Suppose we do a mental exercise
and imagine the properties of a group of objects that was produced by
reproduction with small changes made in each "generation", changes that
are unlikely to have happened more than once. Any "structure" we find in
the current generation would thus trace its origin back to a particular
progenitor and only descendants of that progenitor would have that
structure.

Suppose we now examine classes of objects: automobiles, chemical
elements, living things etc. Further suppose that we find that the
special pattern that we have deduced would result from descent with
modification to be very rare; only to be found in things that have
indeed come to be by descent with modification, like languages or copied
manuscripts, or the extant life on earth. Wouldn't that be interesting?

> I really don't think there's anything else to be discussed here. I'm
> not putting up with blather about "objective" and "subjective"
> classifications, since the difference between the two is entirely
> subjective.

You find no difference between classifying automobiles and life?

And what about all that follows below, much of which further
demonstrates your misunderstanding of the issue?

[Kalkidas]

Here's a *tentative* attempt to explain what I mean by "design":

Purposeful arrangement of parts into a pattern which can not be
inferred from examining the parts alone.

"Purposeful" means "by the conscious choice and action of an
intelligent agent".

Example:

You can haphazardly shake a bag full of tinkertoys for a long time,
and you will find that some of them have combined into rudimentary
angled shapes. But you will never find that they have combined into a
scale model replica of the Space Shuttle. The structure of tinkertoys
specifies that they will form rudimentary angled shapes, but not the
Space Shuttle. To form a model of the Space Shuttle from tinkertoys
requires purposeful manipulation by a third-party, an intelligent
agent. (In fact, tinkertoys were intelligently designed to be able to
undergo further intelligent design.)

Similarly, atoms can combine into rudimentary molecules, because they
are specified to do that. But there is nothing in the structure of
atoms that specifies organisms. To get organisms from atoms requires
intelligent design by a third-party.

I assert that whenever we see an object whose individual parts lack
the specification for the object itself, the object was necessarily
designed ("created") by a third-party intelligent agent.

What other explanation can there be except "by chance, given a
sufficient amount of time", which is equivalent to "abracadabra!"

[Roger Shrubber]

Kalkidas wrote:

> Here's a *tentative* attempt to explain what I mean by "design":

Interruptingly, it seems odd that something which is claimed
to be obvious is difficult to define such that the definition
must be tentative.

> Purposeful arrangement of parts into a pattern which can not be
> inferred from examining the parts alone.
>
> "Purposeful" means "by the conscious choice and action of an
> intelligent agent".

The implication is preconception of the assembly of
the whole. Pre-empting your example, one can imagine
combinations of the tinkertoys before actually beginning
to assemble them, and, if one is spatially adept, can
recognize failed attempts before diving in. Of course,
some dive in and do more of a trial and error thing
and get to the same sorts of structures with less
planning aforethought.

> Example:
>
> You can haphazardly shake a bag full of tinkertoys for a long time,
> and you will find that some of them have combined into rudimentary
> angled shapes. But you will never find that they have combined into a
> scale model replica of the Space Shuttle. The structure of tinkertoys
> specifies that they will form rudimentary angled shapes, but not the
> Space Shuttle. To form a model of the Space Shuttle from tinkertoys
> requires purposeful manipulation by a third-party, an intelligent
> agent. (In fact, tinkertoys were intelligently designed to be able to
> undergo further intelligent design.)


> Similarly, atoms can combine into rudimentary molecules, because they
> are specified to do that. But there is nothing in the structure of
> atoms that specifies organisms. To get organisms from atoms requires
> intelligent design by a third-party.

This last is an unsubstantiated assertion.

> I assert that whenever we see an object whose individual parts lack
> the specification for the object itself, the object was necessarily
> designed ("created") by a third-party intelligent agent.

It's unclear to me that sand, which can be compressed into
layers of sandstone, which can be uplifted so the layers
wind up vertical instead of horizontal, which can be erroded
into fins, which can be eroded into arches --- that this
sand possesses the specification for the arches seen
in abundance at Arches National Park. It certainly has
the potential to participate in the process but the
ultimate result is dependent upon many completely
external event. The sand no more had the potential to build
an arch than the trees that were processed into the tinker
toys that were shaped into a crude semblance of a flying
brick.

> What other explanation can there be except "by chance, given a
> sufficient amount of time", which is equivalent to "abracadabra!"

There are lots of examples of self-organizing structures
that have been shown to be a consequence of energy flowing
through a system. I'd say life is one of the most fascinating
but I'm invested in that judgement on account of being alive.
And when we dissect the chemistry that occurs in life we
find that the systems do make sense as rather straightforward
chemistry. That some of the chemical reactions are self-sustainable
given energy input should not be in the least controversial.
The real trick to getting to life is system replication.
I'm not claiming it's all mapped out but I do claim there
are no conceptual barriers.

[hersheyh]

On Saturday, April 12, 2014 7:30:45 PM UTC-4, Roger Shrubber wrote:
> TomS wrote:
>
> > "On Sat, 12 Apr 2014 13:20:28 -0700 (PDT), in article
>
> > <56de3f49-2aa6-4650...@googlegroups.com>, hersheyh
>
> > stated..."

>
> >>
>
> >> On Saturday, April 12, 2014 11:10:49 AM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
>
> >>> It is obvious that "common descent with modification" is an
>
> >>> explanation for the "nested hierarchies of traits" of biological
>
> >>> taxonomy. Whether there is evidence for this explanation (even if
>
> >>> there were no evidence), it is a possibility. Whatever be the
>
> >>> causes of the modifications.
>
> >>>
>
> >>>
>
> >>>
>
> >>> With appropriate interpretation of "descent", this also works as
>
> >>> a explanation in linguistics (as in the construction of the tree
>
> >>> of Indo-European languages) and in philology (as in the "lower
>
> >>> criticism" of the Bible).
>
> >>>
>
> >>>
>
> >>>
>
> >>> My question is whether there is any "alternative" explanation (no
>
> >>> matter how poorly supported by the evidence) for a "nested
>
> >>> hierarchy of traits" in *any* field of study. (I exclude as a
>
> >>> non-explanation anything like "that's the way it happened to turn
>
> >>> out".)
>
> >>>
>

> >> I would say that design by one or more designers would be possible
>
> >> *if* and only *if* said designers were only very rarely capable of
>
> >> horizontal information transfer
>
>
>
> This is the special key to a nested hierarchy.
>
> The focal question is, what prevents innovation in one branch
>
> from being used in a separate branch? The nested hierarchy
>
> is an observation.
>
>
>
> Languages do borrow from each other, English being one of
>
> the greatest thieves. Automobile design demonstrates
>
> extensive lateral transfer. Computer languages show
>
> extensive lateral transfer.
>
>
>
> >> and could not invent elegant solutions but could only modify
>
> >> existing inventions to produce "new" functionality to form
>
> >> "kludged" solutions. These designers can only work from the
>
> >> immediately pre-existing life forms. IOW, a designer(s) that
>
> >> has/have limited intelligence and very little imagination. But one
>
> >> that is also so brilliant that it can generate living organisms out
>
> >> of clay or some other inanimate material any time it wants to. I
>
> >> know it sounds like a contradiction, but you didn't require me to
>
> >> present a "good" solution. Just one that is reasonably consistent
>
> >> with the evidence.
>
> >
>
> > Yes, I purposely did not specify a good solution. And I was going
>
> > along your description of the designer until "so brilliant ...". I
>
> > don't see how this (paradoxical as it seems) is needed.
>
>
>
> In for a penny, in for a pound. If you begin with a story about
>
> how some external agent is responsible for creating/designing
>
> new species from existing species, you extrapolate it to the
>
> very first initiation of life. You could instead hypothesize
>
> some compromised version where a minor deity is capable
>
> of some level of genetic engineering on existing life forms,
>
> provided you place severe constraints on this deity, perhaps
>
> religious prohibitions, so that they only rarely do anything
>
> that our current science would recognize as horizontal transfers.
>
Perhaps I should qualify and point out that the relative paucity of horizontal transfer
(and it is relative because horizontal transfer certainly occurs even today, especially
in bacteria) may not have been the case early in the formation of life-as-we-know-it.
At that time, there may have been much more horizontal transfer, with the
amount decreasing as organisms became more genetically complex.
>
> But that's a great deal of special pleading.

