I will be attending the Royal Society Meeting on New trends in evolutionary biology: biological, philosophical and social science perspectives. I'll post each of the abstracts and ask for your help in deciding what question to pose to the speakers. Here's the abstract for Eva Jablonka's talk on
The role of epigenetic inheritance in evolution.
The construction of the ‘Modern Evolutionary Synthesis’ in the mid-twentieth century involved the exclusion of soft inheritance – the inheritance of the effects of developmental modifications – and, by implication, the possibility of any form of ‘Lamarckian’ evolution. However, in later decades, discoveries of molecular mechanisms that can support such inheritance led to a broadening of the notion of biological heredity. After discussing the historical context in which this change occurred, I present an extended notion of inheritance, focusing on epigenetic inheritance and its underlying mechanisms. I examine the evidence for the ubiquity of epigenetic inheritance, present models of population epigenetics, and discuss the involvement of epigenetic inheritance in adaptive evolutionary change and macro-evolution. I argue that considering the many evolutionary consequences of epigenetic inheritance requires an extension of the evolutionary synthesis beyond the current neo-Darwinian model.Eva Jablonka has been pushing the importance of epigenetics for many years. Here's a video where she explains why epigenetic inheritance needs to be incorporated into evolutionary theory.
I think she's exaggerating the importance of epigenetic inheritance in evolution. I'd like to ask her how she defines "epigenetics" and how much of it is heritable over enough generations to seriously affect the evolution of a population. I'm particularly interested in her claim that epigenetic inheritance affects macro-evolution.
66 comments :
I'll look forward to knowing what you decided. For the moment I'm inclined to agree with your initial feelings. (I've certainly heard her once, maybe twice.)
I never understand if evolutionary biologists reject epigenetics or not? its confusing.
using the word inheritance is just saying again lamarkism! Why not?
Creationism would welcome biology changes from other mechanisms like epig.
Yet I've read evolutionists who insist its not true.
I will never understand this variety of scientist. Last I checked, epigenetics is still genetics. Yes, sometimes epigenetic factors like DNA methylation can extend an influence across a generation or two, but then the effect peters out.
Why would creationists be more welcoming to epigenetics? Let's say that scientists all suddenly agree that epigenetics is responsible for all of the biological changes for the past 3.5 billion years of history. Why isn't that just as big a problem for creationism as evolution is? Epigenetics is just as much a natural process as evolution is. How does replacing one naturally occurring process for another any help for creationism?
There is really only one set of questions that needs to be asked:
Why are chimps and humans different? Is it because of differences in the DNA sequence of their genomes, or is it due to differences in DNA methylation and histone packaging? If exposed to the right environmental stimulus, would a chimp give birth to a human?
What step in the DNA methylation process is observed to be controlled by an outside intelligence?
Other than that, all you have is an argument from ignorance in the form of the IC argument.
It should be mentioned that Otangelo Grasso, that lying little shit bag, is misrepresenting EH Davidson's writing. The first paragraph is a quote from Davidson's paper. The subsequent statements are Otangelo's interepolations. Davidson did not believe that epigenetics indicated magical intervention from God.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3135751/
This is the level of dishonesty one can always count on from creationists, and from Otangelo Grasso in particular.
Eric asked:
"What step in the DNA methylation process is observed to be controlled by an outside intelligence? "
None. Everything is pre-programmed. I don't believe in a designer that is constantly intervening in the natural world. I believe as Shapiro wrote, that evolution is also a preprogrammed process.
He doesn't so much lie as he just doesn't comprehend any of this. But you know, he's "born again". So Logic and evidence has no place in his world. Apparently that term is synonymous with suffering from some form of strong delusion.
One could spend a lifetime exposing the almost countless fallacies that plague his every post. Single sentences some times contain two to three fallacies, misunderstandings and/or misrepresentations. Take this nuttery as an example:
"Individual proteins would have no use without the information right from the beginning how to interconnect them..."
First of all it's the Bare Assertion fallacy. He just claims without having a clue, that two proteins can't individually have functions before they evolve to interact.
