SONG OF MYSELF"This most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets could have only proceeded from an intelligent and powerful being...eternal and infinite...he governs all things." -Sir Issac Newton
About this Entry
Posted by: GOODGREYPOET

Visit GOODGREYPOET's Xanga Site

Original: 1/27/2007 12:37 AM
Comments: 127
eProps: 28

Read Comments
Post a Comment
Back to Your Xanga Site


Saturday, January 27, 2007
 

The Design Inference

Because a few people still seem to be struggling to understand the rather simplistic concepts of "intelligence" and "information", I thought I would post this video which I think does a pretty good job of further elucidating these concepts. It also does a good job of explaining how the information stored in the genetic code is analogous to information found in other systems such as human language systems and computer programs. The video is only ten minutes long so I would encourage anyone who is still struggling with these very basic concepts to watch it in its entirety. After watching if you still feel the need to debate semantics then feel free to do so, although I feel it is really a waste of time. The two main things I hope that each of us can take from this whole discussion is: 1) At present, there are no known natural processes that can explain the origin of genetic information or the origin of the first single-celled life form, and 2) Everyday experience has demonstrated that there is only one known source for producing information, and that's intelligence. Moreover, the principle of uniformity states that the natural processes operating in the past are the same as those that can be observed operating in the present. It is often summarized by the statement: "The present is the key to the past." Hence, if we observe from our everyday experience in the present that information is only produced by intelligence, then according to the principle of uniformity, it is logical to assume that information was only produced by intelligence in the past.

 Posted 1/27/2007 12:37 AM - 127 comments

Give eProps or Post a Comment

127 Comments

browse comments: next › | last »


Visit manonfire_reasons's Xanga Site!

Exactly.

As I said: [The] point here is that ID theory is more consistent with our uniform experience than Chemical Evolution.  And uniform experience is how we draw conclusions about events in the distant past.

Posted 1/27/2007 1:21 AM by manonfire_reasons - reply

Visit mykid2's Xanga Site!
Cool... it's good to see the same arguments for intelligent origins of life being presented by scientists. (Sadly when the video ended abruptly it might leave one wondering if an alternative conclusion was being concealed!)

Either way, you will find...
1. Atheist bicker about semantics, or patronisingly inform you of your failing to understand "deep time".
2. Religeous zealots will immediately jump to the conclusion that their particular breed of supernatural deity is the only plausible explanation.

Once one accepts the premiss of intelligence we can progress by looking at the evidence of how this intelligence operates and where in it resides, or carry on arguing 'till you are blue in the face with the Atheist and the Christian appologists.
Posted 1/27/2007 2:22 AM by mykid2 - reply

Visit The_Astrocreep's Xanga Site!
Would you consider yourself a "Special Creationist" or a Origins of Life Creationist? What is your ID theory?
Posted 1/27/2007 1:00 PM by The_Astrocreep Xanga True Member Xanga Premium Member - reply

Visit prettyinpink42's Xanga Site!
Or, you know, you could use uniformitarianism in the scientific sense. Things evolved, so it's logical to assume the first life form was the product of an evolutionary event.

Oh, why do I bother. I think I'm a masochist.
Posted 1/27/2007 2:03 PM by prettyinpink42 - reply

Visit darkwolfofvoid's Xanga Site!
Everyday experience has demonstrated that there is only one known source for producing information, and that's intelligence.

The sun has a flare and we observe and measure the effects and therefore have information from a completely natural act of the sun. Is the sun intelligent? A dolphin uses a type of sonar basically to interpret the information of its surroundings. Do we compare the intelligence of a dolphin to humans simply based on its ability to use its melon? The strata of the earth give lots of information. Is the earth intelligent? Your statement is completely and absolutely wrong about what our "everyday experience tells us" about the source for producing information.
Posted 1/27/2007 3:25 PM by darkwolfofvoid - reply

Visit hqartemis's Xanga Site!

good to see ya still working chris. 

-killobob

Posted 1/27/2007 3:35 PM by hqartemis - reply

Visit manonfire_reasons's Xanga Site!

Or, you know, you could use uniformitarianism in the scientific sense. Things evolved, so it's logical to assume the first life form was the product of an evolutionary event.