[hersheyh]

On Sunday, April 13, 2014 1:41:35 AM UTC-4, Greg Guarino wrote:
> On 4/12/2014 3:31 PM, Kalkidas wrote:

>
> > On 12 Apr 2014 08:10:49 -0700, TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
> >> It is obvious that "common descent with modification" is an
>
> >> explanation for the "nested hierarchies of traits" of biological
>
> >> taxonomy. Whether there is evidence for this explanation (even
>
> >> if there were no evidence), it is a possibility. Whatever be the
>
> >> causes of the modifications.
>
> >>
>
> >> With appropriate interpretation of "descent", this also works as
>
> >> a explanation in linguistics (as in the construction of the
>
> >> tree of Indo-European languages) and in philology (as in the
>
> >> "lower criticism" of the Bible).
>
> >>
>
> >> My question is whether there is any "alternative" explanation
>
> >> (no matter how poorly supported by the evidence) for a "nested
>
> >> hierarchy of traits" in *any* field of study. (I exclude as a
>
> >> non-explanation anything like "that's the way it happened to
>
> >> turn out".)
>
> >
>

> > Sure, replace "common descent" with "common design". Then allow for
>
> > "modification" to include the possibility of injection of new
>
> > instructions by an intelligent agent from outside the organism.
>
> >
>

> That is of course Behe's argument, but it's still common descent.
>

And, of course, the injection of an outside intelligent agent still would
require some evidence that the same process is impossible in the absence
of said hypothetical entity. That is where Behe fails spectacularly.

[hersheyh]

On Sunday, April 13, 2014 4:30:50 PM UTC-4, Kalkidas wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Apr 2014 01:41:35 -0400, Greg Guarino <gdgu...@gmail.com>

>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On 4/12/2014 3:31 PM, Kalkidas wrote:
>
> >> On 12 Apr 2014 08:10:49 -0700, TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>> It is obvious that "common descent with modification" is an
>
> >>> explanation for the "nested hierarchies of traits" of biological
>
> >>> taxonomy. Whether there is evidence for this explanation (even
>
> >>> if there were no evidence), it is a possibility. Whatever be the
>
> >>> causes of the modifications.
>
> >>>
>
> >>> With appropriate interpretation of "descent", this also works as
>
> >>> a explanation in linguistics (as in the construction of the
>
> >>> tree of Indo-European languages) and in philology (as in the
>
> >>> "lower criticism" of the Bible).
>
> >>>
>
> >>> My question is whether there is any "alternative" explanation
>
> >>> (no matter how poorly supported by the evidence) for a "nested
>
> >>> hierarchy of traits" in *any* field of study. (I exclude as a
>
> >>> non-explanation anything like "that's the way it happened to
>
> >>> turn out".)
>
> >>
>
> >> Sure, replace "common descent" with "common design". Then allow for
>
> >> "modification" to include the possibility of injection of new
>
> >> instructions by an intelligent agent from outside the organism.
>
> >>
>
> >That is of course Behe's argument, but it's still common descent.
>
>
>

> It is not at all what evolutionists mean by "common descent with
>
> modification".
>
>

It is exactly what evolutionists mean by descent with modification. It is
akin to what Darwin would call "artificial selection" along with the unsupported
claim that the "artificial selecting agent" is, for some unspecified reason,
also required to produce the appropriate mutations or minor changes in
phenotype due to genotype.

[Kalkidas]

On Tue, 15 Apr 2014 11:19:32 -0400, Roger Shrubber
<rog.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Kalkidas wrote:
>
>> Here's a *tentative* attempt to explain what I mean by "design":
>
>Interruptingly, it seems odd that something which is claimed
>to be obvious is difficult to define such that the definition
>must be tentative.

The definition is for you, to whom intelligent design is not at all
"obvious".

You can't give what you haven't got. If atoms really can combine to
form organisms in the absence of intelligent design, then they *must*
have inherent properties that specify organisms. In other words, it
must in principle be possible to logically infer organisms solely from
knowledge of atoms alone.

I am unaware of any attempt to infer organisms from the properties of
atoms alone. In the absence of such inference, it is not unreasonable
to propose what I proposed.

>
>> I assert that whenever we see an object whose individual parts lack
>> the specification for the object itself, the object was necessarily
>> designed ("created") by a third-party intelligent agent.
>
>It's unclear to me that sand, which can be compressed into
>layers of sandstone, which can be uplifted so the layers
>wind up vertical instead of horizontal, which can be erroded
>into fins, which can be eroded into arches --- that this
>sand possesses the specification for the arches seen
>in abundance at Arches National Park. It certainly has
>the potential to participate in the process but the
>ultimate result is dependent upon many completely
>external event. The sand no more had the potential to build
>an arch than the trees that were processed into the tinker
>toys that were shaped into a crude semblance of a flying
>brick.

I agree that specification is not always obvious. Intelligent design
was required to turn trees into tinkertoys. Perhaps intelligent design
was required to turn sand into arches. However, the sand didn't turn
into organisms, or sandcastles, or Mount Rushmore. Just arches and
other simple shapes.

>> What other explanation can there be except "by chance, given a
>> sufficient amount of time", which is equivalent to "abracadabra!"
>
>There are lots of examples of self-organizing structures
>that have been shown to be a consequence of energy flowing
>through a system. I'd say life is one of the most fascinating
>but I'm invested in that judgement on account of being alive.

I cite the well-known point that merely having energy flowing into a
system does nothing unless the system has a mechanism by which to
utilize the energy to do something. In other words, the system must
already contain the specification for doing something with the energy.

Do atoms have an inherent mechanism/specification that allows them to
utilize energy impinging on them to eventually produce organisms?
Science is very, very far from demonstrating this.

>And when we dissect the chemistry that occurs in life we
>find that the systems do make sense as rather straightforward
>chemistry. That some of the chemical reactions are self-sustainable
>given energy input should not be in the least controversial.
>The real trick to getting to life is system replication.
>I'm not claiming it's all mapped out but I do claim there
>are no conceptual barriers.

The conceptual barrier is this: atoms must be immensly more
complicated than anyone has ever imagined if, by their inherent
properties alone, they really do combine to eventually form organisms.

[hersheyh]

On Monday, April 14, 2014 1:19:12 PM UTC-4, Kalkidas wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Apr 2014 09:22:42 -0700, Robert Camp
>
> <rober...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On 4/13/14 1:56 PM, Kalkidas wrote:
>

[snip]

>
> >Okay...so where is the "design?"

> Um, all around you...

> >It seems to me that in your scenario "design" is synonymous with "poof,"
> >or "let there be..." or whatever euphemism you choose for magic.


> You mean like "by natural selection", or "by chance"?

Like most creationists, you apparently ignore the word "selection" in the phrase
"natural selection". You do know that the word "selection" is not the same as
"by chance", don't you? Until you accept that nature (natural phenomenas like
those seen in differing environments) can act differently on different
phenotypes and thus discriminate between them on the vector of "reproductive
success", you clearly are too dim to understand the word "natural selection".
As evidenced by your conflating it with "by chance".

> >You don't offer any goals or visions the design is envisaged to fulfill.
> >You don't describe any methods used in the conception or implementation
> >of the design. You don't outline any limitations or characteristics of
> >reality that correspond to aspects or qualities of the design. In short,
> >you give us no justification for the use of the term.
>
>
>
> a. Design is all around you.
> b. You evidently can't perceive it.
> c. What is the use of giving details of something to someone who can't
> even perceive its existence?
>
>
>

> >How is your use of "design" in "common design" anything more than a bald
> >attempt to import your ideology?
>

As you later "tentatively" defined 'design' as involving a sentient, intelligent
agent in some way, you, in fact, are trying to import such an agent (which
remains the point of contention) as part of the very definition of 'design'
you use.

>
> How is your ideology anything more than a transparent attempt to
> justify your blindness?

It is not blindness to note (one can empirically observe) that unintelligent nature
can indeed differentially impact phenotypically different (although only
those phenotypes with at least a partial genetic difference matter to
evolution) organisms on the metric of reproductive success. One can also
observe cases where unintelligent nature has no effect on the metric of
reproductive success. It is only those latter cases where evolutionary
genetic change is due to "chance" alone (vide neutral drift).

[TomS]

"On Tue, 15 Apr 2014 10:07:41 -0700 (PDT), in article
<0cbe56b2-771f-4324...@googlegroups.com>, hersheyh stated..."
[...snip...]

>Like most creationists, you apparently ignore the word "selection" in the phrase
>"natural selection". You do know that the word "selection" is not the same as
>"by chance", don't you? Until you accept that nature (natural phenomenas like
>those seen in differing environments) can act differently on different
>phenotypes and thus discriminate between them on the vector of "reproductive
>success", you clearly are too dim to understand the word "natural selection".
>As evidenced by your conflating it with "by chance".

[...snip...]

OTOH, it's hard to think of something more like "chance" than the
actions of inscrutable agents which are not even constrained by the
laws of nature, doing who-knows-what to unspecified things, by
unknown means, at sometime, somewhere.


--
---Tom S.

[jillery]

The only thing you accomplish above is to move your assumptions from
"design" to "purposeful". Apart from that, you haven't changed a
thing in your argumentation.

