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/Pulsar:
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-day-has-come/#comment-160432 .
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
December 19th, 2007 at 9:25 am
Yes. Did you read my reply?
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.
Nor have you shown how your prediction is necessarily entailed in your proposed 'hypothesis'. It doesn't seem to have anything to do with Intelligent Design which seems to have no limits to its range of possibilities.
Comment by Zachriel — December 19, 2007 @ 9:25 am
December 19th, 2007 at 9:41 am
Me: 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.
Zachriel:
Nowhere do I insist you call it ID. As for inferences, I make them all the time. Consider the first definition of the dictionary: to derive by reasoning; conclude or judge from premises or evidence: They inferred his displeasure from his cool tone of voice. Inferring displeasure in someone else from their tone of voice is not science. You are mistaken if you think only science is allowed to make reasonable inferences.
Zachriel, why is it that you seem to be trying to dance around my point? 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: But you have declared there is no reason to suspect ID; I didn't see you qualify this claim as your opinion or perception.
I know, I know. Since I may indeed be wandering aimlessly in the shadows, and you are a bright guy, I'm just trying to assign weight and meaning to your skepticism. That you need some rather extraordinary/sensational evidence to merely suspect ID tells me you are closed-minded about this topic (i.e., your mind is made up and you need something Big to re-open it). This then tells me your interaction with this topic will be mostly bomb-throwing, posturing, nitpicking, and naysaying (an inference that is supported by many of your postings). This then tells me that if life was indeed designed, yet the evidence was subtle, your brain would not detect it. So what does all this mean? I may indeed be wandering aimlessly in the shadows, but you are not the one to help me figure that out. So here I am.
Me: 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?
I would agree with that, but I see no specific and distinguishing empirical predictions that led you to conclude this happened. And this is most ironic given the way you repeatedly preach about the need for "specific and distinguishing empirical predictions." Apparently, you exempt yourself from the demands that you place on others.
Me: Yet to get the suspicion, according to you, we need some rather extraordinary and sensation evidence/demonstrations.
Yes, I know this is your opinion. If someone proves evolution is impossible or finds evidence of the designer's construction tools, I'll let you know.
I think for most people, suspicions are often rooted in reason. You yourself supply a laundry list that causes you to suspect a natural origin. On the internet, I sometimes suspect a sockpuppet because of certain cues. Etc. Someone engaged in an open-ended investigation is going to see things differently from someone engaged in closed-minded debunking.
His name is Mr. Whiskers!
Comment by MikeGene — December 19, 2007 @ 9:41 am
December 19th, 2007 at 9:45 am
chunkdz:
I remember exactly what you are talking about.
Comment by MikeGene — December 19, 2007 @ 9:45 am
December 19th, 2007 at 11:01 am
We are in agreement on that point. Inference comes in many flavors. However, it is prudent to be aware of the differences. Sometimes people will say they "infer" Intelligent Design, and then conflate this inference with science, when they are actually arguing by analogy or some other basis.
As I said, a complete theory of intelligence is not required. As for "many critics", that may be true, but you've haven't mentioned any actual critics who say that. I'm sure there are some.
I always point to the link of causation.
Again, not at all. Just some clues. Some hint. Rather, all the scientific evidence points to spontaneous causes.
I keep pointing to the clues, but for whatever reason, you don't find them convincing.
I said, "there are reasons to suspect a natural origin". There is no complete theory of abiogenesis, so we are forced to nip at the edges. (That means limited hypotheses concerning various aspects or speculative scenarios.) As we push further back in time, though, we continue to find evidence of a spontaneous process, with no evidence of tinkering. We have a very strongly supported Theory of Evolution with all the lines pointing to a primitive common ancestry. But the origin of life is still little understood. One thing I do know: There will be many surprises unraveling this mystery.
Sometimes. I've never seen any scientific reasons to suspect Intelligent Agency in the history of life on Earth. Most such arguments are either Gap-Arguments or Arguments by Analogy. Sometimes Arguments by Materialist Conspiracy.
And Mr. Whiskers would never lead you down the rabbit hole.
