Why Are Darwinists Scared to Read Signature in the Cell?

[buffalo]

So you are saying that once a single cell came into existence with this powerful DNA code, the theory of evolution is sufficient to explain from that point on how all the life on Earth we know today came about?

And that the conclusion of all these ID calculations and Borel’s law being discussed in this thread is that the only problem with the theory of evolution is where this first cell came from?

This is what I mean - IDvolution - that is God breathed the language of DNA into a limited number of kinds and the adaptive capabilities of the language has led to the diversity we see on earth, that is variation within kinds. As time goes on geneticists will be able to see the barriers that limit the changes within the kinds. A more accurate classification system will be in place.

 

[Just_Lurking]

I say no to that. There are still many holes in proving that everything evolved from this “first life”.

Then that leads me back to my original question - do the ID techniques that are being used to establish these “holes” have any testable predictions as regards the process of evolution as observed in proven examples of micro-evolution?

 

[Just_Lurking]

This is what I mean - IDvolution - that is God breathed the language of DNA into a limited number of kinds and the adaptive capabilities of the language has led to the diversity we see on earth, that is variation within kinds. As time goes on geneticists will be able to see the barriers that limit the changes within the kinds. A more accurate classification system will be in place.

Where can I read about the ID arguments that establish the existence of kinds? Does Signature in the Cell explain about the different kinds? Are there other ID works that provide calculations that prove that one kind cannot evolve into another, but that it is possible for evolution to occur within a single kind?

 

[hecd2]

Replying to the question posed in the OP, here is why I am unlikely to buy or read this book. It is nothing to do with being “scared” to read it or any such notion. My time and resources for reading scientific literature are limited. I have already invested a substantial quantity of time reading books by Dembski and Behe, which tried and failed to put forward intellectually satisfying arguments for the Intelligent Design hypothesis. I haven’t seen anything in the positive or negative reviews of this book to make me think that Meyer has anything at all new to offer, and the fact that he offers a book that is plainly intended for the non-scientific community reinforces me in that view. If he really had some novel testable ideas about, for example, the problem of detecting agency, then he ought to have addressed those ideas first to the professional community. I don’t need an elementary introduction to molecular and cell biology written by an earth scientist and I do not have the patience for any more ideological harangues from the Discovery Institute unless and until their members actually do some relevant science. As it is, it is impossible to keep up with all the good new science published in research journals and in popular books reporting on areas of emerging science written by scientists who have earned the right to a hearing by actually doing some scientific research.

Meyer has every right to write and publish his book, and I have every right to ignore it in the knowledge that I am missing nothing by doing so, unless someone can point to some radical new approach in it that raises it above the level of the discredited arguments developed by Discovery Institute publications in the past. I don’t care to read any more books which ultimately rely on the argument from personal incredulity or on deeply flawed calculations of the improbability of this or that thing occurring naturally. I have neither the time nor the patience for another such dismal attempt.

It was demonstrated at Dover that ID (as promoted by the Discovery Institute) is an ideological and theological descendant of “Creation Science”. It is not science (even though it seeks to change the definition of science to include its dubious aims and methods), its proponents do not contribute to scientific knowledge, its mission is “demonstrably religious, cultural and legal” (in the words of Judge Jones), its supporters determined to prove a prejudiced conclusion; it is not science but a parasite on science. Each new book rehashes the old tired arguments with some new scientific sauce purloined from the effort and ingenuity of real scientists and I have already wasted enough time on its best arguments. Unless someone can convince me that there is a radical new case that urgently demands to be heard, I will pass on this book or those as yet unpublished that other DI members are sure to press on an ignorant and credulous public.

Alec
evoplutionpages.com

 

[buffalo]

What I truly love is that we are debating about cards when my original post dealt with the topic at hand. Maybe there was more than one way for life to form. Maybe it was 10, or 100, or a million. Even it was a billion different ways for that first life to form, the math is still ridiculous.

Then with all the experiments that have been done in the past one hundred years, why have we not seen new life again?