[John S. Wilkins]

Also known as "Acts of God"?

[Robert Camp]

On 4/15/14, 7:36 AM, Kalkidas wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Apr 2014 21:39:29 -0400, Roger Shrubber
> <rog.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Kalkidas wrote:
>>> On Mon, 14 Apr 2014 09:22:42 -0700, Robert Camp
>>> <rober...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/13/14 1:56 PM, Kalkidas wrote:
>>>>> On 13 Apr 2014 03:16:06 -0700, TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "On Sun, 13 Apr 2014 02:00:44 -0400, in article
>>>>>> <6q9kk9h008mtt6jki...@4ax.com>, jillery stated..."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat, 12 Apr 2014 12:31:45 -0700, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 12 Apr 2014 08:10:49 -0700, TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>

<snip>

> Here's a *tentative* attempt to explain what I mean by "design":
>
> Purposeful arrangement of parts into a pattern which can not be
> inferred from examining the parts alone.
>
> "Purposeful" means "by the conscious choice and action of an
> intelligent agent".

Okay, that's a start. Now, of course, it's obvious that you must
substantiate those assumptions posited in your definition, including
"purposeful," "conscious choice," and "intelligent agent" as they relate
to observations regarding life on earth.

> Example:
>
> You can haphazardly shake a bag full of tinkertoys for a long time,
> and you will find that some of them have combined into rudimentary
> angled shapes. But you will never find that they have combined into a
> scale model replica of the Space Shuttle.

There is room here for noting that "never" is different from
"vanishingly small likelihood," but that would be a quibble.

> The structure of tinkertoys
> specifies that they will form rudimentary angled shapes, but not the
> Space Shuttle. To form a model of the Space Shuttle from tinkertoys
> requires purposeful manipulation by a third-party, an intelligent
> agent. (In fact, tinkertoys were intelligently designed to be able to
> undergo further intelligent design.)

Okay, for the purposes of human-scale time periods, so stipulated.

> Similarly, atoms can combine into rudimentary molecules, because they
> are specified to do that.

An assertion that assumes the conclusion (and is entirely absent
supporting evidence), but let's move on.

> But there is nothing in the structure of
> atoms that specifies organisms.

As this appears to be an important fulcrum upon which your argument
rests, you must establish that it is reasonable to conclude that for
atoms to eventually aggregate into organisms there *must* be something
in their structure that "specifies" such things. Your demonstration must
also include a definition of what "specifies" means in this context.

> To get organisms from atoms requires
> intelligent design by a third-party.

Another assertion that assumes your conclusion, and one which depends
entirely upon your defense of the previous premise.

> I assert that whenever we see an object whose individual parts lack
> the specification for the object itself, the object was necessarily
> designed ("created") by a third-party intelligent agent.

I assert that there are countless counterveiling examples. To take one
from our local Shrubber, I don't believe the atoms which constitute the
grains of sand in a sandstone arch display any such specification. Can
you demonstrate otherwise?

<snip>

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

On Tuesday, April 15, 2014 10:36:16 AM UTC-4, Kalkidas wrote:

> You can haphazardly shake a bag full of tinkertoys for a long time,
> and you will find that some of them have combined into rudimentary
> angled shapes. But you will never find that they have combined into a
> scale model replica of the Space Shuttle.

That's a nice variation on the oft-repeated Hoyle example of "a 747 from
a tornado in a junkyard, but to be realistic it would have to be an
awfully big bag to contain enough parts for a scale model replica.

<snip>

> To get organisms from atoms requires
> intelligent design by a third-party.

Or an enormous amount of time on average, IMHO, and according to Hoyle
too, but since he theorized that the universe goes back infinitely far
in time, he could believe that lots of planets beat the super-astronomical
odds.

> I assert that whenever we see an object whose individual parts lack
> the specification for the object itself, the object was necessarily
> designed ("created") by a third-party intelligent agent.

Seems to me that snowflakes are a counterexample.

> What other explanation can there be except "by chance, given a
> sufficient amount of time", which is equivalent to "abracadabra!"

Wrong. In fact, it is the explanation that I favor, using the
hypothesis (accepted by many leading physicists) that there is
an infinite number of universes and so anything that could happen,
will happen in some of them.

The alternative to evolution is that a bunch of angels
kept designing one new species after another, each species resembling
the one before very strongly. In some cases, they would have
been what I call "rookie angels" because a god worthy
of the name would not put in such a detailed evolution as one sees in
the horse sequence. Also the whale sequence is getting better and better.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
nyikos @ math.sc.edu

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 14 Apr 2014 12:08:11 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub>:

<snip>

>...Chance, i.e.,
>some event that occurs without cause...

"Chance" refers to a probability distribution, but each
event in that distribution, and the distribution itself, has
a cause. The error is your equating of the two, and is the
source of your (current) problem.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 13 Apr 2014 18:46:23 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

>On Sat, 12 Apr 2014 12:31:45 -0700, the following appeared

>in talk.origins, posted by Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub>:
>

>>On 12 Apr 2014 08:10:49 -0700, TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>

>>>It is obvious that "common descent with modification" is an
>>>explanation for the "nested hierarchies of traits" of biological
>>>taxonomy. Whether there is evidence for this explanation (even
>>>if there were no evidence), it is a possibility. Whatever be the
>>>causes of the modifications.
>>>
>>>With appropriate interpretation of "descent", this also works as
>>>a explanation in linguistics (as in the construction of the
>>>tree of Indo-European languages) and in philology (as in the
>>>"lower criticism" of the Bible).
>>>
>>>My question is whether there is any "alternative" explanation
>>>(no matter how poorly supported by the evidence) for a "nested
>>>hierarchy of traits" in *any* field of study. (I exclude as a
>>>non-explanation anything like "that's the way it happened to
>>>turn out".)
>
>>Sure, replace "common descent" with "common design". Then allow for
>>"modification" to include the possibility of injection of new
>>instructions by an intelligent agent from outside the organism.
>

>Sure. But first it might be useful to demonstrate the
>existence of the designer or intelligent agent (or, if you
>prefer, "Designer or Intelligent Agent").

[Crickets...]

So, no evidence of the existence of either one?

OK.

[Kalkidas]

On Tue, 15 Apr 2014 15:35:01 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

>On Mon, 14 Apr 2014 12:08:11 -0700, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub>:
>
><snip>
>
>>...Chance, i.e.,
>>some event that occurs without cause...
>
>"Chance" refers to a probability distribution, but each
>event in that distribution, and the distribution itself, has
>a cause. The error is your equating of the two, and is the
>source of your (current) problem.

(cuckoo...cuckoo...cuckoo....)

[jillery]

You know, there's a difference between alluding to a point not
countered, and describing one's own mental state. Just sayin'.

[Kalkidas]

On Tue, 15 Apr 2014 13:41:57 -0700 (PDT), nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:

>On Tuesday, April 15, 2014 10:36:16 AM UTC-4, Kalkidas wrote:
>
>> You can haphazardly shake a bag full of tinkertoys for a long time,
>> and you will find that some of them have combined into rudimentary
>> angled shapes. But you will never find that they have combined into a
>> scale model replica of the Space Shuttle.
>
>That's a nice variation on the oft-repeated Hoyle example of "a 747 from
>a tornado in a junkyard, but to be realistic it would have to be an
>awfully big bag to contain enough parts for a scale model replica.
>
><snip>
>
>> To get organisms from atoms requires
>> intelligent design by a third-party.
>
>Or an enormous amount of time on average, IMHO, and according to Hoyle
>too, but since he theorized that the universe goes back infinitely far
>in time, he could believe that lots of planets beat the super-astronomical
>odds.
>
>
>> I assert that whenever we see an object whose individual parts lack
>> the specification for the object itself, the object was necessarily
>> designed ("created") by a third-party intelligent agent.
>
>Seems to me that snowflakes are a counterexample.

I think water molecules are specified to form such structures. After
all, they are directly observed to do it, whereas no one has ever
observed atoms forming organisms.

>> What other explanation can there be except "by chance, given a
>> sufficient amount of time", which is equivalent to "abracadabra!"
>
>Wrong. In fact, it is the explanation that I favor, using the
>hypothesis (accepted by many leading physicists) that there is
>an infinite number of universes and so anything that could happen,
>will happen in some of them.

The problem is that "by chance" has no meaning, since "chance" is not
a force or an energy. To say that something occurs "by chance" is to
ascribe instrumentality to, well, nothing. "Nothing" cannot be a
causal agent, so "by chance" really means "without cause".

>The alternative to evolution is that a bunch of angels
>kept designing one new species after another, each species resembling
>the one before very strongly. In some cases, they would have
>been what I call "rookie angels" because a god worthy
>of the name would not put in such a detailed evolution as one sees in
>the horse sequence. Also the whale sequence is getting better and better.

