David Bailey
Member
Behe asserts that new functions only arise through “purposeful design” of new genetic information, a claim that cannot be tested. By contrast, modern evolutionary theory provides a coherent set of processes—mutation, recombination, drift, and selection—that can be observed in the laboratory and modeled mathematically and are consistent with the fossil record and comparative genomics."
I watched the video, have you checked any of the links i provided?Bart, watch the video which I posted above - Behe isn't a Christian, and doesn't sound as if he has any definite belief. Like you, I suppose, I would count that to his credit, but you manage to ignore this fact!
David
So my book analogy is too tough for you - all you can do is tackle this problem at a sort of sociology level! There is no point in following your links because when I found an argument that I didn't agree with, you wouldn't process what I said! I mean let's be clear, I think that people like Jerry Coyne are very bright - but they don't want to concede the argument because they know they can fool a lot of people (like you) who don't actually think about what they are saying! Look back at the history of science and you will find any number of rear-guard actions by those established in their field.I watched the video, have you checked any of the links i provided?
The video was typical DI output, they do deliver what they promised their backers.
I even watched a few other videos from the same series, for instance, 'the return of the god hypothesis', they all sing from the same hymne book David.
It does sound as if he has a strong belief though, he believes life was created. does it really matter you don't name the Creator? Does it matter that you divide the creation act into smaller interventions?
No it doesn't David, it is a religious faith based belief.
Behe is a christian, a roman catholic according to wiki.
But again you miss the point, it is not the personal belief of Behe, Meyers, or any Discovery institute fellow that matters, it is the work they get paid to do that matters.
They are not paid to find truth, they are paid to make truth.
That is what is so hard to grasp for me, we know the DI has a plan, laid out in their founding document: The Wedge document. We know that plan has no allegiance to the truth, nor science. Read it David, it has five year goals, ten year goals, none of them are in any way scientific.
And yet, knowing all of that, you believe every syllable they bring out. Despite your background in cell biology, you refuse to read anything that opposes their view.
Even worse than that, if real working scientists, who are subject to peer review, who have to answer to real academic institutions, who publish in real academic journals open to scrutiny of their whole field, if these people point out the misleading work of the DI, you call conspiracy on them?
That is what boggles the mind, i do not know how you get there, it is something i will never understand.
To me that is an upside down world.
One big asteroid impact, and all intent we know of, is gone.Notes on evolution versus intent.
Intent is The Necessary Alternative - and I want it studied, despite being a proponent of natural selection. Natural selection is my scientific preference, however it is NOT my religion - it too must stand accountable under science. It does not get a free pass, just because a lot of science enthusiasts and pretend skeptics believe it or say it is so.
1. The critical path construct here is 'Detection of Intent' - not creation, nor intelligent design (those are red herring arguments) - as 'intent' does not in the immediate term pertain whatsoever as to where the intent was derived. We actually do not care where the intent came from, only that it is observed as present. This is our incremental task of science at this moment in time. All subsequent questions are moot right now.2. There is no Null Hypothesis in evolution/intent based explanatory models - as this is a Dual-Proof hypothesis reduction. The reason for this is because we are comparing a stochastic-in-inception (purely non-intent) model, to a model which features intent, at least in part. If we are to prove a pure model, then our epistemology must be 100% in order to prove that purity.Poker is an example of Dual-Proof Model (No Null Hypothesis - each party is both innocent as well as guilty)A. If you are going to accuse someone of cheating (intent) - you must bring deductive conclusive (not inductive suggestive, such as "He wins too much!") proof of such presence of intent. You must find the Ace up someone's sleeve and show everyone this cheat, in the moment.B. If you are going to be the dealer (make a claim to stochasticity) - this cannot be assumed. You must bring deductive conclusive (not inductive suggestive) proof of such presence of stochasticity. You must demonstrate 100% of your model and domain of argument, before all participants (shuffle the deck). Each participant must also demonstrate their stochasticity as well - no sleeves at the table, no hands under the table, no holding the cards in a fan, etc.Both of these are 'proofs'. Both are mandatory - because we bear the simultaneous burden of necessity to falsify the notion of Intent (B) as well as prove it (A).So, no party can sit on the luxury of declaring their position to be the Null Hypothesis. No party or idea is allowed to 'be assumed as innocent until proved guilty'. Each party is both innocent as well as guilty.
This might also be called 'trust everyone, but cut the deck'.
If I dealt a hand of Texas Hold'em and 99.9% of the game was stochastic and fair, save for ONE card, an Ace which is taped under the table for one of the players - no matter how much inductive evidence I may show, that the game was not fixed - the mere presence of that one Ace serves to falsify the contention of stochasticity - no matter how much evidence to the contrary I proved up and to that point.
