|
Author
|
Topic: The Characterization of Intelligent Causation
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 06. September 2007 05:51
IF:
quote:
Do you think that there could be some errors as well?
What kind of question is this? The answer to this question is so obvious, I'm surprised it's even asked. Is this an attempt at the feeble "If God is perfect why isn't His creation?" argument?
If so, I guess I'll indulge you...
Let me start by asking this: Can a designer purposefully introduce flaws into their design?
I'm sure you'll agree that they can. We've all heard of the car company that could make their cars more reliable but - because they would lose revenue on spare parts and repairs - choose instead not to incorporate certain improvements into their designs.
"But", you'll say, "that's immoral. Is God immoral?".
To that I will ask: Are all purposeful design flaws introduced because of immorality?
The answer is obviously "No". We've all seen the designer jeans with holes in the knees, or faux grease stains. Were those designers immoral?
My wife loves antiques and anything that looks old. She actually buys brand new picture frames that have chipped and cracked paint, vases that are chipped on purpose, and other such items to display around the house. Are those designers immoral?
I am a guitarist, and I've recently seen a Stevie Ray Vaughan signature guitar that has been made to look just like his old beat up Stratocaster. The Fender Guitar Company actually employs people who will scrape the paint off a brand new guitar! (and people pay extra for this!)
The point is - it's really up to the designer to decide what goes into a design. If, in the design of life, the designer decided on certain compromises, so be it - it does not in any way weigh against the evidence for design. If the designer decided to introduce certain flaws, or to allow for the possibility for the ultimate breakdown of the systems, that too does not in any way negate the fact that the systems were designed in the first place.
To date, mankind has yet to come up with the perfect design for anything, yet no one disputes whether or not man designs things or whether or not his creations are designed. That would be silly.
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 06. September 2007 06:28
LifeEngineer:
quote:
There currently is no actual set of scientific genetic determinism theories since there is currently no known method of storing enough information in genetic materials that could explain the known complexity of development processes. Nor, it might be added, is there any known method of producing or explaining evolutionary change by any change process operating on genetic materials.
I'm no expert, but I think a multi-layered coding system could conceivably hold enough information to account for these processes.
Let me illustrate with an overly simplified example:
Take this 4 symbol code:
CATG
If it can be allowed that each symbol can code for one process, the maximum amount of processes that can be encoded in a non-overlapping 4 symbol code is 4 things:
C, A, T, and G.
It can code for less than that, but never more.
In an overlapping code however, there are many more possibilities:
There are : CATG, CAT, CA, C, ATG, AT, A, TG, T, and G, for a total of 10 processes coded for all at once with only a four symbol code!
Now obviously there's much math to be done, but theoretically - and depending on max/min coding lengths for real processes - what this could mean is that the total number of processes coded for can be greater than the total base pairs in a genome.
Also, if it can be shown that genetic coding is indeed done utilizing an overlapping system, it would be another nail in the coffin for the theory of random mutation and natural selection - since one random mutation would have to favorably change all the processes that were encoded within that region and not just one.
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 06. September 2007 06:30
Daniel,
quote:
quote:
Do you think that there could be some errors as well?
What kind of question is this? The answer to this question is so obvious, I'm surprised it's even asked. Is this an attempt at the feeble "If God is perfect why isn't His creation?" argument?
...
The point is - it's really up to the designer to decide what goes into a design. If, in the design of life, the designer decided on certain compromises, so be it - it does not in any way weigh against the evidence for design. If the designer decided to introduce certain flaws, or to allow for the possibility for the ultimate breakdown of the systems, that too does not in any way negate the fact that the systems were designed in the first place.
To date, mankind has yet to come up with the perfect design for anything, yet no one disputes whether or not man designs things or whether or not his creations are designed. That would be silly.
Don't be surprised by the question because not everyone is as "liberal" in their answer and historically, when "the other side" is in charge it is tough to even ask that kind of academic question! You have a wonderful attitude! It seems to allow investigations without additional taboos. This kind of question is important as you can well imagine and is ancient and "global" as far as I can determine. It was put in the form of a joke that went around the internet not too long ago and I can email it to you if you haven't heard it. It's the one that starts something like "Francis Crick dies and goes to heaven."
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 06. September 2007 11:01
LE,
quote:
As discussed earlier, it is important to recognize a distinction between those who are willing and able to demonstrate scientific competence and those who are unable and unwilling to even attempt to demonstrate such competence.
