« Behe's Reply to Coyne
Coyne's Reply to Behe »

New Bio-Complexity Paper

by Bilbo

A Vivisection of the ev Computer Organism:
Identifying Sources of Active Information.

This entry was posted on Thursday, December 16th, 2010 at 6:57 pm and is filed under Computer Science, Evidence. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. The trackback link is: http://telicthoughts.com/new-bio-complexity-paper/trackback/

129 Responses to “New Bio-Complexity Paper”

  1. ID guy Says:
    December 18th, 2010 at 9:26 am

    So according to the computer science experts, EV is a targeted search. :cool:

    So much for it being used as evidence for the evolution of biological complexity via blind, undirected processes…

    2. Comment by ID guy — December 18, 2010 @ 9:26 am

  2. nullasalus Says:
    December 18th, 2010 at 6:23 pm

    You know, this makes me curious of something.

    Apparently the setup is this: Researchers come up with EV, claiming it simulates evolution in nature. They also claim EV is a 'blind, unguided' search.

    This paper argues that actually EV is a targeted search.

    Assume this paper is correct. Here's my question: Do we now therefore have evidence that evolution in nature is in fact a targeted search? :cool:

    3. Comment by nullasalus — December 18, 2010 @ 6:23 pm

  3. Daniel Smith Says:
    December 18th, 2010 at 7:44 pm

    nullasalus: Do we now therefore have evidence that evolution in nature is in fact a targeted search?

    Prediction: The believers will say "yes" and the non-believers will say "no".

    Anyone wanna take any bets?

    4. Comment by Daniel Smith — December 18, 2010 @ 7:44 pm

  4. olegt Says:
    December 18th, 2010 at 7:45 pm

    nullasalus wrote:

    You know, this makes me curious of something.

    Apparently the setup is this: Researchers come up with EV, claiming it simulates evolution in nature. They also claim EV is a 'blind, unguided' search.

    This paper argues that actually EV is a targeted search.

    nullasalus,

    You have no idea what ev does, do you? Maybe you should read a brief description of the program on Tom Schneider's site. Perhaps you will find something like this:

    The organisms are subjected to rounds of selection and mutation. First, the number of mistakes made by each organism in the population is determined. Then the half of the population making the least mistakes is allowed to replicate by having their genomes replace (`kill') the ones making more mistakes. (To preserve diversity, no replacement takes place if they are equal.) At every generation, each organism is subjected to one random point mutation in which the original base is obtained 1/4 of the time. For comparison, HIV-1 reverse transcriptase makes about one error every 2000-5000 bases incorporated, only 10 fold lower than this simulation [17].

    From this passage, one may reasonably conclude that the evolutionary process modeled by ev has two parts: (1) random, unguided mutations and (2) non-random, guided selection. It is a targeted search in the sense that there is a fixed genetic sequence with the best chance of survival and digital organisms invariably converge to that sequence when the program is run.

    Note that Schneider wrote this in 2001. If it took 9 years to realize that ev is a targeted search, boy, are they slow!

    Or maybe the local fan base has yet to figure out what Dembski and company are saying in their paper. Keep up the good work, boys!

    5. Comment by olegt — December 18, 2010 @ 7:45 pm

  5. olegt Says:
    December 18th, 2010 at 7:47 pm

    Correction:

    If it took the geniuses of ID 9 years to realize that ev is a targeted search, boy, are they slow!

    6. Comment by olegt — December 18, 2010 @ 7:47 pm

  6. ID guy Says:
    December 18th, 2010 at 7:57 pm

    Further correction-

    EV was detected as a bogus example for "evolution" when it was first presented as such an example.

    That it was just recently put in a peer-reviewed paper- what has been known for some time- is not any indication of when it was known.

    Also from the way EV actually is written it is reasonable to conclude that all reproduced sequences are matched against a TARGET and then selected. IOW there is a fixed sequence- a target- that the mutated sequences are trying to match. The better the match the better the chance of survival and reproduction.

    7. Comment by ID guy — December 18, 2010 @ 7:57 pm

  7. olegt Says:
    December 18th, 2010 at 8:22 pm

    ID guy wrote:

    Also from the way EV actually is written it is reasonable to conclude that all reproduced sequences are matched against a TARGET and then selected. IOW there is a fixed sequence- a target- that the mutated sequences are trying to match. The better the match the better the chance of survival and reproduction.

    What else is new, ID guy?

    8. Comment by olegt — December 18, 2010 @ 8:22 pm

  8. nullasalus Says:
    December 18th, 2010 at 8:23 pm

    olegt,

    You have no idea what ev does, do you?

    You had no idea what question I was even asking, did you? Let me ask it in another way, nice and slow, so even you can grok it. :cool:

    From the paper:

    Schneider [16] claims that ev demonstrates that naturally occurring genetic systems gain information by evolutionary processes and that “information gain can occur by punctuated equilibrium”. Our results show that, contrary to these claims, ev does not demonstrate “that biological information…can rapidly appear in genetic control systems subjected to replication, mutation, and selection” [16]. We show this by demonstrating that there are at least five sources of active information in ev.21

    …

    Our analysis highlights the importance of disclosing sources of knowledge in computer searches when measuring the ability of search mechanisms to generate novel information. As far as ev can be viewed as a model for biological processes in nature, it provides little evidence for the ability of a Darwinian search to generate new information. Rather, it demonstrates that pre-existing sources of information can be re-used and exploited, with vary-ing degrees of efficiency, by a suitably designed search process, biased computation structure, and tuned parameter set. This con-frms that the conservation of information principle, as manifest in the No Free Lunch Theorems, is “very useful, especially in light of some of the sometimes-outrageous claims that had been made of specifc optimization algorithms” [4].

    So, let's assume Dembski and company are right in their paper. Does this mean that ev, insofar as it is offered as a model of nature, is in fact an ID model? To be even more specific, would Dembski and company – or other ID proponents – make this claim? :cool:

    9. Comment by nullasalus — December 18, 2010 @ 8:23 pm

  9. olegt Says:
    December 18th, 2010 at 8:30 pm

    O, I'm well aware what you stated, nullasalus. Here:

    Apparently the setup is this: Researchers come up with EV, claiming it simulates evolution in nature. They also claim EV is a 'blind, unguided' search.

    This paper argues that actually EV is a targeted search.

    Everyone who paid the slightest amount of attention to this knew all along that ev was a targeted search. You're tilting at windmills.

    And pray tell, what is "a 'blind, unguided' search?" Enquiring minds want to know.

    10. Comment by olegt — December 18, 2010 @ 8:30 pm

  10. ID guy Says:
    December 18th, 2010 at 8:37 pm

    olegt:
    Everyone who paid the slightest amount of attention to this knew all along that ev was a targeted search.

    So all those people have been lying for 9 years? At least Dawkins was honest enough to come right out and said his "weasel" program, also a targeted search, is not indicative of biological evolution.

    Schneider sez:

    Ev is a computer program that allows one to model the way that information is gained in living organisms by natural selection.

    That is a lie- a targeted search is the antithesis of natural selection.

    No what olegt? :mrgreen:

    11. Comment by ID guy — December 18, 2010 @ 8:37 pm

  11. ID guy Says:
    December 18th, 2010 at 8:39 pm

    olegt:
    And pray tell, what is "a 'blind, unguided' search?"

    That is what YOU need to figure out if YOU want a computer program to simulate one. :roll:

    12. Comment by ID guy — December 18, 2010 @ 8:39 pm

  12. nullasalus Says:
    December 18th, 2010 at 8:40 pm

    olegt,

    Everyone who paid the slightest amount of attention to this knew all along that ev was a targeted search. You're tilting at windmills.

    Spectacular. Gonna answer my question then? Why, it oughta be easy!

    So, let's assume Dembski and company are right in their paper. Does this mean that ev, insofar as it is offered as a model of nature, is in fact an ID model?

    And pray tell, what is "a 'blind, unguided' search?" Enquiring minds want to know.

    Dembski, Marks and company claim: ev is an evolutionary search algorithm proposed to simulate biological evolution. As such, researchers have claimed that it demonstrates that a blind, unguided search is able to generate new information.

    So, what are you saying here olegt? That no researchers claim claim that evolution is "blind" or "unguided" in any sense relevant to this paper? That they do, but they're full of crap and speaking nonsense? Or maybe you're saying that evolution is guided and the arrival of various species, humans included, was downright inevitable?

    olegt the TE. I could enjoy that. :mrgreen:

    13. Comment by nullasalus — December 18, 2010 @ 8:40 pm

  13. olegt Says:
    December 18th, 2010 at 8:49 pm

    nullasalus,

    You wrote this:

    Apparently the setup is this: Researchers come up with EV, claiming it simulates evolution in nature. They also claim EV is a 'blind, unguided' search.

    This paper argues that actually EV is a targeted search.

    Defend your position or admit that it was silly.

    If you wish to do the former then define what "a 'blind, unguided' search" means and provide some quotes from scientists on the evolutionary side.

    14. Comment by olegt — December 18, 2010 @ 8:49 pm

  14. ID guy Says:
    December 18th, 2010 at 8:56 pm

    olegt,

    Natural selection is that blind, unguided "search". And according to Schneider:

    Ev is a computer program that allows one to model the way that information is gained in living organisms by natural selection.

    15. Comment by ID guy — December 18, 2010 @ 8:56 pm

  15. nullasalus Says:
    December 18th, 2010 at 8:58 pm

    Defend your position or admit that it was silly.