Stochasticity cannot be the null hypothesis - as this is the habit of a corrupt house.
So for this reason - Behe's hypothesis of detecting intent MUST BE RESEARCHED, as the necessary alternative. It cannot be dismissed by mere:
skepticism (see Demarcation of Skepticism)politicsreligioninductive studyabductive doctrinepanductionpropagandapreferencedisdainpersonal authorityclub authorityad populumad consensusEach of the above, fails the test of demarcation of science in this particular case. The house cannot be ASSUMED to be honest and 100% disclosed - it must prove this case. And it must prove this case inside 100% of all 5 domains (below) - by deductive proof of absence of intent (modus absens) - no sleeve concealed, no hands under the table. 100% of cards exposed and visible.
AbiogenesisFamiliation/OrdinationSpeciation (Darwinism)EpigeneticsHuman Acceleration
I sincerely hate that reality - but sadly that is the task at hand.
How can you tell David? did i respond to that post yet?So my book analogy is too tough for you -
What are you talking about David, are you really annoyed because i did not have a chance to give a thoughtful response to a long post?There is no point in following your links because when I found an argument that I didn't agree with, you wouldn't process what I said!
Or, if you step down from the conspiracy ledge you are on, they do not simply agree, and think they have the scientific backing to refute the arguments.I mean let's be clear, I think that people like Jerry Coyne are very bright - but they don't want to concede the argument because they know they can fool a lot of people (like you) who don't actually think about what they are saying! Look back at the history of science and you will find any number of rear-guard actions by those established in their field.
That is what i am doing David, but you are refusing to look at evidence from the other side by crying conspiracy.I assume you are interested in the subjects we discuss on Skeptiko because you have been here a long time, but the only way you can take the next step is to get into the nitty gritty of one of these discussions, not just argue, "He says...She says..."
That is part of the problem.Arguments such as "They are not paid to find truth, they are paid to make truth." wash off me,...
...because I can see the logic of what Behe (for example) is saying, and yet that logic isn't making me a Christian, it is making me damn sure the standard story of evolution is wrong.
David
I simply want to debate the science - all this stuff is irrelevant.How can you tell David? did i respond to that post yet?
What are you talking about David, are you really annoyed because i did not have a chance to give a thoughtful response to a long post?
Are you referring to that one alinea you picked, from four well thought out responses to Behe? An alinea that, by coincidence i guess, already appeared in a post by TES.
If so, do you really think it is sufficient? have you read anything else besides this paragraph?
If you do not even feel the need to verify what compels you in Behe's book, why even bother to discuss it?
The main critique of the book, is that it omits a lot of the science that refutes his argument, i will discuss it in an answer to your previous post.
Or, if you step down from the conspiracy ledge you are on, they do not simply agree, and think they have the scientific backing to refute the arguments.
That is what i am doing David, but you are refusing to look at evidence from the other side by crying conspiracy.
I promise you i will get into the nitty gritty, but only if you refrain from dismissing arguments on the wrong basis.
That is part of the problem.
What is you obsession with Christianity? Creation is part of many religions. Why should it matter if you are a christian, if you think ID has any truth in it, you think we are created by a supernatural being, i will leave to you to name that.
For instance i do not know what you mean with human acceleration in this context.
evolution, which makes [intent] logically absurd to be a driving force.
I have to admit - this is totally new to me - though as I keep on saying, I am not a biologist!The best thing to do is, if you encounter an unfamiliar term, look it up - you will find 99% of them actually exist. To wit, and in response to your question:
Human Accelerated Regions (HARs) of the Genome
This is one of those essential basics one need know, if one is to assail this issue of evolution.
2) What do these regions code for - anything in particular?
3) You link seems to be comparing this region in different species (at least primates) so I guess the H is not meant to be taken literally.
1) What gets accelerated - is it the mutation rate.
OK dumb down even more!Not actually David, since these are ALL exons (and not introns) - what was accelerated, was geno-morphic expression. The acceleration of the mutation rate was trivial. These were block insertions. Not point mutations. The essence of ordination.
From our earlier discussion (#9 inside this thread), a HAR would then be
Advantageous Novel - Codon Block Substitution or Insertion
These things really piss me off, because I cannot structure a theory of constraints model which serves to produce them.
But I also love them. Because of the objective path from a base state, constraint, arrival and base pair, through to defined morphological expression. With HARs, one cannot hide their miracle and just call it a scientific day. One has to PROVE the ergodicity inside a HAR....
and this terrifies nihilists/materialists... ...it is very exciting science.
OK dumb down even more!
Where these random blocks or specific blocks at specific locations? In other words does this make a pre-determined change to the DNA?
Just to be even clearer, when you say 'single events' do you mean happened just once in history, or that there is an isolated event that can happen when necessary.single event and specific location insertion blocks with some substitutions 'in context'.