Nitric Oxide Holds Promise for Better Antibiotics

…Treating bacterial infections with cocktails of traditional antibiotics and NOS inhibitors to prevent nitric oxide formation will be more efficient than designing entirely new drugs, suggests Nudler. An important advantage of this approach is that each of the individual drugs that make up the new therapy have already undergone independent tests for human safety; a combined therapy should therefore not require the arduous drug screening that entirely new antibiotics have to endure.

more…

 

[buffalo]

Absolutely not - the claims that you made, originally without citing a source, were exaggerated in several respects:

• That NO was the only defence mechanism against antibiotics
• That bacteria do not evolve other anti-biotic resistant mechanisms
• That that particular mechanism did not evolve
• That all bacteria have it
• That we will not have to produce new antibiotics

Whether the false claims were yours or the journalist’s or a mixture of the two (it seems like the last), they remain false claims.

As I pointed out:
My source:

Gusarov et al, Endogenous Nitric Oxide Protects Bacteria Against a Wide Spectrum of Antibiotics, Science 325, 1380 - 1384 (2009).

This is the paper reporting the research. Have you read it? It concludes as follows:

“Our results show that bacteria use NOS [nitric oxide synthase] as a part of their defense system against other microorganisms. Because the pathogens, including B. anthracis and S. aureus, have NOS, which protects them against antibiotics and immune attack, the inhibition of this enzyme could serve as an effective antibacterial intervention.”

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Nitric Oxide Holds Promise for Better Antibiotics

…Treating bacterial infections with cocktails of traditional antibiotics and NOS inhibitors to prevent nitric oxide formation will be more efficient than designing entirely new drugs, suggests Nudler. An important advantage of this approach is that each of the individual drugs that make up the new therapy have already undergone independent tests for human safety; a combined therapy should therefore not require the arduous drug screening that entirely new antibiotics have to endure.

more…

 

[buffalo]

Replying to the question posed in the OP, here is why I am unlikely to buy or read this book. It is nothing to do with being “scared” to read it or any such notion. My time and resources for reading scientific literature are limited. I have already invested a substantial quantity of time reading books by Dembski and Behe, which tried and failed to put forward intellectually satisfying arguments for the Intelligent Design hypothesis. I haven’t seen anything in the positive or negative reviews of this book to make me think that Meyer has anything at all new to offer, and the fact that he offers a book that is plainly intended for the non-scientific community reinforces me in that view. If he really had some novel testable ideas about, for example, the problem of detecting agency, then he ought to have addressed those ideas first to the professional community. I don’t need an elementary introduction to molecular and cell biology written by an earth scientist and I do not have the patience for any more ideological harangues from the Discovery Institute unless and until their members actually do some relevant science. As it is, it is impossible to keep up with all the good new science published in research journals and in popular books reporting on areas of emerging science written by scientists who have earned the right to a hearing by actually doing some scientific research.

Meyer has every right to write and publish his book, and I have every right to ignore it in the knowledge that I am missing nothing by doing so, unless someone can point to some radical new approach in it that raises it above the level of the discredited arguments developed by Discovery Institute publications in the past. I don’t care to read any more books which ultimately rely on the argument from personal incredulity or on deeply flawed calculations of the improbability of this or that thing occurring naturally. I have neither the time nor the patience for another such dismal attempt.

It was demonstrated at Dover that ID (as promoted by the Discovery Institute) is an ideological and theological descendant of “Creation Science”. It is not science (even though it seeks to change the definition of science to include its dubious aims and methods), its proponents do not contribute to scientific knowledge, its mission is “demonstrably religious, cultural and legal” (in the words of Judge Jones), its supporters determined to prove a prejudiced conclusion; it is not science but a parasite on science. Each new book rehashes the old tired arguments with some new scientific sauce purloined from the effort and ingenuity of real scientists and I have already wasted enough time on its best arguments. Unless someone can convince me that there is a radical new case that urgently demands to be heard, I will pass on this book or those as yet unpublished that other DI members are sure to press on an ignorant and credulous public.

Alec
evoplutionpages.com

Does design exist?