But new information is not generated.  That's the crux of the issue.  You can't just paint with the broad stroke of "things evolve, so chemical evolution happened!"  You're just absorbing the actual issue into an over-inflated evolutionary balloon.

darkwolfofvoid,

For being such a definition nazi, you don't put much effort into understanding the terminology of your opponents.  You kicked IC in the teeth in a previous discussion, but you obviously didn't know what you were kicking at.  And here again, you are criticizing something that you are ignorant of.  As GOODGREY said, information is specified complexity.  Nature produces complexity, but it does not produce specification.  Natural events can be recorded as information, but whatever you write or record to a floppy is not information if it's not specified by something else (that is, it isn't information if it is not recognizable in some way).

Posted 1/27/2007 3:41 PM by manonfire_reasons - reply

Visit darkwolfofvoid's Xanga Site!
that is, it isn't information if it is not recognizable in some way

So organisms communicating with each other in some manner is sending and receiving information that is specific and is obviously recognized by the organisms. Do you disagree with this? Are bacteria organisms? Are bacteria intelligent? Bacteria communicate with each other sending "packets" of information to the group in such a manner that its related bacteria can recognize it and thus respond accordingly (like illuminate if they're that kind of bacteria and in large enough population). By your guy's definition these bacteria should be intelligent since they are the source of and producing this information which by your definition is information.
Posted 1/27/2007 3:55 PM by darkwolfofvoid - reply

Visit darkwolfofvoid's Xanga Site!
Oh, I guess I didn't think right ... or as wrongly as you IDers do. I should just assume that how these organisms function was designed to begin with and that's why everything is as it is. Oh, I also forgot, that's begging the question. It's not a far stretch either when one says (as the video does) that we see writing on the walls and we don't prescribe it being done by natural causes such as sand storms, etc. Okay, but how about the effects left by other organisms? No, it has no meaning to us, it's not a written language, but I see a bird's nest. I don't attribute that to necessarily being formed by the wind and rain over the years. I attribute it to an organism that built it. But do I say the bird is intelligent? Do I say all organisms are intelligent that leave an effect on their environment? Yet, we draw the line, if it is something "man-made" it is proof of intelligence and therefore intelligence must be behind the design of ... EVERYTHING! That is just .. well .. what is a good word ... insane! Yet we will look at effects done in nature and say they're natural, either by mechanisms such as physics or specifically the water cycle, rain storms, erosion, etc, or lets go a step further and say the mechanism that is what brings about these organisms that do things as being still completely natural (oh, is that mechanism evolution?!), up to the point we see humans in which case we're somehow different and our human quality intelligence should be inferred to designing the universe. The effects humans have on the world are no less and no different than the natural processes of a sand or rain storm.
Posted 1/27/2007 4:02 PM by darkwolfofvoid - reply

Visit CormackMcKinney's Xanga Site!
prettyinpink
[Things evolved, so it's logical to assume the first life form was the product of an evolutionary event.]
If it's the FIRST life form, how could it have evolved from anything - there is nothing it could have evolved from. From what we know so far, life can only evolve from life. We are going around in circles.

darkwolf
The sun and the earth don't give us information; we are taking information from them. There is no specific purpose or intent in the said actions. And, yes, I do think dolphins and other animals possess some intelligence.
Posted 1/27/2007 4:26 PM by CormackMcKinney - reply

Visit prettyinpink42's Xanga Site!
" how could it have evolved from anything"
The chemicals and conditions of prebiotic earth, for example.

"That's the crux of the issue"
What? Evolution? Origin of life?

"things evolve, so chemical evolution happened!"
Why not? Man-made things are designed, so ID happened! is an even farther reach of logic. I'm just saying, using logic, if every process for creating complexity we know is natural, how can one act be unnatural? The whole idea is ridiculous. Besides, the Origin of life is a hypothesis. Like I've said before, we don't try to pedal it as a theory.
By the way, thanks for the jab on the last comment, but in fact I'm familiar with many scientists in my department, as well as several chemists and physicists. But of course, you can debate with students all you want. Or you could, maybe, talk to an expert in the field. Just a thought.
Posted 1/27/2007 5:33 PM by prettyinpink42 - reply

Visit tim223's Xanga Site!

