The Origin of Specious Nonsense. Twelve years on. Still going. Answer soon.

oldrnwisr

Apologies JC (and everyone else) for the delay in responding to this. Work commitments (and the steam sale) got in the way.

Before I get to your specific "repsonses" to my last post, I want to revisit specified complexity because it is clear from your post that, like previous occasions on this thread, you lack a fundamental understanding of the topic under discussion and also the primer I will go through below should nicely obviate any of your previous "objections". A first principles primer on specified complexity should help to clarify things. I'm going to show how basic probability can be expressed in information theory terms and how it is related to specified complexity and how this concept gets bastardized by Dembski and how the overall idea of specified complexity is not valid as an argument against evolution.

OK, so everyone understands basic probability I suppose. If you have a deck of cards and you pull an ace there are 52 total cards and 4 aces therefore the probability is 1/13 or 0.077. This can also be expressed in terms of information. The amount of information (B) in a given probability (P) is:

B = -log2(P)

or alternatively

P = 2^-B

So, if you toss a coin 4 times and get 4 heads then the probability is 1/16 or 4 bits of information. Another way to look at this is there is a 1/16 chance of guessing any 4-bit number at random. The advantage of using bits comes from the size of numbers we're talking about. Expressing large (i.e. 100+ bits) of information as a basic probability can get very long very fast.

Expressing a single probability as bits of information is useful but in practice we're not dealing with a single instance of probability. The creationist argument deals with a sequence of probabilities, namely the probability of a, for example, 100aa chain protein. So we need to quantify the complexity of the sequence. The physical complexity, C of a sequence of length T C(T) is simply the probability of the sequence. So, for a coin toss, the probability of a specific 1000 toss sequence is 21000. However, here we can see the limitations of using physical complexity as an argument for or against evolution. If you toss a coin 1000 times and it comes up with 1000 heads then the probability is 2^1000. Similarly, a random 1000 toss sequence also has a probability of 2^1000. Now, when you toss a coin 1000 times you expect it to have a random sequence. If it comes up heads 1000 times you are going to suspect that there's something wrong with the coin. So you need to quantify exactly how unusual the sequence under consideration is. Since the probability of a random and non-random sequence are the same, physical complexity is a useless descriptor. This is where specificational complexity (not to be confused with specified complexity) comes in.


Specificational complexity, put plainly, is used to measure how easy it is to describe the sequence under examination. So, in the example above of the random sequence, there's no way to write a program to spit out that sequence that is any shorter than just writing out the sequence for yourself. However, in the case of the 1000 heads sequence, you could write a computer program that repeatedly spits out heads 1000 times. This could be achieved using a vastly smaller amount of information using something like this:

printf("%s",std::string(1000,'H').c_str());

So the specificational complexity K(T) is the amount of information that is needed to describe a sequence with physical complexity C(T). So a random sequence will have a high value for K(T), while a "deliberate" sequence will have a low value for K(T). It's also worth noting at this point that K(T) isn't an exact measurement, it is simply an upper bound. If you know of a way to describe a 1000 coin toss sequence using 50 bits of information then K(T) can never be larger than 50. It's possible you may someday find a way to compress the description even further but K(T) should never increase in value.

Now, we can begin to quantify how unusual a particular sequence is. In the example of the coin toss sequence, most of the sequences turn out to be random. Therefore,
K(T) is, for practical purposes equal to T (i.e. uncompressible). In the case of our 1000 heads sequence, we can describe that sequence using, let's say 50 bits. This means that there are 2^50 possible sequences which can be described using 50 bits. Therefore, specified complexity (i.e. the measure of how unusual the 1000 heads sequence is) is:

2^50/2^1000

or to make the maths easier

C(T) - K(T)

So, for our example above, the specified complexity of a 1000 head sequence is 950 bits.

This is where William Dembski and his notion of a universal probability bound comes in. The UPB has been discussed at length before but the basic idea goes something like this.

Let's say that you have a lottery game with odds of winning of 1 in 100,000 or P = 0.00001. Now let's say that you hire 10 people to each go and buy 10 tickets each. We'll call the number of people A and the number of tickets bought by each as B. Therefore the odds now becomes:

1 - (1-P)^A*B

or using Boole's inequality this can be expressed as

A*B*P > 1 - (1-P)^A*B

So, going back to our coin example for a second, we found earlier that the specified complexity of 1000 heads was 950 bits. Now, let's say that we have 1,000,000 people each performing 10,000,000 coin tosses. Would a 1000 heads sequence still be unusual. Well in this case we can see that

log2(A*B) = 43

Therefore, the new probability is 950 bits minus 43 bits or 907 bits which is still highly improbable.