Comment by Zachriel — December 19, 2007 @ 11:01 am
December 19th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
A similar signal (one that can be analyzed as representing a mathematical concept) would be perceived differently if the source were biologcal. This comes down to what is artificial with respect to natural forces. The standard perspective on evolution is that if x can be shown to have utility, from a reproductive fitness standpoint, then that is sufficient to conclude a causal process devoid of intelligent or purposeful input. If there is no or little utility a vestigial status is presumed. Other than observing the designer doing the design there is no way to impute artificiality. Therefore a DNA sequence pattern containing some superfluous mathematical or non-mathematical message would be seen as a curious side effect attributable to randomness (with respect to the message itself but not selection).
As to life's origin, it is presumed that the capacity of one organic substance to chemically react with another and generate complexity (as broadly defined but not specifically alluding to the type of complexity found in living genones) is sufficient to exclude artificiality. The deck is stacked.
Comment by Bradford — December 19, 2007 @ 12:45 pm
December 19th, 2007 at 1:19 pm
Hey MikeGene,
They're blogging The Design Matrix over at Uncommon Descent.
Comment by Zachriel — December 19, 2007 @ 1:19 pm
December 19th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
Hi, Bradford,
What are you talking about? Why any minute "the guy in the cloud might come down and…", let's see, make it always be Thursday.
But of course, "the guy" would have to be immaterial and be able to prove it empirically.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — December 19, 2007 @ 1:35 pm
December 19th, 2007 at 2:09 pm
Anaxagoras Rules:
Comment by Bradford — December 19, 2007 @ 2:09 pm
December 19th, 2007 at 5:08 pm
Sines of intelligence?
I can create sine waves by simply walking across the room and flipping the light switch. Even by thinking about doing so and moving! The electrical outlets in this room emit carrier (sine) waves. So Shostak's "intelligent design" hypothesis is correct. But I am also convinced that all natural phenomena may be reduced to (co-/)sines (quantum wave mechanics).
Does anyone think that QM is "intelligently designed"?
Obviously, SETI has the same problems as ID.
Is there a difference in the acceotance of the scientific community?
Comment by Rock — December 19, 2007 @ 5:08 pm
December 19th, 2007 at 6:27 pm
Zach
My prediction has to do with unintelligent verses intelligent causes. An event can have either but not both at the same time in the same measure.
It's all about finding the limits of RM/NS. If unintelligent causes are ruled out for this adaptation then the only alternative is ID in this limited case. Get it?
If you don't mind I would like to get some clarification
Suppose my prediction was that no evolution at all (micro or macro) would occur ever in the future. Would you consider this a valid prediction that flows from the hypothesis that unguided evolution has an edge?
I'm not making that prediction I just want to under stand what would satisfy you.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — December 19, 2007 @ 6:27 pm
December 19th, 2007 at 6:27 pm
Tables are designed, and yet can be both touched AND felt.
Natural has two means. One is the opposite of artificial, the other is the opposite of supernatural. Obviously artificial is not the same as supernatural!
Comment by The Pixie — December 19, 2007 @ 6:27 pm
December 19th, 2007 at 7:29 pm
So how would one distinguish between the natural and the artificial in assessing life's origins?
Comment by Bradford — December 19, 2007 @ 7:29 pm
December 19th, 2007 at 7:50 pm
At most, it eliminates one known unintelligent cause, but there may be others. Falsifying evolution doesn't make Intelligent Design true by default.
Known instances of intelligent design harness natural law. Hence, they combine intelligent and unintelligent causes.
Evolution can never explore the vast majority of possible options. Never. Evolution is limited by its history and by its mechanisms of change.
I "get it", but it's not accurate. You're equating RM/NS with all possible and conceivable unintelligent causes.
I'm not sure how that "flows from the hypothesis". Is the hypothesis that life was created once upon a time and evolution never occurred? Or that evolution worked right up until we started looking at it?I may have misread your statement and I'm still not sure how to read it. Evolution has limits. It's inherent to the process. Along with the equivocation on the word "edge", your hypothesis doesn't seem to make sense.
Comment by Zachriel — December 19, 2007 @ 7:50 pm
December 19th, 2007 at 11:22 pm
Hey Zach
I'm going to resist the temptation to reply to your every point. I'm only interested in the kind of prediction that would satisfy you not in debate.
You said
Can we in define those limits before the fact? Can we in principle say that a certain adaption is beyond to scope of unguided natural forces and if seen must be the result of intelligent design?
Please don't waste time with the rabbit in Cambrian prediction. I talking about an minor adaptation in an existing organism.
For example can we say something like "it is not possible for unguided evolution to change the charge of a given bacterial cell's membrane"
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — December 19, 2007 @ 11:22 pm
December 19th, 2007 at 11:42 pm
It would appear that it is you who has nothing.