Chris, neat video!   What video is it excerpted from?

DarkWolfVoid, your question about bacteria is actually quite perceptive.  Let's go back to a software/computer analogy for a moment.   If one computer running a certain piece of software sends a "packet of information" to another computer running software, it would obviously not be correct to say that the computer is "intelligent" in itself; rather, there is undoubtedly a "source of intelligence" that created the computer/software/messaging system at some initial point, after which it could subsequently proceed using the designed characteristics and abilities.  

Same for the bacteria.... whether or not it posesses "intelligence" in itself is not the question... rather, from whence came the specified complexity necessary to set up the system for successful messaging?

BTW, Chris, one common rebuttal to these arguments by informed evolutionists is that specified complexity can indeed be formed by natural/chance processes, through the mechanisms of random mutation and natural selection, or through chaos theory, or through phenotypic/structuralist evolution, or whatever their favorite method is.   And they'll have "examples" - antibiotic resistance, nylon digestion, lactase "evolution", genotypic similarities between organisms, etc etc.   So we really have to understand the details... it's not enough just to hit this discussion at a "high level", imho. 

Posted 1/28/2007 2:16 PM by tim223 Xanga Premium Member - reply

Visit The_Astrocreep's Xanga Site!
"You can't just paint with the broad stroke of 'things evolve, so chemical evolution happened!'"

I would have to agree with you somewhat since a certain mixture of chemicals will not "evolve" into a self replicating molecule. Maybe in the sense that the current molecules will "change" into the SRM but we are talking about abiogenesis here and I'm sure that the ToE is treated seperately from Abiogenesis (RNA world hypothesis or PAH world Hypothesis). Creationists like GoodgreyPoet believe that evolution happened but after the creation of the first single celled organisms, is this right GGP?
Posted 1/28/2007 3:26 PM by The_Astrocreep Xanga True Member Xanga Premium Member - reply

Visit The_Astrocreep's Xanga Site!
"[The] point here is that ID theory is more consistent with our uniform experience than Chemical Evolution. And uniform experience is how we draw conclusions about events in the distant past."

LOL! This argument is so weak. I could say the same thing about your God. Since when has God been part of our uniform experience? God not being part of our uniform experience must lead to his nonexistence according to your logic. The only thing that is part of our "uniform experience" is the matter we interact with (Nature). Because of this it must be more probable that a SRM (self replicating molecule) naturally came about. Instead of a Divine "thing" acting upon matter for it to self replicating for it to then take a nap (assuming it needs to sleep) and waking up when humans finally exist to entertain it (3.3 billion years later). How far-fetched is your idea?

I guess you have your cop-out for the whole time deal. God exists out of time right?
Posted 1/28/2007 3:34 PM by The_Astrocreep Xanga True Member Xanga Premium Member - reply

Visit darkwolfofvoid's Xanga Site!
Same for the bacteria.... whether or not it posesses "intelligence" in itself is not the question... rather, from whence came the specified complexity necessary to set up the system for successful messaging?

That begs the question completely. The bacteria doing what it does is a completely natural process/mechanism that evolved and that's just the simplest example I could give since pretty much all animals have some kind of communication or some kind of interaction that is similar to this and basically the argument is that "Well, duh, there has to be someone who made it." Why? Because we, humans, are what we call intelligent and can recognize it when we make something in this manner, so we infer that to everything that exists that has something that resembles it? It's like saying nature resembles human intelligence, therefore something intelligent had to have made it. I know I'm not alone in seeing the absurdity with this.
Posted 1/28/2007 3:48 PM by darkwolfofvoid - reply

Visit CormackMcKinney's Xanga Site!

Astrocreep
[God not being part of our uniform experience must lead to his nonexistence according to your logic.]
If God is not part of our experience, then yes. But that simply can't be claimed, because by the very definition He is part of our experience whether we see it or not. He's Spirit, not matter.

[I guess you have your cop-out for the whole time deal. God exists out of time right?]
God may seem like a copout, but that's because He's God... Just because His existance provides answers for any question doesn't make Him any less real, by any logic.

