Attached to Strings
by BradfordM is for messy is Martin Gardner's review of The Trouble With Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next; a book authored by Lee Smolin. It begins:
For more than thirty years, string theory has been what Murray Gell-Mann called “the only game in town.” By this he meant that it was the only good candidate for a TOE, or Theory of Everything. Not only does it claim to unify relativity and quantum mechanics, it also explains the existence of all fundamental particles. Instead of being “pointlike,” they are modeled by filaments of energy so tiny that there is no known way to observe them or even to prove they are real.
The review goes on to point out that from a skeptical few which included Richard Feynman and Sheldon Glashow skepticism increased and then surged. The review outlines some of the difficulties with the theory. There is this paragraph whose implications go well beyond physics and even science itself:
In a chapter on sociology, Smolin introduces the concept of “groupthink”—the tendency of groups to share an ideology. This creates a cultlike atmosphere in which those who disagree with the ideology are considered ignoramuses or fools. Most physicists tied up in the string mania, Smolin believes, have become groupthinkers, blind to the possibility that they have squandered time and energy on bizarre speculations that are leading nowhere.
It is human nature to become attached to what we have invested our time and energy. There is also this:
Woit has only harsh things to say about the recent acceptance of an anthropic principle by several leading string theorists, notably Weinberg and David Susskind. Susskind has even written a popular book about it—The Cosmic Landscape: String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design. The notion that there could be millions of other universes, each with its own Calabi-Yau structure—or what amount to the same thing, with its own basic state of what physicists like to call the “vacuum”—is not one that appeals to Witten. “I’d be happy if it is not right,” Woit quotes from a 2004 lecture, “but there are serious arguments for it, and I don’t have any serious argument against it.”
An entertaining read for non-physicists.
June 16th, 2009 at 10:29 am
While Intelligent Design is often said to have overthrown evolutionism and represents the deathknell of atheistic naturalism or some such, the scientific community considers String Theory to be just theoretical speculation at this point. Intelligent Design, as normally construed, is pseudoscience.
Comment by Zachriel — June 16, 2009 @ 10:29 am
June 16th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
Anyone holding to the above and believing that atheistic naturalism is not pseudoscience has difficulty distinguishing between science and metaphysics.
Comment by Bradford — June 16, 2009 @ 2:21 pm
June 16th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
Stephen Jay Gould talked about the hardening of the modern synthesis, a narrowing of causal factors to a concentration on selection and adaptation to the exclusion of things like drift.
Right now there's something like a Kuhnian revolution going on in developmental biology, based on the idea that form is molded by genetic elements that regulate gene expression, with the consequence that differences in form are determined by changes in expression, rather than by changes in the genes themselves.
There is a great deal of observation and experiment backing all this up. What is not on the horizon is any consideration of :intelligent design, for which there exists no evidence whatever.
Show us how theistic supernaturalism is a better guide to understanding biology.
Comment by John Wendt — June 16, 2009 @ 2:57 pm
June 16th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
More on Gould
Comment by John Wendt — June 16, 2009 @ 3:20 pm
June 16th, 2009 at 6:04 pm
Why do you differentiate between "theoretical speculation" and "pseudoscience"? In Popperian terms, they are essentially the same.
Of course, "pseudoscience" has a more polemic and denigrating connotation than "theoretical speculation", so someone who was interested in scoring culture war points might refer to his perceived enemy as "pseudoscience" while saving the term "theoretical speculation" for that which he perceives to be harmless to his worldview.
But the truth is that string theory is pseudoscience because it is about as testable as the invisible pink unicorn theory, ID, or abiogenesis. In Popperian terms, theoretical speculation is sometimes right – but it ain't science.
Comment by chunkdz — June 16, 2009 @ 6:04 pm
June 16th, 2009 at 6:57 pm
Anyone holding to the above and believing that atheistic naturalism is not pseudoscience has difficulty distinguishing between science and metaphysics.
You do not have to be a theist to understand biology of course but if you analyze origin dilemnas theism offers the advantage of linking the origin of genetic codes to a source with cognitive properties.
Comment by Bradford — June 16, 2009 @ 6:57 pm
June 16th, 2009 at 10:11 pm
Scientific speculation has to be reasonably consistent with the evidence. Intelligent Design makes false scientific claims, including that there is significant scientific evidence of teleology in biology.
Pseudo- means false.
Comment by Zachriel — June 16, 2009 @ 10:11 pm
June 17th, 2009 at 12:09 am
Zach:
Popper said that speculation had a place in scientific inquiry. However, to qualify as actual science, a hypothesis must be falsifiable. Since string theory is not currently falsifiable it is mere pseudoscience.
Yes, a hypothesis that is not readily falsifiable is not scientific. It is "pseudo (false)-science". This would include theoretical speculations such as string theory, multiverse theory, abiogenesis, and ID.
Just trying to help.
Comment by chunkdz — June 17, 2009 @ 12:09 am
June 17th, 2009 at 3:20 am
Perhaps differentiate between two sciences?