    Wow. Even if I do the internet equivalent of speaking really slowly and spelling out my question in a laborious manner, you still don't grok it. Do you learn by a Clockwork Orange method or something? :lol:

    I don't need to spell out what a "blind, unguided search" is – the very act of considering nature as operating according to an algorithm or as having intrinsic information is enough for me. Though I do like your routine here of "What you said is wrong! Now, tell me what you meant because I don't get it." :cool:

    16. Comment by nullasalus — December 18, 2010 @ 8:58 pm

  16. olegt Says:
    December 18th, 2010 at 9:02 pm

    You're not spelling out your question, null, you are moving the goal posts.

    Now, tell me again what exactly you mean by "a 'blind, unguided' search." Is that just a layman expression for a random walk?

    17. Comment by olegt — December 18, 2010 @ 9:02 pm

  17. ID guy Says:
    December 18th, 2010 at 9:10 pm

    A random walk by something that is both blind and mindless. :cool:

    18. Comment by ID guy — December 18, 2010 @ 9:10 pm

  18. nullasalus Says:
    December 18th, 2010 at 9:14 pm

    You're not spelling out your question, null, you are moving the goal posts.

    Is that what they call "spelling something out for someone who doesn't comprehend it" nowadays? By all means, keep ducking my questions though.

    Now, tell me again what exactly you mean by "a 'blind, unguided' search."

    What evolutionary biologists mean when they say it. ;-)

    19. Comment by nullasalus — December 18, 2010 @ 9:14 pm

  19. olegt Says:
    December 18th, 2010 at 9:17 pm

    Which evolutionary biologist characterized ev as "a 'blind, unguided' search?" Name names, nullasalus!

    20. Comment by olegt — December 18, 2010 @ 9:17 pm

  20. nullasalus Says:
    December 18th, 2010 at 9:22 pm

    Which evolutionary biologist characterized ev as "a 'blind, unguided' search?" Name names, nullasalus!

    Wait a sec. You think ev, which was meant to model evolution, was NOT "blind" or "unguided"? You think a model of evolution as a foresighted, guided process is accurate?

    Olegt, ARE you a TE? :lol:

    21. Comment by nullasalus — December 18, 2010 @ 9:22 pm

  21. olegt Says:
    December 18th, 2010 at 9:29 pm

    I explained my understanding of ev here. It has a random component (mutations) and a non-random one (selection of a pre-specified target). Tell us what you mean by "a 'blind, unguided' search." I have asked you, like, a bazillion times and you have been unable to explain.

    22. Comment by olegt — December 18, 2010 @ 9:29 pm

  22. ID guy Says:
    December 18th, 2010 at 9:36 pm

    Natural selection is that blind, unguided "search". No targets allowed.

    Maybe you need nullasalus to post that. nullasalus you have my permission to tell olegt that natural selection is a blind, undirected "search" and that no targets are allowed with NS.

    23. Comment by ID guy — December 18, 2010 @ 9:36 pm

  23. ID guy Says:
    December 18th, 2010 at 9:37 pm

    olegt:
    Which evolutionary biologist characterized ev as "a 'blind, unguided' search?"

    Tom Schneider.

    24. Comment by ID guy — December 18, 2010 @ 9:37 pm

  24. nullasalus Says:
    December 18th, 2010 at 9:41 pm

    nullasalus you have my permission to tell olegt that natural selection is a blind, undirected "search" and that no targets are allowed with NS.

    I'd need him to sign a few waivers and to find some electroshock equipment for him to understand anything I'd try to communicate, apparently. :shock:

    25. Comment by nullasalus — December 18, 2010 @ 9:41 pm

  25. ID guy Says:
    December 18th, 2010 at 9:45 pm

    Schneider also sed:

    The Ev program clearly and unequivocally demonstrates that no intelligence is required for information (Rsequence) to appear in biological systems, so this definition collapses.

    He aslo sez:

    Apparently they have not studied Ev enough to understand that it is the simplest possible model that shows how information is gained in living things.

    IOW information is gained in living things via an intelligently designed targeted search.

    Schneider is an IDist!

    But wait- what else does he say:

    That simple computer program generated information by Darwinian evolution – no intelligence was required.

    Geez that page is full of Schneider blushing about EV…

    26. Comment by ID guy — December 18, 2010 @ 9:45 pm

  26. ID guy Says:
    December 18th, 2010 at 9:49 pm

    Schneider:

    The ev program disproves this statement since it uses classical Darwinian principles and was successful.

    He is lying as targeted searches are not classical Darwinian principles.

    27. Comment by ID guy — December 18, 2010 @ 9:49 pm

  27. olegt Says:
    December 18th, 2010 at 9:49 pm

    Well, we've gone back and forth enough times. Let's review.

    Apparently the setup is this: Researchers come up with EV, claiming it simulates evolution in nature. They also claim EV is a 'blind, unguided' search.

    This paper argues that actually EV is a targeted search.

    The second paragraph is patently wrong. It is well known that ev has a fixed target that is known in advance. Schneider's 2001 description of the program explicitly mentions that.

    The weight matrix gene for an organism is translated and then every position of that organism's genome is evaluated by the matrix. The organism can make two kinds of `mistakes'. The first is for one of the γ binding locations to be missed (representing absence of genetic control) and the second is for one of the G−γ non-binding sites to be incorrectly recognized (representing wasteful binding of the recognizer). For simplicity these mistakes are counted as equivalent, since other schemes should give similar final results. The validity of this black/white model of binding sites comes from Shannon's channel capacity theorem, which allows for recognition with as few errors as necessary for survival [1,16,7].

    There is no need for "ID researchers" to prove that ev is a targeted search.

    The first paragraph contains an ill-defined term 'blind, unguided' search. The meaning of this term remains obscure despite multiple inquiries directed at its creator.

    28. Comment by olegt — December 18, 2010 @ 9:49 pm

  28. nullasalus Says:
    December 18th, 2010 at 9:55 pm

    There is no need for "ID researchers" to prove that ev is a targeted search.

    The first paragraph contains an ill-defined term 'blind, unguided' search. The meaning of this term remains obscure despite multiple inquiries directed at its creator.

    You've asked those researchers and they didn't tell you? How rude!

    So, olegt: Are you saying ev is a model of ID evolution? Still waiting on that one!

    29. Comment by nullasalus — December 18, 2010 @ 9:55 pm

  29. ID guy Says:
    December 18th, 2010 at 9:55 pm

    olegt:
    There is no need for "ID researchers" to prove that ev is a targeted search.

    Obviously there was as Schneider still insists EV is an example of Darwinian evolution. So you will be notifying Schneider about his misunderstanding. Thanks.

    And natural selection is blind and unguided, if it is ill-defined that is your position's fault.

    30. Comment by ID guy — December 18, 2010 @ 9:55 pm

  30. olegt Says:
    December 18th, 2010 at 10:07 pm

    Again, nullasalus,

    Which evolutionary biologists characterized ev as "a blind, unguided search?" And how do you understand that term?

    31. Comment by olegt — December 18, 2010 @ 10:07 pm

  31. ID guy Says:
    December 18th, 2010 at 10:32 pm

    olegt
    Which evolutionary biologists characterized ev as "a blind, unguided search?"

    Again, Tom Schneider, the guy who wrote it, when he says that EV is an example of Darwinian evolution.

    olegt:
    And how do you understand that term?

    As the professor of public understanding of science understands it. He tells us that natural selection is blind and purposeless- it is just splitting hairs unguided vs purposeless.

    32. Comment by ID guy — December 18, 2010 @ 10:32 pm

  32. ID guy Says:
    December 18th, 2010 at 10:38 pm

    With EV we have random mutations- unguided, chance, purposeless, spontaneous

    And we have natural selection- blind, purposeless, mindless

    EV is supposed to model that.

    Are we still going to fast for you?

    33. Comment by ID guy — December 18, 2010 @ 10:38 pm

  33. ID guy Says:
    December 18th, 2010 at 10:45 pm

    A eureka moment-

    olegt:
    Now, tell me again what exactly you mean by "a 'blind, unguided' search." Is that just a layman expression for a random walk?

    A random walk by something that is both blind and mindless.

    A rock, rolling down a hill- it was just out for a random walk, but being both blind and mindless…

    There you have it :cool:

    34. Comment by ID guy — December 18, 2010 @ 10:45 pm

  34. ID guy Says:
    December 18th, 2010 at 10:58 pm

    I would say that random rocks taking random walks up Mt Improbable would tend to accumulate at the base of the mountain. :shock:

    35. Comment by ID guy — December 18, 2010 @ 10:58 pm

  35. kornbelt888 Says:
    December 19th, 2010 at 9:46 am

    olegt, since you won't answer the question from Null, I'll ask it:

    Assuming Dembski et al are correct in their paper, does this mean that ev, insofar as it is offered as a model of nature, is in fact an ID model?

    36. Comment by kornbelt888 — December 19, 2010 @ 9:46 am

  36. olegt Says:
    December 19th, 2010 at 9:52 am

    What's an ID model, kornbelt? I don't think ID has models. Maybe you should point me to a description of one or two.

    ev is a model of evolution of a very simple system with a fixed fitness landscape. Nothing less and nothing more. Read Tom Schneider's paper, it is not that technical.

