SETI and ID
by MikeGeneIn Dec 2005, Seth Shostak, from the SETI Institute, wrote an article that attempts to distance SETI from Intelligent Design. I highly recommend this article, as it helps us see how a scientist goes about trying to detect non-human design.
Shostak makes the mistake of building his analysis around a straw man that circulates as media buzz. In his mind, ID is simply about trying to prove the existence of God and magic with complexity and then forcing children to learn this argument:
Finding evidence of complexity (the Nixon physiognomy) in a natural setting (the spud), and inferring some deliberate, magical mechanism behind it all, would be a leap from the doubtful to the divine, and in this case, Norm feels, unwarranted.
Cliff, however, would have some sympathizers among the proponents of Intelligent Design (ID), whose efforts to influence school science curricula continue to swill large quantities of newspaper ink. As just about everyone is aware, these folks use similar logic to infer a "designer" behind such biological constructions as DNA or the human eye. The apparent complexity of the product is offered as proof of deliberate blueprinting by an unknown creator"”conscious action, presumably from outside the universe itself.
Since Shostak relies on this superficial perspective to discredit ID, I find his critique to be rather irrelevant. So let's turn to something more interesting.
Before we begin our consideration of Shostak's argument, consider three important points. First, he notes that "it's true that SETI is well regarded by the scientific community." Thus, his reasoning can be adopted. Second, we should note that the "well regarded" approach of SETI does not involve some rigorous definition and discussion of intelligence prior to scanning the skies. Third, the "well regarded" approach of SETI has no independent evidence of any aliens who could or would send such signals.
Many critics of ID insist we must first rigorously define and explore 'intelligence' before proceeding to any design inference. They also insist on independent evidence of the designers. The existence of the well-regarded SETI shows that such demands have always been unreasonable.
With that context laid down, let us turn to Shostak's argument. He writes:
In fact, the signals actually sought by today's SETI searches are not complex, as the ID advocates assume. We're not looking for intricately coded messages, mathematical series, or even the aliens' version of "I Love Lucy." Our instruments are largely insensitive to the modulation"”or message"”that might be conveyed by an extraterrestrial broadcast. A SETI radio signal of the type we could actually find would be a persistent, narrow-band whistle. Such a simple phenomenon appears to lack just about any degree of structure, although if it originates on a planet, we should see periodic Doppler effects as the world bearing the transmitter rotates and orbits.
Our sought-after signal is hardly complex, and yet we're still going to say that we've found extraterrestrials.
Thus SETI actually lowers the bar. Surely "intricately coded messages, mathematical series, or even the aliens' version of "I Love Lucy" would be far more powerful evidence than some narrow-band whistle. So how is it that SETI detects design with such a simple fingerprint?
Shostak explains as follows:
Well, it's because the credibility of the evidence is not predicated on its complexity. If SETI were to announce that we're not alone because it had detected a signal, it would be on the basis of artificiality.
Very good. To detect design, we don't need to rigorously define intelligence, address where the designers came from, nor come up with independent evidence for the existence of the designers. Neither do we need to find something that is hopelessly complex. We need only look for something that suggests artificiality. But what would signal artificiality? Shostak tells us that two factors are involved.
First, we look for something that does not seem to be adequately accounted for by natural processes:
An endless, sinusoidal signal "“ a dead simple tone "“ is not complex; it's artificial. Such a tone just doesn't seem to be generated by natural astrophysical processes. (emphasis added)
The signal is not only something that doesn't seem to be generated by natural processes, but it doesn't carry the features of things that are generated by natural processes:
In addition, and unlike other radio emissions produced by the cosmos, such a signal is devoid of the appendages and inefficiencies nature always seems to add "“ for example, DNA's junk and redundancy.
That sort of bad engineering is easily recognized and laid at nature's door.
Very good. So we look for something that not only doesn't appear to be generated by natural processes, but something that "is devoid of the appendages and inefficiencies nature always seems to add."
From here, Shostak adds a second criterion:
Context is important, crucially important. Imagine that we should espy a giant, green square in one of these neighboring solar systems. That would surely meet our criteria for artificiality. But a square is not overly complex. Only in the context of finding it in someone's solar system does its minimum complexity become indicative of intelligence.
Yes, context is very important. So is there some context that will help us detect design in life? What's more, context is crucially tied to perspective. Without the right perspective, it's not clear the context would ever be appreciated.
Shostak ends his article as follows:
We seek artificiality, which is an organized and optimized signal coming from an astronomical environment from which neither it nor anything like it is either expected or observed: Very modest complexity, found out of context.
Nicely stated. Let me point out clearly that I did not read Shostak's article prior to writing The Design Matrix. If I had, I would definitely have mentioned/used it. Shostak sets out to distinguish ID from SETI, but in the process, ends up supporting The Design Matrix.
December 17th, 2007 at 9:24 am
Mike
I haven't read your book so I am not sure what your point is. However, I think the SETI folk are making some very broad assumptions about a potential source (possible without realising) and as soon as a potential signal was spotted they would start to make some more specific assumptions based on the context.
For example, they are assuming that the source is sufficiently similar to us to create the kind of "artificial" signals that we create. In fact the signal does not have to be designed at all. It may very well be the by-product of some other artificial process.
If an apparently artificial signal was identified then the next step would be try and confirm whether it was from a living source. To do this it would be essential to formulate hypotheses (both living and non-living) about the nature of the source and test them. The nature of the hypotheses would depend on the context. For example, if the giant green square was spotted this would raise questions and how and why a living source would create it. It would also lead to a thorough examination of non-living possibilities.
Comment by Mark Frank — December 17, 2007 @ 9:24 am
December 17th, 2007 at 9:58 am
Hi Mark,
It is fun to speculate about what SETI would do if they had a good candidate in their search for intelligence. But I'm highlighting what they do and don't do when looking for a candidate.
To detect design, SETI does not rigorously define intelligence, address where the designers came from, nor come up with independent evidence for the existence of the designers. To detect design, SETI seeks "artificiality, which is an organized and optimized signal coming from an astronomical environment from which neither it nor anything like it is either expected or observed: Very modest complexity, found out of context."