1) Theistic Science (TS)
2) Philosophical Materialistic Science (PMS)
From a TS point of view the following should hold:
A) If we don't understand how a process occurred, we'll continue to study until we make a breakthrough or can construct a coherent theory. The coherent theory is not necessarily incompatibale with its existence or that which it explains being as a result of intelligent and/or intentional causes.
B) Reason and logic are viewed to be eternal and immutable properties of existence.
C) Truth is viewed to be eternal. Truth is believed to properly reside in a mind.
D) Our reasoning faculties are believed to be reliable for the purpose of attaining truth via philosophy and science.
From a PMS point of view the following should hold:
A) If we don't understand how a process occurred, we'll continue to study until we make a breakthrough or can construct a coherent theory. Coherent theories are limited to material particles and fields interacting between inputs, internal states, and outputs without any intrinsic meaning or intentions.
B) Reason and logic are viewed as adaptations that help survival. It can not be held that reason and logic will always help survival in all cases as evidenced by the survival of organisms that do not have these adaptations. Thus it can not be believed that reason and logic will be beneficial for our survival in all cases.
C) Truth is not viewed to be eternal. A mind can not be viewed as anything more than material particles and fields interacting between inputs, internal states, and outputs without any intrinsic meaning or intention.
D) Philosophy and science are just adaptations that might help survival or not.
From a biological point of view:
TS will assume the existence of nano-intentional molecular autonomous agents (cells or a physical system able to act on its own behalf) to be real entities. Natural selection is thus viewed as the outcome of artificial selection processes.
PMS assumes no difference between natural selection and artificial selection.
Comment by Techne — June 17, 2009 @ 3:20 am
June 17th, 2009 at 6:29 am
And I agree. It's an important part of constructing new and interesting hypotheses.
Yes, as a general heuristic, that is true. But not to be confused with naïve falsification.
String Theory is falsifiable, not false. It's just not distinguishable at this point from other theories. More generally, String Theory is speculation, not a complete theory. Consider it an incomplete thought still forming. Most scientists are relegating it to the back-burner until some method of testing becomes available.
You're confusing falsifiable with false. ID makes false claims.
You're welcome.
Comment by Zachriel — June 17, 2009 @ 6:29 am
June 17th, 2009 at 6:43 am
This link has actual explanatory value only if you can independently establish the existence of this "source with cognitive properties". The source also must have the ability to move atoms in ways that wouldn't naturally happen. Without that, theism has no more explanatory power than phlogiston or the luminiferous ether. Less, actually: phlogiston theory has moving parts, so does ether. The existence of moving parts is what makes a theory potentially falsifiable. Both theories were replaced by theories that explained the world in terms moving parts that are more clear and better supported.
The theoretical notion of "genetic codes" obscures the real world. DNA is a chemical, so is RNA. You can assert that the genetic code is "chemistry plus information", but to a chemist information resides in the shapes of the molecules. The overall shape of a sequence of the molecules in a particular stretch of DNA is such that it combines with a molecule (or collection of molecules) that we designate "RNA polymerase", to form a holoenzyme that catalyzes the addition of a particular ribonucleotide to a string of nucleotides, which we call "RNA". The polymerase then moves on by three molecules. If the DNA shape is different at this position, a different nucleotide is added to the RNA. This continues until the string gets a sequence of ATAT… . These nucleotides are complementary, so the string folds back on itself to form a hairpin shape that levers the DNA and the polymerase apart. The RNA, suitably edited, leaves the nucleus to combine with a ribosome and a tRNA, to form yet another holoenzyme. The tRNA is combined with a particular amino acid; the holoenzyme catalyzes the transfer of the amino acid to the amino acid string attached to another part of the holoenzyme. It's convenient to call this process a "code", but it's chemistry from beginning to end.
No. But it's telling how often the coherent theory doesn't contain any reference to any kind of intelligence or intent. I.e. always.
And the origin of life is becoming less murky.
Comment by John Wendt — June 17, 2009 @ 6:43 am
June 17th, 2009 at 7:03 am
String theory, unlike phologiston, luminferous ether, or intelligent design, is firmly based on demonstrable physics, namely relativity and quantum mechanics. From Gardner's review:
Comment by John Wendt — June 17, 2009 @ 7:03 am
June 17th, 2009 at 10:08 am
You're taking the usual shallow approach to this. Independently establishing the existence of the source is possible but not on an experimental basis. So then it is not scientific… But neither is an alternative which would plausibly explain life from a non-theistic perspective.
Information is evident in patterns linked to a process enabled by those patterns. To those uninitiated to alphanumeric symbols there is no information in a newspaper. Only unintelligible ink splots. Chemists have a limiting perspective like those blind to the mappings of letters to meaning.
Yes, as this screen is the end product of electronic technology even as that tells us nothing of the causal trail which produced the screen and the causal origin for the convention by which the ordering of symbols enables intelligible message exchanges. What your mini-tutorial does is demonstrate the argument that if information system x is chemically based then it is causally explained by an undirected chemical process. Chemical causality. My daughter took a note to school last week. I know because I wrote it. One can claim that the manufacturing process generating the paper and the pen explains that note. It does to some extent. It simply leaves out the designer's input.