    37. Comment by olegt — December 19, 2010 @ 9:52 am

  37. ID guy Says:
    December 19th, 2010 at 10:04 am

    A targeted search is an ID model. And EV is a model of a targeted search. :idea:

    Tom Schneider sed EV modeled classic Darwinian principles. So either he is a liar or he is ignorant of classic Darwinian principles.

    Now olegt sez "ev is a model of evolution"- well it ain't a model of biological evolution as biological evolution does not posit targeted searches. OTOH ID does posit targeted searches as a mechanism.

    IOW olegt is either a liar of he is ignorant of classic Darwinian principles as well.

    Either way it doesn't bode well for his credibility…

    38. Comment by ID guy — December 19, 2010 @ 10:04 am

  38. kornbelt888 Says:
    December 19th, 2010 at 10:21 am

    Olegt: What's an ID model, kornbelt? I don't think ID has models. Maybe you should point me to a description of one or two.

    Uh, ev?

    39. Comment by kornbelt888 — December 19, 2010 @ 10:21 am

  39. olegt Says:
    December 19th, 2010 at 10:26 am

    kornbelt,

    What you just did is tautological: ev is an ID model because ev is an ID model.

    What you should do is point me to a description of an ID model that is described elsewhere, compare to to ev and then declare victory.

    I am not holding my breath, though. One of the ID luminaries, who coauthored the paper we are discussing, wrote this once:

    As for your example, I’m not going to take the bait. You’re asking me to play a game: “Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position.” ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it’s not ID’s task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If ID is correct and an intelligence is responsible and indispensable for certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots. True, there may be dots to be connected. But there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with IC systems that is what ID is discovering.”

    So, no, by very definition, ID does not do models. A designer can do whatever he wants. Particularly if he is omnipotent. No point in trying to model that.

    40. Comment by olegt — December 19, 2010 @ 10:26 am

  40. Thought Provoker Says:
    December 19th, 2010 at 10:36 am

    Hi Kornbelt,

    You asked…

    Assuming Dembski et al are correct in their paper, does this mean that ev, insofar as it is offered as a model of nature, is in fact an ID model?

    This is the kind of hypothetical question politicians avoid for good reason because their answers will often be taken out of context and become headline news.

    Since I’m not running for office I’m not shy about agreeing that ev can be thought of as a model in support of ID Science.

    The usual problem comes down to the definition of "intellegence".

    If "intelligence" is the "ability to learn and adapt" then Natural Selection provides life a kind of intelligence in a macro sense.

    I happen to think there is additional "intelligent" coordination in life via quantum links.

    However, evidence of intelligence does not automatically mean a purposeful designer is involved.

    41. Comment by Thought Provoker — December 19, 2010 @ 10:36 am

  41. olegt Says:
    December 19th, 2010 at 10:41 am

    The omnipotency of the designer means that any model is an ID model. So arguing whether this or that is an ID mechanism is pointless. Any natural process could be faked by a skillful designer.

    At the same time, ev is clearly a Darwinian model. It has all the requisite ingredients: random variations, heritability, and selection. It is a very simple model: e.g., it has a fixed fitness landscape with a single minimum. So it cannot be used to understand coevolution. But that's what models are for: they are simplified versions of reality.

    42. Comment by olegt — December 19, 2010 @ 10:41 am

  42. ID guy Says:
    December 19th, 2010 at 10:45 am

    No oleg, EV is an ID model because it is a targeted search.

    olegt:
    At the same time, ev is clearly a Darwinian model.

    That is a lie. A Darwinian model cannot include a targeted search. Geez even dawkins understands that.

    43. Comment by ID guy — December 19, 2010 @ 10:45 am

  43. ID guy Says:
    December 19th, 2010 at 10:48 am

    TP:
    If "intelligence" is the "ability to learn and adapt" then Natural Selection provides life a kind of intelligence in a macro sense.

    Nature does not have the ability to adapt and learn.

    Also Dembski said what the Intelligence in "Intelligent Design" refers to. And it doesn't fit what TP is trying to say.

    44. Comment by ID guy — December 19, 2010 @ 10:48 am

  44. ID guy Says:
    December 19th, 2010 at 10:49 am

    olegt:
    The omnipotency of the designer means that any model is an ID model.

    Straw man- no one knows if the designer is omnipotent. All we can hope is that the designer isn't as impotent as evolutionists.

    45. Comment by ID guy — December 19, 2010 @ 10:49 am

  45. kornbelt888 Says:
    December 19th, 2010 at 10:50 am

    Olegt: What you just did is tautological: ev is an ID model because ev is an ID model.

    You're still not getting the point. Let's try it again:

    Assertion: ev is a model of an intelligently designed process.

    Does Olegt agree with that assertion or not?

    46. Comment by kornbelt888 — December 19, 2010 @ 10:50 am

  46. kornbelt888 Says:
    December 19th, 2010 at 10:52 am

    Ugh, where's the edit when I need:

    Actually, my previous post does not reflect the question properly:

    To restate:

    Assertion: ev is a model of evolution in nature as an intelligently designed process.

    Does Olegt agree with that assertion or not?

    47. Comment by kornbelt888 — December 19, 2010 @ 10:52 am

  47. Bradford Says:
    December 19th, 2010 at 10:55 am

    Dembski:

    True, there may be dots to be connected. But there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with IC systems that is what ID is discovering.

    Heh, heh. Discontinuities. Fundamental ones at that. Look at conscious intelligent humans. Is that not a hallmark of design? Surely you jest when claiming that intelligence cannot be physically manifest?

    48. Comment by Bradford — December 19, 2010 @ 10:55 am

  48. olegt Says:
    December 19th, 2010 at 10:56 am

    kornbelt888, see this. Since every process could have been designed, it makes no sense to ask whether or not ev is an ID process.

    49. Comment by olegt — December 19, 2010 @ 10:56 am

  49. ID guy Says:
    December 19th, 2010 at 11:04 am

    Forget aboutit kornbelt- olegt has no clue and is just out to make the muddy waters even more muddy.

    50. Comment by ID guy — December 19, 2010 @ 11:04 am

  50. Bradford Says:
    December 19th, 2010 at 11:05 am

    Since every process could have been designed, it makes no sense to ask whether or not ev is an ID process.

    This is a bogus argument. Observe the beach goer. Moves small mounds of sand when walking. Wind accomplishes the same. Was that sand purposely shifted by those feet? Perhaps. But design would be undetectable to an investigator. OTOH, a sandcastle is a different kettle of fish. Design can be present but whether it is detectable is a separate issue. That not all causal trails lead to design detection, even where the omnipotent cause was present, makes a practical distinction between omnipotence and evidence for design.

    51. Comment by Bradford — December 19, 2010 @ 11:05 am

  51. ID guy Says:
    December 19th, 2010 at 11:05 am

    Since every process could have been designed, it makes no sense to ask whether or not ev is an ID process.

    Straw man du jour…

    52. Comment by ID guy — December 19, 2010 @ 11:05 am

  52. olegt Says:
    December 19th, 2010 at 11:12 am

    Bradford, but wouldn't you agree that any sand pattern could have been created by a (human) designer? If you do then there is no point in asking whether any particular sand pattern is designed unless by that you mean to negate the possibility of its natural formation. That, again, brings us to the point that ID is simply a negation of Darwin's theory.

    53. Comment by olegt — December 19, 2010 @ 11:12 am

  53. Thought Provoker Says:
    December 19th, 2010 at 11:17 am

    Here is the link to Dembski's infamous pathetic-level-of-detail comment.

    54. Comment by Thought Provoker — December 19, 2010 @ 11:17 am

  54. Bradford Says:
    December 19th, 2010 at 11:18 am

    Olegt: Bradford, but wouldn't you agree that any sand pattern could have been created by a (human) designer? If you do then there is no point in asking whether any particular sand pattern is designed unless by that you mean to negate the possibility of its natural formation.

    Not all sand patterns are attributed to design. A sandcastle is. A wavy mound may or may not be designed. There is a design sifter at work here.

    As for the possibility that natural forces are insufficient to generate an outcome, that should not be dismissed as an option by rational minds. Discontinuity. Therein lies an indicator of insufficiency.

    55. Comment by Bradford — December 19, 2010 @ 11:18 am

  55. Bradford Says:
    December 19th, 2010 at 11:22 am

    TP is in an excellent position to conduct an experiment. Go to the beach and move some sand around. I'll bet you can go to two locations and leave unmistakable evidence of design behind at one and undetectable, but purposeful, movement of sand at another.

    56. Comment by Bradford — December 19, 2010 @ 11:22 am

  56. olegt Says:
    December 19th, 2010 at 11:23 am

    Bradford,

    You are not really answering my question.

    57. Comment by olegt — December 19, 2010 @ 11:23 am

  57. Thought Provoker Says:
    December 19th, 2010 at 11:31 am

    Hi Bradford,

    You wrote…

    This is a bogus argument. Observe the beach goer. Moves small mounds of sand when walking. Wind accomplishes the same. Was that sand purposely shifted by those feet? Perhaps. But design would be undetectable to an investigator. OTOH, a sandcastle is a different kettle of fish.

    First of all, I suggest it is not bogus to request and example of something that is considered to NOT be designed.

    For example, is the moon designed?
    (BTW, there's a lunar eclipse tomorrow night)

    We are dealing with hypotheticals here.

    Promises of irrefutable Sand Castles and Irreducibly Complex flagellums quickly become less than irrefutable and/or irreducible. They become Mike Gene's rabbits and ducks. It is all in how you look at them.