Zachriel, it's time for you to ask yourself why your here at TT. If you only want to answer the easy questions and avoid the ones that might injure your prejudice, then perhaps you'd be more useful at panda's thumb or pharyngula waiting for trolls to pounce on. It doesn't appear that you are willing to do any critical thinking when it may threaten your bias.
I'd be delighted, however, if you prove me wrong and agree to answer the question in a complete and thoughtful way.
Comment by chunkdz — December 19, 2007 @ 11:42 pm
December 20th, 2007 at 12:57 am
The Pixie:
Natural has multiple meanings but they are all rather artificial and based upon a specific point of reference. Before the "Big Bang", was it natural to expect the formation of the universe? After the formation of our own planet, was it natural for life to form accidentially by random events? After this life had formed, was it natural for that life to evolve to higher life forms? Now we reach our own point of reference and all that already is seems natural. . . but is it?
Comment by 0112358 — December 20, 2007 @ 12:57 am
December 20th, 2007 at 4:58 am
Bradford
I have no idea how that relates to what I said. And I do not know the answer; I thought you guys were going to tell me.
0112358
Well you could argue that the meaning of any word is contrived by mankind and so is "rather artificial", but I assume your point is more substantive than that. However, I am not sure it what sense say I tree growing naturally would be "rather artificial". Do you mean God makes the trees grow, perhaps? Again, I would guess not.
For the first, I have no idea, and it is entirely possible mankind never will. For the second, I suspect yes, and of course abiogenesis researchers are looking at that exact question (rather than did life start by abiogenesis). For the second, there seems some pretty good evidence that the answer is yes, but I do not think we know for certain. I doubt we could ever be sure God was not working behind the scenes, nudging life this way or that. Suppose God created the universe, and fine tuned the laws and whatever so that in 17 billion years intelligent life would appear, without Him having to intervene in the workings of the universe over that time (I believe Denton proposes this in Nature's Destiny). Would the formation of life, and the evolution to mankind be natural? I would say yes.
Comment by The Pixie — December 20, 2007 @ 4:58 am
December 20th, 2007 at 11:14 am
That's probably a wise way to proceed when there may be fundamental areas of disagreement.
Yes. That's what every scientific theory does. I assume this is rhetorical as virtually all scientists consider the Theory of Evolution and Genetics to be valid scientific theories.
That would be problematic. You can eliminate any particular hypothesis, but not every conceivable hypothesis. A negative proof requires searching the entire universe of possibilities, something only practical when the universe is highly restricted (such as looking 'everywhere' to find your car keys).
That's the very reason we have a scientific method. We can't observe everything everywhere, but we can make predictions and then test them. If you suspect Intelligent Design, but lack direct evidence, then you would make a specific hypothesis with the entailed predictions.
New organisms are descendents of other organisms. These descendents necessarily resemble their parents. You may think this is obvious, but it is the most important observation in biology. There are several known and observed mechanisms of variation, including recombination, mutation, duplication, even endogenous retroviruses. Most of these variations will result in only small modifications to the genome in each generation.
Substantial evolution can occur over several generations; indeed, the observed rate of morphological evolution far exceeds that which is required to explain the historical record.
Multiple simultaneous point mutations are not the primary expected mechanism. That's why drug cocktails have been used for decades against disease organisms. Multiple sequential point mutations, each slightly beneficial, are more common.
The real problem is with the faulty metaphor of the "edge".
Consider a person taking a step. We study lots of people taking a step. We have hundreds of undergraduates and carefully measure their step. No one seems to be able to take a step and move more than a few feet. Even if we consider hops, skips and jumps, there appears to be an *edge* beyond which people cannot step. Hence microtravel may be possible, but macrotravel requires Intelligent Traveling (getting on a bus).
Of course, we know that people can take small sequential steps and there is no such "edge" preventing macrotraveling.
Comment by Zachriel — December 20, 2007 @ 11:14 am
December 20th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
It's usually a good rule to ignore off-topic taunts, but the originator of the thread has also commented.
At the first instance, I asked for a link for the benefit of our readers and to carry the conversation onto the appropriate thread. Instead, you rambled on and on. You did indicate that you didn't need an answer, then that you weren't interested in rehashing the debate.
I have answered your question on the previous thread, several times and in several ways.