Comment by Bradford — June 17, 2009 @ 10:08 am
June 17th, 2009 at 11:02 am
We try not to go deeper than perceivable reality will allow.
OOL research seems to be progressing faster than ID research.
Symbols are arbitrarily devised by intelligence and interpreted by intelligence. The interpretation may or may not be what the deviser intended. There's nothing arbitrary about a chemical reaction. Sequence in proto-RNA comes about as the result of random jostling of molecules. Some of the sequences have catalytic or auto-catalytic activity, thus get propagated by more chemical reactions.
What if there isn't any designer? You interpret the results of random autocatalytic activity as a "code" and call it an "information system", then jump to the conclusion that there must have been a "coder". We don't see how any kind of intelligence could move atoms in the necessary ways, so we feel justified in waiting until you can demonstrate it. (Chemists don't "design" molecules in such a way. They mix the kinds of chemicals that they know from experience will cause the kind of reaction they want. Natural reactions take place. There's often a lot of trial and error involved.)
Comment by John Wendt — June 17, 2009 @ 11:02 am
June 17th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
This is what Popper meant when he said "Science must begin with myths, and with the criticism of myths." Of course, you should be careful not to think that the myths ARE science.
And this is where Popper can be of great help to you.
It is not correct for you to say that string theory is not false, since you have obviously never tested it. Saying that string theory is not false would fall under the category of "myth", according to Popper.
If it's not testable, then it is not science. That is the distinction.
Listen to Karl Popper:
I can think of some vague predictions which might be taken as confirmation, but Popper thought that scientific theories should be risky and exposed – not vague and sheltered by lack of testability.
Who's to say string theory doesn't make false claims? How could you possibly know if it can't be tested?
The temptation to make metaphysical presumptions can be strong, but must be resisted in science. Falsifiability is something to be embraced, not feared.
Comment by chunkdz — June 17, 2009 @ 1:50 pm
June 17th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
John Wendt:
I'll be doing an upcoming blogpiece on that linked article.
Yes, of course. And there is nothing arbitrary about the rationalization you utilize to assert that chemical bonds necessarily infer a natural process i.e. one devoid of intelligent input.
And of course the chemical bonds that resulted in a mapping of codons to amino acids were selected. But what is the chemically based rational for this? This reasoning looks circular.
In so doing they would mimick the prebiotic mixture that must have existed. But the point is there are no mixtures and reactions indicating that chemically based codes necessarily result from specifiable conditions and identifiable substances. We have your speculation that they do but the substances and conditions have yet to be identified. The key thing is are you really mimicking conditions on prebiotic earth? There are many chemical substances on retail shelves which would not form in prebiotic earth conditions.
Comment by Bradford — June 17, 2009 @ 2:02 pm
June 17th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
You may want to read that quote in context. It's a discussion of the historical emergence of the scientific tradition.
You are correct. That should read, String Theory is falsifiable, not falsified (insofar as it it encompasses quantum mechanics and relativity).
I may listen to Popper, but I have no idea why you keep quoting him like a prophet.
That is correct. That's why String Theory is still considered speculation, the interregnum between the thought and the hypothesis.
Uncommon Descent: Definition of Intelligent Design. The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion.
That is a false statement. There is no evidence of intelligent causation in biology.
Comment by Zachriel — June 17, 2009 @ 2:40 pm
June 17th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
Actually, in context of the entire thesis, Popper is saying that the myths of old are not so different from the myths of science. The distinction being that scientific myths are systematically subjected to criticism and…you guessed it…testing!
I quoted him once. And not like a prophet but as a philosopher of science. He has something to say, if you are willing to hear.
How can something be both false and unfalsifiable?
If your worldview allows you to hold this contradictory idea, then either your worldview should be kept out of science, or you should adjust your worldview to be more rational.
Comment by chunkdz — June 17, 2009 @ 3:53 pm
June 17th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
When it's an equivocation. Intelligent Design is a collection of claims. Some are unfalsifiable, and others simply false.
Comment by Zachriel — June 17, 2009 @ 4:08 pm
June 17th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
See here, here and here.
Comment by kornbelt888 — June 17, 2009 @ 4:14 pm
June 17th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
You said the ID claim was false because it lacked evidence, not because it was equivocal. I know of no scientist who thinks a lack of evidence makes something "false". Scientists know that falsification is the way to determine if something is false. This requires that the claim actually be a scientific one – risky and testable.
Richard Dawkins recently said that Intelligent Design is an "intriguing possibility". He didn't say that it was "false". This is because as a real scientist he most likely studied Popper and understands the concept of falsifiability. This is an essential ingredient in science that you won't get from watching National Geographic channel.
Comment by chunkdz — June 17, 2009 @ 4:55 pm
June 17th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
How is it that evolutionary theory posits that design is both apparent and illusory if there's no evidence for this design? Or, is design, in this context, not synonymous with intelligent causation?