This approach is very similar to the one I outline in The Design Matrix. The main difference is that SETI doesn't have to worry about a designer-mimic. The Matrix does.
Comment by MikeGene — December 17, 2007 @ 9:58 am
December 17th, 2007 at 11:41 am
All that is expected are the proposal of valid hypotheses and appropriate observations.
We can assert a link of causation between the signal and the signaler. Indeed, that's the whole point of making the search. To find ETI.
Nor do they claim they have, unlike most of those who purport to represent the Intelligent Design Movement. And contrary to ID's usual claims, there are valid reasons to believe that life exists on other worlds.
It's not speculation to state that new hypotheses will be proposed, including attempts to falsify the initial report. Indeed, any such candidate would be viewed very skeptically by the scientific community. As it should be.
SETI makes several crucial assumptions concerning ETI. That ETI has developed radio technology, that they use narrow-band microwave signals in a purposeful attempt to communicate. Something like a flute tone against the noise of a waterfall. Just like humans would do.
Simplicity, not complexity. A narrow-band carrier is like a crystal, ordered. It's conceivable that the carrier encodes a message, but it may just as well be a beacon. A lighthouse.
Comment by Zachriel — December 17, 2007 @ 11:41 am
December 17th, 2007 at 12:39 pm
Assuming Zachriel means IDists claiming independent evidence for the source of biological design, let it be noted that those claims are not presented by their proponenets as derivations of experimental results. Nevertheless it is possible to support a claim with non-scientific evidence or simply hold a philosophically based belief. The point is there is no duplicity when the nature of the belief is openly acknowledged.
Examine these quotes of Shostak and Mike Gene taken from the blog text:
Substitute natural processes in place of "natural astrophysical processes" when referencing the possibility of life on other worlds, note the mention of artificiality and you have the ID perspective used to assess extra-terrestrial life. IDists would argue that its existence would be accompanied by detection of something artificial with reference to natural processes just as they would for life on earth.
There are biological signals too. The same guiding principle would apply.
Comment by Bradford — December 17, 2007 @ 12:39 pm
December 17th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
Who among the ID'ers is actually arguing that complexity alone is the distinguishing characteristic in design inference? Nobody that I know.
Comment by chunkdz — December 17, 2007 @ 12:43 pm
December 17th, 2007 at 1:00 pm
How about a red one?:lol:
Comment by chunkdz — December 17, 2007 @ 1:00 pm
December 17th, 2007 at 1:26 pm
Not making specific and distinguishing predictions while claiming to have scientific support makes the claim vacuous.
Precisely why any such claim would be subject to scrutiny by the scientific community. A narrow-band signal, or cosmic square, would be no exception. New hypotheses would be proposed to test the validity of the claim.
Comment by Zachriel — December 17, 2007 @ 1:26 pm
December 17th, 2007 at 2:00 pm
Zachriel:
That is how exactly the description I would apply to RNA world ideas. Lacking specific and distinguishing predictions.
Comment by Bradford — December 17, 2007 @ 2:00 pm
December 17th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
As autocatalyzing RNA is available for actual experimental study, that would not be a fair characterization. Tests of the RNA World hypothesis are on-going, but the early results indicate that RNA World is not sufficient for a complete theory of abiogenesis.
Comment by Zachriel — December 17, 2007 @ 2:14 pm
December 17th, 2007 at 2:21 pm
The autocatalyzing RNA itself is the product of human engineering. It is as if a prebiotic pathway to it is assumed for the sake of demonstrating its autocatalytic property. Or, putting it another way, there is an unacceptable level of artificiality in these demonstrations.
Comment by Bradford — December 17, 2007 @ 2:21 pm
December 17th, 2007 at 2:30 pm
Autocatalyzing RNA was discovered in living organisms. Nor is there anything wrong with synthesizing something to study it. In any case, weakly autocatalyzing RNA can be found among random sequences of nucleotides, such as has been done in David Bartel's lab.
Comment by Zachriel — December 17, 2007 @ 2:30 pm
December 17th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
Zachriel wrote:
LOL!
Comment by chunkdz — December 17, 2007 @ 2:34 pm
December 17th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
There's plenty of good reasons to at least strongly consider that life was designed. Zach may not like them, but it's a lot rougher to justify SETI than it is to justify basic ID considerations.
Comment by nullasalus — December 17, 2007 @ 2:40 pm
December 17th, 2007 at 2:56 pm
One aspect that seems to be left out here is the chronological aspect. it's one thing for science to find 'artificial' signals arrive at our little home here *now*. But 'aliens' as an explanation for such an artificial source, say, sourced to the first seconds after the the Bang, that would require some rethinking on our end wouldn't it?
That is, it's not to much a stretch to suppose that intelligent life developed elsewhere possibly, after similar billions of years of development. If *we* managed to arrive where we're at, other forms of life capable of communications seems quite plausible (though certainly not necessary) to find in other parts of the universe.
I take this as implicit in the SETI inquiries. It's much harder to support a hypothesis that "aliens did this", when your source signals date back far enough that *nobody* supposes there is enough time for life to evolve and develop to a point where it could generate "intelligent signals" to be broadcast about. The bar *is* lower, in that sense, because we can plausibly imagine that signals from just millions of light years away originated late enough that we might suppose that time enough existed for capable intelligence to evolve.
Maybe the best way to ask this is to wonder: if you have signal pattern X, that you'd declared "artificial" by whatever criterion, is it *exactly* as artifical if X is "sourced" from a point origin some one million years ago as the same signal sourced to, say, 13+ BILLION years ago?
I believe part of the ID thinking is that such "artificiality" is inherent. But I expect that SETI investigators would be much more skeptical of a 13 Billion year old signal being "artificial" — sent by intelligent beings — than they would of a recent signal. Why? because the plausibility of "artificiality" itself hinges on the plausibility of capable sources, in the conventional view.