Posted 1/28/2007 8:11 PM by CormackMcKinney - reply

Visit Spoonwood's Xanga Site!

    Specification, as used in the video, ONLY works with respect to the agent that receives the message.  To a bee or some other organism that doesn't know human faces the faces on mount rushmore come AS RANDOM as that of the shape of a tree.  For an ant a person's writing on a seashore work as complete random and unspecified.  For people the sounds that birds make in the summer in the morning work as random.  We simply don't understand the communication signals just from hearing them what sort of information birds communicate to each other.  Consequently, that information comes as unspecified to us.
     Small probability will NOT lead to information.  The probability that a computer executes its program comes as very, very high.  Your posting of that video and my posting of this message both indicate that we both regard that the probability of the information within our messages actually getting transmitted to each other is high.  We have high probability here and we still have information.
     Aside:... now I get why you guys talk about SETI so much.  If SETI actually found extraterrestrial intelligence it would find some sort of non-human intelligence.  This would mean that some sort of human-centered story couldn't work as realisitic.  That sort of finding by SETI would totally discredit the human-centered notions of Christianity, since it would mean such a "God" would have to have created OTHER creatures in "His image."
     And finally we simply do NOT understand the cause and effect structure of the world.  NO ONE does.  We don't even have a complete theory of cause and effect.  We don't literally observe causes in the world, we ONLY observe constant conjunction of events AT BEST.  We don't know that the future will be like the past.  We ONLY know that SOME events in the present APPEAR like they've worked as the same way as in the past (this is rather Humean, but he's basically correct here).  People guess at causes, and test their hypotheses.  But, even a test doesn't conclusively give us knowledge of something, for the testing method could have not worked out as realistic.

manonfire_reasons,
[As I said: [The] point here is that ID theory is more consistent with our uniform experience than Chemical Evolution.]
     Speak for yourself.  It might work as consistent with your own experience(s) (or perception thereof).  It simply does NOT work as consistent with mine.  We can have different exepriences, so no contradiction exists here.

[Cool... it's good to see the same arguments for intelligent origins of life being presented by scientists.]
     None of those people work as a scientist at a university anymore.

[Or, you know, you could use uniformitarianism in the scientific sense. Things evolved, so it's logical to assume the first life form was the product of an evolutionary event.]
     I've tried to do something like this by talking about "degrees of life" in previous discussions.  That sort of idea simply hasn't gotten discussed enough yet.

[But new information is not generated.  That's the crux of the issue.  You can't just paint with the broad stroke of "things evolve, so chemical evolution happened!"  You're just absorbing the actual issue into an over-inflated evolutionary balloon.]
    Yes, new information DOES get generated.  It just gets generated by DEGREES.  It happens in non-integers.  It doesn't suddenly jump from 6 units to 7 units of information.  It goes from 6 to 6.00000001 to 6.00002 units, and so on.  Since you guys have applied the "principle of uniformitarianism" so broadly she can similarly apply it so broadly.  She doesn't avoid the actual issues you guys bring up.  She provides a different sort of solution to the issues you guys bring up.

[If it's the FIRST life form, how could it have evolved from anything - there is nothing it could have evolved from. From what we know so far, life can only evolve from life.]
    Yes, because you talked about life only coming from life.  If you talk about totally living structures coming from highly living structures coming from medium high living structures... all the way down to very little or not living structures, then you stop going around in circles.  It's simply to look at this somewhat numerically in terms of degree of life.  If we talk about something with degree of life (dol) of 1 coming from something with dol of .9999 from something with dol of .998 with dol of .98 ... (meaning lots of steps) from something with dol of .1 from something with dol of .09 and so on, then we stop going around in circles.

[If God is not part of our experience, then yes. But that simply can't be claimed, because by the very definition He is part of our experience whether we see it or not. He's Spirit, not matter.]
     No.  Look, you don't have an experience of Allah, even though supposedly Allah always works as part of your experience also by the same definition process.  The same goes for Jehovah.
    Moreover, experience doesn't mean quite as how you've used it.  Experience always work as something conscious for the subject experiencing.  One simply doesn't experience a football game without first having some sort of awareness of such.  We only have experience once we have some sort of consicousness with respect to that which gets experienced.  I simply don't have any experience of your "God" as real... and if you want to try to persuade me to "experience" such, you would be advised to give up the gravest sin of trying to convert other people to what you believe.