Dembski's UPB is long-winded and wrong in every important respect but the basic idea follows Boole's inequality above. In Dembski's example he considers the number of possible interactions as the product of the number of elementary particles (10^80) and the number of seconds since the big bang (10^70) or 10^150 total chances. Using Boole's inequality we can see the total number of bits attributable (according to Dembski) as 498 bits (often rounded to 500). Therefore, if the specified complexity of a particular protein sequence is above this threshold then it is, in Dembski's opinion, likely the result of design and not chance. Other creationists have since attempted to cite relevant biological examples of such design inference as I noted in my last post:

"Complex specified information is a specified subset of Shannon information. That means that complex specified information is Shannon information of a specified nature, ie with meaning and/ or function, and with a specified complexity.

Shannon's tells us that since there are 4 possible nucleotides, 4 = 2^2 = 2 bits of information per nucleotide. Also there are 64 different coding codons, 64 = 2^6 = 6 bits of information per amino acid, which, is the same as the three nucleotides it was translated from.

Take that and for example a 100 amino acid long functioning protein- a protein that cannot tolerate any variation, which means it is tightly specified and just do the math 100 x 6 + 6 (stop) = 606 bits of specified information- minimum, to get that protein. That means CSI is present and design is strongly supported.

Now if any sequence of those 100 amino acids can produce that protein then it isn't specified. IOW if every possible combo produced the same resulting protein, I would say that would put a hurt on the design inference."

Unfortunately for the creationist movement, there are several problems with Dembski's approach which invalidates specified complexity as an argument against evolution.


1. Chance

This is the Arcturan MegaElephant in the room. Specified complexity is a very useful tool to determine if a particular sequence is likely to have been the result of chance or a deliberate action. Of course, if the basic process you're examining is not governed by chance then specified complexity becomes absolutely meaningless. So it is with biology. The creationist example cited above describes the specified complexity of a 100-amino acid sequence arising by chance. It's probability is so low that design is inferred. However, chance or design are not the only options. See, creationists seem to be working from this awful strawman of evolution where they think that this primoridal sea of amino acids that they've heard about from "evolutionists" is like some gigantic tank of velcro balls and that they just stick to each other randomly and eventually a protein is formed. In the real world, however, we can see that chance doesn't govern and
isn't involved in protein synthesis. Even if we take modern protein biosynthesis we can see this to be the case.

Proteins are synthesised by means of a process called translation where the ribosomes in a cell's cytoplasm assembles amino acids in a particular sequence according to a set of instructions from messenger RNA as seen below:



In this process the tRNA bound amino acids are assembled together by the ribosome using mRNA as a guide like a kind of biological zipper. Now to go into more depth on translation and cell biology and ribosomes and mRNA would take way too much time and I've bored everyone for long enough already so I've included wikipedia links above for anyone who wants to explore the topic in more depth. Long story short however, the process is not random and is instead controlled by the mRNA. Well, so what I hear you say. Doesn't that just push the question back a step? Aren't we just talking about the probability of mRNA being assembled by chance? Well, no. The origin and synthesis of RNA is not a chance process either and can be demonstrated from first principles. This has been discussed at length before but it bears repeating here (apologies to anyone who was around for this the last time for repeating myself):

We begin with a primordial earth with just two basic assumptions:

1) abundant hydrothermal activity

2) the presence of a few basic organic compounds, particularly cyanamide, cyanoacetylene, glycolaldehyde, glyceraldehyde and also any inorganic phosphate.

Anyone who wishes to challenge these basic assumptions, be my guest.

Now, given these intial conditions, here is a sequence of how RNA is formed from basic compounds using only thermodynamics and basic physical chemistry.


Step 1 - Formation of activated ribonucleotides

1. Cyanamide and glycolaldehyde form a peptide bond to produce 2-amino-oxazole.
2. 2-amino-oxazole combines with glyceraldehyde to form a pentose amino-oxazoline.
3. Pentose amino-oxazolines combine with cyanoacetylene to form anhydroarabinonucleoside.
4. Anhydroarabinonucleoside undergoes (in the presence of an inorganic phosphate) phosphorylation to become B-ribocytidine-
2',3'-cyclic phosphate (an activated ribonucleotide).

Now before, we continue, here's a graphic illustrating the process and the science supporting it:




Synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions


Step 2 - Vesicle formation


The next step is the formation a montmorillonite bubble to act as a temporary cell wall. In 2011 a team from Harvard, Princeton and Brandeis universities showed experimentally that a stable, semi-permeable vesicle can form from natural montmorillonite clay around air bubbles present in the ocean.