Comment by Zachriel — December 20, 2007 @ 12:05 pm
December 20th, 2007 at 12:19 pm
Hi Pixie,
You're right, that is not quite what I meant.
Going back to the original post, what I am trying to say is:
In the context of the pre-"Big Bang" situation the "Big Bang" might possible be seen as
In the context of the earth prior to life, the formation of life might have been seen as
So if SETI, with the blessing of the scientific community, can search for this type of signal to infer the possibility of intelligence, why does the scientific community shun speculation that the universe and life itself might themselves be just that sort of signal?
Comment by 0112358 — December 20, 2007 @ 12:19 pm
December 20th, 2007 at 12:56 pm
Hi Zachriel,
As for 'off-topic', I must agree and disagree. We ARE talking about what the necessary ingredients for design inference are. My forays into stereotype maintenance were simply curious off-topic tangents.
My MAIN point was that you were unwilling to make inferences about extra-terrestrials when it favored Mike Gene's position. Yet you were almost too willing to champion far-out inferences about extra-terrestrials when it seems to favor your position.
Do you really expect people not to notice the double standard? You may rightfully object to "taunting!", but this does not negate the two-faced nature of your argument.
If you're interested, I've reiterated the question here.
Comment by chunkdz — December 20, 2007 @ 12:56 pm
December 20th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
The same standard of scientific skepticism, especially with regards to extraordinary or contradictory claims. Inference is not an end-point, but a part of ongoing scientific investigation.
Comment by Zachriel — December 20, 2007 @ 2:25 pm
December 20th, 2007 at 3:02 pm
Good question 0112358. Cells have signaling networks. The same question applies to them.
Comment by Bradford — December 20, 2007 @ 3:02 pm
December 20th, 2007 at 4:51 pm
0112358
It is the claim that the speculation without the search is science that upsets the scientific community. Personally, I am not too convinced SETI is real science.
Comment by The Pixie — December 20, 2007 @ 4:51 pm
December 20th, 2007 at 5:28 pm
I often come across the claim that the scientific community is upset about ID and related issues discussed at TT like the "movement" for example. Baloney. Most scientists do not evidence a great deal of interest, let alone concern, about such things. Most scientists are of a far different make-up than Dawkins, PZ Meyers, Pim, Matzke and other prominent internet mavens who like to pound the drumbeat their followers are sure to pick up.
That might have something to with their mission of searching for signs of intelligence. That could lead to some uncomfortable thoughts (for some).
Comment by Bradford — December 20, 2007 @ 5:28 pm
December 20th, 2007 at 7:22 pm
Pixie,
I think many who are thinking about these things would agree with you that this speculation is not science. One further question to ask however, is whether speculation that everything is the result of purely naturalistic causes is science? Both those who speculate that everthing is due to naturalistic causes and those who speculate that things have been designed have the ability to do good science. Neither of these speculations can be either proven or disproven by science, but as science investigates the order of things it will allow us to more rationally accept one of these hypotheses over the other.
Comment by 0112358 — December 20, 2007 @ 7:22 pm
December 21st, 2007 at 2:10 am
I think the stipulation of "simple" is over applied. Does this mean that if we get complex signals like "I Love Zzugxul" episodes from space that SETI is falsified? I doubt that they'd claim so. They just happen to accept a simple signal as "enough". And to invoke Zachriel's objection, they are looking for an unspecified complexity, but where a sinusoidal signal is good enough. They have set their bar low enough, because of the Copernican theme of the universe.
Of course, Zachriel's objection is entirely groundless in this case. Unless he knows the makeup of which specific creatures on which specific planet using which specific device SETI is banking on, it's a weakness shared by both ID and SETI, and it's a little suspect directing this type of complaint only toward ID.
Also, Shostak's "simplicity" of the sinusoidal curve is also a little suspect. If it was simple to effect, then we would expect a lot more accidental sinusoidal signals coming from space. Because he specifies that we would be skeptical of it being natural, suggests that it is not simplicity that produces such a signal, but an underlying complexity.
Again, it is not a specified simplicity, but a willingness to take a simple signal from what must stand far enough away from nature to be able to emit a steady signal. Not to mention that there is little value in obtaining this incidentally simple signal if it told us nothing about its creators, and there were no hope of gaining any other information about them. To conclude a race from something that ever remains a sinusoidal signature seems to me to be a questionable evasion of Ockham's razor.
Let's not kid ourselves about the "simplicity" that SETI looks for.