Without having to prejudge the merits either way, wouldn't you say this is a fundamental distinction between the SETI approach to the investigation, and the ID approach?
-TS
Comment by Touchstone — December 17, 2007 @ 2:56 pm
December 17th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
That wasn't my point. The fact that it already exists in living organisms is no help in establishing its origins. The synthesis is evidence of artificiality. What is lacking is the demonstration of a natural pathway to ARNA let alone anything beyond that.
Comment by Bradford — December 17, 2007 @ 3:12 pm
December 17th, 2007 at 4:01 pm
Great Post Mike. Don't expect it to convince the true believers though.
Although you make really excellent points. It would almost seem there is something else going on here to create a double standard.
Comment by thesciphishow — December 17, 2007 @ 4:01 pm
December 17th, 2007 at 4:22 pm
"That sort of bad engineering is easily recognized and laid at nature's door."
So "bad engineering" created humans brains?
Sure thing.
Is my response an "argument from incredulity"
Nope. It's a skeptical response.
Isn't it time Shostak and his ilk were labeled according to their folly?
Comment by kornbelt888 — December 17, 2007 @ 4:22 pm
December 17th, 2007 at 4:23 pm
Thanks, Mike, for the post on SETI.
I exchanged an email with Shostak a while back on another article in which he described witnessing an eclipse and went on to talk about the fact that the Earth was in an optimal place to witness solar eclipses (his description sounded practically lifted from The Privileged Planet, although it may have been completely coincidental).
When I asked him what he thought of Guillermo Gonzalez' very similar statements, Shostak indicated that Gonzalez' work could be dismissed because, in his view, Gonzalez was trying to put a theological spin on things. Shostak also told me that Gonzalez' work is not science because it "doesn't make any predictions." Now that I think about it, I'm curious about what kind of predictions SETI makes . . .
Lastly, for those interested in origins, I have on my desk the SETI Institute Third Quarter 2004 magazine, which includes an interesting article by Dr. Emma Bakes about lessons drawn from Cassini (think Titan) and thoughts about the origin of life. I almost fell out of my chair when I read the following sentence: "For the transformation of organic hydrocarbon chemistry to terrestrial life, 'just add water'." Those familiar with The Privileged Planet will know exactly what I'm referring to here.
Comment by Eric Anderson — December 17, 2007 @ 4:23 pm
December 17th, 2007 at 4:25 pm
I wrote: Many critics of ID insist we must first rigorously define and explore 'intelligence' before proceeding to any design inference.
Zachriel replies:
This does not negate the fact that many critics of ID insist we must first rigorously define and explore 'intelligence' before proceeding to any design inference. SETI helps us to understand that such critics are simply setting up obstacles.
As for you, you've made it clear earlier what you expect:
Since you have declared there is no reason to suspect ID for the above reasons, how does one propose a valid hypothesis without a suspicion? Yet to get the suspicion, according to you, we need some rather extraordinary and sensation evidence/demonstrations.
Sorry Zachriel, but to me, you come across as someone actively trying to thwart an investigation.
Comment by MikeGene — December 17, 2007 @ 4:25 pm
December 17th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
Zachriel wrote:
I'm not sure which ID claims you would be referring to. Perhaps you are referring to statements similar to those found in The Privileged Planet, noting the relative uniqueness of Earth? Note I said "relative." I'm not aware of any well-known ID proponent who has proposed, as a part of ID theory, that there would not be life on other worlds. It is possible that some ID proponents may feel that life is unique to Earth, but that is a personal view that has nothing to do with ID.
Frankly, I am persuaded that there is other life in the universe, but not because I think life is a ubiquitious outgrowth of chemistry and physics, based on the usual fact-barren, simplistic scenarios about what is needed to originate life, such as the reference I gave in my post above from the SETI institute.
Comment by Eric Anderson — December 17, 2007 @ 4:33 pm
December 17th, 2007 at 6:53 pm
In any case, weakly autocatalyzing RNA can be found among random sequences of nucleotides, such as has been done in David Bartel's lab.
Specific hypotheses are tested everyday in RNA World research. Tests of the RNA World hypothesis are on-going, but the early results indicate that RNA World is not sufficient for a complete theory of abiogenesis. But even if RNA World were to describe only certain aspects of abiogenesis, it would be a significant accomplishment.
Comment by Zachriel — December 17, 2007 @ 6:53 pm
December 17th, 2007 at 7:05 pm
At some point, to be considered science, a valid scientific hypothesis needs to be proposed. A complete theory of intelligence is not required.
Just do it. It doesn't matter if the inspiration for the hypothesis is from deep reflection or from your Muse. As long as it entails specific and distinguishing empirical predictions.
Heavens! Why would you think that? Suspicion has many sources. I understand paranoia can lead to increase perceptivity. You don't even have to have a hypothesis to peer into the darkness. (But unless you are intending to eventually propose a valid hypothesis, it wouldn't be considered scientific investigation.)
Comment by Zachriel — December 17, 2007 @ 7:05 pm
December 17th, 2007 at 7:10 pm
My statement was ill-phrased. ID typically refers to Intelligent Agency designing life forms on Earth (via some unspecified mechanism at some unspecified time by some unspecified entity), and often includes claims to scientific validity. (I understand that some have adopted the moniker of ID without also adopting the latter view.)
Comment by Zachriel — December 17, 2007 @ 7:10 pm
December 17th, 2007 at 7:14 pm
Thanks, Zachriel, for the clarification.
Let's assume, for sake of argument, that your description is accurate: An intelligent agent designing life forms on Earth (via some unspecified mechanism at some unspecified time by some unspecified entity), and often includes claims to scientific validity.
Why would this preclude life on other worlds?
Comment by Eric Anderson — December 17, 2007 @ 7:14 pm
December 17th, 2007 at 8:10 pm
There is evidence that life is a natural consequence of primordial conditions. There is also evidence that these conditions occur in many places throughout the universe. There is no evidence of Intelligent Intervention in the history of life on Earth. You may disagree with this assessment of the evidence, but it is well within the consensus understanding of the relevant science. But provisionally accepting that …
Meritless claims don't preclude much of anything (and vice versa!). However, if some sort of ID were confirmed, then it would presumably have dramatic effects on scientific understanding concerning possible ETI.