I always thought the whole "appearance of" debate was over an interpretation of the evidence. But, you're saying there is no evidence at all (ie., that the whole 'teleology in nature or not' debate is not one of interpretation of this evidence but one of a lack of any evidence whatsoever for teleology.) Do I have that right or did I mistake your meaning?
Regards.
Comment by Rob R. — June 17, 2009 @ 4:57 pm
June 17th, 2009 at 5:48 pm
Obviously, how else could religion be explained?
Comment by Todd Berkebile — June 17, 2009 @ 5:48 pm
June 17th, 2009 at 6:06 pm
How else could atheism be explained?
Comment by Bradford — June 17, 2009 @ 6:06 pm
June 17th, 2009 at 7:31 pm
It appears that we at least have one thing in common. . . we all believe that there is truth (Otherwise why would be arguing so vehemently for our points of view?). Neither side should fear the truth since that is what we are all seeking. Right?
Comment by 0112358 — June 17, 2009 @ 7:31 pm
June 17th, 2009 at 7:37 pm
Be sure to say something about how the intelligent designer does it.
If I take that as irony, are you suggesting that there might be something intelligent about a chemical bond? A professor might say something like "The reason oil and water don't mix is that the water molecules are cliquish: They like to stick together, and crowd the oil out." The actual chemical explanation, of course, is that the lone electron pair in a water molecule forces the hydrogens away from 180 degrees, with the result that the electric charge is unevenly distributed. The water molecules attract one another, indeed crowding out the non-polar hydrocarbons. No intelligence at all. The metaphor might be for pedagogic effect, or because the professor likes to be cute.
The nature of a chemical bond is determined by the particular combination of electron orbitals, which are described by solutions to the Schroedinger equation. That's research, not rationalization.
There's that "code" metaphor again. And it is a metaphor. DNA doesn't know about codes, neither does mRNA. The idea of a code comes from the circumstance that a tRNA has three nucleotides in a loop, with a shape that matches a complementary shape on the mRNA. The tRNA has an overall shape that fits into a ribosome, with an associated enzyme that attaches a specific amino acid to a specific tRNA.
Comment by John Wendt — June 17, 2009 @ 7:37 pm
June 17th, 2009 at 7:53 pm
My response. (Hint: Todd is on the right track.)
Comment by John Wendt — June 17, 2009 @ 7:53 pm
June 17th, 2009 at 8:45 pm
As you well know that is not the intent of my statement or the definition provided of Intelligent Design. (I had thought to add a caveat concerning known human cases, but thought it completely unnecessary as the context was clear.)
Comment by Zachriel — June 17, 2009 @ 8:45 pm
June 17th, 2009 at 8:51 pm
There might be something intelligent about a code and a reason to doubt the theory that an unintelligent, unidentifed process generates codes.
Chemical bonds exist in the ink on paper. That does not explain why ink would form symbols.
But a designer would. Those codon symbols are real. They map to stop symbols and specific amino acids. It's not like symbolism. There is symbolism in fact.
Comment by Bradford — June 17, 2009 @ 8:51 pm
June 17th, 2009 at 8:53 pm
I said, "Intelligent Design makes false scientific claims, including that there is significant scientific evidence of teleology in biology." Intelligent Design also equivocates and makes vacuous arguments.
Comment by Zachriel — June 17, 2009 @ 8:53 pm
June 17th, 2009 at 8:57 pm
JW, the intolerance evident at TT comes mostly from atheists. Theists are generally respectful despite the insults coming from the other side. That's my experience beyond TT as well. The question atheists need to ask themselves is why. They don't know that there is no God. That's an arrogant assumption and the hostility that goes with it does not speak well of them.
Comment by Bradford — June 17, 2009 @ 8:57 pm
June 17th, 2009 at 8:57 pm
The Earth looks flat.
There is no scientific evidence to support teleology in nature, but there is a robust scientific Theory of Evolution that explains why we see the patterns we do. Just like the Round Earth Theory explains why the Earth looks flat.
Comment by Zachriel — June 17, 2009 @ 8:57 pm
June 17th, 2009 at 9:03 pm
Not when you're orbiting it. The right perspective enables one to see reality. You can see organisms with a microscope that are invisible to the naked eye.
Comment by Bradford — June 17, 2009 @ 9:03 pm
June 17th, 2009 at 9:19 pm
The roundness of the Earth and even its size were determined in ancient times—long before humans orbited the planet.
Comment by Zachriel — June 17, 2009 @ 9:19 pm
June 17th, 2009 at 9:19 pm
You then went on to say that the claim was false because of a lack of evidence. No real scientist would ever say a claim was false because of a lack of evidence. A scientismist might, though.
So does Darwinism. At any rate, this does not make a claim "false".
Comment by chunkdz — June 17, 2009 @ 9:19 pm
June 17th, 2009 at 9:30 pm
Heh heh, retract your fangs, it was just a joke.
But it does lead to an interesting question: if all humans vanished with their documentation, how might extra-terrestrial visitors know which species on earth were intelligently tweaked, except for deliberate things like 'Made by Monsanto'?