Comment by Axeman — December 21, 2007 @ 2:10 am
December 21st, 2007 at 9:02 am
I hold both ID and SETI to the same skeptical standard. SETI is a very weak hypothesis. ID is not even that.
SETI is attempting to find candidate signals. Finding a candidate would not be sufficient to warrant any definitive conclusion. However, from the hypothesis that a particular signal was artificial, we can posit the existence of a link of causation to the sender. What star system? Which planet? For what purpose?
ID usually refuses to even consider these issues before reaching a conclusion. ID usually claims to have, but doesn't have, a reasonable candidate signal. Only arguments from incredulity based on phenomena that often have well-established explanations.
ID usually refuses to speculate as to the designer. It's an unspecified designer, at an unspecified time, using an unspecified mechanism.
The bare possibility that there may be intelligent life elsewhere in the galaxy is not sufficiently specific to devise a test. SETI makes the assumption that any such organisms (or their mechanical proxies) evolved through the usual means, on a planet orbiting a star resembling Sol, using the known laws of radio, and with knowledge of the distribution of radio signals in deep space.
Quite so! And discovering these facts will help us determine if the signal really is ETI, or perhaps some other heretofore unknown phenomena.
That's merely the initial test based on the assumptions stated above.
Comment by Zachriel — December 21, 2007 @ 9:02 am
December 21st, 2007 at 9:13 am
Bradford
Okay, bad choice of words on my part. I should have said that part of the scientific community that cares about ID, which is probably a small fraction.
Not for me. I have no issues with the existence of ETI, or with searching for signs of intelligence (as is done routinely in archaeology and forensics).
0112358I think many who are thinking about these things would agree with you that this speculation is not science. One further question to ask however, is whether speculation that everything is the result of purely naturalistic causes is science? Both those who speculate that everthing is due to naturalistic causes and those who speculate that things have been designed have the ability to do good science. Neither of these speculations can be either proven or disproven by science, but as science investigates the order of things it will allow us to more rationally accept one of these hypotheses over the other.
Speculation that everything is the result of purely naturalistic causes is not science, it is philosophy. To be science you need to propose a purely naturalistic model of everything, and show how that fits with the real data, which would be tricky to do, I think.
It means they equipment will not be able to cope with a complex signal.
Comment by The Pixie — December 21, 2007 @ 9:13 am
December 21st, 2007 at 9:19 am
"I Love Lucy" was transmitted on a carrier wave. SETI would detect such a signal due to the simplicity of the carrier. Having found the candidate signal, they would then attempt to decode the message, if any, and determine once and for all, what does Rxjky see in that zany Zzugxul, anyway.
Comment by Zachriel — December 21, 2007 @ 9:19 am
December 21st, 2007 at 11:34 am
The failure to make specific, distinguishing hypothetical statements and predictions is a sword that cuts both ways.
On Shostak's "intelligent design" hypothesis I should suspect that DNA is a signal sent from another planet. (DNA has a distinct and relatively simple periodicity, a carrier waveform, of N/3.)
Mike Gene may be gratified to hear it, but its just an "I told you so" to him. LOL
As is evident from his essay, Shostak is certainly anxious to distance his approach from ID (and thereby, maybe, add some credence to his "weak" but true hypothesis), but distancing and distinguishing are not the same thing. He has failed to distinguish his hypothesis from ID.
IDers?
Comment by Rock — December 21, 2007 @ 11:34 am
December 21st, 2007 at 11:56 am
Zachriel:
Granted! But do you hold your own notion of a purely naturalistic origin of life (i.e. Materialism) to that same skepticism? Yes, ID is not so much a science as it is a framwork for informing our scientific investigation. Materialism (your framework) also is not science but a framework for informing your own scientific investigation.
Comment by 0112358 — December 21, 2007 @ 11:56 am
December 21st, 2007 at 2:43 pm
Hi, Zachriel,
Would you agree that there is a strongly agreed upon assumption/expectation that there is intelligence life elsewhere in the universe, with many also thinking that some of these lifeforms probably contain organs more complex than brains? And if so, why is SETI's hypothesis so weak?
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — December 21, 2007 @ 2:43 pm
December 21st, 2007 at 2:57 pm
[Edit: adding intelligent modifier.]
Given: Intelligent life on earth.
Given: Many more planets in the universe.
Hypothesis: There are probably more planets in the universe with intelligent life.
Is this a no-brainer or what?
