God should be kept out of scientific Questions

[buffalo]

ROTFL!

How do you explain the fact that human beings and Chimpanzees have retrovirus sequences in analogus locations?

The only way that can be explained is by a chromosome fusion and common ancestry. Retrovirus infections are not part of the so called “design” of the human or chimpanzee genomes.

Incorrect - there are several other ways.

Multiple infections
Virus that target specific areas of the genome. Common design shows that animals can have similar areas that are the same.
HGT

From Nature:

“Against this background, it was surprising to find that the chimpanzee genome has two active retroviral elements (PtERV1 and PtERV2) that are unlike any older elements in either genome; these must have been introduced by infection of the chimpanzee germ line. The smaller family (PtERV2) has only a few dozen copies, which nonetheless represent multiple (5–8) invasions, because the sequence differences among reconstructed subfamilies are too great (8%) to have arisen by mutation since divergence from human. It is closely related to a baboon endogenous retrovirus (BaEV, 88% ORF2 product identity) and a feline endogenous virus (ECE-1, 86% ORF2 product identity). The larger family (PtERV1) is more homogeneous and has over 200 copies. Whereas older ERVs, like HERV-K, are primarily represented by solo LTRs resulting from LTR–LTR recombination, more than half of the PtERV1 copies are still full length, probably reflecting the young age of the elements. PtERV1-like elements are present in the rhesus monkey, olive baboon and African great apes but not in human, orang-utan or gibbon, suggesting separate germline invasions in these species.”

Snake DNA has been found in a cow. Should we conclude common ancestry?

 

[buffalo]

That would end Western civilization as we know it. We’d go from being a scientific and engineering based industrial culture back into the dark ages.

That is a bogus conclusion.

 

[buffalo]

Can someone give an example of how God is *included *in scientific questions?

If anything I have said is against the Catholic Church, let it be anathema.

Scientific reasoning would be illuminated by truth.

 

[buffalo]

I don’t understand. How are the probabilities calculated? Why does writing indicate “CSI”? What is “CSI”? And how much does one word contribute? Bacteria have no words, at least in any human language, written on their surface. Does this mean that there is no chance that they have this “CSI”?

It would be fine to quantify something like this. I don’t know how to start.

Most people agree that chess pieces are designed. Both the unit and method of measure are as arbitrary as language or anything else I can imagine using. As far as I understand so far, why use words and not chess pieces, or car parts, or watch cogs? It’s even harder to know how to use parts of DNA; we know the mechanism by which car parts are made, but do we really understand how DNA was first made? I don’t know.

I don’t see how. Also, I don’t see why language should be any measure of design.

Because of all these questions, I don’t have the first clue how to determine if something is “natural” or not, quantitatively. I don’t even know what the distinction is. Humans are natural, and they make cars, so cars arise from a natural process. So cars are natural too, right?

How does one measure CSI?
Frequently raised but weak arguments against Intelligent Design

The Information in Complex Specified Information (CSI) Cannot Be Quantified

That’s simply not true. Different approaches have been suggested for that, and different definitions of what can be measured are possible.
As a first step, it is possible to measure the number of bits used to store any functionally specific information, and we could term such bits “functionally specific bits.”
Next, the complexity of a functionally specified unit of information (like a functional protein) could be measured directly or indirectly based on the reasonable probability of finding such a sequence through a random walk based search or its functional equivalent. This approach is based on the observation that functionality of information is rather specific to a given context, so if the islands of function are sufficiently sparse in the wider search space of all possible sequences, beyond a certain scope of search, it becomes implausible that such a search on a planet wide scale or even on a scale comparable to our observed cosmos, will find it. But, we know that, routinely, intelligent actors create such functionally specific complex information; e.g. this paragraph. (And, we may contrast (i) a “typical” random alphanumeric character string showing random sequence complexity: kbnvusgwpsvbcvfel;’… jiw[w;xb xqg[l;am . . . and/or (ii) a structured string showing orderly sequence complexity: atatatatatatatatatatatatatat . . . [The contrast also shows that a designed, complex specified object may also incorporate random and simply ordered components or aspects.])

more…

 

[buffalo]

I don’t see how. Also, I don’t see why language should be any measure of design.