I wonder if anyone is looking for messages in the genomes. If SETI, why not SGM (Search for Genomic Messages) ?
Comment by kornbelt888 — June 17, 2009 @ 9:30 pm
June 17th, 2009 at 9:47 pm
Surely you don't mean the modern synthesis offers a complete explanation or account? I would go so far as to say there are great gaping chasms that have yet to be accounted for. I recall something Massimo Pigliucci saying something about evolution "being a theory of genes, but what we need is a theory of forms." Oh yes, he was quoting Popper here. An interesting read. Maybe it's been treated on TT before I came along.
(Disclaimer: the current post you are reading and the citation made have absolutely nothing to do with any telic argument.)
Comment by kornbelt888 — June 17, 2009 @ 9:47 pm
June 17th, 2009 at 10:24 pm
They say there is significant scientific evidence of teleology in biology. Saying you have something you don't have is a false claim.
Someone once suggested that the "designer" may have left a standard and discernable bitmap image in a genome. If only someone would look! With modern informatics, such an image would already have been noticed.
Comment by Zachriel — June 17, 2009 @ 10:24 pm
June 17th, 2009 at 10:45 pm
Do you know anyone who has seriously tried? If so, what methods have they used?
At any rate, if any such signature (an image, digits of PI, or something similarly obvious) were in a genome, perhaps it is encoded in such a way as to be preserved through deep time, and not say, merely in "junk" regions that would be subject to relatively fast decay. A designer smart enough to front-load the general thrust of evolution might be smart enough to do just that. (Or maybe all of life was one wonderful accident.)
Mankind may need to understand more about microbiology to find the signature, so it may be premature for us to expect anyone to find it yet, if it exists. Or maybe the opposite is true. But I should think the question would be interesting enough for people to spend serious time on it. SETI folks do, and in my view they have no more reasonable hope for a find than message hunting in the genome. I suspect it has something to do with ideological bias, but I could be wrong.
Comment by kornbelt888 — June 17, 2009 @ 10:45 pm
June 17th, 2009 at 11:14 pm
So why did you not point that out before instead of stating that the earth looks flat?
Comment by Bradford — June 17, 2009 @ 11:14 pm
June 18th, 2009 at 9:13 am
Modern bioinformatics uses higly advanced data-mining technology. A standard bitmap image has a very distinctive footprint and would stick out like a statistical sore thumb.
There are an infinite number of ways of encoding an image. There are an infinite number of algorithms for detecting an image. There are an infinite number of possible false positives, depending on the algorithm.
Comment by Zachriel — June 18, 2009 @ 9:13 am
June 18th, 2009 at 9:28 am
Sorry. I thought it was clear that I was referring to a human observer normally situated. It is interesting how ancient observers not only determined the Earth was round, but how large it was (measured in stades, the length of a stadium or foot race, or 125 paces).
Eratosthenes of Cyrene.
They also made a reasonable estimate of the distance to the Moon and determined the Sun was millions of miles away.
Comment by Zachriel — June 18, 2009 @ 9:28 am
June 18th, 2009 at 10:49 am
Not if it were encrypted. Then it would effectively appears as noise until the key was discovered. The key itself may be present at another layer in the genome.
Sure. But there probably are relatively few ways to encode an image or message so it would not degrade given the other consideration of the genome, such as the functionality of its productions.
I'm the first to admit this is sheer speculation. But I hope there are some puzzle solvers out there looking for this kind of thing. I would if I had the time and resources.
Comment by kornbelt888 — June 18, 2009 @ 10:49 am
June 18th, 2009 at 11:06 am
But of course, this is merely your opinion borne out of a particular unprovable philosophy.
If one begins with the philosophy that all apparently designed things should be considered actually designed until demonstrated otherwise, then there is tons of evidence for intelligent design right there in the cellular machinery. For example, DNA is a coded system, and all coded systems other than DNA are known to have been produced by intelligent entities, namely humans. DNA and the intracellular machinery share engineering techniques employed by intelligent entities, therefore until demonstrated otherwise, they should be considered to be intelligently designed.
And here's a falsifiable prediction in line with the previous paragraph: all processes discovered within cells with share human-like engineering techniques.
Of course, you've heard this all before. But your statement has no absolute truth to it, and is not impressive to those who don't share your philosophical foundations.
Comment by kornbelt888 — June 18, 2009 @ 11:06 am
June 18th, 2009 at 11:25 am
Zachriel, and by the way, the intra-cellular evidence is consistent with an intelligent design explanation. It is not consistent with chemical evolution.
Comment by kornbelt888 — June 18, 2009 @ 11:25 am
June 18th, 2009 at 11:47 am
The vast majority of biologists reasonably consider Intelligent Design to be pseudoscience.
Such an assumption would be fallacious. However, if you suspect design, then you could certainly investigate. But such investigations have always been scientifically sterile.