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — December 21, 2007 @ 2:57 pm
December 21st, 2007 at 3:03 pm
AR:
I've seen ID critics employ this exact line of reasoning.
Comment by Bradford — December 21, 2007 @ 3:03 pm
December 21st, 2007 at 3:06 pm
Hi, Bradford,
It's because ID = Creationism to them that they don't apply the same reasoning to ID.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — December 21, 2007 @ 3:06 pm
December 21st, 2007 at 3:38 pm
It would be easier if critics would officially proclaim that their position is that any scientific inquiry making available supporting arguments for God's existence must not be science. It would be more honest on their part and would sharpen the actual (albeit unacknowledged) boundary lines of the debate.
Comment by Bradford — December 21, 2007 @ 3:38 pm
December 21st, 2007 at 4:27 pm
Something else quite my attention, about "non-human" design (Mike Gene). Obviously, Shostak's hypothesis is based on knowledge of human design. The hypothesis is that other, "non-human" (I hate those non-/human stereotypes, don't you?), designers will use the same techniques. That's interesting. Maybe purely a natural coincidence? Maybe otherwise? A possible positive first-step for any theory of "intelligent design" might be to make certain "universal" statements about design. Is there something that all designers have to do to design anything? Or is that too "designer-centric"? Must all designers embed simple periodic signals in comparatively complex communications. (As I suggested above, on Fourier's theorem, the answer (hypothesis, prediction) is Yes. Trivial prediction? Maybe? Maybe not?)
At least Shostak's theory of ID has provided some basis for… something like "science"
Caricatures of "science" as strictly an inductive process in comparative hypothesis formulation (prediction) and testing are… What? False? That's not all science is about–obviously.
Comment by Rock — December 21, 2007 @ 4:27 pm
December 21st, 2007 at 4:32 pm
Yes.
That's fine. I'm not a materialist, but feel free to use any framework you want. But a claim to scientific support means having a valid hypothesis that makes distinguishing empirical predictions.
Thinking on this varies considerably and has changed as new evidence has been collected. Though most scientists would probably agree that life is a natural consequence of certain conditions, a valid estimate of the number of such worlds is not yet available.
SETI defines ETI as a radio-transmitting civilization, so it is a very narrow hypothesis. Remember that the worlds of Socrates, Da Vinci, Beethoven and Newton, are not ETI under the definition.
Comment by Zachriel — December 21, 2007 @ 4:32 pm
December 21st, 2007 at 5:43 pm
They are ETI. They simply would not be detectable utilizing the methodology in question.
Comment by Bradford — December 21, 2007 @ 5:43 pm
December 21st, 2007 at 5:46 pm
Rock:
Rock, don't you design computer programs or do I have you confused with someone else? What is your answer to the question you posed? You seem to be in a good position to provide an answer.
Comment by Bradford — December 21, 2007 @ 5:46 pm
December 21st, 2007 at 5:49 pm
Mike,
Wish you hadn't spilled all that ink. SETI assumes that alien life outside our planet xmits signals like ours that make sense to us. It is very limited, attempts no operational definition of intelligence, and is simply looking for people like us. ID Creationism can take no shelter from SETI, even assuming SETI is some paragon. SETI is trying to find the transmitter, IDC isn't. Of course you aren't working like the DI and its wild ones. You should take a look at the earliest Vaisheshika works and the writings of Sri Aurobindo who a few millennia later built on that theme in arguing for teleology of all the cosmos. A good place to start is Chandradhar Sharma's concise volume on Indian philosophies (IIANM it is titled A survey of Indian philosophy) which places Vaisheshika in the context of concerns of Indian thinkers of ancient times. C. Ram-Prasad's Eastern Philosophy is another title you should read to understand where this desire to find teleos comes from. Science is the wrong place to go looking for these ideas
Comment by agam — December 21, 2007 @ 5:49 pm
December 21st, 2007 at 5:55 pm
Hi Zachriel,
You said:
Both the spontaneous development of life (if that is truth) and the creation of design (if that is truth) are past history. No one was around to observe either event so we really can't make any distinguishing empirical predictions in either case. At best we can observe the natural world as it is today and make inferences from what we observe. If this is the case, aren't we all (materialists, proponents of ID, and however you would classify yourself) in the same boat? We are only using our observations to make inferences about our presuppositions. At this point we are all collectively skirting around the edges of that with which real science can deal. The question then becomes, which presuppositions can be most rationally accepted based on what we know from our observations?
