Biological Design Argument?

[rossum]

Aren’t you presenting a science of the gaps argument? If not why not?

Abiogenesis is not yet a theory. It is a group of hypotheses, some of which are likely to be incorrect, or at least need modification. We do not have complete information yet, but we have some information. Our hypotheses take into account what we already know and predict what we will find in the gas. When we look in the gaps, we can tell if the hypothesis was correct, needs tweaking or needs complete replacement. Science advances by filling gaps.

All science is provisional. Newton’s theory of gravity was provisional, and was replaced when it was shown to be incorrect. Science always works with the best data it has to hand. Hence is is always ready to accept new data that may change theories.

rossum

 

[rossum]

I think Meyer’s point is not dependent upon whether natural processes can change or alter existing biological information, but on whether natural processes can originate novel biological information upon which subsequent change depends.

We already know that non-living natural processes can originate RNA. Since RNA can act as an information carrier, then natural processes can originate information.

Some RNA has chemical activity, see ribozymes. In RNA we have both chemical activity and information storage. While abiogenesis is far from complete, we can see glimpses of the origin of both information and functionality.

The design side has yet to show even the beginnings of their explanation for the origins of either.

It is the question of how replicable biological information arose that is the contentious issue and natural processes could not have been a factor before replication was possible.

RNA can arise through natural processes. RNA is replicable. Work is continuing on seeing how the two probably met and joined. It is worth noting that the working core of a ribosome is made of RNA, not protein. That is probably a clue.

rossum

 

[Peter_Plato]

You are assuming the size of the target again. How do you know that the target is not the size of the target for a beach? How many variants are there of any given enzyme/ribozyme? There are 2.3e93 working variants of Cytochrome C. That is not a small target.

rossum

I am not clear that you have properly considered the sand on the beach analogy for its implications to your point above.

I don’t think you would admit a sand city complete with little sand machines is “just another” possibility for the random arrangement of sand grains. If your point about the variants of Cytochrome C not being a “small target,” and therefore possible, can be applied to the sand city. The arrangement of sand grains into a functional sand city is, likewise, not a small target because there are an infinite number of possible ways that a sand city can be imagined to come about. That is not a small target either, but surely there is a qualitative difference between the ways that sand does randomly arrange itself (an astronomical number) and the ways it might arrange itself into a functionally complex sand city (another astronomical number of possibilities). Tell me that you would not hold that a sand city is possible, even likely, because the functional possibilities for a sand city is a sufficiently large target number, perhaps even larger than the merely random, non-functional arrangements? It would not be surprising to you, then, to come across a functional city made up of self-organized sand particles on your next vacation? It can’t merely be the large target size that needs to be considered, surely?

 

[rossum]

I am not clear that you have properly considered the sand on the beach analogy for its implications to your point above.

My analogy was to show the importance of knowing the size of the target. I can easily produce numbers to show that the arrangement of sand on the beach is well beyond the UPB. However, that is only half of the argument. I also have to produce numbers as to how many possible arrangements there are that make a beach.

I don’t think you would admit a sand city complete with little sand machines is “just another” possibility for the random arrangement of sand grains.

So, what is the range of different possible arrangements that make up your target? You are not telling me, in numbers, the size of your target. Without a number for the size of your target you cannot make an accurate probability calculation.

That is my issue with the design side; they refuse to show how big their target is, and yet claim to have a good value for the probability of hitting it. That is guesswork, not science.

It can’t merely be the large target size that needs to be considered, surely?

Correct. The probability is calculated from the number of all possible arrangements and from the number of possible arrangements within the target zone. The first number is usually relatively easy to calculate. It is the second number which is difficult. If the second number is not known, then the calculation cannot proceed further.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

Exactly. The chances of hitting a target depend on the size of the target. Unless you can demonstrate the size of the target you are trying to hit, then you cannot make any meaningful probability calculations for the chance to hit it.

How many possible arrangements of chemicals will form a proto-cell? I can guarantee that the answer is more than one.

Is it? Dr Dembski has proposed is as a measure, but I am not aware of any tests to determine that his proposal is correct. Professor Hoyle proposed the Steady State hypothesis, but his proposal was incorrect. Where are the tests of Dembski’s proposal? I am reluctant to accept an untested method.

rossum

Yet evo is untested, that is not observable, repeatable or predictable. Yet you advocate it. By your reasoning you should not favor one over the other.

Essential reading…a trillion trillion years or more

 

[tonyrey]

Abiogenesis is not yet a theory. It is a group of hypotheses, some of which are likely to be incorrect, or at least need modification. We do not have complete information yet, but we have some information. Our hypotheses take into account what we already know and predict what we will find in the gas. When we look in the gaps, we can tell if the hypothesis was correct, needs tweaking or needs complete replacement. Science advances by filling gaps.