    58. Comment by Thought Provoker — December 19, 2010 @ 11:31 am

  58. Bradford Says:
    December 19th, 2010 at 11:32 am

    Olegt, you need to make a distinction between a theological tenet- omnipotence- and design detection. The former posits a broad claim of all the physical universe resulting from a singular causal source. The latter makes a distinction among parts of the created universe. Some provide evidence of a causal trail leading to an intelligent source by virtue of their physical properties. Others can lead to that same source only by imputing conceptual explanations that are extrinsic to the physical reality of that which is observed.

    59. Comment by Bradford — December 19, 2010 @ 11:32 am

  59. ID guy Says:
    December 19th, 2010 at 11:34 am

    olegt:
    Bradford, but wouldn't you agree that any sand pattern could have been created by a (human) designer?

    For the sake of argument (only) – That would be why we need POSITIVE evidence for a designer's presence. (However I am not sure that any sand pattern could have been created by a (human) designer- what about patterns dated to before humans were supposed to be around?) IOW we don't infer a designerdidit until BOTH conditions are met.

    If you do then there is no point in asking whether any particular sand pattern is designed unless by that you mean to negate the possibility of its natural formation. That, again, brings us to the point that ID is simply a negation of Darwin's theory.

    Again with the ignorance- in order to reach any given design inference one must not only eliminate aternatives (to some degree) but there must also be POSITIVE evidence for a designers involvement.

    60. Comment by ID guy — December 19, 2010 @ 11:34 am

  60. Bradford Says:
    December 19th, 2010 at 11:36 am

    TP: First of all, I suggest it is not bogus to request and example of something that is considered to NOT be designed.

    Your request does not enlighten us. Better to request an effective filter.

    61. Comment by Bradford — December 19, 2010 @ 11:36 am

  61. olegt Says:
    December 19th, 2010 at 11:38 am

    Badford,

    No need to wax philosophical. The question was much simpler and more specific: do you agree that pretty much any sand pattern (within physical limits) could have been created by a human designer?

    If you answer positively to that, would you further agree that by a designed pattern you really mean one that could not have arisen through natural means?

    62. Comment by olegt — December 19, 2010 @ 11:38 am

  62. ID guy Says:
    December 19th, 2010 at 11:38 am

    TP:
    First of all, I suggest it is not bogus to request and example of something that is considered to NOT be designed.

    Archeologists and forensic scientists do that on a daily basis- decide designed from non.

    TP:
    For example, is the moon designed?

    The scientific evidence says yes it was. But what do you think the alternatives are? And how can we test those?

    63. Comment by ID guy — December 19, 2010 @ 11:38 am

  63. ID guy Says:
    December 19th, 2010 at 11:40 am

    If you answer positively to that, would you further agree that by a designed pattern you really mean one that could not have arisen through natural means?

    Through blind, unguided means and that matches some specification.

    Part of science is determining how someting came to be the way it is…

    64. Comment by ID guy — December 19, 2010 @ 11:40 am

  64. Bradford Says:
    December 19th, 2010 at 11:44 am

    Olegt: No need to wax philosophical. The question was much simpler and more specific: do you agree that pretty much any sand pattern (within physical limits) could have been created by a human designer?

    Could have been but some patterns lead one to suspect natural causes i.e. storms. Physical features determine plausible conclusions.

    If you answer positively to that, would you further agree that by a designed pattern you really mean one that could not have arisen through natural means?

    That's one option- Dembski's discontinuity indicator. The other comes from the Mike Gene school of thought which draws inferences of teleology from the nature of a physical process.

    65. Comment by Bradford — December 19, 2010 @ 11:44 am

  65. kornbelt888 Says:
    December 19th, 2010 at 11:45 am

    kornbelt888, see this. Since every process could have been designed, it makes no sense to ask whether or not ev is an ID process.

    It certainly makes sense to ask that question. I think you mean to say that the answer is irrelevant with regards to Ev's significance. But it isn't. Ev is model of Darwinian evolution except for the fact that, unlike the Darwinian model, the fitness landscape was intelligently designed. The "watchmaker" is not "blind". It was endowed with "sight" from intelligent designers. Is this how nature works?

    66. Comment by kornbelt888 — December 19, 2010 @ 11:45 am

  66. olegt Says:
    December 19th, 2010 at 11:54 am

    kornbelt888 wrote:

    Ev is model of Darwinian evolution except for the fact that, unlike the Darwinian model, the fitness landscape was intelligently designed. The "watchmaker" is not "blind". It was endowed with "sight" from intelligent designers. Is this how nature works?

    Let's take another example. You are aware that there are ferromagnets in nature, right? Like iron, nickel, and cobalt. In these materials, magnetic moments tend to line up in the same direction at low temperatures. Naturally. Nature is blind of course.

    On the other hand, we have physical models of magnets such as the Ising model. We know that the lowest-energy configurations of spins in this model are ones with all spins pointing up and all spins pointing down. We can also simulate the ordering process via on of the Monte Carlo methods, which includes random changes to the state and feedback from the environment that encourages the magnet to go downward in the energy landscape.

    Here is a question for you, kornbelt. Does the Ising model emulate a natural process or a designed one? There are great parallels with ev here, in more ways than you can appreciate.

    67. Comment by olegt — December 19, 2010 @ 11:54 am

  67. Thought Provoker Says:
    December 19th, 2010 at 11:55 am

    Hi Bradford,

    You wrote…

    Better to request an effective filter.

    Gladly.

    Do you have such a filter that doesn't presume true randomness exists?

    Psuedorandom generators are not truly random.

    The digits of PI are not truly random.

    Newtonian physics is not truly random (see Laplace's demon).

    Quantum Mechanics is the only possible source of true randomness and experimental observations cast doubt on that.

    A presumption of randomness is on par with the presumption of the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient designer.

    So either assume both or neither. If you assume both, then it is a matter of which one gets to be the default.

    1. Natural Law doesn't explain it.
    2. Randomness doesn't explain it.
    3. ergo, God

    or

    1. Natural Law doesn't explain it.
    2. God doesn't explain it
    3. ergo, Randomness

    In other words, rabbits and ducks

    68. Comment by Thought Provoker — December 19, 2010 @ 11:55 am

  68. olegt Says:
    December 19th, 2010 at 11:58 am

    Bradford wrote:

    Could have been but some patterns lead one to suspect natural causes i.e. storms. Physical features determine plausible conclusions.

    But the plausibility of a natural process does not rule out an artificial origin, does it? A human designer could have faked the effects of a storm, right?

    If you answer yes to this, you have to agree that there is no way to detect design. One can only try to rule out a natural cause. Right?

    69. Comment by olegt — December 19, 2010 @ 11:58 am

  69. Thought Provoker Says:
    December 19th, 2010 at 12:09 pm

    Hi Oleg,

    Now that we have beaten that age-old subject to death.

    How about something new?

    Magnetism, FeS colloids, and Origins of Life

    I will understand if it is too much like real work for you. If so, please excuse me for being a pest about it.

    Thanks

    70. Comment by Thought Provoker — December 19, 2010 @ 12:09 pm

  70. olegt Says:
    December 19th, 2010 at 12:22 pm

    TP,

    That looks suspiciously like New Age pseudoscience. Lots of technical jargon, names, and non-sequiturs.

    71. Comment by olegt — December 19, 2010 @ 12:22 pm

  71. Bradford Says:
    December 19th, 2010 at 12:49 pm

    TP:

    Do you have such a filter that doesn't presume true randomness exists?

    Discontinuity suggest a basis for a filter. We observe organisms requiring a minimal degree of genomic complexity to sustain life. We know of no process consistent with current theories able to bridge a chasm between inert matter and a self-replicating cell. The discontinuity is a double gilded gap. For naturalists it suggest we simply have not found nature's hidden process. For a Dembski IDist it suggest the exact circumstance one would look for to identify a causal nexus where intelligence bridges a gap.

    72. Comment by Bradford — December 19, 2010 @ 12:49 pm

  72. Bradford Says:
    December 19th, 2010 at 12:55 pm

    Olegt: If you answer yes to this, you have to agree that there is no way to detect design. One can only try to rule out a natural cause. Right?

    Dembski addressed the false negative/false positive dilemma years ago. There will be false negatives in the sand- sand shifted deliberately by human feet but indistinguishable from natural forces able to accomplish the same. But natural forces do not generate sand castles.

    73. Comment by Bradford — December 19, 2010 @ 12:55 pm

  73. olegt Says:
    December 19th, 2010 at 12:58 pm

    Bradford, great.

    Do you agree that it makes no sense to ask the question "Is this an ID model?" Any process, including a naturally occurring one, could have been designed. Chemists make the same compounds nature does.

    74. Comment by olegt — December 19, 2010 @ 12:58 pm

  74. Daniel Smith Says:
    December 19th, 2010 at 1:19 pm

    olegt: Do you agree that it makes no sense to ask the question "Is this an ID model?" Any process, including a naturally occurring one, could have been designed. Chemists make the same compounds nature does.

    This is the fatal flaw with the ID argument: it needs to separate "design" from "natural" in nature.

    It's ALL designed. This is why chemists can reproduce the compounds God made: because he designed them to bond a certain way.

    Now, olegt has no explanation as to why nature is made up of objects that seem to always behave as if they are programmed to do what they do. He has no explanation as to why nature is predictable. He has no explanation as to why nature seems to behave lawfully.