Posted 1/28/2007 9:02 PM by Spoonwood - reply

Visit The_Astrocreep's Xanga Site!
"He's spirit not matter."

Oh, so this is where you abandon rationalism. That's okay, you can have faith, but don't pretend you're being rational. That's just another cop out right?

"God may seem like a copout, but that's because He's God..."
Yes lol

"Just because His existance provides answers for any question doesn't make Him any less real, by any logic."
What kind of creationist are you? Are you an old-earth anti-evolutionist (AE), young earth AE, or an old earth anti-abiogenesis creationist? Some are better than others :)

Anyway, I think that a self replicating molecule originating on its own is possible. I'm sure their are plenty of biochemists that think the same thing. I'd just give it time until they come up with a neat theory for the origins of life. When they do come up with such a theory creationists like yourself will no longer be arguing with atheists about the origins of life, instead it'll be about the origins of matter and space itself! My cospiracy theory is that you creationists really want to go to heaven but the problem is that you guys don't "just" want to go to heaven but you want to be confident you will before you die. That is just a thought; I'm sure there are other reasons you argue with people who don't have faith.

How many biochemists have you spoken to that weren't creationists? How many books have you read that weren't about God? Have you ever been to a respectable college library and looked went reading about normal science? What's your theory on the reason that atheists "debate" with you?
Posted 1/28/2007 11:30 PM by The_Astrocreep Xanga True Member Xanga Premium Member - reply

Visit The_Astrocreep's Xanga Site!
I meant "looked for a book to read about..." and forgive any other mistakes since I did not take the time to proof read seriously.
Posted 1/28/2007 11:32 PM by The_Astrocreep Xanga True Member Xanga Premium Member - reply

Visit tim223's Xanga Site!

Spoonwood,

What would be an example of something with "degree of life 0.09"?   Or of anything other than "degree of life zero" or "degree of life one" ?

Posted 1/29/2007 10:50 AM by tim223 Xanga Premium Member - reply

Visit tim223's Xanga Site!
And based on what criteria would you estimate this?
Posted 1/29/2007 10:51 AM by tim223 Xanga Premium Member - reply

Visit GOODGREYPOET's Xanga Site!

prettyinpink:

[Or, you know, you could use uniformitarianism in the scientific sense. Things evolved, so it's logical to assume the first life form was the product of an evolutionary event.]

But "evolution" by defintion, always refers to the evolving  of a pre-existing simple life-form into a more complex one. Prebiotic, non-living chemicals cannot evolve. As the phrase implies, natural selection can only "select" from the genes of pre-existing living organisms. As the evolutionary biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky has explained, "Prebiological natural selection is a contradiction in terms."  Natural selection requires a preexisting mechanism of self-replication. Yet self-replication in all cells depends upon functional proteins and nucleic acids. But the origin of these molecules is precisely what needs to be explained! So by appealing to evolution, you are presupposing the very thing that you are trying to explain the origins of. As Cormack said, we are dealing with the first life form here. There are no pre-existing life-forms for it to evolve from. Evolution simply doesn't provide any sort of answers when dealing with the origin of life.

darkwolf:

[I see a bird's nest. I don't attribute that to necessarily being formed by the wind and rain over the years. I attribute it to an organism that built it. ]

Exactly! You have just made an inference to design! When you see a bird nest, you recognize a pattern that is not naturally occuring, and can infer that the pattern was designed.

[But do I say the bird is intelligent?]

Of course a bird is intelligent. The nest you alluded to is proof of this. Not to mention that birds, like humans, also have the ability to communicate with each other via their own language system. Go here.

tim223:

[Chris, neat video!   What video is it excerpted from?]

Yeah, I thought so too. Its actually excerpted from a video called Unlocking the Mystery of Life that was produced by a company called Illustra Media. You can find the entire video which is a little over an hour long on YouTube. Just do a key word search.