Semi-permeable vesicles composed of natural clay

This is an important development for three reasons:

1. The montmorillonite vesicle provides a stable compartment protecting anything in the interior from external reactions.
2. Montmorillonite catalyses the polymerisation of ribonucleotides to form RNA.
3. Montmorillonite catalyses the formation of fatty-acid vesicles leading to the development of a more stable and long-lasting cell wall inside the clay wall.

With regard to the first point, the study above shows the stability of the montmorillonite cells.

As for the second point, it has been demonstrated experimentally:

Oligomerization of ribonucleotides on montmorillonite: reaction of the 5'-phosphorimidazolide of adenosine

that montmorillonite catalyses the formation of oligomers from the activated ribonucleotides which we have already demonstrated above. These oligomers can reach as much as 50-mer lengths



One-Step, Regioselective Synthesis of up to 50-mers of RNA Oligomers by Montmorillonite Catalysis

These ribonucleotides can permeate the vesicle but once formed are trapped within the protocell membrane.

As for the third point, it has also been shown experimentally that montmorillonite catalyses the formation of fatty-acid vesicles.

Mineral Surface Directed Membrane Assembly

Once fatty-acid vesicle is produced the growth of the vesicle is autocatalytic which has also been demonstrated experimentally:

Autopoietic Self-Reproduction of Fatty Acid Vesicles

Once this self-sustaining reaction has begun (sustained by the attraction of nearby lipids), the growing fatty acid vesicle begins to exert an outward pressure on the montmorillonite shell. From basic materials science we know that montmorillonite being a ceramic material has good strength when in compression (hence protection from external forces) but weak in tension. As a result the growing vesicle shatters the montmorillonite shell and the resulting protobiont is free to float in the primordial ocean. So now we have a protobiont consisting of a fatty acid membrane which is permeable to monomers and small molecules but impermeable to the oligomer now trapped within.

The next step in the process is the growth of the oligomer to form RNA and other more complex biological polymers.

The basic reaction sequence that is followed is similar to that used in polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing.



Now, here's where it gets interesting. We have above a mechanism for a reaction by which the oligomer inside the protobiont can form larger and more complex structures. However, what we are currently missing is something to kickstart this reaction. This is where the conditions of the early earth. Given what we know from basic geology, physics and geography, it is likely that the early Earth was populated with a vast number of hydrothermal vents.
Firstly, it has been shown that the protobionts described above are thermally stable at temperatures of up to 100 degrees:

Thermostability of model protocell membranes

At these elevated tempeatures the strands of polymer begin to denature while being trapped inside the vesicle while the vesicle itself expands allowing more monomers to cross into the cell whereby the current carries the cell away to a lower temperature where the nucleotides acquired at high temperature can bond to the denatured polymer backbone allowing for growth of the RNA. It can also lead to copying of the RNA. This is an important development. As the RNA inside the vesicle grows/copies it increases the osmotic pressure inside the cell. This causes the vesicle to attract nearby lipids at an even greater rate thus creating a larger cell. As these membranes grow they develop a tubular branched shape which can be divided by external forces such as shear stresses from thermal differentials in the ocean. Here's a nice little graphic to demonstrate what I mean.



As the authors note in the paper above:

"The strands of encapsulated double-stranded DNA can be separated by denaturation at high temperature while being retained within vesicles, implying that strand separation in primitive protocells could have been mediated by thermal fluctuations without the loss of genetic material from the protocell. At elevated temperatures, complex charged molecules such as nucleotides cross fatty-acid-based membranes very rapidly, suggesting that high temperature excursions may have facilitated nutrient uptake before the evolution of advanced membrane transporters. The thermostability of these membranes is consistent with the spontaneous replication of encapsulated nucleic acids by the alternation of template-copying chemistry at low temperature with strand-separation and nutrient uptake at high temperature. "

So now we have a cell containing RNA which is capable of growth and reproduction using only basic chemistry and relying only on thermodynamics and physical forces.


2. Redundancy

We've already covered this in a previous post but it should be reiterated here. As the creationist example cited above states:

"Now if any sequence of those 100 amino acids can produce that protein then it isn't specified."

Because Dembski is a mathematician and not a biologist this is another point that he gets completely wrong. Proteins aren't unique sequences of amino acids where even one change in an amino acid will completely upset the protein. As I've shown in my cytochrome C example, there is a massive amount of redundancy in protein structure. Also, it should be pointed out that this is true even if we restrict the protein to a definite number of amino acids. However, even this too can vary. This means that the algorithmic specified complexity of most proteins is very low indeed, and this would be true even if we had to take chance into account.

OK, time to wrap this up. The TLDR is this. Specified complexity is a useful tool to determine if a particular sequence like coin tosses, bingo balls or votes are rigged or random. However, if the basic process isn't governed by chance then specified complexity is meaningless. In a biological context, protein synthesis doesn't happen by chance. It is governed by messenger RNA, a compound which is formed through simple chemistry. Protein synthesis isn't about chance it's about the basic rules of physical chemistry and that's why Dembski, and the creationists who cite him, are talking through their arses.