    He dismisses form and essence as medieval (and therefore useless) ideas. Yet form, essence, causality – all of these things are at the heart of nature.

    olegt does not want to discuss that. He'd rather make ID proponents look silly (or so he thinks) by pointing out the obvious – everything in nature could have been designed. Yet, by doing so he unwittingly acknowledges that nature behaves as if designed.

    And that's why he clams up when we try to discuss nature at a fundamental level.

    75. Comment by Daniel Smith — December 19, 2010 @ 1:19 pm

  75. Thought Provoker Says:
    December 19th, 2010 at 2:09 pm

    Hi Bradford,

    You wrote…

    Discontinuity suggest a basis for a filter.

    Discontinuities happen all the time. It is why this flame is green.

    We live in a digital (i.e. quantum) universe where stars can explode suddenly.

    As I have indicated before, I suggest scientists tend to focus on matching data to models (usually with built-in Discontinuities). Ev is one such model. If it continues to match observations then it is a useful model, right?

    If you and Ken Miller see a rabbit (i.e. a design) then so be it. It doesn't seem to make a difference as to how science is done.

    76. Comment by Thought Provoker — December 19, 2010 @ 2:09 pm

  76. Guts Says:
    December 19th, 2010 at 2:20 pm

    Olegt:

    Do you agree that it makes no sense to ask the question "Is this an ID model?" Any process, including a naturally occurring one, could have been designed. Chemists make the same compounds nature does.

    That makes no sense to me, how is something that is naturally occurring , designed?

    77. Comment by Guts — December 19, 2010 @ 2:20 pm

  77. olegt Says:
    December 19th, 2010 at 2:22 pm

    Guts,

    Bradford has an answer for you.

    78. Comment by olegt — December 19, 2010 @ 2:22 pm

  78. Guts Says:
    December 19th, 2010 at 2:26 pm

    Olegt, you apparently don't understand the distinction between two indistinguishable events, but nevertheless had two different causes. Just because some events can't be distinguished doesn't mean " Any process, including a naturally occurring one, could have been designed." that statement makes no sense.

    79. Comment by Guts — December 19, 2010 @ 2:26 pm

  79. olegt Says:
    December 19th, 2010 at 2:35 pm

    Guts wrote:

    Olegt, you apparently don't understand the distinction between two indistinguishable events

    I don't, and dare I say it, no one does. That is what indistinguishable means. You are not making any sense, Guts.

    80. Comment by olegt — December 19, 2010 @ 2:35 pm

  80. Thought Provoker Says:
    December 19th, 2010 at 2:48 pm

    Hi Guts,

    Maybe I can help.

    Oleg and I have argued in the past about whether or not models are "just math".

    If something is indistinguishable to scientific modeling it can be argued it is immaterial to scientific study.

    If all of nature can be considered to be designed, it makes no sense to math-focused scientists to argue about whether some things exhibit design better than others. It doesn’t affect the math.

    I hope that helps.

    81. Comment by Thought Provoker — December 19, 2010 @ 2:48 pm

  81. Guts Says:
    December 19th, 2010 at 2:51 pm

    No that doesn't help at all. How can something be both designed and have occured naturally? Just because there may be times when you can't distinguish causes, doesn't mean "any process, including a naturally occurring one, could have been designed" That's just plain nonsensical. Either something is rationally designed, or it occurred naturally.

    82. Comment by Guts — December 19, 2010 @ 2:51 pm

  82. Guts Says:
    December 19th, 2010 at 2:59 pm

    Obviously , Olegt doesn't understand conjunctions either.

    83. Comment by Guts — December 19, 2010 @ 2:59 pm

  83. olegt Says:
    December 19th, 2010 at 3:08 pm

    Maybe because the sentence in question was mangled. Late night last night? :mrgreen:

    84. Comment by olegt — December 19, 2010 @ 3:08 pm

  84. Guts Says:
    December 19th, 2010 at 3:13 pm

    No, I think you're just angry because I caught you spouting nonsense… again.

    85. Comment by Guts — December 19, 2010 @ 3:13 pm

  85. Bradford Says:
    December 19th, 2010 at 3:25 pm

    TP: Discontinuities happen all the time.

    Causal discontinuities can be used to assess the plausibility of physical processes. Such is the case with functional genomes and life's origin.

    86. Comment by Bradford — December 19, 2010 @ 3:25 pm

  86. Bradford Says:
    December 19th, 2010 at 3:27 pm

    What is the model for the origin of a biological genome?

    87. Comment by Bradford — December 19, 2010 @ 3:27 pm

  87. olegt Says:
    December 19th, 2010 at 3:34 pm

    Angry? Moi? Not at all.

    But back to the sentence in question: if two events are indistinguishable, and one of them is known to have artificial origin, obviously the other one could have had the same origin. Don't you think?

    88. Comment by olegt — December 19, 2010 @ 3:34 pm

  88. Guts Says:
    December 19th, 2010 at 3:48 pm

    Oh I see what you're saying. Human designers can mimic things that naturally occur and natural processes can mimic human design. So what? Are you saying that because one can mimic the other that we can never hope to come to some kind of reasonable explanation as to the cause of any event?

    89. Comment by Guts — December 19, 2010 @ 3:48 pm

  89. olegt Says:
    December 19th, 2010 at 5:26 pm

    Let's take the case of carbon atoms, Guts. We know how they can arise naturally in stars. This knowledge, however, does not exclude the possibility that any given carbon atom has been synthesized in a lab by physicists. You just can't tell the difference.

    90. Comment by olegt — December 19, 2010 @ 5:26 pm

  90. Thought Provoker Says:
    December 19th, 2010 at 6:08 pm

    Hi Bradford,

    You asked…

    What is the model for the origin of a biological genome?

    I was going to ask you to go first but I strongly suspected you would rather continue to avoid it. But, who knows, you might surprise me and actually provide a readily understandable summary of your position. Therefore, I will go first…

    One of my main focus points is understanding how Vernanimalcula guizhouena came into existance. This Precambrian animal was bilateral with a differentiated gut, a mouth, an anus, and paired external sense organs (eyes?). Compared to this, the evolution of modern lifeforms was trivial.

    I understand life had three billion years to go from prokaryotes to the Vernanimalcula guizhouena. It is evident life started taking advantage of quantum effects very early. We now know the role quantum entanglement plays in photosynthesis. (link) We also have discovered the DNA search algorithms strongly suggest quantum processing.(link) Therefore, I presume life has had enough time and extreme processing power to convert information gained via quantum effects into lifeforms as complex as the Vernanimalcula guizhouena.

    The next hurdle to address is the origin of DNA and prokaryotes. I think the proponents of the RNA World have made their case. (link)

    I could be talked out of it. But I think there was some kind of RNA half-step preceding DNA.

    Bradford, as I indicated, I was going to let you go first but as it happens Dr. GH at AtBC provided a link to his “short” summary of OOL.

    1. The late Hadean Earth had a neutral to reduced atmosphere and ocean system, a shallow, hot crust and a UV rich, "cold" sun. Highly reduced oasis existed at hydrothermal vents and other mineral rich locations,
    2. Under those conditions, phospholipids, amino acids, nucleic bases, and pentoses readily form (augmented by extraterrestrial sources such as cometary delivery) and are concentrated by freezing and evaporation as well as mineral surface plating, and encapsulation,
    3. Amino acids spontaneously form short (8 to 20 aa’s) racemic peptides, and random RNAs with as few as 2 types of nucleic bases have enzymatic activity. Spontaneous phospholipid vesicles sequester these peptides as transmembrane pores, and along with enzymatic RNAs plated to mineral grains such as montmorillonite, calcite, and metal sulfides.
    4. Electron potential differences are exploited from transmembrane pores to form adenine triphosphate, establishing the first metabolism,
    5. These ancient first cells were racemic, using both L- and D- amino acids because they were readily available,
    6. Biological and geochemical events reduced the availability of D- aa's,
    7. These ancient cells evolved racemases to maintain/sustain their existing metabolic pathways as attested by L- to D- amino acid racemases found even in humans. Ergo: The chirality "problem" in OOL isn't a problem.

    Trifonov, Edward N. 2004 "The Triplet Code From First Principles" Journal of Biomolecular Structure & Dynamics, ISSN 0739-1102 Volume 22, Issue Number 1,

    Babbitt PC, Mrachko GT, Hasson MS, Huisman GW, Kolter R, Ringe D, Petsko GA, Kenyon GL, Gerlt JA.
    1995 "A functionally diverse enzyme superfamily that abstracts the alpha protons of carboxylic acids." Science. 1995 Feb 24;267(5201):1159-61.

    Nathalie Chamond, Maira Goytia, Nicolas Coatnoan, Jean-Christophe Barale, Alain Cosson, Wim M. Degrave and Paola Minoprio
    2005 "Trypanosoma cruzi proline racemases are involved in parasite differentiation and infectivity." Molecular Microbiology Volume 58 Issue 1 Page 46 – October 2005

    Alexander Jilek, Christa Mollay, Christa Tippelt, Jacques Grassi , Giuseppina Mignogna, Johannes Müllegger, Veronika Sander, Christine Fehrer, Donatella Barra and Günther Kreil
    2005 "Biosynthesis of a D-amino acid in peptide linkage by an enzyme from frog skin secretions" Published online before print March 9, 2005, PNAS | March 22, 2005 | vol. 102 | no. 12 | 4235-4239

    Yamashita, Tatsuyuki, Ashiuchi, Makoto, Ohnishi, Kouhei, Kato, Shin'ichiro, Nagata, Shinji & Misono, Haruo
    (2004) "Molecular identification of monomeric aspartate racemase from Bifidobacterium bifidum." European Journal of Biochemistry 271 (23-24), 4798-4803.