Comment by Zachriel — December 17, 2007 @ 8:10 pm
December 17th, 2007 at 8:20 pm
We are comparing SETI and ID. Restating.
Nor does SETI claim they have confirming evidence of ETI. They have a weak hypothesis based on human-like behavior. Testing that hypothesis puts specific limits on the frequency of ETI in the local galactic region.
On the other hand, the Intelligent Design Movement often claims scientific support of Intelligent Intervention in the history of life on Earth. But there is no such scientific support.
Comment by Zachriel — December 17, 2007 @ 8:20 pm
December 17th, 2007 at 8:24 pm
The evidence indicates that primordial conditions should remain in a non-life state. The fact that life comes out of such conditions is the indication of artificiality.
Comment by Bradford — December 17, 2007 @ 8:24 pm
December 17th, 2007 at 8:28 pm
Succinctly stated, though most scientists would disagree with your assessment of the evidence. However, you are more than welcome to propose a specific and distinguishing empirical test of that artifice. Lacking that, most scientists will continue to unravel the mystery through both big and little hypotheses, the testing of which appears to be revealing all manner of marvels.
Comment by Zachriel — December 17, 2007 @ 8:28 pm
December 17th, 2007 at 8:30 pm
That's an interpretation. The contention that genomes arise from primordial but unspecified chemical reactions amounts to a miraculous claim.
Comment by Bradford — December 17, 2007 @ 8:30 pm
December 17th, 2007 at 8:39 pm
I'll reiterate one I've mentioned before. Prokaryotic organisms with minimal genomes (just large enough to sustain life- no frills) if stripped of their genomic repair genes (or even a partial subset of them) would suffer genomic meltdown before the needed repair mechanisms could evolve. Simply stated the loss of genetic information (inevitable due to natural forces) will exceed information gains afforded through an evolutionary process.
Comment by Bradford — December 17, 2007 @ 8:39 pm
December 17th, 2007 at 8:46 pm
That wouldn't be enough to convince me of ET. An endless sinusoidal wave seems to me in the same category as an endless pulse of precise duration and frequency. Hmmm… what might that be? A pulsar, that's what, and it fooled people for a time.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...:
Astrophysicist Peter A. Sturrock writes that "when the first regular radio signals from pulsars were discovered, the Cambridge scientists seriously considered that they might have come from an extraterrestrial civilization."
The IDists are right, you need specified complexity to make an accurate design inference, not just order.
Comment by Stuart Harris — December 17, 2007 @ 8:46 pm
December 17th, 2007 at 9:01 pm
To add a bit to my post above:
I just thought about the nature of a pulsar and wondered if its signal might be sinusoidal in nature. Well, they are. Google "sinusoidal pulsar".
Looks like pulsars could still fool some people like Shostak!
Comment by Stuart Harris — December 17, 2007 @ 9:01 pm
December 17th, 2007 at 9:02 pm
Mike, I have not yet read your book. But its next on my list!
However, Dembski/Wells make a similar point:
(p171. Emphasis in original.)
SETI IS ID. They just want to distance themselves from ID because they don't like the publicity.
Comment by endoplasmicMessenger — December 17, 2007 @ 9:02 pm
December 17th, 2007 at 9:36 pm
I don't want to belittle such accomplishments, but here are some of the hurdles that are left:
Genetic Code Describing the origin of the medium does nothing to describe the origin of the code which is impressed upon the medium
the Lab vs the Wild most experiments of this kind do funny little things to insulate the experimental processes from obstacles that would appear in a realistic pre-biotic environment, such as: eliminating free oxygen; extract the experimental "results" before the very energy used to create them ends up destroying them; ignore the fact that no purely materialistic way of producing or accumulating only right-handed sugars (needed by real-life DNA) has been identified.
I wish origin-of-life researchers all the best. But I predict that they will not soon create a reproducing artificial cell that is in any way comparable to real-life cells.
Comment by endoplasmicMessenger — December 17, 2007 @ 9:36 pm
December 17th, 2007 at 9:49 pm
Zach:
Zach:
I've seen you make similar statements in the past. Are you unhappy with the many ID predictions that have been proposed to date because they are insufficiently specific or insufficiently empirical in your view?
I recently watched a documentary on the big bang that chronicled the competition between the BB and steady state theories. I was struck by the similarity to the ID debate.
For decades the evidence favored neither theory and the Big bang was seen as theologically suspect because it's chef proponent Georges Lemaitre was a priest. Luckily this difficulty did not bring the discussion to a halt.
When a suitable "specific and distinguishing empirical test" was finally proposed it was impractical because of the technology of the day. The kicker is that the smoking gun was provided not by lab scientists at all but practical engineer types who were not even working on the issue.
Isn't science cool?
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — December 17, 2007 @ 9:49 pm
December 17th, 2007 at 9:55 pm
Stuart Harris
SETI is looking for artificiality not just order. In my mind artificiality looks and sounds a lot like CSI.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — December 17, 2007 @ 9:55 pm
December 17th, 2007 at 10:06 pm
Did you have a particular in mind? What specific and distinguishing empirical predictions are entailed in Intelligent Design?
There were plenty of adherents on either side. Evidence (that means specific and distinguishing observations) started accumulating to support the Big Bang during the 1950's. The 1948 prediction of the cosmic Cosmic Background Radiation was confirmed in the 1960's. Modern mappings of the Cosmic Background Radiation have confirmed the link between Quantum Theory and the Big Bang.
During the interim, scientists continued to try and falsify the various models, advancing new hypotheses at each step. It didn't begin or end with Penzias and Wilson. The Big Bang Theory continues to be tested and continues to evolve in response to the data.
Comment by Zachriel — December 17, 2007 @ 10:06 pm
December 17th, 2007 at 10:16 pm
Zach:
How about the one bradford just mentioned or this one from about a week ago for starters. http://telicthoughts.com/the-d... .