You have the patience of a saint. (little s)

looksee

Really oldrnwsr, don't you know life is too short to read screeds of text...the bible is so much easier to understand and is definitive!

oldrnwisr

looksee wrote: »

Really oldrnwsr, don't you know life is too short to read screeds of text...the bible is so much easier to understand and is definitive!

I wish it were possible to condense four textbooks worth of maths, organic chemistry, physical chemistry and biology not to mention innumerable research papers into a short post sprinkled with emoji and multicoloured text but it ain't.

smacl

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Specified complexity is a useful tool to determine if a particular sequence like coin tosses, bingo balls or votes are rigged or random.

From my layman's understanding of your description of specified complexity here, it seems to to boil down to the smallest amount of input data that can be used to generate a much larger seemingly random output sequence. So if we have our source data S and our output sequence O, we also need to have a transformation T, such that O = T(S). Now for something as simple as a repeating pattern, we can perhaps deduce T from O, but for more complex transforms that could be exceedingly difficult or even impossible, e.g. trying to compute a DCT from the output of an MP3 file. If you look at something like a fractal landscape, what appears very complex is actually generated from a very small amount if input data. I would have thought that the notion that we can't figure out the minimal amount of input data needed to produce a given output has anything to do with intelligent design is entirely specious on the basis that we can't reasonably expect to derive a reverse transformation from output back to input in very many cases. This does not imply the original transformation does not exist, i.e. for any O = T(S) we typically cannot compute T given only O.

nozzferrahhtoo

oldrnwisr wrote: »

I wish it were possible to condense four textbooks worth of maths, organic chemistry, physical chemistry and biology not to mention innumerable research papers into a short post sprinkled with emoji and multicoloured text but it ain't.

And to think people give ME a hard time over the length and breath of my posts

Though usually only 3 or 4 particular users, the type that scream "waffle" at it and run away, and usually only because they can't rebut a single thing I said so they are looking for cop out excuses to pretend they had not read it

Peregrinus

I confess I didn't read oldrnwisr's post all the way through. But I've given it a thank for effort, patience and demonstrated commitment to the pursuit of knowledge.

oldrnwisr

smacl wrote: »

From my layman's understanding of your description of specified complexity here, it seems to to boil down to the smallest amount of input data that can be used to generate a much larger seemingly random output sequence.

That's spot on. In information theory specified complexity is used to describe the compressibility of a sequence, i.e. the degree to which it can be transmitted or stored using less information than the sequence itself. It's the basis for things like zip files, cryptography etc.

smacl wrote: »

So if we have our source data S and our output sequence O, we also need to have a transformation T, such that O = T(S). Now for something as simple as a repeating pattern, we can perhaps deduce T from O, but for more complex transforms that could be exceedingly difficult or even impossible, e.g. trying to compute a DCT from the output of an MP3 file. If you look at something like a fractal landscape, what appears very complex is actually generated from a very small amount if input data. I would have thought that the notion that we can't figure out the minimal amount of input data needed to produce a given output has anything to do with intelligent design is entirely specious on the basis that we can't reasonably expect to derive a reverse transformation from output back to input in very many cases. This does not imply the original transformation does not exist, i.e. for any O = T(S) we typically cannot compute T given only O.

You're right, this is one of the problems with using specified complexity as an argument against evolution and it comes back to what I said in an earlier post about Dembski being fractally wrong.
In order for specified complexity to be an applicable tool the object has to be reduced to a string whose compressibility can then be assessed for a given predetermined language (e.g. C, Ruby, Pascal etc.). The problem with this is trying to use this on a biological object as a means to assess design. Reducing a protein to a string of nucleotides is fine (leaving aside the other problems for a minute) but there's no way to test an organism on the same basis. A whisk fern, for example has approximately 2x10^11 base pairs in its genome. Since each nucleotide in the sequence has four degrees of freedom, we are talking about a physical complexity C(T) of -log2(0.25^(2x10^11)). So, we are talking about a number which is so ridiculously large that we can't even begin to talk about computing specified complexity. So using specified complexity as a tool for identifying design is completely useless.
Then there's the falsifiability problem. As you point out, we won't be able, for the most part, to calculate T given O. Specified complexity as I pointed out in my last post doesn't return an exact value but rather an upper bound on the true value. This means that as a tool to qualitatively assess design it is fundamentally flawed. Since it is possible that a shorter description of the sequence may be found in the future, the design inference can never be ruled out. Such unfalsifiability rules out specified complexity as a valid test for design.
Then there's the background information problem. Let's return to the coin example for a minute. Let's say we toss the coin 100 times and it comes up heads 100 times. Under the previous scenario this would be a surprising result, a result that looks deliberate. However, in this case we know that this coin has a manufacturing defect which means that it will come up heads 99% of the time. Knowing what we now know, is this still a surprising result. Well, without background knowledge we have a C(T) of 100 and a K(T) of 50. Now, taking the background information into account, the probability of heads is now 0.99 which means that C(T) becomes 1.45. Therefore the specified complexity (C(T) - K(T)) is 1.45 - 50 or -48.55. This means that this was an unsurprising result. Dembski mentions background information when he talks about his four conditions for rejecting chance. His CINDE (conditional independence) filter is used to show how a chance hypothesis may be accepted or rejected but Dembski never formulates what I (background information) is for the specific context of testing for design in biology.
As I've already said, it's actually quite difficult to convey how wrong Dembski really is. He's built such a verbose and superficially impenetrable argument that explaining why the argument is wrong takes up much more time and effort than the argument itself. I've used the phrase before but it's never been more true to say that Dembski is fractally wrong. Every component of his argument is wrong as wrong as the entire argument. Again, for those interested, here are just a few samples of serious academics taking Dembski's work apart just to show how deeply flawed this specified complexity idea really is:

Not a Free Lunch but a box of chocolates

Dembski weasels out

Dissecting Dembski

Information theory, evolutionary computation and Dembski's "Complex Specified Information"

How not to detect design

Information theory and creationism

Deleted User wrote: »

You have the patience of a saint. (little s)

Peregrinus wrote: »

I confess I didn't read oldrnwisr's post all the way through. But I've given it a thank for effort, patience and demonstrated commitment to the pursuit of knowledge.

Thank you both for your comments. It means a lot and I appreciate it.

smacl

I was wondering whether 'fractally wrong' was humour disguised as a typo in the original post, hence my smiley response. Entirely appropriate of course and what led me to the subsequent post on cellular automata, which share a few traits with fractals. The more I read (your own posts included) the more I realise how little I know and increasingly suspect how little any of us will ever know as a proportion of all there is to know. I find the creationist stance bizarre in this regard, and more than a little naive, in the way it gropes after anything that might support a preferred truth rather than investigating what's out there without bias. I often fall into this trap in a sense; start with a suspicion (which borders on a belief) and mooch about to see if I can find supporting evidence. Creationism seems like a more extreme form if this; start with a conclusion, gather any disconnected notions that might support it, and disregard or deny anything that opposes it. Whatever else that might be, it isn't science. It even lacks the inventiveness of starting with first hand imagination which galls me.

jigglypuffstuff

smacl wrote: »

If you think that yin and yang could be deities you need to revisit your Taoist literature as this is wildly off the mark. These are concepts, not physical things. From a Taoist perspective everything has yin and yang properties in varying amounts as everything derives from the tao and yin and yang are simply the first division of the tao.



I've had many years of practise of various neigong and qigong sets in the past along with decades of taijiquan, so a bit, yes. The Chinese have long ascribed various magical properties to different gung practices. For example, the boxers in the boxer rebellion believed the exercise regime they performed made them impervious to bullets. Needless to say, it didn't pan out so well for them. You still see all sorts of snake oil peddled in much the same way, such as projecting qi to take out an opponent using empty force. Taoist sexual practises can also be pretty bizarre, such as attaching weights to your testicles to improve longevity, or eating ground up rhino horn as an aphrodisiac.

You say you don't need a definition of qi. I'd be interested in hearing your definition of it.

Lets be clear, I never said, nor implied they were deities.

Secondly, if you contrast with other cultures creation myths, you will find a stark contrast in what is often referred to as the cosmic egg (although carries various labels)...I can post a list of such if you wish?....If you wish to brush these off as myths that is totally understandable ...I prefer to use them as reference points and try to link with modern terminology

I dont need a definition, at ts most basic level it is life force...ive also seen it been labelled as prana, and odic force...depending where in the world you go

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Except you just did the exact opposite and what you present is perfectly consistent with my position. Ta for that.

Even the first definition you offer puts things into the realm of "supernatural" that makes no sense to do so. For example there is highly likely to be planets outside the observable universe, just like there is INSIDE it.

So by the definition you have cherry picked, a planet we can see is "natural" and a planet we can not yet see is "supernatural". That is just nonsense really. A planet is a planet is a planet, and I see no coherence in one being natural and one being supernatural just because of it's location in our universe.

Your second definition conforms to what I said, not what you said, too. Despite you putting it in bold as if you thought it was supporting your case. The words "transcend the laws of nature" for example. We do not know that the origin of the universe does any such thing. We simply do not know. So once again your interpretation of the word means that basically anything we do not know or understand is "supernatural". Which as I said means things like "epilepsy" were once "supernatural" because we once did not understand it's causes.