There are other alternatives to evolution, such as devolution from a
primordial prototype organism, which is not simple as ToE claims, but
the most complex organism that exists.

[Roger Shrubber]

Kalkidas wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Apr 2014 13:41:57 -0700 (PDT), nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:


>> Wrong. In fact, it is the explanation that I favor, using the
>> hypothesis (accepted by many leading physicists) that there is
>> an infinite number of universes and so anything that could happen,
>> will happen in some of them.
>
> The problem is that "by chance" has no meaning, since "chance" is not
> a force or an energy. To say that something occurs "by chance" is to
> ascribe instrumentality to, well, nothing. "Nothing" cannot be a
> causal agent, so "by chance" really means "without cause".

One problem I have with the intelligent design crowd is their
claim that things require intelligence or design to happen ---
invoking intelligence in the same way you seem to object to
"by chance". In essence, a chemist mixes some reactants and
they produce a product but the IDist complains that it took
intelligence to make it happen, it took design. But the
exact same chemistry happens if they get mixed by mistake
so where is the difference that intelligence brings to the
innate reactivity of the molecules involved?

By the same token, what aspect of the chemistry involved in
living cells or tissues is not just what those molecules do
given the starting point they had? What is this _force_ that
the IDists I speak of invoke?

I might also dispute your concept of what people mean when
they say "by chance" but the irony of the analogue to
intelligence to your characterization of chance struck my fancy.

[Burkhard]

On Wednesday, April 16, 2014 2:08:57 AM UTC+1, Kalkidas wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Apr 2014 13:41:57 -0700 (PDT), nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>

<snio>

>
> The problem is that "by chance" has no meaning, since "chance" is not
> a force or an energy. To say that something occurs "by chance" is to
> ascribe instrumentality to, well, nothing. "Nothing" cannot be a
> causal agent, so "by chance" really means "without cause".
>

You misunderstand the meaning of the sentence. "X happens by chance" is not
of the same form as "X happens because it was hit by a hammer". The first
does not identify a causal agent, nor does it intents to do so, but a limitation
on our knowledge. It says essentially: While we do not know what in
any individual case, the specific cause was, we can nonetheless make
testable and true statements if it happens often enough"

[John S. Wilkins]

Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:

...

>
> The problem is that "by chance" has no meaning, since "chance" is not
> a force or an energy. To say that something occurs "by chance" is to
> ascribe instrumentality to, well, nothing. "Nothing" cannot be a
> causal agent, so "by chance" really means "without cause".
>

I rolled a pair of dice in a game of backgammon last night, and got
double sixes. What are the odds?

--
John S. Wilkins, Honorary Fellow, University of Melbourne
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,

Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre

[Walter Bushell]

In article <db35c0a5-b02b-4549...@googlegroups.com>,
eridanus <leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> the catholic authorities at present have not this problem. God created
> the first life, and let it free to evolve.
> Eri

Practically a Diest position.

--
Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greed. Me.

[TomS]

"On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 08:59:24 -0400, in article
<proto-1C2363....@news.panix.com>, Walter Bushell stated..."

>
>In article <db35c0a5-b02b-4549...@googlegroups.com>,
> eridanus <leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> the catholic authorities at present have not this problem. God created
>> the first life, and let it free to evolve.
>> Eri
>
>Practically a Diest position.
>

How do various forms of creationism differ from deism?

Young Earth Creationism says that the creative act of God lasted for
6 days several thousand years ago, with nothing new. "Kinds" are fixed.

Intelligent Design is compatible with just about anything, so be sure,
what "intelligent design" is newer than the blood clotting system or
adaptive immunity? Hasn't it been suggested that ID is compatible with
there be no intelligent Designers recently?


--
---Tom S.

[Kalkidas]

On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 15:12:49 +1000, jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S.
Wilkins) wrote:

>Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>
>...
>>
>> The problem is that "by chance" has no meaning, since "chance" is not
>> a force or an energy. To say that something occurs "by chance" is to
>> ascribe instrumentality to, well, nothing. "Nothing" cannot be a
>> causal agent, so "by chance" really means "without cause".
>>
>I rolled a pair of dice in a game of backgammon last night, and got
>double sixes. What are the odds?

The "odds" of a past event having occurred are always 100%.

But "chance" didn't cause the dice to roll, you did.

[Kalkidas]

On Tue, 15 Apr 2014 23:06:12 -0400, Roger Shrubber
<rog.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Kalkidas wrote:
>> On Tue, 15 Apr 2014 13:41:57 -0700 (PDT), nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
>
>>> Wrong. In fact, it is the explanation that I favor, using the
>>> hypothesis (accepted by many leading physicists) that there is
>>> an infinite number of universes and so anything that could happen,
>>> will happen in some of them.
>>
>> The problem is that "by chance" has no meaning, since "chance" is not
>> a force or an energy. To say that something occurs "by chance" is to
>> ascribe instrumentality to, well, nothing. "Nothing" cannot be a
>> causal agent, so "by chance" really means "without cause".
>
>One problem I have with the intelligent design crowd is their
>claim that things require intelligence or design to happen ---
>invoking intelligence in the same way you seem to object to
>"by chance". In essence, a chemist mixes some reactants and
>they produce a product but the IDist complains that it took
>intelligence to make it happen, it took design. But the
>exact same chemistry happens if they get mixed by mistake
>so where is the difference that intelligence brings to the
>innate reactivity of the molecules involved?

But a chemist can invent many chemicals that do not occur in nature.
It seems that nature could not, would not, or did not, come up with
them on her own, in spite of billions of years of "mixing by mistake".

ID is saying that the same reasoning can be applied to organisms.
There has been no observation of organisms arising by "mistake" from
chemicals. And there is no real theory that explains how it could have
happened. So why not hypothesize that an intelligent agent at least
helped the process along.

IMO "by accident" or "by mistake" is way overrated, just like "by
chance".

>
>By the same token, what aspect of the chemistry involved in
>living cells or tissues is not just what those molecules do
>given the starting point they had? What is this _force_ that
>the IDists I speak of invoke?

If the organism can be really inferred from the properties of its
molecules, let someone show that. Otherwise, what have you got but
faith?

>I might also dispute your concept of what people mean when
>they say "by chance" but the irony of the analogue to
>intelligence to your characterization of chance struck my fancy.

.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 15 Apr 2014 15:44:56 -0700, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub>:

>On Tue, 15 Apr 2014 15:35:01 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 14 Apr 2014 12:08:11 -0700, the following appeared
>>in talk.origins, posted by Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub>:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>...Chance, i.e.,
>>>some event that occurs without cause...
>>
>>"Chance" refers to a probability distribution, but each
>>event in that distribution, and the distribution itself, has
>>a cause. The error is your equating of the two, and is the
>>source of your (current) problem.
>
>(cuckoo...cuckoo...cuckoo....)

So, unable to refute? OK.

And BTW, good self-analysis.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 15 Apr 2014 18:08:57 -0700, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub>:

>I think

Cite to the evidence?

[deadrat]

No, he's asking what the odds were before he started playing.

> But "chance" didn't cause the dice to roll, you did.

No one claims that "chance" caused the dice to roll. Who's rolling the
dice has nothing to do with the statistics of double sixes.

[Kalkidas]

On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 13:09:00 -0400, Roger Shrubber

>This is refuted by your own line of argumentation from earlier.
>Chemists don't make individual molecules do anything. They may
>manipulate circumstances that augment probabilities of the
>molecules doing what they are already capable of doing. So
>in essence, it seems your whole argument boils down to one
>of probabilities. We're skipping a few steps here but that's
>where it's headed.
>
>Life isn't doing anything that the chemical building blocks
>of life are not inherently capable of.

That is a faith-based position. You can't possibly know it to be true.
If you did, you would be able to specify a definite pathway from
molecules to organisms, using only the properties of molecules acting
under the known laws of physics.

>And once life exists
>there's no problem with it keeping going by the inherit
>properties of those chemical building blocks.

Another faith-based position.

>Well, not
>entirely, there are problems but enough life gets past
>those problems that all of life has not gone extinct yet.
>Life once begun is at least metastable.
>
>And chemistry shows that lots of very complicated reactions
>can and do occur spontaneously.

So what? Lots of very complicated reactions *don't* occur
spontaneously.

>So the operative question
>for the origins of life are if there are enough of these
>seemingly magical but nevertheless observable spontaneous
>sustainable chemical reactions that could combine into
>others that lead to life. Once life, defined in this
>context to be sufficiently stable self-replicating
>chemical systems, once life has established itself, the
>bulk of these 'intelligent design' arguments that are
>really just probability arguments are refuted.

But you act as if that question has been authoritatively answered. It
has not.