These seem like specific and distinguishing empirical predictions to me. Do you agree? If not why not?
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — December 17, 2007 @ 10:16 pm
December 17th, 2007 at 10:18 pm
CSI stands for Complex Specified Information. As SETI is not looking for complexity, but simplicity.
But a carrier, as sought by SETI, is not complex. It's simple. Nor is it necessarily decisive evidence of artifice. The detection of such a signal would be subjected to a great deal of scrutiny. The most important aspect of this heightened scrutiny would be the link of causation to the source of the signal.
Comment by Zachriel — December 17, 2007 @ 10:18 pm
December 17th, 2007 at 10:28 pm
Zach:
The emphasis in CSI is on Specified not on complexity. Random numbers are complex but do not exhibit CSI. The key is in the pattern not in complexity.
SETI is not looking for mere simplicity but artificiality a star is simple but it would never be seen as evidence for SETI again the pattern is the thing
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — December 17, 2007 @ 10:28 pm
December 17th, 2007 at 10:32 pm
Extant prokaryotes are highly adapted and optimized organisms that have evolved for billions of years. Their fast reproductive rate tends to result in compressed genomes. But instead of the occasional mutation, you want to remove an entire mechanism.
The older the mechanism, such as that for genomic repair, the more crucial it tends to be for an organism. This is typical in how scale-free networks evolve. So it's not distinguishing. It's just an ID veneer.
Comment by Zachriel — December 17, 2007 @ 10:32 pm
December 17th, 2007 at 10:35 pm
Then for clarity it should be renamed Specified Information.
Though SETI is certainly looking for artifice, they do so by looking for a specific and simple pattern, a Doppler-shifted radio beacon in the microwave spectrum emanating from a stellar system with some resemblance to the Solar System. Something humans might do.
Stars are not simple.
Comment by Zachriel — December 17, 2007 @ 10:35 pm
December 17th, 2007 at 11:14 pm
Zachriel:
The minimal genome targets focused on so far have been far from typical prokaryotes. It would probably not be necessary to disable an entire mechanism. Disabling base excision repair functions would likely suffice for example. But one needs to follow the reasoning behind the suggestion. Any chemical road to a cell would involve an incremental process. That in itself suggests a clue as to how to assess the artificiality highlighted by Shostack and Gene.
One would not expect an initial cell to come replete with genomic repair mechanisms. I doubt anyone would disagree. The question is: how do genes enabling such a vital function come about through a process. The knee-jerk answer that they do so like all other functions will not do. Why? Because the mechanisms connected with these genes are the genomic integrity gatekeepers that enable all else. It is as if we have found the initial group of genes that must come "online" first in an incremental process.
But what if I'm wrong? What if genomic repair mechanisms are only needed at an intermediate stage in this theoretical process. Therein lies an opportunity. Envision an intermediate precursor cell. I'm unsure what this type of organism would look like genomically speaking but we assume it comes without the necessity of genomic repair mechanisms. What would happen to an engineered precursor cell that fits the requirements? Technologically I'm a little ahead of myself but probably not by much. Would a relatively speaking primitive precursor cell be able to tolerate unrepaired genetic damage?
DNA damage destroys genetic information. That's what makes it so insidious and essential to counter. Genetic information is finite in nature. Keep losing it and the eventual outcome is highly predictable. The absence of repair mechanisms offers opportunities to test theoretical pillars.
I don't have a problem with adjustments that accomodate timelines. I am also aware that the difficulties of such adjustments are theoretically as well as technologically challenging. All the more reason to seriously ponder it.
Comment by Bradford — December 17, 2007 @ 11:14 pm
December 18th, 2007 at 12:27 am
Me: This does not negate the fact that many critics of ID insist we must first rigorously define and explore 'intelligence' before proceeding to any design inference.
Zachriel:
Nowhere am I arguing about whether ID should be considered science. I'm simply highlighting that many critics of ID insist we must first rigorously define and explore 'intelligence' before proceeding to any design inference.
Me: Since you have declared there is no reason to suspect ID for the above reasons, how does one propose a valid hypothesis without a suspicion?
Zachriel:
But you have declared there is no reason to suspect ID; I didn't see you qualify this claim as your opinion or perception.
Show us the way. For example, you seem to think there is a fairly solid case for the belief that the Earth spawned life. What were the specific and distinguishing empirical predictions that led you to conclude this happened?
Me: Yet to get the suspicion, according to you, we need some rather extraordinary and sensation evidence/demonstrations.
Zachriel:
Your words. - "As there are robust mechanisms to explain the historical patterns in biology, no evidence of telic manufacture, and no known images of Roddy McDowall or the Mona Lisa embedded in the human genome, there is no reason at this point to suspect so-called Intelligent Design"•and very substantial reasons to believe otherwise."
Comment by MikeGene — December 18, 2007 @ 12:27 am
December 18th, 2007 at 12:59 am
But it seems that Shostak is saying that "artificial" is different than the CSI that the IDists need to make a design inference. He's saying it's something simpler and that's all that's needed. He gives the example of a sinusoidal sine wave — but that's just order with no information content.
There is nothing artificial about a simple sine wave. It is not artifice (i.e., design) since it contains no information. In my above post I gave a perfectly natural source for a sinusoidal beacon (a pulsar) that is completely natural.
Shostak is making the most elementary of errors. He's equating order with information.
Comment by Stuart Harris — December 18, 2007 @ 12:59 am
December 18th, 2007 at 8:26 am
Zach:
When I explain CSI I usually begin by calling it Contingent Specified Information terms that are also found in Dembski's book. After folks have fully grasped the concept I tell them that the C usually means complexity.
The reason for complexity in the name is only to minimize false positives. The pattern we see in a pulsar might well be the result of intelligent design since it does exhibit obvious pattern but Dembski would not be willing to label it CSI because a natural explanation is easy to come by. That is what the complex in CSI means
Zach:
According to Dembski's logic they are that's the reason pulsars aren't seen as CSI. Get it?