Additionally, to call the ability of one protein to bind to another something that needs information to be there to somehow tell them how to do this is also completely incoherent.
"and neither would there be use for gene regulatory networks without the genes on hand to make everything functional."
This is simultaneously a bare assertion fallacy, suffering from the same flaw as above, and technically irrelevant even if it was true. Just because some organism doesn't have a "need" for a particular genetic structure does not mean it did not, or could not evolve.
"A minimal number of parts is ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL"
Again the bare assertion fallacy. Though technically correct, it is a triviality. There is a minimum number of parts required for some entity to be functional. Whoah? Really?
"wich is evidence that a intelligence had to set all up, all at once, minimally functional."
The trivial factoid that any particular function requires some minimum number of parts is evidence that an intelligence had to set it up? One can barely decide where to begin with this shit. Bare assertion, non-sequitur, false.
"As i have posted here more than ones, different layers of information systems are required both inside the cell, and communication systems within and between cells, and they operate beyond the genetic information, thus epigenetically."
And here we see he doesn't know what the word epigenetics even means. He thinks everything that isn't directly genetically controlled and is "operating beyond the genetic information" is epigenetic. That's hilarious.
"There are more, as for example microRNA's. "
microRNA is epigenetic? That's great buddy. Get an education.
"Furthermore, a considerable number of proteins are required, which are essential for cell differentiation, and these would have no use unless multicellularity with cells exercising different tasks was existing. "
Again the bare assertion. He just claims this is so, these proteins could have no other function than what they are doing now. Nope, just can't be. Just no way. Not possible. He's "born again", so he just knows it. Really really knows it sooo hard.
He has so much of this crap, think about how much time he spends hunting down random snippets and factoids from the literature he barely understands, then copy-pastes it into his "library" and sprays it thick with bare assertion fallacies. There must be over 50 pages on that website now of shit like this.
To fully expose it all would take at least twenty times as long as it has taken him to compile it, because one has to pick out literally every sentence and explain the multiple fallacies that plague every single one.
Mikkel wrote :
"Additionally, to call the ability of one protein to bind to another something that needs information to be there to somehow tell them how to do this is also completely incoherent. "
Is it ? Then how do you suggest they got that amazing ability ? evolution ? And how , before evolution was in place ? Ahhhhh........ did you not say last time " We don't know yet ".... AHA !! We don't know yet, therefore..... guess ??!!!! kkkk.... yahhhh. You got it : naturalism !!! what a wonderful world of naturalism of the gaps......
"Just because some organism doesn't have a "need" for a particular genetic structure does not mean it did not, or could not evolve. "
auch... so it evolved the mechanism because the cell was.... bored ?? kkkk.....
"A minimal number of parts is ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL" Again the bare assertion fallacy. "
What about you educate yourself, Mikkel, and when you read a topic at my library, like : DNA replication, and its mind boggling nano technology that defies naturalistic explanations, you actually try to do, what you acuse me of not doing, namely try to comprehend what i post there ?
According to mainstream scientific papers, the following twenty protein and protein complexes are essential for prokaryotic DNA replication. Each one mentioned below. They cannot be reduced. If one is missing, DNA replication cannot occur:
I list each single protein, and quote directly from the respective scientific papers, why each protein is essential. So my claims are directly backed up by mainstream science.
"The trivial factoid that any particular function requires some minimum number of parts is evidence that an intelligence had to set it up? One can barely decide where to begin with this shit. Bare assertion, non-sequitur, false. "
Yah ? False why ? because it does not fit your fantasy world without God ( particularly not the God of the bible ), Mikkel ? LOL
" And here we see he doesn't know what the word epigenetics even means. He thinks everything that isn't directly genetically controlled and is "operating beyond the genetic information" is epigenetic. That's hilarious. "
Is it? As far as i understand, epigenetics means the description of anything other than DNA sequences that influence the development of an organism.
"microRNA is epigenetic? That's great buddy. Get an education. "
Maybe you should. See my answer above. If you disagree, prove me wrong.
"Again the bare assertion. He just claims this is so, these proteins could have no other function than what they are doing now."