Sorry, that's not a valid hypothesis. "Human-like" is much too flexible to be useful. Humans are often inspired by nature, adopting what they see. Another explanation is that similar problems result in similar solutions. Tubes and pumps for transporting liquids, levers and pulleys for harnessing energy, surfaces to glide through water or air. Furthermore, metabolism might be analogized to burning fuel, but isn't a fire. Nerves and brains may have some resemblance to electrical wires and computers, but work by very different mechanisms.
Comment by Zachriel — June 18, 2009 @ 11:47 am
June 18th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
kornbelt:
The truth of this claim depends on your definition of coded system. I would argue that the electromagnetic spectrum of starlight is also a code which can be decoded to discover, among other things, the chemical composition of the star that emitted the light. I don't think you would claim that stars have been produced by humans, so you are probably using a different definition of coded system. In what way is DNA a coded system that starlight isn't?
Comment by Raevmo — June 18, 2009 @ 1:15 pm
June 18th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
I suspect the vast majority of scientists are committed to the same unprovable philosophy you apparently hold. It doesn't surprise me they think the way you do, and that you think it's reasonable. It likewise doesn't surprise me that the vast majority of Mormons believe Joseph Smith was a prophet, or that Moonies believe the Reverend Moon is Christ, etc.
A fallacy is "an argument which provides poor reasoning in support of its conclusion." An assumption cannot be a fallacy it is an axiom, a foundational premise of one's philosophy.
They've only been sterile because of the philosophy to which you are committed. If one holds the philosophy that "all apparently designed things should be considered actually designed until demonstrated otherwise" (the Design Bias Philosophy) then quite the contrary. The cell is full of evidence, and the body of evidence is growing continually.
Human engineers have adopted virtually all the sub-processes found in intra-cellular mechanisms long before we knew they were in the cells. Intelligent agents have been shown to be able to produce such processes. Cells contain such processes. Chemical evolution is not known to create such processes. If one holds the philosophy that "all apparently designed things should be considered actually designed until demonstrated otherwise" then the internals of cells is evidence of intelligent design, until demonstrated otherwise.
With the Design Bias Philosophy, your "explanation" merely a possible explanation, a mere conjecture, until you can show us that chemical evolution can produce intra-cellular mechanisms. It is not evidence. (It's a mere conjecture within your own philosophy as well.)
Comment by kornbelt888 — June 18, 2009 @ 4:50 pm
June 18th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
This is not an analogy to the DNA coding system because starlight existed long before humans (assumedly.) Coding systems require an encoder and decoder. The DNA coding system has encoders and decoders that have always existed (as far as we know) concurrently. (Wake me up when you can make an RNA-world experiment work out as hoped for.)
Comment by kornbelt888 — June 18, 2009 @ 4:56 pm
June 19th, 2009 at 5:52 am
kornbelt:
The DNA coding system existed also long before humans. So why is the starlight code not analogous?
Check this out
Comment by Raevmo — June 19, 2009 @ 5:52 am
June 19th, 2009 at 9:02 am
Adopting a concept from Aristotle, we distinguish between essence and accident. Essence is what a thing actually is, accident is what it looks like. The essence of all information is form. In human information the form begins in the mind of the sender, takes the form of symbols, and ends as the mind of the receiver interprets the symbols. Symbols have been arbitrarily agreed to by sender and receiver, usually as part of the language evolved by their culture. The sender and receiver interpret the symbols in terms of their individual backgrounds.
The accidentc is the particular implementation of the form as symbols, which can be ink on paper, pixels on a screen, pebbles on the beach, or grooves carved into stone. Chemical bonds in ink are relevant only if the sender chooses ink on paper; they are not an essential part of the information.
The essence of chemical information is the shape of the molecules involved. (For convenience, "atom" is included as a special case of molecule). There is nothing arbitrary about anything: atoms move in such a way as to minimize Gibbs free energy. In an enzyme, which is a catalyst for a specific or semi-specific reaction, there is very little room for variation. Specific electromagnetic shapes in the enzyme have to match specific atoms in the reactants, in order to pull the reactants into the intermediate state for the reaction. There's no hint of conscious, arbitrary agreement between sender and receiver. It's not even obvious which is "sender" and which "receiver" in a reaction.
The order of amino acids in an enzyme determines the shape that the protein will assume, given an aqueous environment. We know, from experiment, that all kinds of sequences can happen at random. This is the only part of chemistry that can be considered "accident".
A "stop symbol" is a shape of an mRNA that matches a protein (not a tRNA) that carries a water molecule rather than an amino acid. This stops the development of the polypeptide.
This has developed into another mini-tutorial, I see. There's a pattern here: you say "chemistry can't explain…", I explain what chemistry knows about how a particular structure comes to be, you change the subject. If "intelligent design" is to get any kind of traction with mainstream science, you must show how an intelligent agent can move specific amino acids into specific sequences, and why these sequences can't arise at random. Otherwise chemists (a very broad category that includes be reference most biologists) will ignore you. There's no there there.
Comment by John Wendt — June 19, 2009 @ 9:02 am
June 19th, 2009 at 9:19 am
There's a misplaced end-of-italic in the second paragraph above; I ran out of time to edit.