Stuart:
I agree but that is only because he either doesn't understand CSI or he is afraid of giving us fundy bible thumpers ammunition. Notice he is not claiming that pulsars are signals from ET
Stuart:
.
I agree this is what the article seems to say but this is only because he is afraid of being labeled a nut like us IMHO. In order to keep his distance he has painted himself into a corner. It's plain to me that he is looking for CSI just like us he just doesn't want to admit it .
Peace
PS
Zach, what about my edge prediction?
Comment by fifth monarchy man — December 18, 2007 @ 8:26 am
December 18th, 2007 at 9:04 am
Even the concept of a cell may be an inappropriate for the early history of life, though I suspect some sort of segregation was essential. There just isn't enough information to know what might have happened.
As autocatalyzing RNA exists, we have a good idea that genomic repair mechanisms are not required for primitive reproduction.
"Envisioning" may say more about our knowledge and imaginations than how life may have arisen. There a Gap in human knowledge. Pointing to the Gap and saying we don't know how to fill it doesn't qualify as a specific and distinguishing prediction, though it might be a valid area of investigation.
Comment by Zachriel — December 18, 2007 @ 9:04 am
December 18th, 2007 at 9:24 am
This statement is confusing. You want to "infer"; while it can't be deductive inference as it relies on empirical facts, you don't want to call it science. But you do insist we call it ID.
I made it clear that suspicion was personal, sometimes even non-rational. You are more than welcome to your suspicions. Follow your Muse! Or wander aimlessly in the shadows. No one is stopping you.
There is no complete theory of abiogenesis. The first life form on Earth may have been a lucky accident, a natural property of carbon and liquid water, a unique circumstance, seeded by comets, or even a Divine Miracle. But let's start from what we do know.
* We know that life did not always exist on Earth.
* We know that life is essentially a chemical process.
* We know that complex compounds can spontaneously assemble under a variety of conditions.
* We know the first life appears in a primordial world.
* We know the first life appears shortly after liquid water forms.
* We know that life evolved and diversified from those primitive forebearers.
* We have some molecular evidence of how important mechanisms may have arisen, including the genetic code.
* Much of the earliest history of life is shrouded by the intervening eons and left few physical clues other than life itself.
There are reasons to suspect a natural origin.
There is no reason at this point to suspect so-called Intelligent Design. But suspicion doesn't require reason. Follow your Muse!
Comment by Zachriel — December 18, 2007 @ 9:24 am
December 18th, 2007 at 9:34 am
Bradford: But what if I'm wrong? What if genomic repair mechanisms are only needed at an intermediate stage in this theoretical process. Therein lies an opportunity.
You are making a category error. Self-catalytic RNA qualifies as an enzyme, not a genome.
Comment by Bradford — December 18, 2007 @ 9:34 am
December 18th, 2007 at 9:34 am
I thought this was supposed to be rigorous mathematics. I'm still waiting for it to show up in a reputable journal of mathematics. Maybe some of the qualitative handwaving will be worked out in peer review.
As no one thinks that evolution typically proceeds by multiple, simultaneous mutations, it really has nothing to do with anything. Evolution can never explore the vast majority of possible options. Never. Evolution is limited by its history and by its mechanisms of change. That's how we can recognize the process. Because it is limited to a very narrow range of possibilities.
We *know* that genes can evolve novel functions. We can watch it happen, though it normally happens by sequential mutations, or recombination, or duplication, or a variety of other sources of genetic novelty, creating variations within populations, perhaps undergoing selection. The actual prediction is whether the observed rates of genetic and morphological change are sufficient to explain the historical record. In fact, the observed rates are much, much faster than what is required.
Comment by Zachriel — December 18, 2007 @ 9:34 am
December 18th, 2007 at 10:36 am
They act as genomes. They tend to be unstable which is the problem you point to. But this still doesn't represent a specific and distinguishing empirical prediction. It just means that RNA World may be either incomplete or not directly relevant to the origin of life.
* Newton's prediction of the retardation of the pendulum.
* Einstein's statistical estimate for the size of molecules.
* Mendeleev's prediction of the existence and properites of heretofore unknown elements.
* Tiktaalik
Comment by Zachriel — December 18, 2007 @ 10:36 am
December 18th, 2007 at 10:50 am
If you flip a coin 1000 time and they are all heads, is that "simple" or "complex" Any list of the results of 1000 coin flips is equally complex, whether it is all heads or some other pattern.
But, if you define "simple" as "simply described", then yes, 1000 heads is simple. But this is the same definition as Specified Complexity.
If you don't think so, please explain why.
Likewise, a pure sinusoidal wave is as equally complex as any other wave. (A .wav file of a sinusoidal wave would be the same size and have as many data points as a .wav file of any other wave.) The fact that we can describe it as "simple" just means that it has specified complexity. In this case, saying that is it "artificial" or "simple" is saying exactly the same thing as saying that if has specified complexity.
Comment by endoplasmicMessenger — December 18, 2007 @ 10:50 am
December 18th, 2007 at 11:10 am
How would SETI react if they recieved an artificial but simple signal from outer space such as the Fibonacci Series? Would their reaction be the same if the saw this same signal repeatedly occuring in the biological organisms inhabiting our planet?
Comment by 0112358 — December 18, 2007 @ 11:10 am
December 18th, 2007 at 11:24 am
Bradford: You are making a category error. Self-catalytic RNA qualifies as an enzyme, not a genome.
They behave like enzymes. RNA comes in different varieties. Some types are carriers of genetic information- the type I was alluding to. Others act as regulatory elements. The type to which you referred have catalytic functions. The last two are not to be confused with the first.
Comment by Bradford — December 18, 2007 @ 11:24 am
December 18th, 2007 at 11:38 am
They can act as *both*. That's the whole point. It was already known that RNA had hereditary function when Cech and Altman discovered they also had enzymatic activity, something once thought to be the exclusive province of proteins.