Well, how about you have a look at the topic at my library : The essential signaling pathways for animal development , and provide me examples of how any of the described pathways could have had other functions beside signal transduction.... LOL.
Mikkel, are you not tired to have your nonsense views and assertions exposed every and each time for what they are, namely : irrational nonsense ??!!
I mean, i would not aloud to expose myself for a long period of time to such a exposure ( unless i were a masochist) Is that your case ? Are you a intellectual masochist ??!! kkkk.......
I love when he talks about his "library." LOL! Dunning-Kruger writ large. I bet even the Time Cube guy would shake his head at Otangelo's incoherent spewings.
Eric.
creationists do need mechanisms for biological change. Human colours is proof. These came from needed changes for the environments people moved to.
So we need fast and furious mechanisms.
Epig gets rid of the exclusiveness claims of evolutionism and hints at other options.
Thats why its welcome.
Humans and chimps are different because of the soul. not the body or even the memory.
In fact our bodies were probably more alike when Adam came. We both diverged after the fall. this is YEC doctrine of coarse.
"Then how do you suggest they got that amazing ability ? evolution ? And how , before evolution was in place ? "
Before evolution atoms were still atoms, negative charges would attract posive ones and like charges would repel each other. Molecular interactions don't have to evolve OR be designed, they are inherent properties of molecules you fucking gimp.
"We don't know yet, therefore..... guess ??"
Therefore we don't know. When we don't know something then we don't know and that is it. Nobody here is telling you what you should believe when the answer isn't known. If we don't know, we try to find out. Until we find out, it isn't evidence God did it.
Nobody here is saying we don't know therefore naturalism. Nobody. You just made that dumb shit up.
"According to mainstream scientific papers, the following twenty protein and protein complexes are essential for prokaryotic DNA replication. Each one mentioned below. They cannot be reduced.
But you don't know that. You simply don't know that there is not a reduced possible version. You are just brainlessly declaring that. Have you tried looking for reduced versions? Have you done phylogenies and reconstructed ancestral stages? No. So you are just making shit up. The last sentence there is a fiction you don't actually know whether is true.
"If one is missing, DNA replication cannot occur:
How do you know the remaining ones cannot be altered to compensate for the lack of one of them? You don't know that, you just say it without having a clue whether it is true.
"I list each single protein, and quote directly from the respective scientific papers, why each protein is essential. So my claims are directly backed up by mainstream science."
None of the papers say anything AT ALL about possible ancestral stages of DNA replication. NONE of them. The only thing they say is how DNA replication works NOW in the present, that in the PRESENT form, these proteins are required. They DON'T say there is not or cannot be a reduced ancestral stage with fewer components.
So you LIE when you claim there can't be such a thing. You don't have any evidence of this. You have not tried to look for it at all. You have not done any experiments with altered or reduced versions, you have not done any phylogenetic reconstructions and tried to elucidate their evolutionary history. So you have NOTHING that backs up your conclusions.
This is the same stupid shit with you every time. You quote a factoid form the literature "function A in eukaryotes uses proteins A1, A2 and A3". Then you brainlessly declare that there cannot be a version of function A with fewer proteins.
How do you know that? You don't. You just give yourself permission to lie about it because you have Jesus on your brain and you can't think properly.
"False why ?"
Because reality and logic. Please go back and read what you wrote, what you wrote does not make sense. It does not follow logically that because function X requires n parts, therefore this is evidence it was designed. It does not follow. You are making a basic non-sequitur fallacy.
There are natural objects that "function" the way they do, with outrageous numbers of parts, that nevertheless clearly weren't designed. Like weather and climate systems.
"Mikkel, are you not tired to have your nonsense views and assertions exposed every and each time for what they are, namely : irrational nonsense ??!!"
Yes oh great one, clearly you are no match for us mere mortals. Thou soldier of God, go forth and smite the unbelievers with incoherent, logically invalid blather! Clearly as long as you can just copy-paste large quantities of crap you don't understand and brainlessly declare with great conviction that there's just no way ever it could have evolved, then that's just the way it is and if you just keep saying it long enough that will just make it true. Maybe one day if you say it often enough you can start to believe it yourself.