    Ian G. Fotheringham, Stefan A. Bledig, and Paul P. Taylor
    1998 "Characterization of the Genes Encoding D-Amino Acid Transaminase and Glutamate Racemase, Two D-Glutamate Biosynthetic Enzymes of Bacillus sphaericus ATCC 10208" Journal of Bacteriology, August 1998, p. 4319-4323, Vol. 180, No. 16

    K. Y. Hwang, C.-S. Cho, S. S. Kim, K. Baek, S.-H. Kim, Y. G. Yu and Y. Cho
    1999 "Crystallization and preliminary X-ray analysis of glutamate racemase from Aquifex pyrophilus, a hyperthermophilic bacterium" Acta Cryst. (1999). D55, 927-928

    Well, we have all the pieces. Our planet was formed from massive collisions of planetoids that had undergone independent evolution and weathering which retained much of their atmospheres to add to the growing planet Earth. We have amino acids, sugars, nucleic acid bases, lipids and minerals under an anoxic to reducing atmosphere and ocean with a thin hot crust and a UV rich cold Sun. Plus, remember that the Moon is closer and orbiting faster producing massive tidal flows compared to modern times.

    Will these combine to make any thing?

    Yep, they sure will:

    Ferris JP, Hill AR Jr, Liu R, and Orgel LE. (1996 May 2). Synthesis of long prebiotic oligomers on mineral surfaces [see comments] Nature, 381, 59-61.

    Lee DH, Granja JR, Martinez JA, Severin K, Ghadri MR.
    1996 “A self-replicating peptide.” Nature Aug 8;382(6591):525-8

    A.C. Chakrabarti, R.R. Breaker, G.F. Joyce, & D.W. Deamer
    1994 Production of RNA by a Polymerase Protein Encapsulated within Phospho-Lipid Vesicles Journal of Molecular Evolution 39(6): 555-559 (1994 December)

    Smith, J.V.
    1998 Biochemical evolution. I. Polymerization on internal, organophilic silica surfaces of dealuminated zeolites and feldspars Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 95(7): 3370-3375; March 31, 1998

    Smith, J.V., Arnold, F.P., Parsons, I., Lee, M.R.
    1999 “Biochemical evolution III: Polymerization on organophilic silica-rich surfaces, crystal- hemical modeling, formation of first cells, and geological clues” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 96(7): 3479-3485; March 30, 1999

    Blochl, Elisabeth, Martin Keller, Gunter Wächtershäuser , Karl Otto Stetter
    1992 “Reactions depending on iron sulfide and linking geochemistry with biochemistry” PNAS-USA v.89: 8117-8120

    Dyall, Sabrina D., Patricia J. Johnson
    2000 “Origins of hydrogenosomes and mitochondria: evolution and organelle biogensis.” Current Opinion in Microbiology 3:404-411

    Huber, Claudia, Gunter Wächtershäuser
    1998 “Peptides by Activation of Amino Acids with CO on (Ni,Fe)S Surfaces: Implications for the Origin of Life” Science v.281: 670-672

    Imai, E., Honda, H., Hatori, K., Brack, A. and Matsuno, K.
    1999 “Elongation of oligopeptides in a simulated submarine hydrothermal system“ Science 283(5403):831–833.

    Lee DH, Severin K, Yokobayashi Y, and Ghadiri MR,
    1997 Emergence of symbiosis in peptide self- replication through a hypercyclic network. Nature, 390: 591-4

    Ekland, EH, JW Szostak, and DP Bartel
    1995 "Structurally complex and highly active RNA ligases derived from random RNA sequences" Science 21 July 1995: Vol. 269. no. 5222, pp. 364 – 370

    Reader, J. S. and G. F. Joyce
    2002 "A ribozyme composed of only two different nucleotides." Nature vol 420, pp 841-844.

    Ponnamporuma, Cyril, Carl Sagan, Ruth Mariner
    1963 “Synthesis of Adenosine Triphosphate Under Possible Primitive Earth Conditions” Reprinted front Nature, Vol. 199, No. 4890, pp. 121-126 (This is more of historic interest, but recall that ATP is the energy carrier for all cells.)

    Someone in an email asked why I posted so many references.

    There are several reasons. First, that is how science is done, we build on the work of others.

    Second, when we use referenced data to make a point clear we state the source of our information up front. Anyone can read these papers. If they want, they can argue that I have misread the article, or that the article itself has been refuted by more up-to-date information.

    Third, a common creationist claim is that there is no valid research on the origin of life, or that the research done is inconclusive. The references I have cited are evidence that these claims are false.

    Fourth, except for some historical references, my sources are mostly less than 10 years old, and some are even less than 10 months old. This is in direct contrast to the selective use by creationist writers such as Jonathon Sarfati, or Jon Wells, who use a few out of date and refuted articles to puff up their nonsense.

    So, there you have it.

    Here is the link to Dr. GH's post. It includes a lot more references and discussions on chirality.

    However, Dr. GH focused mostly on the hardware.

    My presumption for life's software and source of information is via Quantum Mechanics. If there is a designer, it looks like he/she/it/they manipulate life through quantum effects.

    I am partial to A. Patel. His papers include…
    Towards Understanding the Origin of Genetic Languages

    However, Patel isn't the only one considering the origin of the genetic code is related to Quantum Mechanics. Here is the abstract of the 2010 paper titled…
    Speculation on Quantum Mechanics and the Operation of Life Giving Catalysts

    The origin of life necessitated the formation of catalytic functionalities in order to realize a number of those capable of supporting reactions that led to the proliferation of biologically accessible molecules and the formation of a protometabolic network. Here, the discussion of the significance of quantum behavior on biological systems is extended from recent hypotheses exploring brain function and DNA mutation to include origins of life considerations in light of the concept of quantum decoherence and the transition from the quantum to the classical. Current understandings of quantum systems indicate that in the context of catalysis, substrate-catalyst interaction may be considered as a quantum measurement problem. Exploration of catalytic functionality necessary for life’s emergence may have been accommodated by quantum searches within metal sulfide compartments, where catalyst and substrate wave function interaction may allow for quantum based searches of catalytic phase space. Considering the degree of entanglement experienced by catalytic and non catalytic outcomes of superimposed states, quantum contributions are postulated to have played an important role in the operation of efficient catalysts that would provide for the kinetic basis for the emergence of life.

    Ok Bradford… Your turn… What's your model?

    P.S. I thank Bilbo in advance for allowing this off-topic discussion. I have managed to get myself locked out of the Open Thread.

    91. Comment by Thought Provoker — December 19, 2010 @ 6:08 pm

  91. ID guy Says:
    December 19th, 2010 at 6:37 pm

    olegt:
    Any process, including a naturally occurring one, could have been designed. Chemists make the same compounds nature does.

    So all deaths, including naturally occurring deaths, could be homicides. And all rocks, including naturally occurring rocks, could be artifacts.

    It all boils down to parsimony, as in what is the minimum it takes to do X.

    Science deals with the HOW things came to be the way they are. Methinks olegt doesn't understand that.

    92. Comment by ID guy — December 19, 2010 @ 6:37 pm

  92. ID guy Says:
    December 19th, 2010 at 6:43 pm

    Dr GH:
    Well, we have all the pieces. Our planet was formed from massive collisions of planetoids…

    And just how is that testable?

    Plus, remember that the Moon is closer and orbiting faster producing massive tidal flows compared to modern times.

    Oh yeah, that other lucky giant impact without which we wouldn't exist. :roll:

    93. Comment by ID guy — December 19, 2010 @ 6:43 pm

  93. ID guy Says:
    December 19th, 2010 at 6:48 pm

    Back to the topic-

    The EV program is admittedly a targeted search and as such does not model Darwinian evolution. Therefore Tom Schneider has lied or even worse, he, a evolutionary biologist, is ignorant of the theory of evolution.

    Is this really what evolutionary "science" has become?

    94. Comment by ID guy — December 19, 2010 @ 6:48 pm

  94. ID guy Says:
    December 19th, 2010 at 7:33 pm

    Lee DH, Granja JR, Martinez JA, Severin K, Ghadri MR.
    1996 “A self-replicating peptide.” Nature Aug 8;382(6591):525-8

    Pulllease- here we have a polypeptide of 32 amino acids. Then they add two polypeptides – one of 15 AA and the other of 17 AA- The 15 and 17 are the same as the first 15 and last 17 of the 32 AA string.

    The 32 AA string facilitates the bond between one 15 AA and one 17 AA- ONE peptide bond- everything else was provided by the scientists. :roll:

    95. Comment by ID guy — December 19, 2010 @ 7:33 pm

  95. ID guy Says:
    December 19th, 2010 at 7:35 pm

    Oh those 15 and 17 aa peptide strings- yup they match the 32AA- that is the 17 AA string matches the first 17 AA of the 32 AA string and the 15 AA string matches the last 15 AA of the 32 AA string.