In fact, your arguments are also probabilistic, since you say "if
there are enough of these seemingly magical but nevertheless
observable spontaneous sustainable chemical reactions..." That is a
probabilistic argument.

>> ID is saying that the same reasoning can be applied to organisms.
>> There has been no observation of organisms arising by "mistake" from
>> chemicals. And there is no real theory that explains how it could have
>> happened. So why not hypothesize that an intelligent agent at least
>> helped the process along.
>

>Because there's been no observed examples of an intelligent agent
>that was present to do the job when it needed to be done for
>starters.

So if neither intelligent design nor spontaneous generation (which
seems to be your position) have been observed, then both views are on
the same footing, empirically.

Why then claim that spontaneous generation is good science whereas ID
is not?

>Secondarily, while we can in principle build organisms
>from scratch today, it's because we're reverse engineered how
>they work. We generally discover how chemical reactions work
>rather than predict them a priori. We extrapolate some but
>not all that reliably. Things make sense in retrospect.

Intelligent design can produce organisms from scratch? Now we're
talking! I see the irony!

Craig Venter's intelligent design of organisms from molecules is
certainly empirically observable. Nature's spontaneous generation of
organisms from molecules is not.

>> IMO "by accident" or "by mistake" is way overrated, just like "by
>> chance".
>

>I don't know if that is a reference to some universal
>predestination or not. And if it is, I don't know if it
>also presumes a script writer.

Not predestination, just the idea that nonliving matter (i.e.
molecules) is inert withour being moved by life.

>
>>> By the same token, what aspect of the chemistry involved in
>>> living cells or tissues is not just what those molecules do
>>> given the starting point they had? What is this _force_ that
>>> the IDists I speak of invoke?
>
>> If the organism can be really inferred from the properties of its
>> molecules, let someone show that. Otherwise, what have you got but
>> faith?
>

>No more than an arch can be inferred from grains of sand, and
>yet as indicated before, sand can be compressed into sandstone,
>folded and eroded into an arch. All throughout, the sand is
>just doing what sand does. Similarly, at no point in the life
>history of an organism does any atom appear to be doing anything
>beyond what they are predisposed to do.

Sand and air are both molecular phenomena. It is not surprising that,
acting on one another, various crude shapes are produced. But sand and
air will not produce organisms, no matter how long the wind blows.

Neither is there evidence that any molecules will produce organisms,
no matter how long they are battered about by the waves of primordial
soup.

>Now with enough atoms interacting, and reacting to internal
>and external influences, of course you can't provide clear
>and discrete predictions any more than you can predict the
>more than three weeks out. But nothing about weather implies
>that anything other than simple physics is at work. And
>nothing about living organisms implies that anything other
>than simple chemistry is at work either. Strangely
>enough, there are no ID theorists suggesting a need for an
>intelligent designer to create tornadoes or hurricanes
>so the assertion that we need full predictability from
>first principles does not seem to apply uniformly.

Your search ends here. I definitely suggest that all natural phenomena
are instigated and moved by living intelligence and will.

[deadrat]

And this has to do with organic chemistry, how?

> ID is saying that the same reasoning can be applied to organisms.
> There has been no observation of organisms arising by "mistake" from
> chemicals. And there is no real theory that explains how it could have
> happened. So why not hypothesize that an intelligent agent at least
> helped the process along.

Because there's no evidence for such an agent?

> IMO "by accident" or "by mistake" is way overrated, just like "by
> chance".

Tell that to insurance companies.

>> By the same token, what aspect of the chemistry involved in
>> living cells or tissues is not just what those molecules do
>> given the starting point they had? What is this _force_ that
>> the IDists I speak of invoke?
>
> If the organism can be really inferred from the properties of its
> molecules, let someone show that. Otherwise, what have you got but
> faith?

This is like asking that every mathematical proof proceed from the
axioms of arithmetic. Looking at those basic axioms, would you infer
that Fermat's Last Theorem is correct? Probably not, but it's true all
the same.
<snip/>

[TomS]

"On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 15:12:49 +1000, in article
<1lk7biz.6f69x41mn71atN%jo...@wilkins.id.au>, John S. Wilkins stated..."

>
>Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>
>...
>>
>> The problem is that "by chance" has no meaning, since "chance" is not
>> a force or an energy. To say that something occurs "by chance" is to
>> ascribe instrumentality to, well, nothing. "Nothing" cannot be a
>> causal agent, so "by chance" really means "without cause".
>>
>I rolled a pair of dice in a game of backgammon last night, and got
>double sixes. What are the odds?
>

That depends.

If we make a whole bunch of assumptions, such as they are the standard
cubic dice, and fair dice, and so on, and that you threw the dice N
times, out of at least one of these throws there ended up one pairs
of sixes ...

But if you are assuming an agency with the capability of influencing
the result of the throw - then it becomes more complicated. And if
it were an inscrutable agency which was not limited on what it might
do ... Well, for example, the dice might turn up zero and eight - or
pi and square root of minus 2 - or apple and helium.


--
---Tom S.

[Roger Shrubber]

There is a great deal known about the chemistry of life.
None of what is known is special to life. It turns out to be
just the chemistry of CHNOPS and a few other players.
So we know enough about life and the chemistry of life to
know it from an extensively informed perspective. If you
know of some particular aspect of life that requires chemistry
that is "unnatural" or otherwise an exception to the innate
reactivities of our friends in the periodic table, please
do step forward and perhaps we can share the Nobel Prize.

>> And once life exists
>> there's no problem with it keeping going by the inherit
>> properties of those chemical building blocks.

> Another faith-based position.

It's an observation really. It's as much as observation
as saying that a rock doesn't require magic to keep
it being a rock and spontaneously sprouting wings and
flying away.

>> Well, not
>> entirely, there are problems but enough life gets past
>> those problems that all of life has not gone extinct yet.
>> Life once begun is at least metastable.

>> And chemistry shows that lots of very complicated reactions
>> can and do occur spontaneously.

> So what? Lots of very complicated reactions *don't* occur
> spontaneously.

But that does not prevent others from doing so. Your argument
is that there is a specific problem in the certain complex
arrangements of chemistry from occurring without the willful
conscious intervention of a "designer". There are many reactions
willful conscious and intelligent designers can't get to occur.
As far as we know so far, the ones they can get to occur are
the same as the ones that can occur spontaneously because
designers do no change the laws of chemistry, or as you put
it, the innate potential of atoms and molecules.

>> So the operative question
>> for the origins of life are if there are enough of these
>> seemingly magical but nevertheless observable spontaneous
>> sustainable chemical reactions that could combine into
>> others that lead to life. Once life, defined in this
>> context to be sufficiently stable self-replicating
>> chemical systems, once life has established itself, the
>> bulk of these 'intelligent design' arguments that are
>> really just probability arguments are refuted.

> But you act as if that question has been authoritatively answered. It
> has not.

Perhaps you misunderstand. I am not saying we have proven
that life arose without any outside intervention. Even if
I could provide a complete and detailed pathway I could
not prove that no intervention occurred. But we have
investigated potential pathways and have not discovered
any overwhelming barriers. That life could have arisen
spontaneously is a distinct possibility which I would add
have become a more likely possibility over the last 40
years as many reaction systems that make sense as part
of a pathway toward life have been discovered. Further,
nothing about the functioning of cellular life looks in
any way to be an exception to how chemicals react on
their own outside of cells.

> In fact, your arguments are also probabilistic, since you say "if
> there are enough of these seemingly magical but nevertheless
> observable spontaneous sustainable chemical reactions..." That is a
> probabilistic argument.

Yes. It is.

>>> ID is saying that the same reasoning can be applied to organisms.
>>> There has been no observation of organisms arising by "mistake" from
>>> chemicals. And there is no real theory that explains how it could have
>>> happened. So why not hypothesize that an intelligent agent at least
>>> helped the process along.

>> Because there's been no observed examples of an intelligent agent
>> that was present to do the job when it needed to be done for
>> starters.

> So if neither intelligent design nor spontaneous generation (which
> seems to be your position) have been observed, then both views are on
> the same footing, empirically.

I disagree.
The material exists. I don't yet know all that it is capable of.
I don't know if these designers even exist. Neither do I know
what they would be capable of.

I do know that the material that exists is capable of most of
what is required for spontaneous generation.
I know absolutely nothing about any agents that could agents
that could move the process along.
The sorts of agents I know of in today's world, could enhance
the probability of certain combinations in a rather profound
way but getting such agents to exist on Earth 3.5 billion
years ago presents as big or bigger a problem.

> Why then claim that spontaneous generation is good science whereas ID
> is not?

Spontaneous generation, aka abiogenesis, is only better
than the alternatives, not necessarily "good" science. There
are too many unknowns left to call it "good". As for what
needs to be filled in, it isn't that different from what has
already been elucidated. In contrast, finding some sort
of magical beings that can usurp the natural behavior of
matter or were darting about the solar system synthesizing
life requires something very unlike anything we have ever
discovered.