All science is provisional. Newton’s theory of gravity was provisional, and was replaced when it was shown to be incorrect. Science always works with the best data it has to hand. Hence is is always ready to accept new data that may change theories.

rossum

Science cannot and will never explain the biggest gap of all because it is restricted to physical events. Spiritual reality and spiritual development are beyond its scope. As well as being provisional it is superficial!

 

[prodigalson2011]

In regards to the topic of the thread, I am currently reading a book entitled, “Nature’s Destiny” by developmental biologist Michael J. Denton. Some may be familiar with (and thus skeptical of) him from his previous book “Evolution: A Theory in Crisis”, which he penned in the mid 1980s. However, he has since had time to review more evidence and now accepts the theory. In this particular book, he presents an argument for design that does not masquerade as a scientific theory of any sort. All he does is lay out the vast number of extraordinarily improbable coincidences that have occured in cosmological history which have permitted and given rise to life, lending support to the philosophical inference of design.

The first chapter recaps the old “harmony of the spheres” routine, but from there the book really comes into its own. Rather than approaching the question from a broad perspective, Denton delves deep into the minutia of individual life-enabling phenomena within the universe, starting with the anomalous and idiosyncratic properties of water. For example, its counterintuitive and virtually unique faculty of expanding just as it begins to freeze, decreasing its density and allowing it to float. Had it not had this capacity, ice would have continually sunk and accumulated until all the water in the world was frozen. This combined with its thermal capacity, latent heat and thermal conductivity keeps the water below it from freezing.

Many of these same, very constrained properties come into play in living beings, too, allowing everything from the simplest cell to the circulatory system to perform functions that would otherwise be impossible. Given the very narrow parameters that the physical medium of life (water) must meet in several independent features versus the astronomical range of possible values and the comparitively miniscule number of actual natural elements in our universe, the odds of a single element meeting all these specifications seems miraculous.

From there, he moves to the fortuitous nature of stars, most of which (including, most obviously, our sun) exist in just the proper heat range to enable water to do what it does so well, as well as permitting the existence of complex biology. That’s actually as far I’ve gotten, and naturally he has a lot more to say about these things than I can fit into a forum post, but only 50 pages in I’m already even more awestruck by our cozy little universe than I was before.

Highly recommended reading for all who are interested in the question of design.

 

[buffalo]

Science cannot and will never explain the biggest gap of all because it is restricted to physical events. Spiritual reality and spiritual development are beyond its scope. As well as being provisional it is superficial!

But somehow they unwittingly painted themselves into a corner by claiming science can only know.

 

[nmgauss]

I don’t think you would admit a sand city complete with little sand machines is “just another” possibility for the random arrangement of sand grains. The arrangement of sand grains into a functional sand city is, likewise, not

 

[nmgauss]

Science cannot and will never explain the biggest gap of all because it is restricted to physical events. Spiritual reality and spiritual development are beyond its scope. As well as being provisional it is superficial!

The methodology of observing spiritual reality and spiritual development is unsystematic. This contrasts with the gathering of quantitative and qualitative data and sifting through it to find replicatable patterns. How are the techniques of the gathering of quantitative and qualitative data on spiritual reality and spiritual development as thorough as the studies using the scientific method?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Peter Plato;10850430:

Have you forgotten that sand is merely particles of the regolith sorted

according to size by wind and water, and because of its resistance to weathering, is likely to be largely quartz. Has anyone pre-planned the shape of each and every sand size quartz particle? Do wind and water behave in pre-planned ways following pre-planned schedules of direction and velocity?

What is a functionally complex sand city?

Ah yes, but molded and cemented together, the possibilities for those particles are endless. Think Rube Goldberg. After all, DNA is just comprised of a few nucleic bases arranged along a spine with no physical reason for their particular order and functional proteins are just amino acids in sequence. Has anyone pre-planned those arrangements to allow life to flourish?

 

[rossum]

Science cannot and will never explain the biggest gap of all because it is restricted to physical events. Spiritual reality and spiritual development are beyond its scope. As well as being provisional it is superficial!

Science is a method which heavily relies on measuring things. Since theology cannot even measure the number of angels that can dance on a pinhead, then science is indeed not applicable to spiritual things.

Given the number of different versions of spiritual things there are: Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Taoism etc. it might be well if theologians developed their own equivalent of science so as to sort the wheat from the chaff.

Science works very well because it knows where its boundaries lie, and does not extend itself beyond those boundaries. That is a strength; it does not try to go into areas where it has little to contribute.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

Science cannot and will never explain the biggest gap of all because it is restricted to physical events. Spiritual reality and spiritual development are beyond its scope. As well as being provisional it is superficial!