Comment by John Wendt — June 19, 2009 @ 9:19 am
June 19th, 2009 at 9:20 am
Wrong.
Comment by John Wendt — June 19, 2009 @ 9:20 am
June 19th, 2009 at 9:43 am
If a different set of mappings between codons, stop signals and amino acids are chemically feasible we would have evidence of arbitrary assignment.
You think that this explains the origin of "stop." It does nothing of the sort. It is a mechanistic descriptor. That's not a causal trail as a causal trail would encompass explaining step by step development of parts in relation to the system and then explaining the reason the system came about. The system is the evidence of design.
Comment by Bradford — June 19, 2009 @ 9:43 am
June 19th, 2009 at 9:46 am
Then explain how heredity functions with an organic chemical mix in prebiotic conditions and why these chemicals form cells.
Comment by Bradford — June 19, 2009 @ 9:46 am
June 19th, 2009 at 9:52 am
My post was a response to some aggressively Christian interviewers. I'm content to be agnostic here, and I'm not challenging your religious faith. What I do challenge is your assumption that you can leverage "chemistry can't explain…" into "God exists", particularly where chemistry has at least plausible outlines of an explanation. "Possible" trumps "impossible, therefore".
We consider the existence of God to be an assumption. We could ignore that, though, except that some theists arrogantly go on to "life is the way it is because God made it that way".
The hostility comes because many of you want to replace science with religion. You say that "intelligent design" should be given equal time with evolution in schools (Mike Gene demurs, though). The problem is that "God did it" doesn't take up much time in a lesson plan. Although it does give the teacher an opportunity to explain real evolutionary theory. If the teacher understands it. And it may not be easy to explain Gibbs free energy to elementary students.
Comment by John Wendt — June 19, 2009 @ 9:52 am
June 19th, 2009 at 10:01 am
What is deemed possible and impossible by you is not dictated by empirical results. It is a function of your faith in naturalism.
Baloney.
Present us with the quote of me saying that. My position has been, and is amply documented, that IDists who attempt to include ID within school curriculums are misguided and wasting valuable time and energy.
Comment by Bradford — June 19, 2009 @ 10:01 am
June 19th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
Please demonstrate.
Comment by kornbelt888 — June 19, 2009 @ 5:16 pm
June 19th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
Like I said, wake me up when you can make an RNA-world experiment work out as hoped for.
Comment by kornbelt888 — June 19, 2009 @ 5:29 pm
June 19th, 2009 at 5:56 pm
kornbelt:
So this doesn't qualify?
I think this result adds to the plausibility of the RNA world hypothesis. Why don't you?
I see you ignored my comment about starlight being an example of a code. So you concede that besides DNA there are other non-man made codes in nature?
Comment by Raevmo — June 19, 2009 @ 5:56 pm
June 19th, 2009 at 6:51 pm
No. See here.
Comment by kornbelt888 — June 19, 2009 @ 6:51 pm
June 19th, 2009 at 7:00 pm
I didn't think your reply was serious. But if it was, I'll say it again: The DNA code and the ribosome decoders have always co-existed as a system (so far as is known.) Starlight existed long before humans (so far as is known.) Sure, spectral starlight might be intended to encode the chemical properties of starlight for our discovery, but the temporal relationships in the two systems are not analogous.
Comment by kornbelt888 — June 19, 2009 @ 7:00 pm
June 19th, 2009 at 7:09 pm
Being an engineer, with an engineer's mind, there are too many metaphorical hills and valleys yet to cross before I'll be impressed. Let's see a modifiable self-replicator. Then I'll be impressed. Let's see one that can generate "mechanical function", such as protein messengers within a cell. I'd be really really impressed by that. Of course, that still might be a very very long way from this robust replicator. But my frozen attitude would probably thaw out considerably.
And as to the missionaries at my door (for similar reasons), I must say: so far, no sale.
Comment by kornbelt888 — June 19, 2009 @ 7:09 pm
June 20th, 2009 at 6:50 am
I apologize for lumping you with the evangelists. You do kind of abet them though. A typical sentence from a telist consists of a noun, a verb, and "science can't explain". If we don't push back, talking about what science can explain, people will say "Hey, this 'God did it' stuff sounds pretty good. Maybe my school board should require teaching it".
The bottom line for all of this is the multifaceted observation that atoms join spontaneously to form molecules, consistent with energy relationships. Some of these molecules can catalyze other molecules, possible including themselves.
Every complex organism starts as a single cell. Cells multiply and differentiate, under the influence of energy-driven chemistry. Random changes in control elements result in changes in changes in development. Details abound.
We must invoke natural explanations, because theism has never said anything more detailed than "God did it". Any deviation from natural chemistry has to violate the principle of least action, but theism gives us never a hint as to how God manages to do that. Theism is phlogiston without the moving parts. Naturalism is all we have.
Comment by John Wendt — June 20, 2009 @ 6:50 am
June 20th, 2009 at 8:17 am
No. Naturalism is not all we have. Naturalism is only a philosophy, it has nothing to do with science.