Comment by Zachriel — December 18, 2007 @ 11:38 am
December 18th, 2007 at 12:00 pm
You're obfuscating. The different RNA types I described have different properties that enable their respective functions. One can explain why a regulatory or an enzymatic RNA type acts as it does by referencing the specific nucleotide configuration. Genomic RNA (found in viruses) and mRNA, which holds transcribed genetic information, are comprised of nucleotides whose sole function is to serve as symbolic placeholders for corresponding amino acids needed for protein synthesis.
You are conflating different types of RNA and assuming equivalence in the absence of experimental evidence showing a transforming mechanism. In the process you give the appearance of abandoning objectivity for partisan purposes.
Cech and Altman do not conflate enzymatic RNA with RNA that holds hereditary information. That add on is the work of internet partisans.
Comment by Bradford — December 18, 2007 @ 12:00 pm
December 18th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
Zachriel wrote:
What a profound statement.
Oh, sorry for the sarcasm, but I'm still enjoying the irony of a guy who several threads ago flat out refused to answer a simple hypothetical question about ETs (when the answer would have harmed your anti ID prejudice)-
And yet here you are in another thread championing the belief in ETs and spontaneous generation! (when you believe it helps confirm your prejudice)
This selective use of the prefrontal dorsolateral cortex is quickly becoming much more interesting to me than the actual debate. What an utterly fascinating phenomenon!
Comment by chunkdz — December 18, 2007 @ 12:47 pm
December 18th, 2007 at 1:59 pm
Actually, it has been shown they can be the same structure, though a complete replication has yet to be demonstrated. To act as a template, RNA has to unravel. To act as a catalyst, it has to coil into a shape which brings together specific attachment points. Doudna and Szostak divided an intron and showed how they can cooperate to replicate a section of the same intron. Most scientists in the field believe a self-replicating molecule (or small collective of molecules) is possible.
But even if we didn't know anything about autocatalyzing RNA, what specific and distinguishing empirical predictions are entailed in ID?
Comment by Zachriel — December 18, 2007 @ 1:59 pm
December 18th, 2007 at 2:00 pm
The strongly supported scientific evidence concerning the great age of the Earth, the vast changes that have occurred over the intervening eons, and the first appearance of life in the primordial past, are certainly among the most profound discoveries. And relevant.
"”
Off-topic
You should provide a link. I'll answer on the appropriate thread to any questions you think were left unanswered.
Comment by Zachriel — December 18, 2007 @ 2:00 pm
December 18th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
I do not dispute or disagree with that. My original point was that discussions of genomic repair should reference the applicable RNA type.
I speak only for myself and repeat my view that genomic repair mechanisms had to be front loaded at the outset. That's a view around which hypotheses and predictions can ensue.
Comment by Bradford — December 18, 2007 @ 2:18 pm
December 18th, 2007 at 2:35 pm
Zachriel,
My comment was sarcastic, but your comment was actually wrong. When life appeared, it is possible that life was primordial, but the earth was apparently far from primordial.
You remember, don't you? You were supposed to answer my question but you instead chose to ramble on about Roddy McDowell?
But in reality we don't really need you to answer the question. It's far more fascinating and instructive to watch how a critic responds when they are cornered by their own logic.
Some feign ignorance, some project hostility, some try to impugn the motives of their opponent, and some others flee the subject with fanciful stories about Roddy McDowell. The latter variety is by far the most fascinating.
Comment by chunkdz — December 18, 2007 @ 2:35 pm
December 18th, 2007 at 2:43 pm
The term "primordial" is often used (imprecisely) for the Hadean and Archean Eons.
For some reason, you forgot the link.
Comment by Zachriel — December 18, 2007 @ 2:43 pm
December 18th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
Sorry, Bradford. I may have lost track of the thread.
Well, that's what we're looking for.
Comment by Zachriel — December 18, 2007 @ 2:47 pm
December 18th, 2007 at 3:47 pm
Zachriel wrote: [My quick comments in brackets.]
* We know that life did not always exist on Earth. [I'm not sure that this is a "know," since it involves proving a negative. Nevertheless, I am also in general agreement that this is likely the case.]
* We know that life is essentially a chemical process. [This is a gross over-simplification, to the point of being downright (but hopefully not purposely?) misleading. Life is not, in its essence, just a chemical process. Life is fundamentally different, not just in quantity, but in kind. Even setting aside the entire (and very key) question of consciousness and similar characteristics that cannot be reduced to chemical reactions, life involves much more than just chemical processes taking place in a receptacle. The chemical processes are carried out in a special environment, replete with coordinated systems, information storage and processing, feedback systems, etc. Thus, even if life is thought of as a chemical process, life is fundamentally different -- certainly complex life is fundamentally different -- than the kind of processes that occur in non-living systems.]
* We know that complex compounds can spontaneously assemble under a variety of conditions. [Complex, perhaps. Complex and specified? Certainly not. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that this can occur, and at the same time there is significant reason to doubt that such a "spontaneous assemblage" can occur.]
* We know the first life appears in a primordial world. [Perhaps. Again, not a particularly important point either way.]
* We know the first life appears shortly after liquid water forms. [Again, not particularly relevant, but, yes, water seems to be an important characteristic for life as we know it. If anything, this seems to cut against the abiogenesis hypothesis, for if life did appear shortly after the necessary conditions were available, then there is precious little time for abiogenesis to occur.]
* We know that life evolved and diversified from those primitive forebearers. [Depends on what we mean by this extremely loaded word "evolved." Does it simply mean that creature A gave birth to creature B? If so, then it is plausible, perhaps even likely. If, however, it means "evolution" in the purely mechanistic, non-teleological, RM+NS sense, then not only do we not "know," but there is plenty of evidence to suggest that this is not how it happened.]
* We have some molecular evidence of how important mechanisms may have arisen, including the genetic code. ["Some" evidence of how they "may" have arisen? Translation: some wild speculations that generally don't even rise to the level of workable hypotheses. If Zachriel has anything more concrete, it is time to start campaigning for the Nobel Prize, as no-one else has come up with anything remotely plausible yet. Why do we find folks like Crick supporting panspermia and acknowledging that life could not have arisen on Earth with the conditions as we know them? Why do we find folks like the NCSE distancing themselves from the origins issue and claiming that it is not really relevant to evolution? The origins issue is clearly the biggest (though by no means the only) chink in the materialistic origins narrative.]