That is the kind of nonsense that comes of using a definition that misses the difference between "cannot (as in CURRENTLY) by explained by science" and "CANNOT be explained by science".

The same is true of the "that cannot be explained by science" you offered. AGAIN here I think you make the same error I corrected before, which is that you are mistaking the wording as meaning it can not be understood by current science when I maintain that the meaning is it CANNOT be explained by science, as in it can NEVER be explained by science. In other words to call the origin of our universe "supernatural" you are asserting it can not be explained by science. Just because it has not YET been explained by science is no grounds to assert it NEVER CAN be.



But I am not seeing anyone here who has been "closing themselves to ideas" at all. I just see people who, while remaining open to new and different ideas, are not open to accepting any unsubstantiated notion that careens into consciousness or conversation.

I am also not seeing anyone here who needs the advice on taking the "I dont know" attitude. Generally the people on this area of the forum are very cognizant of the limits of knowledge, be it their own or that of our species as a whole.

Unfortunately, and I mean this as a general statement rather than directed at any individual, people.......... those with no arguments, evidence, data or reasoning to offer for their claims.......... merely push the narrative that people who do not buy their claims must be in some way closed to them. In other words they serve only to project their own failures onto some imagined failure, bias or agenda of the mark.



I think what I "am saying" is clear. I am saying that we appear to exist, and we appear to exist in a universe. The explanation for all of that is something we currently do not have.

But the level of argument, evidence, data and reasoning on offer to me at this time that suggests that the explanation, whatever it turns out to be, lies in the machinations and actions of a non-human intelligent and intentional agent...... is precisely zero.



So far though it appears you have only told us WHAT you believe and not the "why" part, which is what I was asking. If the why is just faith, then that it at least an answer. But alas the limitations of a "just faith" result is that it precludes much of the possibilities for meaningful further discourse.

Interesting though that YOU not I limited it to "scientific evidence" specifically. Quite a lot of people do that when talking to me, even though I did not make that limitation or stipulation myself. I write, and to you also wrote, the words "Any arguments, evidence, data or reasoning to lend the claim any credence". Which is quite a generalized and wide net for me to cast. But quite often people, just like you here, limit themselves specifically to scientific evidence, or act like, or outright claim, that it was I that made the limitation.

I am open to any form of evidence offered coherently and cogently. I can then think consider it, evaluate it, and explain why I can accept or reject it.

Without trying to make the reply too long winded..I don't think that the universe just happened...Its not simply a matter of faith...Id look at Hoyles fallacy as having some merit (not a perfect argument, but worth speculation at least). Equally, I don't limit myself to anthropomorphic fallacies and descriptions ( Note i am not saying they are impossible either)

Am I limited to creation stories? No...I try to weave ancient descriptions together with science where possible (currently reading into to work of Tom Campbell)

Do I have all the answers? absolutely not...but when it comes down to whether people believe we were created or not is merely a matter of deciding what evidence you as an individual consider worthy of considering either for or against..which is a subjective viewpoint

p.s excuse my late reply...busy few weeks :cool:

smacl

pone2012 wrote: »

Lets be clear, I never said, nor implied they were deities.

Secondly, if you contrast with other cultures creation myths, you will find a stark contrast in what is often referred to as the cosmic egg (although carries various labels)...I can post a list of such if you wish?....If you wish to brush these off as myths that is totally understandable ...I prefer to use them as reference points and try to link with modern terminology

I dont need a definition, at ts most basic level it is life force...ive also seen it been labelled as prana, and odic force...depending where in the world you go

Sounds like a homespun type of pantheism you have there. While it is easy to draw parallels between say qi and prana to suit your own beliefs you have to consider whether your understanding has much in common with those that came up with these things in the first instance. You could as easily read up on the role of qi in neigung, watch a star wars movie, and conclude that qi is the same as the Force. Problem as I see it is that many people would dearly love their fantasies to be true and will buy into all sorts of charlatan nonsense that might support this position. Snake oil comes in a lot of different flavours.

nozzferrahhtoo

pone2012 wrote: »

Am I limited to creation stories? No...

Which is why I did not add such a limitation in my posts. I keep it quite general. All I have said is that whatever the explanation for our universe turns out to be....... there is currently zero arguments, evidence, data or reasoning on offer to me (least of all on this thread) to suggest that explanation may include the machinations of a non-human intelligent and intentional agent.

oldrnwisr

pone2012 wrote: »

Without trying to make the reply too long winded..I don't think that the universe just happened...Its not simply a matter of faith...Id look at Hoyles fallacy as having some merit (not a perfect argument, but worth speculation at least).