    96. Comment by ID guy — December 19, 2010 @ 7:35 pm

  96. kornbelt888 Says:
    December 20th, 2010 at 12:00 pm

    olegt: Here is a question for you, kornbelt. Does the Ising model emulate a natural process or a designed one?

    A natural process that may be designed.

    At any rate, the difference between Ev and the Ising modeling is that Ising is known to be analogous to the process it is simulating. Ev is not known to be analogous to nature with respect to "blind fitness." In other words, Ev is positively not an example of a blind fitness context. Therefore it is not "proof of concept." For some reason the significance of that alludes you.

    All Ev does is reward changes that conform to a set of fitness criteria. And it shows no capability for building up the kind of "mechanical" complexity we see in nature. Whoop-dee-doo. It is not known to be analogous to what is actually happening in nature. You Isling model citation is not analogous to Ev.

    97. Comment by kornbelt888 — December 20, 2010 @ 12:00 pm

  97. chunkdz Says:
    December 20th, 2010 at 3:05 pm

    TP:

    Dr. GH at AtBC provided a link to his “short” summary of OOL.

    Sorry that's not a summary of OOL. It's mostly a summary of research, and a rather uncritical summary at that. He seems to be trying to countering some "creationist claim" that there is no valid research on OOL. (A claim that you probably won't find around here since we try to keep up with OOL research as it happens)

    I realize that you are simply letting Gary Hurd do your thinking for you, but in the process of copying and pasting his thoughts did you happen to come across the explanation for spontaneous purine synthesis? Also, using your/Gary's model, can you explain in any detail the leap from protocell replication (elongation and agitation under static charge) to modern cellular reproduction (prokaryotic fission, chromosomal segregation and cytokenesis)? Also, please explain the mechanism by which cells went from inhabiting existing lipid vesicles to manufacturing their own lipid vesicles.

    Once you get past the literature bluff and start to think critically about these and other questions you'll begin to see OOL research for what it currently is:

    A) A bottom up approach which has discovered several pieces of a naturalistic Rube Goldberg for production of intelligent life. Still very incomplete, the conceptual Rube Goldberg is growing and becoming more and more complex as it does so.

    [The Szostak lab recently produced a more succinct and relevant summary here.]

    B) A top-down approach which has discovered several pieces of a synthetic program for intelligently designing life. Still very incomplete, this program is growing and becoming more streamlined and efficient as things progress.

    [Look to J. Craig Venter's lab and Church and Jewett at Harvard for the cutting edge developments.]

    At any rate, if thinking for yourself is really your goal (as you've repeatedly stated), then I'd advise against copying and pasting broad swaths from known culture warriors that you've met at the swamp like Hurd. These agenda driven crackwhores prefer to use science as a bludgeon to attack religion rather than use it as a tool for understanding.

    It's up to you, TP. You can do some critical thinking, or you can simply follow the Hurd! :mrgreen:

    98. Comment by chunkdz — December 20, 2010 @ 3:05 pm

  98. Pez Says:
    December 20th, 2010 at 3:52 pm

    Very thought provoking, Chunkdz.

    Merry Christmas, everyone.

    99. Comment by Pez — December 20, 2010 @ 3:52 pm

  99. chunkdz Says:
    December 20th, 2010 at 4:53 pm

    Merry Christmas Pez.

    100. Comment by chunkdz — December 20, 2010 @ 4:53 pm

  100. Thought Provoker Says:
    December 20th, 2010 at 5:24 pm

    Thank you, Pez.

    and a Happy Holidays to you and all.

    101. Comment by Thought Provoker — December 20, 2010 @ 5:24 pm

  101. Thought Provoker Says:
    December 20th, 2010 at 5:44 pm

    Hi chunkdz,

    One of the problems with commenting on blogs is while responding to one person others can come in and attack from a different direction.

    Bradford made a request.

    I have attempted to respond to that request.

    While it is likely he, too, will be dissatisfied with my response it would be reasonable of me to ask Bradford to answer his own request.

    Which is why I ended my comment with…

    Ok Bradford… Your turn… What's your model?

    Since you have decided to join in the fun, hopefully you are prepared to respond to Bradford's request.

    After you do that, I would be more than happy to do a compare and contrast.

    Meanwhile, I thank you for pointing out some specific areas for me to look into. This is one of the main reasons I comment on blogs.

    I like to provoke thinking, especially my own.

    102. Comment by Thought Provoker — December 20, 2010 @ 5:44 pm

  102. Daniel Smith Says:
    December 20th, 2010 at 7:59 pm

    When I talk to olegt, I feel like the invisible man.

    103. Comment by Daniel Smith — December 20, 2010 @ 7:59 pm

  103. Daniel Smith Says:
    December 20th, 2010 at 8:11 pm

    Guts: how is something that is naturally occurring , designed?

    If nature is designed, then what occurs naturally is also designed.

    104. Comment by Daniel Smith — December 20, 2010 @ 8:11 pm

  104. nullasalus Says:
    December 20th, 2010 at 9:26 pm

    Geez, you guys don't even slow down for Christmas do ya? Get out there and sing some Christmas carols. And TP, olegt, get your asses to church! And TP, for chrissake, no talking about quantum physics there. Just shaddup and sing for a change. :lol:

    Anyway, some quick comments before I return to the fun of making cookies, enjoying the holiday and last minute shopping. One by one.

    Guts,

    How can something be both designed and have occured naturally?

    DS already answered this aptly, but I'll second the response and repeat it: If nature is designed, then what "occurs naturally" can be designed as well. That's one of the principal non-atheist complaints of ID, and one I think has merit – they put 'design' in the running with 'nature', as if the two must be opposed. That's just not necessarily the case.

    105. Comment by nullasalus — December 20, 2010 @ 9:26 pm

  105. ID guy Says:
    December 20th, 2010 at 9:27 pm

    Daniel Smith
    If nature is designed, then what occurs naturally is also designed.

    I strongly disagree (to be continued…)

    106. Comment by ID guy — December 20, 2010 @ 9:27 pm

  106. nullasalus Says:
    December 20th, 2010 at 9:32 pm

    Bradford,

    While I have a special response for olegt, I want to note the flipside of olegt's claim. He claims that "an omniscient, omnipotent designer" could be responsible for each and every pattern we see. But the flipside of this is that, in principle, "nature" can be responsible for each and every pattern we see too – including the ones we normally attribute to minds.

    "Natural processes", whatever those are, could have resulted in this lovely HDTV I've got in front of me. Maybe it was all chance. Maybe it's a kind of natural process we don't understand yet (sound familiar to anyone?) As I wrote in my naturalist YEC post a while back, 'nature' or 'nature + luck' is dramatically unbounded in principle.

    107. Comment by nullasalus — December 20, 2010 @ 9:32 pm

  107. nullasalus Says:
    December 20th, 2010 at 9:40 pm

    olegt,

    Do you agree that it makes no sense to ask the question "Is this an ID model?" Any process, including a naturally occurring one, could have been designed. Chemists make the same compounds nature does.

    Dear God. You really are a TE, aren't you? All this time you've been saying you're an atheist – you're just eastern orthodox. :cool:

    Olegt here is unleashing the atomic bomb of anti-ID arguments. In fact – Mike, please take no offense at this – he sounds like Mike Gene here. To take olegt at his word here means that not only is there no, but there cannot be 'science versus religion/God' conflict. Not in evolution, not in the OoL, not in anything – because each and every 'scientific explanation' can and would double as a design explanation, with no way to settle the dispute decisively.

    I am calling this the atomic bomb of anti-ID arguments because it wipes everyone off the map. It wipes out Dawkins along with Dembski, it takes out Behe along with Ruse. There reason it "makes no sense" to ask if ev or this or that "is an ID model" is because the answer is obvious: "Sure, why not." Any given model of what happened or happens in nature can be a reflection, however imperfectly, of a designer's intent. In which case no one's ever provided a model of "unguided, blind nature" that wasn't just a needless, extraneous assertion of same on their part.

    Incidentally, note that "omnipotence and omniscience" is not strictly needed here. One doesn't need to be omniscient to have evolution guided towards even extremely specific ends – they just need to be quite smart and capable. You'll note that Francis Crick didn't start talking about omniscient, omnipotent aliens when it came to the OoL question – regular ones would do the trick.

    But there's another, nastier problem for olegt. See, each and every one of us – simply by virtue of responding to this thread – have first-person, undeniable, subjective experience that design is a real phenomenon. We arrange letters according to intent. But this "unguided, blind" crap? According to olegt's view, none of us have seen it – and none of us ever can. All we can see is some empirical 'stuff' that could just as easily be attributed to design as non-design. And that puts us in a curious position: "Design", we know exists to some degree, undeniably – and it can explain all we see. "Non-design", in principle, may not exist whatsoever, and it explains nothing that Design doesn't explain already.

    But either way, to see olegt deploy the atomic bomb – and thus cut off over a hundred years of atheist apologetics at the knees – warms my black heart. In fact, I consider it a Christmas gift! Thanks, olegt!

    108. Comment by nullasalus — December 20, 2010 @ 9:40 pm

  108. fifth monarchy man Says:
    December 20th, 2010 at 9:59 pm

    Hey Null and DT,

    I have a theological question for you all.

    How do you understand the term “signs” in the New Testament? It seems to me that these are phenomena that have a clear hallmark of design and that can serve as a kind of calling card of Yahweh.

    In the Bible everything is not a “sign” only some things are.
    In your schema how do you understand such things.