* Much of the earliest history of life is shrouded by the intervening eons and left few physical clues other than life itself. [Agreed.]
——————
I don't have time to post further on this point, but it is evident to me that Zachriel needs to do some serious reading on origin of life research, rather than relying on over-simplified, speculative, unproven ideas about the facility with which abiogenesis can occur.
Eric
Comment by Eric Anderson — December 18, 2007 @ 3:47 pm
December 18th, 2007 at 4:20 pm
It is not imprecise to use the term "primordial" in reference to the Hadean Earth. It is wrong to use it in the way that you did.
To be honest, I have little interest in rehashing a debate from which you have already resigned.
My point in mentioning it was simply to illustrate how a critic who couldn't even respond to a hypothetical question about ETs (when it threatens his prejudice) can suddenly be championing such far out beliefs as extra terrestrial life and spontaneous generation (when it doesn't threaten his prejudice).
It is the self preservation of prejudice that I find interesting. The most interesting characteristic of the phenomenon is that the subject does not even realize that it is happening - even when presented with strong evidence that the prejudice is wrong.
Fascinating, isn't it?
Comment by chunkdz — December 18, 2007 @ 4:20 pm
December 18th, 2007 at 4:22 pm
As the Earth didn't always exist, but congealed and cooled from the collapse of a nebula, this statement is well-supported.
It is a simplification, but there is no evidence of an elan vital. All of life's functions have chemistry at its core.
We'll take that as a yes.
It has to do with the conditions of life and how it fits with the evidence of life's history.
For the same reason, it helps fit everything within its historical context. "Shortly" could be many millions of years.
Of course if you reject the Theory of Evolution or the great age of the Earth or the scientific method generally, then it's doubtful you would find anything convincing about abiogenetics. In any case, Common Descent is sufficient for this point.
Handwaving.
As you reject the Theory of Evolution, a very strongly supported scientific theory, I'm not sure any argument would convince you of the far more speculative issue of abiogenesis.
Comment by Zachriel — December 18, 2007 @ 4:22 pm
December 18th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
"The Primordial Earth" is used loosely to refer to the period until the accumulation of oceans of liquid water and as late as the first appearance of life. Even a cursory search reveals its common usage in that manner.
You are more than welcome to look up the current estimated date for the origin of life and substitute that if you like.
In other words, you have nothing.
Comment by Zachriel — December 18, 2007 @ 5:14 pm
December 18th, 2007 at 6:14 pm
ZACH:
Actually that is not it at all what I predicted. Did you read the article and my post?
My prediction is that bacteria will not be able to evolve a way to defeat the random polymers developed by Researchers at the University of Wisconsin.
We know exactly what is required for this to happen. The polymers are attracted to bacteria's negatively charged membranes and not to the neutrally charged membranes of animal cells. All the bacteria need to do is modify their charge.
We know that according standard theory this change is well with in the capabilities of single celled organisms because it happened in the common ancestor to animals and since the article mentioned that animal cell membranes are not universally neutrally charged we know that changes of this type are possible even after it has been made once.
I would not be surprised that this change could not be easily made in bacteria in the lab using genetic manipulation.
It seems that the researches believe that bacteria will be able to defeat the polymers eventually as well.
My prediction is that it can't be done by unintelligent forces period. That seems strait forward empirical and distinguishing to me.
I'll grant that we won't be able to prove it can't be done any more than we can prove that the speed of light is constant at all times and every where but every day that it does not happen is a confirmation of my ID prediction. Don't you agree?
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — December 18, 2007 @ 6:14 pm
December 18th, 2007 at 6:16 pm
In all honesty, I read everything Zachriel posted in reply. I didn't even see 1 point of his worth debating (which is disturbing because it seems he can come up with at least 1 good response in other posts). I am only going to respond to one thing he said "All that is expected are the proposal of valid hypotheses and appropriate observations. " Ok, so what is SETI's appropriate observation? has there been any? Will there ever be any? Any new leads to prove ET is out there waiting for us? I am very interseted to find these observations that have sueded your opinion.
Comment by gore — December 18, 2007 @ 6:16 pm
December 18th, 2007 at 6:31 pm
Bradford:
Why do you think that repair mechanisms have to be front loaded at the outset? Scientists have offered several hypothetical mechanisms to circumvent Eigen's paradox. What are your reasons for dismissing these possible solutions?
And what hypotheses and predictions are you talking about?
Comment by Raevmo — December 18, 2007 @ 6:31 pm
December 18th, 2007 at 7:05 pm
Zachriel
Unfortunately for you, one of the correlates of stereotype maintenance is memory bias.
This may explain why you can't remember the conversation.
I'll make you a deal though. I'll provide you the link if you promise to answer the hypothetical question.
Comment by chunkdz — December 18, 2007 @ 7:05 pm
December 18th, 2007 at 9:37 pm
They need only be front loaded for genomes, not enzymes.
Scientists? These ones have names and are few in number.
Hypothetical mechanisms offered up to explain obstacles to hypothetical scenarios. This does nothing to enhance the respectability of origin of life musings.
Comment by Bradford — December 18, 2007 @ 9:37 pm
December 18th, 2007 at 10:59 pm
SETI makes the assumption of a human-like radio-capable technological society, presumably from a planet with liquid water in a stellar system much like the Solar System. Call this ETI. The signal being sought is a narrow-band carrier in the microwave spectrum with a distinctive doppler shift.
SETI has made observations over large numbers of plausible candidate star systems, and has yet to detect any sign of such a signal. What this does is provide an upper limit to the frequency of ETI and helps set values to parameters of the Drake Equation. I don't expect they'll have any significant positive discoveries with the current program.
Comment by Zachriel — December 18, 2007 @ 10:59 pm