[BTW, Chris, one common rebuttal to these arguments by informed evolutionists is that specified complexity can indeed be formed by natural/chance processes, through the mechanisms of random mutation and natural selection]

Yes, you may have noticed that prettyinpink used this exact rebuttal in her comment which I addressed above. Simply stated, prebiotic evolution is a contradiction in terms because only living organisms can evolve. And natural selection cannot explain the origin of the first life form because prior to the first life form there was nothing for natural selection to "select" from. So those who appeal to natural selection and mutations to explain the first life form are pre-supposing the existnce of the very thing that needs to be explained. Its completely circular.

TheAstrocreep:

[I would have to agree with you somewhat since a certain mixture of chemicals will not "evolve" into a self replicating molecule.]

Yes! Thats what I'm trying to get prettyinpink and darkwolf to understand here. Thank you for being perceptive.

[Creationists like GoodgreyPoet believe that evolution happened but after the creation of the first single celled organisms, is this right GGP?]

Yes, exactly. As I said before, I'm not disputing that simple living organisms evolve into more complex ones. Evolution does  a good job of explaining that. But before things can evolve they must first exist. And evolution is no help in this area. What must be explained is where the first living, self-replicating molecule came from, and all the evidence we have suggests that it was designed.

[This argument is so weak. I could say the same thing about your God. Since when has God been part of our uniform experience?]

I don't see where manonfire said anything about God. What he said was that our everyday, uniform experience of the way the world operates is the key to understanding how it operated in the distant past. He was merely summarizing the principle of uniformity. Our uniform experience in the present demonstrates that every time we encounter information, it can be traced back to an intelligence source of some kind.

[I think that a self replicating molecule originating on its own is possible. I'd just give it time until they come up with a neat theory for the origins of life.]

This is a classic example of an argument to the future, arguing that evidence will someday be discovered which will (then) support your point.

spoonwood:

[Specification, as used in the video, ONLY works with respect to the agent that receives the message.  To a bee or some other organism that doesn't know human faces the faces on mount rushmore come AS RANDOM as that of the shape of a tree.  For an ant a person's writing on a seashore work as complete random and unspecified.]

Yes, but the point is that we can recognize specified complexity even if it was designed by a non-human intelligence. Darkwolf provided a good example above: a birds nest. Other examples would be a spider's web or a beaver dam. When we see a spider web or an bird nest, we immediately recognize that these things do not occur naturally. Rather, we recognize a pattern which signifies that that bird nest and the spider web were both designed by an intelligent creature of some kind. Now, when a bee sees a human made structure such as a house, does the bee also recognize that the house is not naturally occuring, but rather, a product of human design? I suspect they would. Unfortunately though, we haven't learned how to communicate with bees yet so we can't be certain of this.

[We simply don't understand the communication signals just from hearing them what sort of information birds communicate to each other.  Consequently, that information comes as unspecified to us.]

Actually we have deciphered much of the language that birds use to communicate to each other. Go here. For instance, the clicking of the beak is a bird's way of communicating that it is threatened or protecting something. And birds also use chirping and songs as a way to communicate to other birds a mating call. So yes, this informatin IS highly specified.

[now I get why you guys talk about SETI so much.  If SETI actually found extraterrestrial intelligence it would find some sort of non-human intelligence. ]

Yes, the SETI program proves that we can recognize specified complexity and information from non-human sources of intelligence. This is what I was trying to explain to prettyinpink when she made the claim that we can only recognize instances of human design. Clearly that is not the case, since we can recognize instances of animal design (the bird nest, spider web, beaver dam, etc.). That is what I menat when I said that information speaks a "universal language". If we only had the ability to recognize human design, then why does the US government spend millions of dollars a year funding a program like SETI which is constantly searching for non-human design in the form of radio signals?

[It's simply to look at this somewhat numerically in terms of degree of life.  If we talk about something with degree of life (dol) of 1 coming from something with dol of .9999 ]

Again, there is no such thing as "degrees of life" within the scientific community. Either something is alive or it is inanimate. If I'm wrong then show me one peer-reviewed article that describes these so called "degrees of life". I suspect this is just some concept you made up in order to get around the problem of explaing the origin of the first living organism.  In order to be considered “alive,” an organism must be autonomous, possess the ability to metabolize and assimilate food, to respirate, to grow, to reproduce and to respond to stimuli (a trait known as irritability). 