Where, when, how, etc., have you seen this or would you just like to see this presented publicly? Have you seen or participated in something like this already?
quote:
You have clearly indicated by your comments that you are unable to demonstrate scientific competence.
I guess I agree simply because I haven't taken a test, yet! I would, however, support your efforts to present this to someone with the means to put it together, e.g. Gates, the Pope, Wolfram, etc. A posted plan would be very beneficial.
quote:
Given the fact that you are unable to demonstrate even an elementary understanding of predictive theories, there is not much reason anyone should take your ability to use buzz words and Google searches as an indication that your subjective opinions have any type of scientific validity.
Ouch!
IP: Logged
|
|
miosim
Member
Member # 4541
|
posted 06. September 2007 22:52
Daniel quote:
If the designer decided to introduce certain flaws, or to allow for the possibility for the ultimate breakdown of the systems, that too does not in any way negate the fact that the systems were designed in the first place.
Therefore presence or absence of “Junk DNA” is irrelevant to prove or disprove ID.
[ 06. September 2007, 22:53: Message edited by: miosim ]
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 07. September 2007 08:45
Daniel,
Quote: Now obviously there's much math to be done, but theoretically - and depending on max/min coding lengths for real processes - what this could mean is that the total number of processes coded for can be greater than the total base pairs in a genome.
What you are suggesting is a very complex and precise mapping between a set of complex operations and genetic codes. There are plenty of relatively simple methods of testing for the existence of such a complex set of instructions. A theory based on such a complex and precise mapping of code to procedures would predict both that 1) a specific change in code always produces a specific change in procedure and 2) a specific change in procedure always the result of a specific change in code. Lots of tests have been performed to show that such a complex mapping does not exist.
It appears that we have extensive evidence that specific genes contain some critical pieces of information required to assemble specific proteins. But it is also well known that the information contained in the gene is not nearly sufficient to assemble the protein. Evidence relating to what is stored in genes and what is not stored in genes, provides clear evidence that genetic determinism is neither valid nor a workable concept.
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 07. September 2007 09:35
LE,
quote:
Evidence relating to what is stored in genes and what is not stored in genes, provides clear evidence that genetic determinism is neither valid nor a workable concept.
Where is the evidence?
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 07. September 2007 09:48
Quote: Where is the evidence?
What silly games you play. The absence of complex mapping theories is evidence that analysis has shown that such theories are unworkable. If you understood the concepts and math involved you wouldn't be playing such silly games.
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 07. September 2007 11:10
LE,
quote:
Evidence relating to what is stored in genes and what is not stored in genes, provides clear evidence that genetic determinism is neither valid nor a workable concept.
What silly games you play. The absence of complex mapping theories is evidence that analysis has shown that such theories are unworkable. If you understood the concepts and math involved you wouldn't be playing such silly games.
Why is my game silly? Isn't this a sharing ideas and trying to learn game?
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 07. September 2007 13:25
LifeEngineer:
quote:
It appears that we have extensive evidence that specific genes contain some critical pieces of information required to assemble specific proteins. But it is also well known that the information contained in the gene is not nearly sufficient to assemble the protein. Evidence relating to what is stored in genes and what is not stored in genes, provides clear evidence that genetic determinism is neither valid nor a workable concept.
Apparently you didn't read any of the articles about the ENCODE study that I posted. If you had, you wouldn't be concentrating on genes.
quote:
"The majority of the genome is copied, or transcribed, into RNA, which is the active molecule in our cells, relaying information from the archival DNA copy to the cellular machinery. This is a remarkable finding, since most prior research suggested only a fraction of the genome was transcribed."...
The team showed that transcription of DNA is pervasive across the genome, and that RNA transcripts overlap known genes and are found in what were previously thought to be gene 'deserts'. (emphasis mine)
So there is more in play here than just genes and proteins.
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 08. September 2007 15:49
miosim:
quote:
Therefore presence or absence of “Junk DNA” is irrelevant to prove or disprove ID.
I was able to predict--based on the ID perspective--that there really is no such thing as "junk DNA".
What predictions are you able to make--based on your currently held theory--in regards to DNA?
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 09. September 2007 09:40
POSITIVE USES OF SELECT THE BEST THEORIES
Select the best theories analysis, as discussed to this point, provides an effective method of identifying individuals who are scientifically incompetent. This includes both individuals who lack the basic abilities to perform scientific analysis and individuals who are unwilling to accept the standards and principles of formal scientific analysis. From a more positive perspective, select the best theories analysis can also be used to identify individuals with 1) some existing level of scientific competence, 2) with a basic willingness to adhere to scientific principles and standards, and 3) with the ability and willingness to learn more about the practice of hard science analysis.