Comment by 0112358 — December 21, 2007 @ 5:55 pm
December 21st, 2007 at 7:10 pm
No, you have me confused, Bradford. But that's OK, because I'm usually confused.
I already answered the question I asked, but my answer was in the form of a hypothesis (Fourier's). Sometimes in science the answer to a question is a question. LOL (Actually, it always is!)
Shostak's intelligent design hypothesis is interesting as a possible extension or augmentation to Dembski's theory: Design may be detected in simple, repetitive, and/or regular patterns. Or as I said so many years ago, "irreducible simplicity." Designers design simple things too. Indeed, the principle was recognized in antiquity: God's means are simple, economical, and even elegant, while his ends are complex.
We could take that as our "theological inspiration" for design-theoretic "universals": A design may factor uniquely into irreducibly simple, common, even "naturally given" elements and operations.
They all do, don't they?
Comment by Rock — December 21, 2007 @ 7:10 pm
December 21st, 2007 at 7:13 pm
Historical events can be difficult to untangle. Nevertheless, we can apply the scientific method to history. For instance, we can make predictions concerning the strata in which you will find particular fossils, the strata being a sequential record. We can say with a great deal of scientific certainty that the Earth was formed billions of years ago and that humans never saw a live T. Rex. Scientists didn't just stumble on Tiktaalik. They spent years in Arctic wastelands looking in strata associated with what was once tropical streams 370 million years ago. They predicted it.
In science, that would be those theories that lead to independent empirical confirmation.
Comment by Zachriel — December 21, 2007 @ 7:13 pm
December 21st, 2007 at 7:16 pm
SETI does not define intelligence because it assumes that that the signals will lead to people like us, and it assumes that the transmitters are located at the source of the signal (or may be are xmitting from something like the Voyager or Pioneer). And if the SETI folks had independent evidence of the existence of the xmitters (not designers:grin:) they wouldn't need to spend all their time reading signals. SETI in fact isn't looking for designers – it is looking for signal xmitting people like us.
Comment by agam — December 21, 2007 @ 7:16 pm
December 21st, 2007 at 7:29 pm
They're just looking for the designers of the signals.:lol:
Comment by Bradford — December 21, 2007 @ 7:29 pm
December 21st, 2007 at 7:33 pm
Rock:
Very true.
Ultimately because there is no empirical means of testing first causes there is much room for interpretation of the nature of what followed.
Comment by Bradford — December 21, 2007 @ 7:33 pm
December 22nd, 2007 at 1:15 am
Zachriel:
But now you have shifted our conversation back to evolution. My last post was referring only to origins, which is what ID is all about. Once again I would maintain that both materialists and proponents of ID are only using their observations (science) to make inferences about things into which science cannot really look.
The thing is, the more some of us learn about nature the more rational it seems to infer design rather than chance when thinking about origins.
Comment by 0112358 — December 22, 2007 @ 1:15 am
December 22nd, 2007 at 9:43 am
You made a blanket statement concerning our ability to use the scientific method to discern events of the past. I used well-established examples from life's history.
But we can. For instance, life did not always exist on Earth. We know this because the Earth formed by the gravitational collapse of nebular dust. In the beginning, the Earth was far too hot for life to exist. We also can tentatively date the first appearance of life soon after liquid oceans formed. We have evidence from chemistry that simple molecules spontaneously assemble into macromolecules in these environments. We have evidence of the content of the primordial ocean and atmosphere that life would have had to endure. We have evidence that all life since has descended from these primitive beginnings.
You repeat your blanket statement. Science can certainly "look" into the past. That includes making predictions concerning observations. The origin of life left very few clues, so there may be practical limitations"”but not inherent ones.
Comment by Zachriel — December 22, 2007 @ 9:43 am
December 26th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
I have
Though the purported hypothesis states there is an "edge", it does not predict no evolution in the future. Nor does it clearly define what is meant by an "edge", something I addressed above.
But let's assume the prediction were entailed in the hypothesis. Then the hypothesis is falsified every time someone observes evolution, a daily occurence. A valid hypothesis should be at least reasonably consistent with observation.
Comment by Zachriel — December 26, 2007 @ 1:54 pm
December 26th, 2007 at 3:02 pm
Zach:
This exercise was not in formulating a properly worded hypothesis it was in formulating a prediction that was sufficiently specific and empirical to satisfy you. I have yet to receive an answer as to what that would require.