>> Secondarily, while we can in principle build organisms
>>from scratch today, it's because we're reverse engineered how
>> they work. We generally discover how chemical reactions work
>> rather than predict them a priori. We extrapolate some but
>> not all that reliably. Things make sense in retrospect.
>
> Intelligent design can produce organisms from scratch? Now we're
> talking! I see the irony!
>
> Craig Venter's intelligent design of organisms from molecules is
> certainly empirically observable. Nature's spontaneous generation of
> organisms from molecules is not.

Perhaps you missed the part about "reverse engineered".
Craig did not "invent" life from scratch. His work is really
much closer to plagiarism. While we are close to being
able to design enzymes from scratch, especially given some
creative strategies for co-opting modes of natural selection
to refine initial designs, we're far from being able to
de novo design novel efficient pathways. There are some
interesting initiatives to do so but they can be observed
to mostly steal from existing pathways.

So the point is, de novo design of life requires an
intelligence/education far exceeding anything we can do.
While abiogenesis is more a matter of filling in some
blanks with reactions that are similar to ones we
already know exist.

One case is of ignorance of the existence of things
completely unlike anything we know of. The other is
ignorance of things that are not unlike things we
have learned and so could simply reflect that we
are just getting started, essentially reflecting more
on us than on the universe.

>>> IMO "by accident" or "by mistake" is way overrated, just like "by
>>> chance".
>>
>> I don't know if that is a reference to some universal
>> predestination or not. And if it is, I don't know if it
>> also presumes a script writer.
>
> Not predestination, just the idea that nonliving matter (i.e.
> molecules) is inert withour being moved by life.

Find me a single chemical reaction that occurs in cells
or is required by cells that does not also occur outside
of cells. We have not found one nor have we identified
the need for any. I'm unaware of any chemist, creationist
or not, ID proponent or not, that would give any credence
to that ancient notion of vitalism.

>>>> By the same token, what aspect of the chemistry involved in
>>>> living cells or tissues is not just what those molecules do
>>>> given the starting point they had? What is this _force_ that
>>>> the IDists I speak of invoke?
>>
>>> If the organism can be really inferred from the properties of its
>>> molecules, let someone show that. Otherwise, what have you got but
>>> faith?
>>
>> No more than an arch can be inferred from grains of sand, and
>> yet as indicated before, sand can be compressed into sandstone,
>> folded and eroded into an arch. All throughout, the sand is
>> just doing what sand does. Similarly, at no point in the life
>> history of an organism does any atom appear to be doing anything
>> beyond what they are predisposed to do.

> Sand and air are both molecular phenomena. It is not surprising that,
> acting on one another, various crude shapes are produced. But sand and
> air will not produce organisms, no matter how long the wind blows.

There's still nothing about cells or organisms you have
pointed out that requires any exceptional chemistry.
Not cells or organisms that already exist. And I'm now
lost as to whether you are invoking vitalism in extant
life or objecting to getting all the various bits
that result in life together in the first place.

> Neither is there evidence that any molecules will produce organisms,
> no matter how long they are battered about by the waves of primordial
> soup.

There's evidence that effectively "dead" cells can be
converted into living cells by transplanting mere
material through a pipette.

And there's plenty of evidence that chemistry can spontaneously
cross some of the pathway from disorganized precursors toward
cellular life. Repeating myself, crossing the rest of the
way does not require unprecedented types of chemistry.

>> Now with enough atoms interacting, and reacting to internal
>> and external influences, of course you can't provide clear
>> and discrete predictions any more than you can predict the
>> more than three weeks out. But nothing about weather implies
>> that anything other than simple physics is at work. And
>> nothing about living organisms implies that anything other
>> than simple chemistry is at work either. Strangely
>> enough, there are no ID theorists suggesting a need for an
>> intelligent designer to create tornadoes or hurricanes
>> so the assertion that we need full predictability from
>> first principles does not seem to apply uniformly.

> Your search ends here. I definitely suggest that all natural phenomena
> are instigated and moved by living intelligence and will.

I sortof knew you believed as much but perhaps do not
consider you an ID theorist. Perhaps I misjudge how many
share your view. Perhaps because the short term predictability
of weather systems makes the idea of everything being
moved by a living will to be intellectually unsustainable.

[Robert Camp]

This painfully distorts the meaning of "faith-based position." It is
*not* a "faith-based position" to demur from assuming that various
unidentified imaginary forces might be at work in any particular natural
process. It is simply experience and reason helping us to avoid going
mad or becoming victims of Ockham the Slasher.

> If you did, you would be able to specify a definite pathway from
> molecules to organisms, using only the properties of molecules acting
> under the known laws of physics.

I don't see how it follows that if we refuse to invoke imaginary causal
agents we should know *everything* about whatever phenomenon offends you.

<snip>

>>> ID is saying that the same reasoning can be applied to organisms.
>>> There has been no observation of organisms arising by "mistake" from
>>> chemicals. And there is no real theory that explains how it could have
>>> happened. So why not hypothesize that an intelligent agent at least
>>> helped the process along.
>>
>> Because there's been no observed examples of an intelligent agent
>> that was present to do the job when it needed to be done for
>> starters.
>
> So if neither intelligent design nor spontaneous generation (which
> seems to be your position) have been observed, then both views are on
> the same footing, empirically.
>
> Why then claim that spontaneous generation is good science whereas ID
> is not?

Because good science doesn't unnecessarily posit an enormous
multiplicity of assumptions (transcendental causal agency). Good science
goes with the evidence.

<snip>

>>>> By the same token, what aspect of the chemistry involved in
>>>> living cells or tissues is not just what those molecules do
>>>> given the starting point they had? What is this _force_ that
>>>> the IDists I speak of invoke?
>>
>>> If the organism can be really inferred from the properties of its
>>> molecules, let someone show that. Otherwise, what have you got but
>>> faith?

First you have to show that there is a reason to expect that an organism
should be inferred from the properties of its molecules. You need to get
your carts and horses in the right order.

>> No more than an arch can be inferred from grains of sand, and
>> yet as indicated before, sand can be compressed into sandstone,
>> folded and eroded into an arch. All throughout, the sand is
>> just doing what sand does. Similarly, at no point in the life
>> history of an organism does any atom appear to be doing anything
>> beyond what they are predisposed to do.
>
> Sand and air are both molecular phenomena. It is not surprising that,
> acting on one another, various crude shapes are produced. But sand and
> air will not produce organisms, no matter how long the wind blows.
>
> Neither is there evidence that any molecules will produce organisms,
> no matter how long they are battered about by the waves of primordial
> soup.

"Organisms" is an inclusive term, encompassing a broad continuum of
complexity. Yet you argue as if this is some privileged class, not
"crude" like tornadoes and sandstone arches. By what objective measures
do you reach this conclusion?

>> Now with enough atoms interacting, and reacting to internal
>> and external influences, of course you can't provide clear
>> and discrete predictions any more than you can predict the
>> more than three weeks out. But nothing about weather implies
>> that anything other than simple physics is at work. And
>> nothing about living organisms implies that anything other
>> than simple chemistry is at work either. Strangely
>> enough, there are no ID theorists suggesting a need for an
>> intelligent designer to create tornadoes or hurricanes
>> so the assertion that we need full predictability from
>> first principles does not seem to apply uniformly.
>
> Your search ends here. I definitely suggest that all natural phenomena
> are instigated and moved by living intelligence and will.

In other words there are no "natural phenomena" as most of us would use
the phrase. Are you really comfortable with your position being
rhetorically empty and empirically irrelevant?

[Roger Shrubber]

This is refuted by your own line of argumentation from earlier.
Chemists don't make individual molecules do anything. They may
manipulate circumstances that augment probabilities of the
molecules doing what they are already capable of doing. So
in essence, it seems your whole argument boils down to one
of probabilities. We're skipping a few steps here but that's
where it's headed.

Life isn't doing anything that the chemical building blocks

of life are not inherently capable of. And once life exists

there's no problem with it keeping going by the inherit

properties of those chemical building blocks. Well, not

entirely, there are problems but enough life gets past
those problems that all of life has not gone extinct yet.
Life once begun is at least metastable.

And chemistry shows that lots of very complicated reactions

can and do occur spontaneously. So the operative question

for the origins of life are if there are enough of these
seemingly magical but nevertheless observable spontaneous
sustainable chemical reactions that could combine into
others that lead to life. Once life, defined in this
context to be sufficiently stable self-replicating
chemical systems, once life has established itself, the
bulk of these 'intelligent design' arguments that are
really just probability arguments are refuted.