 

[ricmat]

“Winning five times in a row” presupposes that we were (pr somebody could have been) already looking for a specific outcome of interest before the fact. With regard to evolution, there is no specific outcome of interest or end in mind that anyone could have had before anyone existed.

“Winning” means life, instead of non-life.

The fact is that infinitesimally probable events happen all the time.

Yes, of course they do. But that’s not the argument.

 

[ricmat]

ID advocates claim to have the ability to calculate, given a genetic/DNA combination, just how long it would take for that combination to come into existence via evolution.

I’m not sure that’s what ID claims. At least I didn’t see it in SITC.

The calculations in Signature in the Cell have more to do with the development of proteins, replicating molecules, DNA, and a fully integrated cell from scratch.

Signature in the cell is not about evolution, it’s more about abiogenesis.

 

[ricmat]

I didn’t say lifeforms I said possible types of lifeforms- lifeforms are basically self replicating chemical compounds right?

From dust to self-replicating lifeforms is what SITC is all about.

 

[ricmat]

How many different ways are there to arrange DNA to make a living organism? We know that there are at least 6 billion different ways to make a human being, and many more ways than that which we do not see - what if we had all been the opposite sex for example.

SITC is not about rearranging DNA. It’s about getting the very first DNA molecule to begin with.

The point is that there is more then one target to search for. In order to correctly calculate the probabilities we need to know how many valid targets and how many invalid targets there are. One things we do know about life is that there are many many different possible targets to hit.

In terms of the first DNA, it seems that there is only 1 target to hit. Yes, there are many ways to get there, and that’s accounted for in the book.

Borel’s Law failed in the shuffling cards example because any possible ordering of the cards was a valid target. With DNA and life we do not yet know how many valid targets there are. That is where the usual creationist use of Borel’s Law fails - we do not yet know all the numbers so any calculations are invalid.

The book never mentions Borel’s law (at least I couldn’t find it in the index). I think someone else brought that up.

Perhaps you should read the book, then tell us why it’s wrong.

 

[ricmat]

So you are saying that once a single cell came into existence with this powerful DNA code, the theory of evolution is sufficient to explain from that point on how all the life on Earth we know today came about?

And that the conclusion of all these ID calculations and Borel’s law being discussed in this thread is that the only problem with the theory of evolution is where this first cell came from?

Your post above was to Buffalo, but let me clarify something.

Signature in the Cell if focused on abiogenesis, not evolution after the first DNA came about. It is not about how evolution is wrong.

It does not say that once you figure out where DNA came from, the evolution is correct. Neither does it say that evolution is wrong.

 

[Leela]

“Winning” means life, instead of non-life.

I understand the anaology, but the probabilities in question ar esimply irrelevant. It doesn’t matter how unlikely it may be for life to exist. The fact is that life exists since here we are.

"
Yes, of course they do. But that’s not the argument.

What is the argument then? As I understand it, you want to say that the probability of life emerging through natural means is so small that it must not have happened through natural means. If the probability of the two of us having this conversation is infinitismal, does that mean that God must have intervened to make sure that this conversation happens? Is anything that is unlikely to occur evidnece hat God intervened in that instance? President Kennedy’s secretary was named Lincoln and President Lincoln’s secretary was named Kennedy. What are the chances? God must have intervened to make that happen???

 

[chessmane4e5]

Then that leads me back to my original question - do the ID techniques that are being used to establish these “holes” have any testable predictions as regards the process of evolution as observed in proven examples of micro-evolution?

trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp

These are the holes I am talking about. Micro-evolution actually has nothing to do with macro-evolution, at least the kind of macro-evolution to explain humans evolving from the first life forms. Micro-evolution is a fact, we can observe it. In trying to prove macro-evolution, the evidence for micro is often given. Sneaky, sneaky…

Sorry ricmat for de-railing this thread, I just looked and my library does not have the book, so maybe I will buy it and read it over Christmas vacation

 

[ricmat]

Where can I read about the ID arguments that establish the existence of kinds? Does Signature in the Cell explain about the different kinds? Are there other ID works that provide calculations that prove that one kind cannot evolve into another, but that it is possible for evolution to occur within a single kind?