Scientific analysis is not a single skill, but rather a large and complex skill set. No individual can expect to have all the skills required for all types of scientific analysis. Scientific competence is not simply a matter of having a large set of required skills. Scientific competence is more a matter of 1) having certain basic skills, 2) being able to understand and being willing to follow basic scientific concepts and principles, 3) being willing to learn new analytical skills and techniques when required and 4) being able to properly understand and utilize specialized skills of others.
Select the best theories analysis makes it practical to formulate simple or starting point theories in any subject matter. This provides any individual with the ability to demonstrate basic skills in an area of interest and it allows and individual to demonstrate the ability and willingness to adhere to basic scientific standards and principles. Because select the best theories analysis can be performed using basic or elementary predictive theories, it is should also be a useful structure for teaching and learning basic scientific skills.
As the discussion here has demonstrated, the number of individuals even willing to attempt to learn and/or demonstrate scientific competence is very small. But, as most of us recognize from personal experience, although interest in, and basic talent for, hard science analysis is not common, there are still a significant number of individuals who can and do practice hard science analysis. Select the best theories analysis should provide an effective method of identifying these individuals.
IP: Logged
|
|
miosim
Member
Member # 4541
|
posted 10. September 2007 20:20
Daniel quote:
I was able to predict--based on the ID perspective--that there really is no such thing as "junk DNA".
What predictions are you able to make--based on your currently held theory--in regards to DNA?
I do not have much of a prediction; I just can share my views on role of DNA. They are based on analogy between Human social systems and Biological systems, and at this point, I probably wouldn’t able to defend my point of view.
In my views DNA’s role is limited to store recipes for the proteins only and not entire plan for an organism. These recipes contain knowledge that has been acquired by intelligent cells and translated into DNA code. Therefore, I think, that DNA plays the same role as human libraries, archives and databases that store a technological knowledge acquired within a Human society.
In the early stages of development, the primitive Human societies were able to exist and even develop regardless the inability to communicate knowledge by means of written record. The same way, in the early stages of living Nature development, it also could exist and develop without recording (molecular code)of acquired knowledge. Instead living cell systems shared their knowledge from generation to generation through direct molecule-to-molecule interaction.
Development of written language and book printing technology in Human society caused a dramatic acceleration of development. Similarly, the “invention” of DNA code by intelligent cells should also dramatically accelerate biological evolution and even causing “explosion” of this development. I envision that as soon DNA code was “invented” by intelligent cells, the majority of genes could be created in a short period of time, however not as genetic programs that deterministically caused the emergence of new species (ID approach), but as a variety of building blocks that have been using by intelligent cells to develop sophisticated biological structures and mechanisms that led to emergence of new species.
Regarding random mutation as a source of evolutionary changes, even though I regard it as nonsense, I can understand how it could be perceived this way, because an organism responds with wide range of DNA changes in response to environment pressure that could be regarded as random.
Human society also responds with wide range of proposed solutions to problems. These solutions eventually are filtered ending up with just few ones. However, practically all of these solutions, including ridiculous ones (“Junk" solutions), are still stored in all sorts of our databases.
When a biological system is challenged by environmental conditions or competition, it attempts to “invent” new adaptive mechanisms. This process is undetectable to our scientific methods until the potential “solutions” shows up in the genome. The natural selection process just sorts out these solutions, ending up with the final DNA code. However, less successful attempts (could be, so called “junk” DNA) still may reside within genome, especially if “junk” DNA was used in the past as an intermediate solution on the way to the final one.
[ 11. September 2007, 03:49: Message edited by: miosim ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Arjun
Member
Member # 6108
|
posted 11. September 2007 06:13
quote:
When a biological system is challenged by environmental conditions or competition, it attempts to “invent” new adaptive mechanisms. This process is undetectable to our scientific methods until the potential “solutions” shows up in the genome.
(my emphasis)
This neatly renders your hypothesis untestable and thus little more than wishful thinking.
IP: Logged
|
|
miosim
Member
Member # 4541
|
posted 11. September 2007 07:47
quote:
Arjun:
This neatly renders your hypothesis untestable and thus little more than wishful thinking.
This is not a full blown hypothesis, but just my current views that I do not intend to defend or develop into testable version.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