"Is it? As far as i understand, epigenetics means the description of anything other than DNA sequences that influence the development of an organism."
LOL. Where the hell do you get this crap from? Stop reading creationist sources, they are full of misinformation.
Here, read this: Epigenetics: The Science of Change.
Mikkel wrote:
"Therefore we don't know. When we don't know something then we don't know and that is it. Nobody here is telling you what you should believe when the answer isn't known. If we don't know, we try to find out. Until we find out, it isn't evidence God did it. "
Thats the same when you arrive at a sand dune, and you see a message written there, like : Sandy loves John. When you ask : How do you think the message got there, what would be the obvious answer ? Obviously, anyone would answer : Someone with intelligence must have got there and wrote the message.
But Mikkels answer would be : we don't know something then we don't know and that is it. So when you have to alternatives : Namely wind, rain, natural forces, and intelligence, you would say : We don't know ??!!
You know that DNA carries a message, like the message on the sand dune.
So you wilful ignorance becomes evident, Mikkel.
Pity, isn't it ??!!
Mikkel wrote:
"If one is missing, DNA replication cannot occur:
How do you know the remaining ones cannot be altered to compensate for the lack of one of them? You don't know that, you just say it without having a clue whether it is true. "
Well, you should go then and teach that to the scientists wich are making the claim. It seems you have a remarkable knowledge which is above the scientists which dedicate their life to find these things out.......
remarkable, really, Mikkel.
Mikkel wrote
" They DON'T say there is not or cannot be a reduced ancestral stage with fewer components.
So you LIE when you claim there can't be such a thing. "
Is it? Nice argument from incredulity.....
When you can show me a dna replication machinery that functions without error detection and repair inbuilt, let me know.....
thats just one point.
"When you can show me a dna replication machinery that functions without error detection and repair inbuilt, let me know..... "
It's called PCR.
Your point being??
@Eric
The primary goal of creationism is not to prove that goddidit. Their only hope is to show that evolution (and most of science) is wrong. That's why they have latched on to epigenetics. It's not because it points to god(s), it's because in their minds it shows that scientists have been wrong about the causes of evolution.
Read the comments from the IDiots. They're all about discrediting evolution. Creationist think that disputing facts about evolution will cast doubt on naturalism and, therefore, promote supernaturaliam.
They are completely oblivious to the concept that they need to provide evidence for their own claim of an intelligent designer. That's because they start the debate with the firm belief that their god(s) actually exist and can create universes. Thus, the only "problem" from their perspective is why the rest of us are stupid enough to believe in evolution as the naturalistic explanation of the history of life.
If we were wrong about epigenetics then we were probably wrong about everything else. The only alternative must be goddidit—that's how their minds work.
Mikkel wrote :
"This is the same stupid shit with you every time. You quote a factoid form the literature "function A in eukaryotes uses proteins A1, A2 and A3". Then you brainlessly declare that there cannot be a version of function A with fewer proteins.
How do you know that?"
I know it in the same manner as i know that a one cylinder motor without its piston will not work.
In the same manner, DNA replication without helicase will not work.....
So you don't know what PCR is. Cute.
You need two things for DNA replication:
1. A catalyst for polymerization.
2. Cycling high and low temperatures.
That's it.
"You know that DNA carries a message"
I don't. That's amazing news. Have you got your Nobel Prize yet? What is the message? I can't wait to hear this.
Thats the same when you arrive at a sand dune, and you see a message written there, like : Sandy loves John. When you ask : How do you think the message got there, what would be the obvious answer ? Obviously, anyone would answer : Someone with intelligence must have got there and wrote the message.
This is a common strawman argument used by the IDiot brigade. Those who reject ID creationism are not saying it is impossible to detect design in such a circumstance. It is the IDiots who are misunderstanding the means by which design is detected.
In your example, Otangelo, we know that human beings exist, and that they have been frequently observed to have written messages in sand. Whereas it has never been observed that sand will spontaneously arrange itself into written messages in a human language. So the logical conclusion when seeing such a message is that it was written by a person.