> ID is saying that the same reasoning can be applied to organisms.
> There has been no observation of organisms arising by "mistake" from
> chemicals. And there is no real theory that explains how it could have
> happened. So why not hypothesize that an intelligent agent at least
> helped the process along.

Because there's been no observed examples of an intelligent agent
that was present to do the job when it needed to be done for

starters. Secondarily, while we can in principle build organisms

from scratch today, it's because we're reverse engineered how
they work. We generally discover how chemical reactions work
rather than predict them a priori. We extrapolate some but
not all that reliably. Things make sense in retrospect.

> IMO "by accident" or "by mistake" is way overrated, just like "by
> chance".

I don't know if that is a reference to some universal
predestination or not. And if it is, I don't know if it
also presumes a script writer.

>> By the same token, what aspect of the chemistry involved in
>> living cells or tissues is not just what those molecules do
>> given the starting point they had? What is this _force_ that
>> the IDists I speak of invoke?

> If the organism can be really inferred from the properties of its
> molecules, let someone show that. Otherwise, what have you got but
> faith?

No more than an arch can be inferred from grains of sand, and
yet as indicated before, sand can be compressed into sandstone,
folded and eroded into an arch. All throughout, the sand is
just doing what sand does. Similarly, at no point in the life
history of an organism does any atom appear to be doing anything
beyond what they are predisposed to do.

Now with enough atoms interacting, and reacting to internal
and external influences, of course you can't provide clear
and discrete predictions any more than you can predict the
more than three weeks out. But nothing about weather implies
that anything other than simple physics is at work. And
nothing about living organisms implies that anything other
than simple chemistry is at work either. Strangely
enough, there are no ID theorists suggesting a need for an
intelligent designer to create tornadoes or hurricanes
so the assertion that we need full predictability from
first principles does not seem to apply uniformly.

[deadrat]

All hail the great CHNOPS!

[deadrat]

On 4/16/14 3:19 PM, Kalkidas wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 15:28:11 -0400, Roger Shrubber

> I argue that certain complicated chemical structures, like cells and
> organisms etc. require intelligent design, i.e. knowledge, in order to
> to be assembled, knowledge that is greater than the information
> contained in the list of properties of the atoms that make them up, or
> in the known laws of physics that they are supposed to be governed by.

This statement is manifestly untrue. You *assert* these things but
without argument. An argument would require at the least

- a definition of intelligent agency and operational ways that we can
differentiate between intelligent agency and whatever agency isn't
intelligent. Assertion by synonym, for example that "intelligent
design" is "knowledge," won't do.

- a definition of design that allows an operational way to determine
which artifacts are designed and which aren't.

- a definition of information and the axioms of the operation of
information so that we may determine which informational constructs are
possible and which are not.

Without these things, all you've got is an argument by personal incredulity.

> The basic laws of physics, for example, can be written down on a
> single page. So can the basic properties of an atom. I argue that this
> is not enough information to produce cells and organisms. Additional
> information is required. It comes from somewhere, not from the atoms
> or the laws of physics.

Again, you present no argument. I don't know how to calculate the
amount of information that can be written down on a single page or how
to compare that to the "basic properties of an atom." Neither do you.

> That is my proposal. To support it, I cite the utter lack of any
> empirical observation of atoms gradually or spontaneously turning into
> cells solely by extrapolating from their properties, the physical
> laws, and the initial conditions.

No one expects that atom spontaneously turn into cells, so the lack of
observations of such is hardly surprising. But even this isn't support
for your proposal in any meaningful sense.
>
> I also cite Venter's et al, creation of cells "from scratch", which
> does not prove that all organisms were produced by intelligent design,
> but does prove that some cells can be.

I think you misunderstand what Venter has done. He certainly hasn't
created a cell from scratch. Even if Venter's work gives you some hope,
your task is to determine that the cells we see were intelligently designed.

<snip/>
>
> Suppose I see a hammer pounding in a nail but for some reason I don't
> see the man holding the hammer.
>
> I can develop an entire theoretical explanation for what I see based
> on Newton's laws, the shape, mass and velocity of the hammer, the mass
> of the nail, the density of the wood, etc. Who needs the man? All I
> have to assume is that hammers pound, that's what they do, that's
> their basic property.
>
> But as complete as the theory seems to be, and as much as it seems to
> explain everything I think I need to know about what I am seeing, it
> still is incomplete, and wrong. Hammers don't pound by themselves. Men
> make hammers pound.

Of course pounding hammers require pounders. That's because hammers are
human artifacts. But that argument doesn't help you because its use as
an analogy requires you to assume what you must demonstrate, namely that
cells are designed the way hammers are.

[Robert Camp]

On 4/16/14 1:19 PM, Kalkidas wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 15:28:11 -0400, Roger Shrubber

> <rog.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Kalkidas wrote:
>>> On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 13:09:00 -0400, Roger Shrubber
>>> <rog.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Kalkidas wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 15 Apr 2014 23:06:12 -0400, Roger Shrubber
>>>>> <rog.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Kalkidas wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 15 Apr 2014 13:41:57 -0700 (PDT), nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:

<snips>

>>>> Now with enough atoms interacting, and reacting to internal
>>>> and external influences, of course you can't provide clear
>>>> and discrete predictions any more than you can predict the
>>>> more than three weeks out. But nothing about weather implies
>>>> that anything other than simple physics is at work. And
>>>> nothing about living organisms implies that anything other
>>>> than simple chemistry is at work either. Strangely
>>>> enough, there are no ID theorists suggesting a need for an
>>>> intelligent designer to create tornadoes or hurricanes
>>>> so the assertion that we need full predictability from
>>>> first principles does not seem to apply uniformly.
>>
>>> Your search ends here. I definitely suggest that all natural phenomena
>>> are instigated and moved by living intelligence and will.
>>
>> I sortof knew you believed as much but perhaps do not
>> consider you an ID theorist. Perhaps I misjudge how many
>> share your view. Perhaps because the short term predictability
>> of weather systems makes the idea of everything being
>> moved by a living will to be intellectually unsustainable.
>

> Suppose I see a hammer pounding in a nail but for some reason I don't
> see the man holding the hammer.
>
> I can develop an entire theoretical explanation for what I see based
> on Newton's laws, the shape, mass and velocity of the hammer, the mass
> of the nail, the density of the wood, etc. Who needs the man? All I
> have to assume is that hammers pound, that's what they do, that's
> their basic property.
>
> But as complete as the theory seems to be, and as much as it seems to
> explain everything I think I need to know about what I am seeing, it
> still is incomplete, and wrong. Hammers don't pound by themselves. Men
> make hammers pound.

I have always wondered whether it's an inherent inability to see the
assumptions imported into their arguments and analogies that
distinguishes those who are drawn to pseudoscience, or if that tendency
is adopted once it becomes imperative to defend pseudoscientific ideology.

[Kalkidas]

On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 15:28:11 -0400, Roger Shrubber

I argue that certain complicated chemical structures, like cells and
organisms etc. require intelligent design, i.e. knowledge, in order to
to be assembled, knowledge that is greater than the information
contained in the list of properties of the atoms that make them up, or
in the known laws of physics that they are supposed to be governed by.

The basic laws of physics, for example, can be written down on a
single page. So can the basic properties of an atom. I argue that this
is not enough information to produce cells and organisms. Additional
information is required. It comes from somewhere, not from the atoms
or the laws of physics.

That is my proposal. To support it, I cite the utter lack of any
empirical observation of atoms gradually or spontaneously turning into
cells solely by extrapolating from their properties, the physical
laws, and the initial conditions.

I also cite Venter's et al, creation of cells "from scratch", which
does not prove that all organisms were produced by intelligent design,
but does prove that some cells can be.

I didn't say Venter invented life. It doesn't matter how he got the
knowledge to do what he does. The point is it took that knowledge to
do it. We don't observe cells arising from spontaneous chemical
reactions out there in unguided, unintelligent, ignorant Nature. We do
observe it in Venter's lab, under intelligently controlled conditions.

>So the point is, de novo design of life requires an
>intelligence/education far exceeding anything we can do.
>While abiogenesis is more a matter of filling in some
>blanks with reactions that are similar to ones we
>already know exist.

Well, since I don't take blank checks, you'll have to fill in all
those blanks first. Otherwise, all you have is faith in imagined
future discoveries.

[Kalkidas]

I'm afraid you'll have to turn to pseudoscience to answer that
question.

[jillery]

On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 13:19:34 -0700, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:

[...]

>Suppose I see a hammer pounding in a nail but for some reason I don't
>see the man holding the hammer.
>
>I can develop an entire theoretical explanation for what I see based
>on Newton's laws, the shape, mass and velocity of the hammer, the mass
>of the nail, the density of the wood, etc. Who needs the man? All I
>have to assume is that hammers pound, that's what they do, that's
>their basic property.
>
>But as complete as the theory seems to be, and as much as it seems to
>explain everything I think I need to know about what I am seeing, it
>still is incomplete, and wrong. Hammers don't pound by themselves. Men
>make hammers pound.