I've tried rereading that sentence a few times now but I still can't understand the point you're trying to make. What does Hoyle's fallacy (a.k.a. the Junkyard tornado) have to do with the formation of the universe?

Hoyle's argument is about abiogenesis and evolution. It has nothing whatsoever to do with cosmology or cosmogony. What Hoyle claimed was that:

"The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable to the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein."

Of course, you've rightly recognized that Hoyle's statement is a fallacy. In fact it's three fallacies wrapped up in one nugget of wrongness. It manages to combine an argument from ignorance, a false analogy and even a formal fallacy, denying the antecedent. Quite why you think it has any merit at all is puzzling. Hoyle being an astronomer knows bugger all about evolution and leads him to make several unfounded assumptions and mistakes of fact. For example, Hoyle states:

"Life as we know it is, among other things, dependent on at least 2000 different enzymes. How could the blind forces of the primal sea manage to put together the correct chemical elements to build enzymes?"

We know how this happens. I've explained it step-by-step (with pictures) in post 2672 above.

You see when Hoyle makes such ridiculous statements like this:

"Life cannot have had a random beginning … The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in 1040,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup."

it's clear that he doesn't know what he's talking about. Firstly, chance doesn't come into it. As I explained, the synthesis of early life was not determined by chance. It's not some big tank of velcro balls that stick to each other on contact and then if enough of the right kind of balls stick to each other then you get a protein. It's determined by the laws of chemistry. Secondly, it's not a case of synthesising modern enzymes and proteins in one step. It's about the synthesis of early precursors which then changed gradually over time. Between Evolution in Space and The Intelligent Universe, Hoyle manages to get every thing he claims about evolution and abiogenesis wrong including assuming that proteins are fixed sequences which were assembled in one step, assuming chance plays a significant role, not taking simultaneous trials into account etc. etc. If you read back through this thread you'll see exactly why Hoyle's ideas are worthless.

The trouble is, and this is an argument used by creationists a lot, that Hoyle's idea was formulated in the 1920s, before modern evolutionary synthesis, before the structure of DNA was isolated, before the Miller-Urey experiment. Even had Hoyle had a point back then, it isn't valid anymore. Time and science has moved on. So if you're going to argue like Bill O'Reilly do at least try and listen to what modern science has to say first.

Oh, and one final point. Hoyle's idea in the junkyard tornado was to promote panspermia as a means for the beginning of life on Earth. So it doesn't really help your overall point any even had it been correct. Hoyle was a brilliant astronomer but his ideas outside his own field went way off into tin-foil hat land (like the idea that viruses came from space). We should take Hoyle's opinion on biology just as seriously as Ben Carson's idea that the pyramids were grain stores or Michio Kaku saying that mankind has stopped evolving. Expertise in one field doesn't magically make you an expert in another one.

mickrock

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Firstly, chance doesn't come into it. As I explained, the synthesis of early life was not determined by chance.

You're an atheist, yet you don't believe the origin of life was accidental.

How bizarre.

oscarBravo

mickrock wrote: »

You're an atheist, yet you don't believe the origin of life was accidental.

How bizarre.

Did you deliberately misinterpret the post you're replying to, or was it accidental?

endacl

https://www.amazon.com/Origin-Specious-Nonsense-John-May/dp/1907179712

€345 for the cheapest copy!

robindch

mickrock wrote: »

You're an atheist, yet you don't believe the origin of life was accidental. How bizarre.

Must remember to update the charter to say that juvenile misrepresentation is an offence which can, subject to a moderator's judgement, be subject to the usual forum sanctions.

robindch

endacl wrote: »

https://www.amazon.com/Origin-Specious-Nonsense-John-May/dp/1907179712

€345 for the cheapest copy!

I'd have got a second and a third copy if I'd known that they'd appreciate in value as much as that! Would be nice to know how much this thread has contributed to the increase as well

BTW, I see that Amazon believes that Mr May went on to self-publish another book on weight loss:

https://www.amazon.com/Any-Body-Lose-Weight-Except/dp/1909007404/

Any suggestions for what this excellent book might recommend?

Pherekydes

robindch wrote: »

Any suggestions for what this excellent book might recommend?

Eat as much as you want, no need to exercise! Drink all the alcohol you want!

Just say a few prayers to the holy goat, and the pounds will fall off.

J C

endacl wrote: »

https://www.amazon.com/Origin-Specious-Nonsense-John-May/dp/1907179712

€345 for the cheapest copy!