The situation is not at all the same re: the origin of life. On the contrary, we know of billions of "intelligent designers", and not a single one of them has ever been able to create life from non-living substances. More importantly, all of the intelligent designers of which we know have only come into existence billions of years after life arose. So it would be inconsistent with current knowledge to say that life was created by an intelligent being, since all the evidence before us suggests that intelligent beings only come into existence some time after life arises. It would be impossible, therefore, for an intelligent being to create life.
Now, if we regularly observed sand dunes in which the grains of sand spontaneously arranged themselves into written sentences, then we would not be able to determine whether a message written in the sand was created by an intelligent being or just thru natural processes. And, similarly, if we regularly saw God walking around pointing to pools of water and magically creating life in them, we would be justified in concluding that was how all life arose. But since we observe neither of those things, we we are forced to accept the most rational conclusions based on the evidence before us: Messages in the sand arise from "intelligent design", and life doesn't.
If we were wrong about epigenetics then we were probably wrong about everything else. The only alternative must be goddidit—that's how their minds work.
I think it would be more accurate to say, "that's how their minds malfunction." :)
I can't wait to see how Otangelo The Ignorant tries to recover from his embarrassing face plant on PCR. This should be fun....
Mikkel wrote:
" So you don't know what PCR is. Cute.
You need two things for DNA replication:
1. A catalyst for polymerization.
2. Cycling high and low temperatures.
That's it. ""
Pff... haha.
" LOL. Where the hell do you get this crap from? Stop reading creationist sources, they are full of misinformation.
Here, read this: Epigenetics: The Science of Change. "
May not a creationist source. What about this ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics
Robin Holliday defined epigenetics as "the study of the mechanisms of temporal and spatial control of gene activity during the development of complex organisms."[21] Thus epigenetic can be used to describe anything other than DNA sequence that influences the development of an organism.
El, you don't know what PCR is? Wow, what a surprise (not).
And here is Otangelo's entire response to being told about PCR:
Pff... haha
Epigenetics is still a natural process which falsifies creationism.
Also, you still haven't explained why humans and chimps are physically different. Is it due to differences in DNA sequence or not?
ahm.... haha
i thought PCR requires intelligence to be done....
No, you had never heard of PCR. Now that you have, you must admit that your claim that "DNA replication without helicase will not work" was false. Right?
Larry wrote
" Their only hope is to show that evolution (and most of science) is wrong. "
disagreed.
Intelligent design makes a entirely positive case.
The fact that the universe had a beginning, means it had a cause. The fact that the universe is finely tuned to the extreme, points to the requirement of a fine-tuner. Coded Information which is complex and instructional/specified found in epigenetic systems and genes, and irreducible , interdependent molecular machines and biosynthetic and metabolic pathways in biological systems, and the specific energy supply where its needed, and communication networks and information processing machines in cells point to a intelligent agent as best explanation of their setup and origins.
Provide a more compelling explanation based on natural mechanisms, and we talk. Why are you not trying ?
Science is ok, Larry.
But science is no equal evolution.
Id proponents / creationists do not TRY to refute unversal common descent, and the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors through unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; the idea that the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection acting on random variation, and other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, completely suffice to explain the origin of novel biological forms and the appearance of design in complex organisms.
We surpassed the stage to TRY to refute above claims. THEY ARE REFUTED !!
But when you stick to the pressuposition that naturalism is true, and evolution is a fact, every evidence in the contrary is ignored.....
And then he also doesn't understand what a metaphor or an analogy is. He describes a scenario with a literal explicit message in a sand dune, then quotes a piece of literature where Paul Davies is using message in a metaphorical rather than literal sense.
And, true to form, OtangeloElShamah cuts and pastes something that he does not comprehend, and which has nothing to do with what he's trying to argue.
Even worse, it is a hypothesis for a natural origin of life without any kind of intelligent design(by gods or otherwise).