It would be more accurate to say: Science is limited as to the questions it can pose. It can only pose questions that have a naturalistic answer. Therefore, if real science can never pose the question of ultimate origins, it can likewise never answer it.
Comment by 0112358 — June 20, 2009 @ 8:17 am
June 20th, 2009 at 9:45 am
I have no idea what philosophy you think I hold (I'm not a Philosophical Naturalist, nor do I cling to scientism.), but most scientists consider Intelligent Design to be pseudoscience because it makes false and vacuous claims dressed up in the language of science.
It's fallacious to use contradictory definitions. You want the validity of the scientific mantle, but avoid the requirements of the scientific method. Consider this example: If one begins with the philosophy that all things are gifts from the magic unicorn unless proven otherwise, then there is tons of evidence for the magic unicorn. Everywhere I look I see evidence for the magic unicorn.
You're equivocating on the term "evidence".
As I've mentioned before, to understand evolution, you have to start with what we can firmly establish. That means Common Descent, the evolution of complex structures in vertebrates, observations of natural selection, etc. When you look at the historical record, we see descent with modification and diversification from common ancestors, and that this pattern applies across virtually all taxa and structures, except the most ancient for which we may not yet have data. Common Descent explains the most important patterns observed in biology. So start with what we can firmly establish. Humans are what they are because of what they once were.
After all, humans are 'just' elaborated Deuterostomes. A tube with appendages to stuff food into one end. Microevolution.Comment by Zachriel — June 20, 2009 @ 9:45 am
June 20th, 2009 at 9:52 am
Naturalism is fundamental to science as it is so very productively practiced in our time. The central theme of the history of science in the 18th and 19th centuries was the gradual replacement of theistic explanations as people discovered natural explanations. What can theistic philosophy add back? What might we have discovered sooner with a theistic philosophy? It's no good to talk about "junk DNA"; that's a journalist's phrase, scientists don't use it professionally. Anyway, evolutionists had the idea first. To begin with, it was the atheists Crick and Watson who discovered the structure of DNA, in a close race with the atheist Pauling. The original feeling was that all DNA would be useful; selection would have eliminated junk. Naturalistic research discovered that only a small fraction of DNA functions as genes; continuing naturalistic research is discovering that some non-gene parts, probably still a small fraction, are important in regulating gene expression. Combined with the discovery, over the past 40 years, that most genes are pretty much identical in most organisms, this is leading to the naturalistic idea that variation in phenotype is caused mostly by variation in gene expression, rather than gene function. Any useful research suggestions from theism are welcome.
Science has traced the history of the universe back to the Big Bang, and is thinking about what might have gone before.
What is an "ultimate origin"? How do you tell when you've come to the "ultimate origin"? What does "the question of ultimate origins" mean in terms of operational research? How does theism approach the question? Does it matter whether you believe in Yahweh or Vishnu? (Hint: Saying "God did it" is just creating an infinite rug under which to sweep all questions.)
Comment by John Wendt — June 20, 2009 @ 9:52 am
June 20th, 2009 at 10:54 am
Great! Science should keep pressing for true scientific answers. And you're right, true science is confined to asking questions that have a natural answer. This does not, however, mean that Naturalism is the correct philosophy to hold.
Comment by 0112358 — June 20, 2009 @ 10:54 am
June 20th, 2009 at 11:05 am
There's that infinite rug again.
Comment by John Wendt — June 20, 2009 @ 11:05 am
June 21st, 2009 at 8:31 pm
Firstly, this is not analogous to what I said. Secondly, there is no pragmatic basis for your magic unicorn philosophy.
To generalize my statement, "all apparent things should be considered to be actual, unless demonstrated otherwise." This is not merely applicable to the design question of life forms, but to everything in life. It is pragmatic and it works better than the alternative.
Comment by kornbelt888 — June 21, 2009 @ 8:31 pm
June 21st, 2009 at 10:18 pm
Well, you can believe whatever you want, but scientific claims require scientific evidence. Your statement conflated different meanings of the word "evidence", as your original context was clearly scientific including such terms as falsifiable prediction.
Of course there is. Everywhere we look we see 'objective evidence' of the Magic Unicorn. You must be blind to the Magic.
Comment by Zachriel — June 21, 2009 @ 10:18 pm
June 22nd, 2009 at 12:21 am
I'm talking about my scientific philosophy, not yours. My scientific philosophy is the same as yours except for one exception: "apparent things should be considered actual things, until demonstrated otherwise." It is pragmatic, superior, and not analogous to your silly magic unicorn nonsense.
Comment by kornbelt888 — June 22, 2009 @ 12:21 am
June 22nd, 2009 at 7:54 am
And as I said, in science that is not sufficient. Claims have to be validated by the scientific method. You can *believe* whatever you want. But that doesn't make it science. The Earth is not flat just because your vantage is limited. And a claim that the world is magical is not science just because it's apparent to me.
Redefining words and calling it "philosophy" is not an argument. Perhaps you should use scare-quotes.
Comment by Zachriel — June 22, 2009 @ 7:54 am