I’m sure you’re not a Buddhist for scientific reasons.

Is measurability the most important in your scale of “values”?

Given the number of different versions of spiritual things there are: Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Taoism etc. it might be well if theologians developed their own equivalent of science so as to sort the wheat from the chaff.

Theologians have done so if you truly believe in spiritual development. “By their fruits you shall know them”.

Science works very well because it knows where its boundaries lie, and does not extend itself beyond those boundaries. That is a strength; it does not try to go into areas where it has little to contribute.

I’m sure you’re not a Buddhist for scientific reasons.

How did you sort the wheat from the chaff?

 

[tonyrey]

Science cannot and will never explain the biggest gap of all because it is restricted to physical events. Spiritual reality and spiritual development are beyond its scope. As well as being provisional it is superficial!

Do you attempt to live solely according to the scientific method? If not why not?

 

[tonyrey]

But somehow they unwittingly painted themselves into a corner by claiming science can only know.

It certainly cannot recognise goodness, freedom, justice, beauty, love or compassion, i.e. the most precious and the most significant aspects of life.

 

[rossum]

I’m sure you’re not a Buddhist for scientific reasons.

In a way. The Kalama sutta can be seen as an early appearance of something like the scientific method.

Is measurability the most important in your scale of “values”?

In scientific values it is very important. In spiritual values less so. There are different sets of values that are applicable to different situations. It is very much against the values of golf to pick up the ball and carry it. In rugby the values are different.

How did you sort the wheat from the chaff?

[The Buddha said:] “Kalamas, when you yourselves know: ‘These things are good; these things are not blameable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,’ enter on and abide in them.”

rossum

 

[nmgauss]

It certainly cannot recognise goodness, freedom, justice, beauty, love or compassion, i.e. the most precious and the most significant aspects of life.

These qualities are purely subjective whose intensity is determined by who is evaluating them. Define goodness, beauty, love, compassion, freedom, justice and make your definition acceptable to all creatures. Once this is done, and you have itemized characteristics why which these are determinable, then you can begin to analyze whether they are present and to what degree they are present.

As an analogy, analytic chemistry has two main branches, qualitative and quantitative. In high school, we emphasized qualitative where the presence of a certain substance was detected, whether slightly or hugely. Then in college we studied quantitative where the importance of amount became paramount. The North Star and the Sun are both stars, but how much does the North Star influence our lives compared with the Sun?

 

[tonyrey]

I’m sure you’re not a Buddhist for scientific reasons.

Was your main reason for becoming a Buddhist the Kalama sutta?

Is measurability the most important in your scale of “values”?

In scientific values it is very important. In spiritual values less so. There are different sets of values that are applicable to different situations. It is very much against the values of golf to pick up the ball and carry it. In rugby the values are different.

Do you think spiritual values are invented by man?

How did you sort the wheat from the chaff?

[The Buddha said:] “Kalamas, when you yourselves know: ‘These things are good; these things are not blameable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,’ enter on and abide in them.”

So the purpose of life is to do what is good?

 

[tonyrey]

It certainly cannot recognise goodness, freedom, justice, beauty, love or compassion, i.e. the most precious and the most significant aspects of life.

Do you believe goodness, freedom, justice, beauty, love or compassion correspond in no way to objective reality?

Define goodness, beauty, love, compassion, freedom, justice and make your definition acceptable to all creatures. Once this is done, and you have itemized characteristics why which these are determinable, then you can begin to analyze whether they are present and to what degree they are present.

.
Do you believe the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is valid? If so it is unnecessary to define goodness, freedom and justice or specify to what degree they are present.

As an analogy, analytic chemistry has two main branches, qualitative and quantitative. In high school, we emphasized qualitative where the presence of a certain substance was detected, whether slightly or hugely. Then in college we studied quantitative where the importance of amount became paramount. The North Star and the Sun are both stars, but how much does the North Star influence our lives compared with the Sun?

Do you believe everything that is valuable can be quantified?

 

[rossum]

How are your questions relevant to biological design? Do you have no evidence relevant to biological design?

Was your main reason for becoming a Buddhist the Kalama sutta?

I only discovered the Kalama sutta part way though becoming a Buddhist. It did help me from that point on.

Do you think spiritual values are invented by man?

Moral values are not invented either by man or gods. Spiritual values are invented by man: witness the huge number of different religions men have invented.

So the purpose of life is to do what is good?

There is little point in me explaining Buddhism to you if you don’t read what I post. Buddhism sets out the path to nirvana. Buddhists’ purpose is to attain nirvana. I have told you this before.

Again, none of these questions are relevant to biological design.

When did the designer you are proposing act? How long ago?

rossum