 

Posted 1/29/2007 1:56 PM by GOODGREYPOET - reply

Visit prettyinpink42's Xanga Site!
""Prebiological natural selection is a contradiction in terms.""
Maybe I should have clarified. I did not mean evolution by natural selection, I meant evolution in the broad sense. as in, "the gradual development of something, esp. from a simple to a more complex form." So, the gradual development of organic molecules and biological structures into a self-replicating organism.
Posted 1/29/2007 2:05 PM by prettyinpink42 - reply

Visit prettyinpink42's Xanga Site!
By the way, I find it interesting that the company that made the video is a company that is soley focused on "proof" of God, intelligent design, and disproving evolutionary theory, looking at its list of productions. I wonder if it has a particular agenda in mind...
Posted 1/29/2007 2:11 PM by prettyinpink42 - reply

Visit Spoonwood's Xanga Site!
[What would be an example of something with "degree of life 0.09"?   Or of anything other than "degree of life zero" or "degree of life one" ?]
    We'd first have to talk about characteristics of living organisms.  Something which satisfies some of these chracteristics while not satisfying some others would have degree of life less than 1.  A virus would qualify as an example as non-1 dol, and non-0 dol structure, but I don't know an exact number here.  But there's a MUCH deeper problem here than exact numbers.  For centuries ourselves and our writings have attempted to classify structures as either living or not living AND we've pointed out properties in an attempt to find the minimal properties for every living thing.  So, we'd first have to look at life in a way VERY different than tradition indicates, and VERY different than how most definitions in science work.  In some sense, we would actually seek definitions and ways of perception with regard to organisms VERY different than what traditional science has sought.  We also would have to act very warily towards empirical contradictions of our examples, because an empirical contradiction with our definitions wouldn't make something not alive at all.  It would ONLY make something LESS alive.

[And based on what criteria would you estimate this?]
     In reality, these criteria COULD VARY.  That is, we wouldn't need a unique definition that actually determines an exact dol for an organism.  We could have MANY DIFFERENT criteria one of which might yield dol of .2, one might yield .25 dol, and another might yield .4.  Again, this works VERY differently than traditional thinking... especially traditional scientific thinking, in that we don't need unique... I would prefer to say  monolithic ... answers.  Each of them might have advantages and disadvantages with respect to what we think as correct.  Each of them might work rather well for some contexts and not so well for some other contexts.  Within some contexts each criteria might have a determinate value.  Although, due to the vagueness of our language AND of our definitions and/or thoughts, in some other contexts we might not have determinate values of dol, but rather have values of dol that have a certain "spread" like natural language categories 'high' and 'low' do.  That is, something might have a high dol meaning that it has dol of .9 to .1 degree, dol of .8 to .6 degree, and dol of .7 to 1 degree.  We would also have to weight each criterion and the weighting of these criterion might vary from context to context.  I'd suggest we'd first try to think in these terms BEFORE going out and looking for examples, becuase I doubt we'll find information like this until we first have an idea of how to look.

GGP:
[But "evolution" by defintion, always refers to the evolving  of a pre-existing simple life-form into a more complex one. ]
     No, evolution does NOT ALWAYS refer to an increase in complexity.  Evolution refers to a shift/change in the frequencies alleles of a population.

[As the evolutionary biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky has explained, "Prebiological natural selection is a contradiction in terms."]
     You mean the dead guy who isn't doing science anymore?

[Yes, but the point is that we can recognize specified complexity even if it was designed by a non-human intelligence.]
     If it doesn't work for a bee as specified it doesn't work out as specified complexity in nature .  Our "recognition" of such, consequently doesn't tell us anything about nature... as OTHER parts of nature perceive it differently.  It only tells us about our cognition.

[Darkwolf provided a good example above: a birds nest.]
     Which is random and UNSPECIFIED to an ant, as well as to a microbe.  Consequently, NATURE recognizes no specification objectively.  It works as specified for birds, humans, and possibly some other organisms.