Because of all these questions, I don’t have the first clue how to determine if something is “natural” or not, quantitatively. I don’t even know what the distinction is. Humans are natural, and they make cars, so cars arise from a natural process. So cars are natural too, right?

All language is designed.

Is your claim that it is not?

 

[buffalo]

Really? Says who? And how do we know?

By the way, this is redshift data, in part. Looks like a spider web to me.

Quantized Redshifts - New Physics or Old Muddle

Statistics of redshift periodicities

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

Quantized Redshifts - New Physics or Old Muddle

Statistics of redshift periodicities

Well, I wouldn’t use the language “concentric rings”, and neither does the first paper (as far as I could find), nor does the second paper (it looks like a Master’s Thesis; I could be mistaken). I quote from the abstract of the second citation, “They [the periodicities] are easily seen by eye in the data sets.” Sure. Some parts have more objects, and some parts have less, and there are spaces in between. But neither of the papers has any angular data. They are in a one-dimensional statistical “ensemble” or grouping. It looks to me like spider webs (a sort of periodicity), but not concentric rings. Definitely not circular.

On another note, is there anything to suggest we live in (or, more properly, near) a preferred center by this pattern? I’d imagine it would look roughly the same from any point in the universe.

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

All language is designed.

Is your claim that it is not?

I’m skeptical. Is all language designed? What do we mean by “language”?

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

How does one measure CSI?
Frequently raised but weak arguments against Intelligent Design

So we have this Complex Specified Information. What is this? Is there a good place to find out what this is, precisely?

Also, why are chess pieces any better or worse a unit than letters? DNA doesn’t have letters. We have letters, and we assigned these letters to parts of DNA that repeat themselves. Finally, where do we get design out of all this?

If it’s simply true that CSI, whatever it is, can be quantified, in what peer-reviewed publication do we find an explanation of an agreed-upon method of quantification? If there isn’t one of these, then maybe “simply true” isn’t the best phrase to use. Also, if there isn’t one of these, then what unreviewed work is there that defines and quantifies CSI?

 

[grannymh]

Therefore I think that science and God should stay out of each others way.

Some silly questions since science is a methodological activity, discipline, investigation
and so on.

Are you referring to people? Are you saying that God should stay out of the way of people
who are scientists?

Never mind answering. Some days, all this generalization of science as this or that gets to be too much. However, this is the Philosophy forum – so carry on as you were.

Blessings,
granny

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

(it looks like a Master’s Thesis; I could be mistaken)

The name looked familiar. Now I know why (my mistake). A review paper? What did this come out of?

 

[buffalo]

I’m skeptical. Is all language designed? What do we mean by “language”?

Yes, all language is designed. Languages transmit ideas. They use symbols, codes, maps and instructions.

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

Yes, all language is designed. Languages transmit ideas. They use symbols, codes, maps and instructions.

Would it be fair to say that language is anything that transmits ideas using symbols, codes, maps, and instructions?

If, for example, there are not at least two minds, can there be language?

Is the language the medium for the ideas, or is it the transmitter itself?

 

[buffalo]

So we have this Complex Specified Information. What is this? Is there a good place to find out what this is, precisely?

Also, why are chess pieces any better or worse a unit than letters? DNA doesn’t have letters. We have letters, and we assigned these letters to parts of DNA that repeat themselves. Finally, where do we get design out of all this?

If it’s simply true that CSI, whatever it is, can be quantified, in what peer-reviewed publication do we find an explanation of an agreed-upon method of quantification? If there isn’t one of these, then maybe “simply true” isn’t the best phrase to use. Also, if there isn’t one of these, then what unreviewed work is there that defines and quantifies CSI?

A chess piece would definitely be designed. We do not see nature produce finely carved chess pieces.

Complex Specified Information – It’s not that hard to understand

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

A chess piece would definitely be designed. We do not see nature produce finely carved chess pieces.

I agree. That’s why I’d use it as a measure for design.

Complex Specified Information – It’s not that hard to understand

I like this article; it is easy to follow. It does leave me with a lot of questions, though. I can see, in a general way, how complexity could be calculated. The author seems to say that specified complexity cannot be calculated; the complexity part can, but the specified part needs to be taken as a subjective judgment.