It's one of the mistakes the IDiots constantly make: Assuming that because something can be called "information", that means it must have been created by an intelligent being. A mutual acquaintance of ours has addressed this fallacy quite thoroughly in the link below. I would say it's required reading for all ID creationists, but they'll probably only look at it thru their Bible Goggles:
Who Put it There? Information in DNA.
Sorry, that link doesn't seem to work. Try this:
http://reciprocity-giving-something-back.blogspot.ca/2016/04/who-put-it-there-information-in-dna.html
Mikkel wrote
"Even worse, it is a hypothesis for a natural origin of life without any kind of intelligent design(by gods or otherwise). "
Thats irrelevant. The quote above refutes directly your hogwash-misstated claim that DNA carries not literally, but metaphorically information.
That has been refuted time and time again. Its remarkable that you insist and lie to yourself to keep your fantasy world view desperately alive at any price.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-are-traits-passed-on/
Nobel laureates Linus Pauling, who discerned the structure of proteins, and James Watson and Francis Crick, who later deciphered the helical structure of DNA, helped us to understand this "Central Dogma" of heredity--that the DNA code turns into an RNA MESSAGE that has the ability to organize 20 amino acids into a complex protein: DNA -> RNA -> Protein.
Molecular Communications and Nanonetworks: From Nature To Practical Systems
During the encoding phase, the DNA MESSAGE is put inside the bacteria's cytoplasm.
http://www.genetics.edu.au/Publications-and-Resources/Genetics-Fact-Sheets/FactSheetMutations
A mutation alters the gene MESSAGE so that it no longer sends the correct information to the cells.
"The quote above refutes directly your hogwash-misstated claim that DNA carries not literally, but metaphorically information. "
This is confused. I never said DNA carries metaphorical INFORMATION, I said that calling it a MESSAGE is what is a metaphor. Try to read you gimp.
All messages contain information, but not all information is a MESSAGE.
Hey, Otangelo, have you had a look at that link I provided above? He gives several examples of things that contain information. To support your position, you either have to show that they do not contain information, or that the information they contain was put there by an intelligent agent. Good luck.
Mikkel wrote
" This is confused. I never said DNA carries metaphorical INFORMATION, I said that calling it a MESSAGE is what is a metaphor. "
Well, then let me clarify: DNA carries LITERALLY A MESSAGE.
A recipe or message that will be followed, instructional information that will be obeyed, a program that will determine, DNA as the master molecule that carries the blueprint to make proteins.
"Well, then let me clarify: DNA carries LITERALLY A MESSAGE."
Cool story bro.
Tell me, Ontanelo: If you open up a cookbook to a recipe for a cake, does the cake assemble itself automatically? If you lay a blueprint on the ground, does the building it depicts suddenly rise up? Do I hear you say "No"? Very good, that's the right answer. But how could that be the case, if DNA is a "recipe" or a "blueprint"?
It wouldn't falsify creationism. nothing does thats really happening in the here and now. Why would it?
Humans and chimps were created different.
So starting from each's original model there was change. originally we might of looked much more alike then now. or much less.
Both bodies can change die to needs from innate triggers after thresholds are passed I think.
The dna already has a memory to change itself as needed. Not evole from mutations.
So its original creation plus later variation within boundaries of a kind(s)
"It wouldn't falsify creationism. nothing does thats really happening in the here and now. Why would it?
"
Epigenetics falsifies creationism in the same way that evolution does. It is a natural process that can explain the change in organisms over time.
Also, your explanation of why humans and chimps are different is completely incoherent. You make wild claims that don't make sense and aren't backed by any science. You are just making it up.
for how much time are you following and posting at this blog ?
Are you really THAT death (sic) to the wealth of information already provided here...
...followed by the sound of hundreds of exploding irony meters.
Epigenetics is entirely natural. If you disagree, then show us the step in epigenetics where we can observe the actions of the supernatural.
Calling something a code does not make it the product of the supernatural or the product of an intelligence. You actually need evidence, not opinion and labels. You need to show that the origin of these systems was God . . . I mean some unspecified intelligence, not simply assert it.
Eric
Calling something a code does not make it the product of the supernatural or the product of an intelligence. //
Argument from incredulity.