With all due respect I have no desire to have yet another prolonged discussion with you on the subtle meanings of common English words. We have already been through this with faith and I am convinced that coming to an understanding about terminology with you is like nailing Jello to a wall. Is your last name Clinton per chance?
When I want to define a word I just use the dictionary for example.
EDGE
1.Border a line or area that is the outermost part or the part farthest away from the center of something
2.Part above drop a line or area that is the outermost part or the part farthest away from the center of something
3.Brink the point or moment just before a marked change or event
.
Lets see if I understand you.
When I offered the prediction that bacterium will not be able to evolve a way to defeat the random polymers developed by researchers at the University of Wisconsin. I was only looking for ways to firm it up and make it acceptable to critics
However instead of offering helpful suggestions You said:
So I thought I'd offer a prediction that was so outlandish as to remove the possibility of this objection so as to force you to reveal exactly the level of specificity you require. Now instead of answering a simple question you claim my prediction is invalid because it is too outlandish.
I give up. You seem to have no desire to intelligently discuss anything and I have better things to do than beat my head against a wall.
My original prediction stands I will consider bacterium's inability to defeat the polymers to be confirmation of ID and I will consider your inability to acknowledge this as evidence of the noetic effects of the fall.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — December 26, 2007 @ 3:02 pm
December 26th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
I have already answered, but let's try a restatement.
A hypothesis is a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its empirical consequences. The prediction has to follow from the hypothesis, and if there are competing hypotheses, then we need a prediction that distinguishes between them.
So, Einstein's Theory of General Relativity predicts that light will bend around a large gravitational well such that stars beyond the Sun will appear slightly out of position by a quantifiable amount. This distinguishes the theory from Newtonian Physics (but not from an infinitude of other conceivable theories).
I am aware of the common meaning. Though there is no "edge" to evolution in the sense you are using it, there are limits. Again, I discussed this above. There is an "edge" to how far a person can travel in a single step, but there is no limit to how far a person can travel in a succession of steps. Even if the person walks randomly.
Your prediction concerning no future evolution is specific and distinguishing, but falsified and unentailed. Your claim concerning polymers even if considered reasonably specific (it's not), isn't distinguishing. The Theory of Evolution doesn't predict that every possible trait is evolvable. Indeed, most conceivable traits will never be explored. Nor is it entailed in the hypothesis.
My Theory of Intelligent Falling predicts that two somewhat varying weight stones will fall at the same rate. My prediction is very specific (but not distinguishing, nor is the prediction entailed in the premise).
Comment by Zachriel — December 26, 2007 @ 3:22 pm
December 26th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
Your question didn't ask about specificity, but whether the prediction was entailed, i.e. "flows from the hypothesis". I answered the question you asked and have since answered the related questions.
Comment by Zachriel — December 26, 2007 @ 3:52 pm
December 26th, 2007 at 5:41 pm
Zach:
Thank you. Why was that so hard?
Now that we've established that empirical and specific predictions concerning ID are at least possible How about helping me to make one?
Suppose I predicted that
1. no unguided evolution at all (micro or macro) would occur ever in the future.
2. no unguided evolution requiring more than one neutral mutation will occur in the future.
3. no unguided evolution beyond the order of a Chloroquine-complexety cluster will occur in the future
4. No unguided evolution resulting in a charge change in the membrane of bacterial cells will occur in the future.
Which of these are empirical and specific and which are not? Why? What is the difference between them. Remember I'm not necessarily making any of these predictions and I'm not intrested in debate. I'm just trying to see what will satisfy the critics.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — December 26, 2007 @ 5:41 pm
December 26th, 2007 at 6:27 pm
hypothesis, a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its empirical consequences.
Indeed, we haven't shown that. To do that, the hypothesis has to entail (imply) specific and distinguishing empirical predictions.
I'm not sure why you are having troubles with this. You predictions don't seem to be empirical consequences of any proposed hypothesis. State your hypothesis, and why you deduce these predictions from the hypothesis. If these predictions are not the consequent of your hypothesis, then the tests are meaningless.
Comment by Zachriel — December 26, 2007 @ 6:27 pm
December 26th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
The other problem is that you are making a negative claim, that is, you are predicting what we won't see. How long do we have to wait to validate the claim? Where do we have to look? Everywhere? Everywhen?
Comment by Zachriel — December 26, 2007 @ 6:30 pm