If I saw a deck ordered from Ace to 2 all suits, or however it gets sorted, I’d definitely think some mechanism is behind the ordering, and I’d assume it’s intelligent. After all, it’d be reasonable to accept that all decks of cards are designed by people, so people would be the best candidates for the ordering.

I see a snowflake, water molecules ordered in a certain way that suggests to me specified complexity (but maybe I don’t understand the “specified” component?). I’d say that there’s a mechanism behind the production of snowflakes, but since I’m pretty sure people don’t make snow flakes (in general), I’d try to find another mechanism. I’d even be willing to consider a mechanism such as God-design, but only if the agent in the mechanism were evidenced by some other scientific method.

So why do I get one answer with cards, and another with snowflakes? And how does this help me when I look at bacteria, or the human eye?

 

[buffalo]

I agree. That’s why I’d use it as a measure for design.

I like this article; it is easy to follow. It does leave me with a lot of questions, though. I can see, in a general way, how complexity could be calculated. The author seems to say that specified complexity cannot be calculated; the complexity part can, but the specified part needs to be taken as a subjective judgment.

If I saw a deck ordered from Ace to 2 all suits, or however it gets sorted, I’d definitely think some mechanism is behind the ordering, and I’d assume it’s intelligent. After all, it’d be reasonable to accept that all decks of cards are designed by people, so people would be the best candidates for the ordering.

I see a snowflake, water molecules ordered in a certain way that suggests to me specified complexity (but maybe I don’t understand the “specified” component?). I’d say that there’s a mechanism behind the production of snowflakes, but since I’m pretty sure people don’t make snow flakes (in general), I’d try to find another mechanism. I’d even be willing to consider a mechanism such as God-design, but only if the agent in the mechanism were evidenced by some other scientific method.

So why do I get one answer with cards, and another with snowflakes? And how does this help me when I look at bacteria, or the human eye?

How can one tell a chess piece is designed? What are the attributes? What is its purpose? If one finds a chess piece buried can one know its purpose? Out of context no, but in context absolutely. How do we formulize this?

Nature produces patterns. A snowflake is a good example. We natural patterns all around us. Patterns do not contain symbols or language. Designs though always contain patterns. Designs have purpose.

 

[buffalo]

In case you are interested:

Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

Designs have purpose.

I’ve never been able to determine how purpose, the fourth cause, can be completely incorporated into any science (using the word “science” in a very limited way). I certainly haven’t found a way in which it can be quantified. Such techniques and methods may someday be developed, but they don’t seem to exist yet.

The fourth cause does inform science, and is very useful as a part of scientific work. But the fourth cause cannot yet, in any way I’ve been able to imagine, be demonstrated scientifically.

It seems that, for design to be formally quantifiable, purpose must be formally quantifiable, or at least identifiable through some systematic method, and complexity must be formally quantifiable (at minimum in those cases where purpose isn’t), and the interplay between them must be able to be described mathematically. This hasn’t been done yet, and I’m not sure if it will ever be done. But it’s possible.

 

[buffalo]

I’ve never been able to determine how purpose, the fourth cause, can be completely incorporated into any science (using the word “science” in a very limited way). I certainly haven’t found a way in which it can be quantified. Such techniques and methods may someday be developed, but they don’t seem to exist yet.

The fourth cause does inform science, and is very useful as a part of scientific work. But the fourth cause cannot yet, in any way I’ve been able to imagine, be demonstrated scientifically.

It seems that, for design to be formally quantifiable, purpose must be formally quantifiable, or at least identifiable through some systematic method, and complexity must be formally quantifiable (at minimum in those cases where purpose isn’t), and the interplay between them must be able to be described mathematically. This hasn’t been done yet, and I’m not sure if it will ever be done. But it’s possible.

Just a point - if you are a chess piece and all you can know are chess pieces how can you differentiate design? I think that is a reason it is so hard.

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

Just a point - if you are a chess piece and all you can know are chess pieces how can you differentiate design? I think that is a reason it is so hard.

Yes. Without differentiation, it is hard to come up with any mathematical description at all.