You're correct that hammers don't pound by themselves. You're
incorrect that you can develop a entire theoretical explanation for
it. At best, you will necessarily come to a point that shows there is
an unexplained effect, that seems to contradict the laws of physics,
that of a hammer moving without apparent cause.

The difference between your line of reasoning and science is that
science flags that point as an unexplained phenomenon, and continues
to search for an explanation. But you come to that point, and assume
there is an unseen, unknown, undefined entity moving the hammer, and
seek no confirmation. Even more tellingly, you become belligerent
when others point that out.

You might take some small comfort in identifying the same point of
ignorance as do scientists, but your acceptance of your ignorance
gives your mind and spirit no nourishment.

[hersheyh]

On Wednesday, April 16, 2014 1:12:49 AM UTC-4, John S. Wilkins wrote:
> Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>
>
>
> ...
>
> >
>
> > The problem is that "by chance" has no meaning, since "chance" is not
>
> > a force or an energy. To say that something occurs "by chance" is to
>
> > ascribe instrumentality to, well, nothing. "Nothing" cannot be a
>
> > causal agent, so "by chance" really means "without cause".
>
> >
>
> I rolled a pair of dice in a game of backgammon last night, and got
>
> double sixes. What are the odds?
>

Depends. Your dice or mine?

[Roger Shrubber]

Kalkidas wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 15:28:11 -0400, Roger Shrubber

>> Kalkidas wrote:
>>> On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 13:09:00 -0400, Roger Shrubber

[trim]

> I argue that certain complicated chemical structures, like cells and
> organisms etc. require intelligent design, i.e. knowledge, in order to
> to be assembled, knowledge that is greater than the information
> contained in the list of properties of the atoms that make them up, or
> in the known laws of physics that they are supposed to be governed by.

You write "intelligent design, i.e. knowledge".
The language confuses me. Nothing about chemical reactions appears
to depend on knowledge of the observer. In fact, the mad scientist
who mixes 1 part A with 2 parts B to see what happens gets the
same result as the Igor who is asked to repeat the experiment
to reproduce the result. The intent or level of ignorance of
the person who mixes the chemicals, or the robot that does it
does not change the result in any process I'm aware of. So
knowledge is a very strange word to invoke. As for design,
intelligent or otherwise, we might point out that the design
of a house is often different from what gets manufactured
(apologies to Wilkins).

The further issue of "information" might be addressed but
for now it suffices to note that the simplest aspect of
that information is the sequence information in DNA. While
no specific DNA sequence is inherent in CHNOP, the ability
of CHNOP to achieve any sequence of DNA is as innate as
their ability to form any other organic or inorganic
molecule that have been observed. In that context, you
contention is rather untenable.

> The basic laws of physics, for example, can be written down on a
> single page. So can the basic properties of an atom. I argue that this
> is not enough information to produce cells and organisms. Additional
> information is required. It comes from somewhere, not from the atoms
> or the laws of physics.
>
> That is my proposal. To support it, I cite the utter lack of any
> empirical observation of atoms gradually or spontaneously turning into
> cells solely by extrapolating from their properties, the physical
> laws, and the initial conditions.

Nobody has watched sandstone form, be deformed by plate
techtonics, folded and eroded into arches but so far you
have not denied that to be a reasonable thing to occur naturally,
even if rare.

We have observed that various monomers can polymerize into
arbitrary sequences with predictable and reproducible sequence
distributions. So while I've never watched anyone ride a
bicycle from San Francisco to New York, I've actually driven
that route and would say that it's possible to make that
bicycle ride, even if it would probably use alternative
roads from the ones I drove. Now riding a bicycle from SF
to Paris presents some bigger problems and we could point
to specific problems. Can you point to specific problems for
the route to abiogenesis? Because not having seen it
happen in a lab is rather weak.

> I also cite Venter's et al, creation of cells "from scratch", which
> does not prove that all organisms were produced by intelligent design,
> but does prove that some cells can be.

Given appropriate technology, supplies and personnel, yes
they can reverse engineer life as we know it and build it
up more or less from scratch. Complete de novo design of
life, rather than reverse engineering and reproduction, is
somewhat different though and I think that's your claim.


I'm going address you other comments elsewhere even
though I generally find such separations annoying.

[Roger Shrubber]

Kalkidas wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 15:28:11 -0400, Roger Shrubber

>> Kalkidas wrote:
>>> On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 13:09:00 -0400, Roger Shrubber

[trim]

> Suppose I see a hammer pounding in a nail but for some reason I don't
> see the man holding the hammer.
>
> I can develop an entire theoretical explanation for what I see based
> on Newton's laws, the shape, mass and velocity of the hammer, the mass
> of the nail, the density of the wood, etc. Who needs the man? All I
> have to assume is that hammers pound, that's what they do, that's
> their basic property.

Not really. You need something extra to explain the impetus
applied to the hammer so there's something more than just Newton's
laws. But that aside, conceptually you are invoking an invisible
arm that accounts for some of what happens in the world, some
special force that makes molecule A react with molecule B
according to the desire, will and plan of Agent X. Apparently,
you are invoking the intervention of Agent X to assemble material
elements into functioning cells because you don't think that
molecule A and B (and C, D ...) have the inherent potential
to react without the intervention of Agent X.

But you can't seem to point to specific reactions where this
is required, just that somewhere in the many reactions that
are required to arrive at living cells.

> But as complete as the theory seems to be, and as much as it seems to
> explain everything I think I need to know about what I am seeing, it
> still is incomplete, and wrong. Hammers don't pound by themselves. Men
> make hammers pound.

This is true about hammers. We know this to be true because we
have observed hammers and they don't drive nails without visible
agents picking them up and wielding them. Oddly, it isn't the
intelligence of the wielder or necessarily their intent that
matters in driving the nails but that's another story entirely.
But what specific parts of the pathway from simple primordial
molecules to living cells do you think requires the action
of an invisible hand? As a chemist, I can't identify any.

[John S. Wilkins]

So you do not have an answer. I expected that. Also, you don't play
games of chance, I see. Before I rolled the dice, the chances were 1 in
36 of getting that (or any other) combination (actually less than that
because of the probability that a single die will get a number is 1 in
6, and each die can get the number for a combination). This, if
anything, is chance, but the event is caused fully (assuming that
quantum chance is evened out at the macroscale).

>
> But "chance" didn't cause the dice to roll, you did.

Yes, but I didn't cause the dice to get that combination. There's a
difference. I could have rolled it from a machine, or the dice could
have been knocked off the counter by a cat. That is irrelevant to the
numbers that came up.

[TomS]

"On Thu, 17 Apr 2014 15:08:33 +1000, in article
<1lk95ka.2lzyik116os7qN%jo...@wilkins.id.au>, John S. Wilkins stated..."

>
>Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 15:12:49 +1000, jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S.
>> Wilkins) wrote:
>>
>> >Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>> >
>> >...
>> >>
>> >> The problem is that "by chance" has no meaning, since "chance" is not
>> >> a force or an energy. To say that something occurs "by chance" is to
>> >> ascribe instrumentality to, well, nothing. "Nothing" cannot be a
>> >> causal agent, so "by chance" really means "without cause".
>> >>
>> >I rolled a pair of dice in a game of backgammon last night, and got
>> >double sixes. What are the odds?
>>
>> The "odds" of a past event having occurred are always 100%.
>
>So you do not have an answer. I expected that. Also, you don't play
>games of chance, I see. Before I rolled the dice, the chances were 1 in
>36 of getting that (or any other) combination (actually less than that
>because of the probability that a single die will get a number is 1 in
>6, and each die can get the number for a combination). This, if
>anything, is chance, but the event is caused fully (assuming that
>quantum chance is evened out at the macroscale).
>>
>> But "chance" didn't cause the dice to roll, you did.
>
>Yes, but I didn't cause the dice to get that combination. There's a
>difference. I could have rolled it from a machine, or the dice could
>have been knocked off the counter by a cat. That is irrelevant to the
>numbers that came up.

But if the throw of the dice was determined by an Intelligent Dicer,
whose motivations we do not know, who is clever enough to switch the
dice without being detected, then there are more possibilities than
the 36 combinations of pairs of 1 through 6. The Intelligent Dicer
could decide to throw than two dice or substitute the dice from the
"WFF 'N' PROOF" game.


--
---Tom S.

[Roger Shrubber]

TomS wrote:

> ... The Intelligent Dicer ...

can also make julienne fries leading to the conclusion that
the Intelligent Designer is Ron Popeil of RonCo(R) fame.