I didn’t see any references to that in SITC, but I don’t remember everything in the book. As I mentioned, the focus is on dust to cell, not evolution beyond that point.

There may be other ID books which go into what you describe.

 

[rossum]

How many different evolved DNA codes will there be?

There are 64 codons and 20 amino acids. Allowing at least one codon per amino acid that gives 64! - 44! possible combinations. That leaves 44 codons to be distributed between the 20 amino acids with no particular constraints. That will be a standard binomial.

To explain the DNA molecule is one thing to explain the language that powers it is quite another.

It is not a language, it is a many to one mapping. It is driven by simple chemical processes.

rossum

 

[ricmat]

I understand the anaology, but the probabilities in question ar esimply irrelevant. It doesn’t matter how unlikely it may be for life to exist. The fact is that life exists since here we are.

Of course. But the fact that we are here doesn’t prove that random unguided processes were responsible for it, as you claim.

What is the argument then? As I understand it, you want to say that the probability of life emerging through natural means is so small that it must not have happened through natural means.

The book clearly points out that it cannot prove that life did not originate from random unguided processes. The book also clearly points out that it cannot be proven that life did originate from random unguided processes. If you read the book, you would know that.

What the book does is give relative probabilities of something having happened in an unguided fashion (using the known laws of physics and a non-pre-arranged sequence of events), and compare that with what’s called the probabilistic resources available. In summary (and I’ll try not to mess this up) - the first living cell would require 10^41,000 “trials” of the base material for a 50/50 chance of occurring. So what probabilistic resources are available to come up with the trials? Well, one could assume that each and every particle in the universe is involved in the trials (which of course is really optimistic), and that the interactions are occuring at a rate limited only by the speed of light (which again is really optimistic), and that all this has been going on since the big bang 14 billion years ago. It turns out that there are a total (maximum) of 10^139 possible trials available since the big bang. This pales in comparison to the 10^41,000 number required to have a 50/50 chance.

Is it still possible that random chance did it? Yes. Is it highly unlikely that random chance did it. Yes.

But we know that an intelligent agent can do things better and faster than random chance. That’s what selective breeding is. That’s what genetic laboratory manipulation is.

With regard to if God did it or not, that’s not what the book is about.

 

[tjm190]

“What the book does is give relative probabilities of something having happened in an unguided fashion (using the known laws of physics and a non-pre-arranged sequence of events), and compare that with what’s called the probabilistic resources available. In summary (and I’ll try not to mess this up) - the first living cell would require 10^41,000 “trials” of the base material for a 50/50 chance of occurring.”

We’ve been over why this is wrong- it may take that many trials to arrive at the cell with a particular protein make up, but that doesn’t mean other functioning cells won’t be bumped into along the way.

 

[buffalo]

There are 64 codons and 20 amino acids. Allowing at least one codon per amino acid that gives 64! - 44! possible combinations. That leaves 44 codons to be distributed between the 20 amino acids with no particular constraints. That will be a standard binomial.

It is not a language, it is a many to one mapping. It is driven by simple chemical processes.

rossum

So that’s all we will have to do is simply match up these mappings and the language does its thing? Cool.

We can also tell scientists to stop using linguistics to study the language of DNA. We should stop funding this.

 

[ricmat]

“What the book does is give relative probabilities of something having happened in an unguided fashion (using the known laws of physics and a non-pre-arranged sequence of events), and compare that with what’s called the probabilistic resources available. In summary (and I’ll try not to mess this up) - the first living cell would require 10^41,000 “trials” of the base material for a 50/50 chance of occurring.”

We’ve been over why this is wrong- it may take that many trials to arrive at the cell with a particular protein make up, but that doesn’t mean other functioning cells won’t be bumped into along the way.

It’s not that simple, and I don’t remember all the details. Please read the book. It’s not a cell with a particular protein makeup we’re talking about. You’ll probably get more out of the book than I did if you actually read it.

This is ridiculous. I’m (apparently) the only one on the thread who has read the book that is the subject of the thread. But everybody knows it’s wrong. And they can’t take time to actually read the book, although they have time to state here that they know it’s wrong.