There is no claim anywhere in evolutionary theory that intent is either ruled out, nor falsified.
My biggest problem with intent, is not that it is mis-taught as a 'hand of god,'i simply do not think it exists outside the human realm.Intent, as tested, is not a pervasive and overarching element as you have framed it (creation or intelligent design). This is not a straw man of course on your part, as intent is mis-taught as 'hand of god' - so you were handed that non-scientific definition to begin with. Intent, in the scientific context is only a small seminal part of the domain of deliberation. Just one small non-precedentable, non-feedback-derived, non-stochastic is all that is required. It is a white crow in a football stadium full of black crows. That is all one needs. As such, a robust learned-intent based system could more likely survive an asteroid strike (or arrive on one for that matter) than could a one-off accidental system.
If one has only searched the atrium and restrooms of the football stadium, one cannot make the claim "There's no white crow here!" That would be foolish.
Reread my writeup post again with these two professional terminology sets borne in mind. :)
Two questions, dead on critical path...
1. Were these random blocks or specific blocks at specific locations? - They are, to the best of the studies I have collected thus far, single event and specific location insertion blocks with some substitutions 'in context'. The latter is very difficult for me to explain. This would require a mutation to both arrive in a block form, AND arrive precisely at that point necessary in order to delete only the previous DNA which served its same function.
In a court of law, this would be called 'Intent'.
2. Does this make a pre-determined change to the DNA? In essence you are asking, did the insertion block have expression definition and integrity prior to its insertion. The answer is Yes.
In a court of law, this would be called 'Scienter'.
So these two principles, intent and scienter, are what I contend should be argued - and not the red herrings of 'creation' and 'intelligent design'.
Bart, I think this is all a perfectly fine worldview. Its what you have come to as your conclusion on this point from your own, personal perspective.My biggest problem with intent, is not that it is mis-taught as a 'hand of god,'i simply do not think it exists outside the human realm.
(And to a lesser extend in other animals, of course)
It is just a trick of the mind, it is one of these tricks out of the bag that make up our conscious mind.
How would you describe intent without describing human action? And how would you then apply the same description to a non-conscious process?
If we had to describe Intent behind any action correctly, we would have to sum up all events that led up to that action since the beginning of time.
That not being very practical, we use one word as some sort of shorthand for that.
That is why i think the meaning of intent is not transferable to natural processes.
Moreover, even in its original use, i do not see any evidence of, as you call them,"non-precedentable, non-feedback-derived, non-stochastic" events.
The problem is that from a materialist perspective, we are (rather elaborate) natural processes - so either we have intent and so presumably do other natural processes, or neither do, or materialism is false - take your pick (but make sure you intend to get the right answer).My biggest problem with intent, is not that it is mis-taught as a 'hand of god,'i simply do not think it exists outside the human realm.
(And to a lesser extend in other animals, of course)
It is just a trick of the mind, it is one of these tricks out of the bag that make up our conscious mind.
How would you describe intent without describing human action? And how would you then apply the same description to a non-conscious process?
If we had to describe Intent behind any action correctly, we would have to sum up all events that led up to that action since the beginning of time.
That not being very practical, we use one word as some sort of shorthand for that.
That is why i think the meaning of intent is not transferable to natural processes.
Moreover, even in its original use, i do not see any evidence of, as you call them,"non-precedentable, non-feedback-derived, non-stochastic" events.
Just to be even clearer, when you say 'single events' do you mean happened just once in history, or that there is an isolated event that can happen when necessary.
This is certainly sounding less and less like RM+NS, which is why, of course, scientists find it very difficult to explain.
Can we be sure that the block doesn't get inserted more randomly, but that those that 'miss' kill the organism?
Do you know if any of the ID crowd have latched on to this issue?
David
Why should there be?
It is just a trick of the mind, it is one of these tricks out of the bag that make up our conscious mind.
How would you describe intent without describing human action? And how would you then apply the same description to a non-conscious process?
If we had to describe Intent behind any action correctly, we would have to sum up all events that led up to that action since the beginning of time.
That not being very practical, we use one word as some sort of shorthand for that.
That is why i think the meaning of intent is not transferable to natural processes.
Moreover, even in its original use, i do not see any evidence of, as you call them,"non-precedentable, non-feedback-derived, non-stochastic" events.
Yes, but a court of law deals with human actions, not with the processes that make up these human actions, for a court of law we assume that we have free will, intent, etc...
We do so appropriately because we do not go outside the human realm.
It is quite possible we HARs are difficult to explain, that they represent a gap in our knowledge. But is filling that gap with intent not the same as filling it with an intelligent designer?
Don't we need an 'intender' to have intent?