You can't put a price on truth ... but when I bought my copy a few years ago it was about EUR 15.

robindch wrote: »

I'd have got a second and a third copy if I'd known that they'd appreciate in value as much as that! Would be nice to know how much this thread has contributed to the increase as well

Perhaps the book has become an heirloom??:)

Myself and yourself, Robin, seem to be already sitting on a tidy profit ... but then, neither of us could bear to part with such a Magnum Opus.:eek:

J C

robindch wrote: »

Must remember to update the charter to say that juvenile misrepresentation is an offence which can, subject to a moderator's judgement, be subject to the usual forum sanctions.

As one person's "juvenile misrepresentation" is another persons 'pithy observation' ... such a very subjective rule may make the job of a mod even more difficult than it already is.

BTW, just out of curiosity, is this how new charter rules are made for the A & A ... i.e. does a mod simply decide on their own intitiative to add a new rule?
... or were you just being ironic, like the poster?

J C

MrPudding wrote: »

Don't make me search through you post history to dig out those really creepy posts you occasionally make about your wife.

MrP

Please do so ... as I've posted nothing 'creepy' about her ... or is being a hetrosexual man who loves his wife dearly, and says so ... the only 'politically incorrect' thing nowadays?

I am the luckiest man in the world to be married to the sexiest woman in the world ... but she says that luck had no part in it ... being a very attractive confident Christian man, was the reason she loved me back.:)

Timberrrrrrrr

J C wrote: »

Please do so ... as I've posted nothing 'creepy' about her ... or is being a hetrosexual man who loves his wife dearly, and says so ... the only 'politically incorrect' thing nowadays?

I am the luckiest man in the world to be married to the sexiest woman in the world ... but she says that luck had no part in it ... being a very attractive confident Christian man, was the reason she loved me back.:)

Pride JC?

Extra confession session for you this week!

J C

MrPudding wrote: »

You have posted a load of nonsense if response to oldrnwisr's post, it you most certainly have not addressed it.

I appreciate that you don't really have a great deal of dignity left, if any at all, it please just admit you lack the ability to address his points, or indeed the points of anyone that posts actual science. That might actually garner you some small modicum of respect.

MrP

Mr P, I don't need or ask for your respect ... and just as well, because you never accord any respect to me ... but your disrespect of me, says a lot more about you (and any argument you are trying to make) than it does about me.

It would be nice if, some time, you were to substatiate your unfounded personal slurs on me with some valid points about the content of what I actually post ... and not merely your blatantly biased views of my abilities ... which we are all already familiar with ... due to your constant repetition of them.

... but then, of course, you would have to debate my ideas ... and as they are incontrovertible ... this might result in you having to 'break sweat', for quite some time ... with little hope of success.

J C

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Pride JC?

Extra confession session for you this week!

I'm just saying what my wife has told me ... I'd be far too modest to make any claims about this myself.:)

... and being a confident Christian man is very sexy indeed.

I'd recommend it.:)

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by oldrnwisr
Firstly, chance doesn't come into it. As I explained, the synthesis of early life was not determined by chance.

mickrock
You're an atheist, yet you don't believe the origin of life was accidental.

How bizarre.

Not really bizzarre ... it is a mathematical necessity that life originated by non-random methods ... the odds against a random / chance process doing it is simply an impossibilty.

This is accepted by nearly everybody ... it's the nature of the non-random method(s)/process(es) that is in dispute.:)

... even Prof Dawkins accepts that a non-random process could have produced life on earth ... and if it did, it is possible to find the signature of the non-random process in the details of biochemistry and molecular biology. So why isn't science looking for this signature ?
I can tell you it is ... quietly and with no publicity.:)

I have just returned from visiting the States.

... and as I've got significant jet lag ... I'll address oldrnwisr's posts tomorrow evening, God willing.:)

robindch

J C wrote: »

BTW, just out of curiosity, is this how new charter rules are made for the A & A ... i.e. does a mod simply decide on their own intitiative to add a new rule?

The rules off A+A are intended to help posters maintain a high level of debate. Where posters ignore or abuse the rules or that general understanding, the moderators reserve the right to step in to do what's needed to restore the level of debate. That can and does include the ability to create, together with the remainder of the forum moderators, new forum rules.

mickrock

robindch wrote: »

Must remember to update the charter to say that juvenile misrepresentation is an offence which can, subject to a moderator's judgement, be subject to the usual forum sanctions.

There seems to be plenty of "juvenile misrepresentation" of anyone who doesn't view the universe/nature as blind, dumb and mindless.

I think you need to be less sensitive and chill out a bit, especially in this thread.

robindch

mickrock wrote: »

I think you need to be less sensitive and chill out a bit, especially in this thread.

You need to learn how to make an adult contribution, especially in this forum.

MrPudding

J C wrote: »

I'll address oldrnwisr's posts tomorrow evening, God willing.:)

yeah, of course you will. :rolleyes:

MrP