[When we see a spider web or an bird nest, we immediately recognize that these things do not occur naturally. Rather, we recognize a pattern which signifies that that bird nest and the spider web were both designed by an intelligent creature of some kind.]
     A paramecium simply won't recognize these structures as intelligent.  Neither would a blind bat.  They work as RANDOM AND UNSPECIFIED.  Consequently, the "design" criterion you've set up fail as meaningful, since they won't recognize something which you want to qualify as designed, as designed according to other creatures.

[Now, when a bee sees a human made structure such as a house, does the bee also recognize that the house is not naturally occuring, but rather, a product of human design? I suspect they would. Unfortunately though, we haven't learned how to communicate with bees yet so we can't be certain of this. ]
     We do know that birds crash into windows.  Consequently, we have EMPIRICAL evidence that they don't recognize our windows as designed.  We also do know that some geese "dive bomb" onto the Boise State football field in Idaho.  Since it  roughly  looks like water, this gives us EMPIRICAL evidence that the geese do NOT recognize that grass as designed.  They recognize it as water.

[Actually we have deciphered much of the language that birds use to communicate to each other.]
     Maybe OUR EDUCATED PEOPLE have, and I'm not saying that no one has done such.  I DO SAY that at the everyday level of the common person and say 10 year olds we simply don't understand the language of birds.  I know I don't.  We HEAR it as a bunch of RANDOM, UNSPECIFIED noise.

[So yes, this informatin IS highly specified.]
    We simply do NOT detect such as specified at an everyday level.  We DO detect such as RANDOM NOISE.

[Yes, the SETI program proves that we can recognize specified complexity and information from non-human sources of intelligence.]
     No, it does NOT prove such.  In order to prove such it would need an actual example.  It has NO actual examples.  

[This is what I was trying to explain to prettyinpink when she made the claim that we can only recognize instances of human design. Clearly that is not the case, since we can recognize instances of animal design (the bird nest, spider web, beaver dam, etc.).]
    Look, sometimes design works out as design.  Sometimes it works out just like random noise.  A bug that flies to a bug zapper basically responds like its normal light.  It has no idea whatsoever that it consists of a harmful electrical structure.  It doesn't realize that the light it detects actually qualifies as RANDOM NOISE.  It does NOT realize that such light does NOT SPECIFY real-world light.

[If we only had the ability to recognize human design, then why does the US government spend millions of dollars a year funding a program like SETI which is constantly searching for non-human design in the form of radio signals?]
     Do you object to SETI?

[I suspect this is just some concept you made up in order to get around the problem of explaing the origin of the first living organism.]
     First off, we've already left a normal scientific context by even broaching the concept of "ID" since it does not work as accepted within the scientific community (social fact of reality).  Since we've done this, any appeal to a standard that says that an idea must work as normally scientific goes out the window.  So, I can bring up alternative, nonconventional ideas.  Your statement here basically admits that the dol of life idea DOES get around that problem.  Consequently, you have to validate your positing of the hypothesis of an "origin".  You haven't done that.  The dol of hypothesis works out as reasonable TO THINK ABOUT at this point, since it's overwhemingly under investigated.

[In order to be considered “alive,” an organism must be autonomous, possess the ability to metabolize and assimilate food, to respirate, to grow, to reproduce and to respond to stimuli (a trait known as irritability).]
     In which case senile old people aren't alive, since they can't reproduce.  The same goes for women who have VOLUNTARILY have their tubes tied.  It also goes for people who can't naturally have children, and WAR VETERANS WHO LOST THEIR TESTICLES.  Yeah... your definition simply doesn't work for individual organisms.
Posted 1/29/2007 2:52 PM by Spoonwood - reply

browse comments: next › | last »


Choose Identity
(?)
 
Give eProps (?)
Post a Comment
Add Link | Preview HTML comment help 
Profile Pic:
Default  |  Choose »  (?)



Back to GOODGREYPOET's Xanga Site!
Note: your comment will appear in GOODGREYPOET's local time zone:
GMT -05:00 (Eastern Standard - US, Canada)
You know the Bible 93%!
 

Wow! You are awesome! You are a true Biblical scholar, not just a hearer but a personal reader! The books, the characters, the events, the verses - you know it all! You are fantastic!

Ultimate Bible Quiz
Create MySpace Quizzes