EVERY coded instructional/complex information can be tracked back to its intelligent origin.
Provide examples of the contrary, and we talk.
EVERY coded instructional/complex information can be tracked back to its intelligent origin.
Provide examples of the contrary, and we talk.
DNA
"Argument from incredulity. "
No, it's not an appeal to incredulity, it's a statement of fact. It is literally a true fact, a provable reality, that calling something a code does not make it the product of design.
"EVERY coded instructional/complex information can be tracked back to its intelligent origin."
Literally the genetic code is a counterexample to that claim. So are fraunhofer lines in the electromagnetic spectrum.
"Provide examples of the contrary, and we talk."
No, YOU are the one that should be PROVING that all codes have an intelligent designer as their source. We don't have to DISPROVE it, YOU have to PROVE IT TRUE first. You can't just ASSUME that. That is the fallacy of BEGGING THE QUESTION.
"Argument from incredulity.
EVERY coded instructional/complex information can be tracked back to its intelligent origin.
"
Then track DNA back to its intelligent origin, as you claim you can do.
Mikkel
" No, YOU are the one that should be PROVING that all codes have an intelligent designer as their source. "
As said. All CSI we know of, can be tracked back to a intelligent origin.
We have good reasons to predict that this situation will not change. Never. Ever.
You have the excellent oporunity to falsify the prediction, and show how smart you are.
Good luck.
You claim DNA has complex specified information, so show us how it tracks back to an intelligent origin. Where is the evidence?
If you can't, then you must admit that we don't know the origin of all CSI.
"We have good reasons to predict that this situation will not change. Never. Ever."
Like what?
Eric
1. The pattern in DNA is a code.
2. All codes we know the origin of com from a intelligent mind
3. Therefore we have 100% inference that DNA comes from a intelligent mind, and 0% inference that it is not.
As said. All CSI we know of, can be tracked back to a intelligent origin.
Wrong:
My Life as MathGrrl
If your claim was true, why was not a single IDiot able to answer "MathGrrl's" question? And why was William Dembski so careful to avoid even participating in that discussion?
While you're at it, why don't you identify the intelligent agent who created the "CSI" in DNA (assuming there is any? Who has it been "tracked back to"?
1. The pattern in DNA is a code.
2. All codes we know the origin of com from a intelligent mind
Not DNA. Unless you'd care to identify to whom or what that intelligent mind belongs.
"1. The pattern in DNA is a code.
2. All codes we know the origin of com from a intelligent mind
3. Therefore we have 100% inference that DNA comes from a intelligent mind, and 0% inference that it is not."
3 does not follow from 2. We don't know where some codes come from. You can't draw conclusions from ignorance.
Eric
2 is a sentence based on positive knowledge. Not on ignorance. The premise is not based on what we do not know, but on what we actually know.
The problem is however much much bigger.
The task to explain what happens in the cell compares to invent two languages, two alphabets, and a translation system, and the information content of a book ( for example hamlet) being written in english translated to chinese in a fully automated, extremely sophisticared hardware system. The conclusion that a intelligent designer had to setup the system follows not based on missing knowledge ( argument from ignorance ). We know that minds do invent languages, codes, translation systems, ciphers, and complex, specified information all the time. The genetic code and its translation system is best explained through the action of a intelligent designer.
"2 is a sentence based on positive knowledge. Not on ignorance. The premise is not based on what we do not know, but on what we actually know. "
We don't know that DNA is the product of an intelligence. You have not presented any evidence demonstrating that DNA is the product of an intelligence. Until you do, you can't make the claim that DNA is the product of intelligence. It is that simple.
"The task to explain what happens in the cell compares to invent two languages, two alphabets, and a translation system, and the information content of a book ( for example hamlet) being written in english translated to chinese in a fully automated, extremely sophisticared hardware system."
That is just an assertion. Languages are abstract. DNA is not. Do you chemically react with the newspaper when you read it? No. Everything that DNA does involves physical and chemical interactions. It is not a language. It is not an alphabet of abstract symbols. All you are doing is arguing via labels.
Post a Comment