    Peace On Earth

    109. Comment by fifth monarchy man — December 20, 2010 @ 9:59 pm

  109. nullasalus Says:
    December 20th, 2010 at 10:05 pm

    fmm,

    How do you understand the term “signs” in the New Testament? It seems to me that these are phenomena that have a clear hallmark of design and that can serve as a kind of calling card of Yahweh.

    I'd need you to be more specific. Are you talking miracles, or express attempts at communication by Yahweh?

    If so, consider this. Imagine a piece of paper God creates. And when I say creates, I mean a full-blown ex nihilo creation of every particle and atom, on the spot. And on this paper are the words "Nullasalus, get your ass to church."

    In that case, I think it's clear that everything in that paper is 'designed'. But the paper itself isn't telling me 'go to church'. It's the pattern formed by the ink, the intention behind it, and my ability to read the intention.

    Does that address your question at all?

    110. Comment by nullasalus — December 20, 2010 @ 10:05 pm

  110. fifth monarchy man Says:
    December 20th, 2010 at 10:32 pm

    I'd need you to be more specific. Are you talking miracles, or express attempts at communication by Yahweh?

    The Bible talks of signs and wonders(miracles). A sign might be a miracle as in multiplying loaves and fish (John 6:14) Or it might be just an unlikely occurrence like a baby in a manger (Luke 2:12).

    What makes a sign a sign is that it does not look natural it reeks of design.

    It's the pattern formed by the ink, the intention behind it, and my ability to read the intention.

    Sorry but I’m not sure I follow. If I gave you a piece of paper saying get your ass to church it might be a message from God but it would not be a sign regardless of intent.

    Signs are special………..

    They show that Aslan is a foot.

    This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, "Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him." (John 3:2)

    Yet many of the people believed in him. They said, "When the Christ appears, will he do more signs than this man has done?" (John 7:31)

    Peace on Earth

    111. Comment by fifth monarchy man — December 20, 2010 @ 10:32 pm

  111. nullasalus Says:
    December 20th, 2010 at 10:39 pm

    fmm,

    What makes a sign a sign is that it does not look natural it reeks of design.

    I'd say what makes a sign a sign is that it's of a particular type of design, even among the backdrop of a greater design. And remember, the example I gave wasn't just 'here's a paper' – I specified for the sake of argument exact how that paper and ink and even that atoms within it came to be. It's miraculous through and through, you can even say the entire thing is a 'sign' given that context – but still, the 'entire paper' wasn't communicating, nor did it need to.

    If you want another example, consider a multiplayer online game. The entire game can be designed top to bottom, but an act by an admin or GM could be designed as well, yet in a way which stands out against that greater design. 'Only an admin/GM could do that'.

    112. Comment by nullasalus — December 20, 2010 @ 10:39 pm

  112. fifth monarchy man Says:
    December 20th, 2010 at 10:43 pm

    yet in a way which stands out against that greater design.

    Cool I think we are in agreement. Clarification is always good.

    peace

    113. Comment by fifth monarchy man — December 20, 2010 @ 10:43 pm

  113. MikeGene Says:
    December 20th, 2010 at 10:46 pm

    Hi fmm,

    The Bible talks of signs and wonders(miracles). A sign might be a miracle as in multiplying loaves and fish (John 6:14) Or it might be just an unlikely occurrence like a baby in a manger (Luke 2:12).

    What makes a sign a sign is that it does not look natural it reeks of design.

    What makes a sign a sign is that it teaches a spiritual message. Both the feeding with the loaves and the babe in the manger harken to Jesus’s teachings. The miracles of the NT are not gratuitous displays of power, as we might expect from a trickster God, but as displays of God’s character and teachings.

    114. Comment by MikeGene — December 20, 2010 @ 10:46 pm

  114. olegt Says:
    December 21st, 2010 at 12:09 am

    nullasalus wrote:

    But there's another, nastier problem for olegt. See, each and every one of us – simply by virtue of responding to this thread – have first-person, undeniable, subjective experience that design is a real phenomenon. We arrange letters according to intent. But this "unguided, blind" crap? According to olegt's view, none of us have seen it – and none of us ever can. All we can see is some empirical 'stuff' that could just as easily be attributed to design as non-design. And that puts us in a curious position: "Design", we know exists to some degree, undeniably – and it can explain all we see. "Non-design", in principle, may not exist whatsoever, and it explains nothing that Design doesn't explain already.

    But either way, to see olegt deploy the atomic bomb – and thus cut off over a hundred years of atheist apologetics at the knees – warms my black heart. In fact, I consider it a Christmas gift! Thanks, olegt!

    You are welcome, nullasalus. This gift is a Trojan horse, so enjoy the ride!

    115. Comment by olegt — December 21, 2010 @ 12:09 am

  115. nullasalus Says:
    December 21st, 2010 at 12:45 am

    olegt,

    You are welcome, nullasalus. This gift is a Trojan horse, so enjoy the ride!

    "Enjoy the ride"? So I'm inside the horse? :lol:

    116. Comment by nullasalus — December 21, 2010 @ 12:45 am

  116. Guts Says:
    December 21st, 2010 at 1:06 am

    I would like to see a reference followed by a more or less complete explanation as to what relevance it has to OOL research. I've never seen that done. One of my complaints about ool is that yes, many of the players can be gotten, but how does it all fit together? The meta-question is “How did the dissipative systems begin to become more complex?”

    117. Comment by Guts — December 21, 2010 @ 1:06 am

  117. ID guy Says:
    December 22nd, 2010 at 8:36 am

    Daniel Smith
    If nature is designed, then what occurs naturally is also designed.

    I would say that chance still has a role- accidents still happen and randomness is still there.

    The "pattern" of leaves on the ground (think autumn up North) is not designed but left to chance. The shape of clouds- left to chance.

    Byproducts are not designed even though they wouldn't exist without the design.

    I could go on and on…

    118. Comment by ID guy — December 22, 2010 @ 8:36 am

  118. Daniel Smith Says:
    December 22nd, 2010 at 10:30 pm

    ID guy: I would say that chance still has a role- accidents still happen and randomness is still there.

    If I design a machine and it behaves as expected, then everything it does is "by design".

    If I design a machine and there are unexpected consequences, then those are not "by design" – although they could be said to be "caused by design".

    If nature was designed by an omniscient God, then even chance and accidents are accounted for.

    If it was designed by something less (a position that is metaphysically indefensible IMO), then chance and accidents are unaccounted for.

    119. Comment by Daniel Smith — December 22, 2010 @ 10:30 pm

  119. ID guy Says:
    December 23rd, 2010 at 8:16 am

    Daniel Smith:
    If nature was designed by an omniscient God, then even chance and accidents are accounted for.

    Is that in the Bible or just your say-so or do you have some reasonable argument?

    120. Comment by ID guy — December 23, 2010 @ 8:16 am

  120. kornbelt888 Says:
    December 23rd, 2010 at 12:23 pm

    ID Guy: The "pattern" of leaves on the ground (think autumn up North) is not designed but left to chance. The shape of clouds- left to chance.

    But what do you mean by "chance?"

    Any statistically stochastic set of events in nature could be the result of a very sophisticated deterministic algorithmically based random number generator. If that were the case, a very smart intelligence might know the state of the generator(s) at every step, even though we might not have a prayer in figuring out the algorithm. So, what Daniel says is not conceptually untenable. If stochasm is not based on a deterministic algorithm, then we are left with grappling with some concept of "true randomness", i.e, events without a clear cause, which is inconceivable. It still may be true, but it is inconceivable.

    121. Comment by kornbelt888 — December 23, 2010 @ 12:23 pm

  121. fifth monarchy man Says:
    December 23rd, 2010 at 12:51 pm
    Daniel Smith:
    If nature was designed by an omniscient God, then even chance and accidents are accounted for.

    Is that in the Bible

    The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD.
    (Pro 16:33)

    peace

    122. Comment by fifth monarchy man — December 23, 2010 @ 12:51 pm

  122. kornbelt888 Says:
    December 23rd, 2010 at 1:39 pm

    FMM: The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD.(Pro 16:33)

    Casting lots is mentioned dozens of times in the Old Testament. I wonder what happened if they cast the lot twice and it came up different. Ooops, maybe they were not allowed to do that, hehe.

    123. Comment by kornbelt888 — December 23, 2010 @ 1:39 pm

  123. ID guy Says:
    December 23rd, 2010 at 2:53 pm

    kornbelt888:
    But what do you mean by "chance?"

    What do you mean by "mean"? :roll: :grin:

    chance-

    something that happens unpredictably without discernible/ any intention or observable cause

    124. Comment by ID guy — December 23, 2010 @ 2:53 pm

  124. Daniel Smith Says:
    December 23rd, 2010 at 9:21 pm

    ID guy: Is that in the Bible or just your say-so or do you have some reasonable argument?

    It is based on the definition of "omniscient".

    Nothing can be "unaccounted for" to an omniscient being. (See my machine analogy for clarification.)

    If God knows everything, then he knows beforehand the pattern the leaves will form on the ground and—since he designed every factor that controls the leaves—even their pattern can be said to be by design.

    125. Comment by Daniel Smith — December 23, 2010 @ 9:21 pm

  125. ID guy Says:
    December 23rd, 2010 at 10:23 pm

    The definition of omniscient is from fallable humans. And I don't see God as a micromanager.

    I will just agree to disagree on this…

    126. Comment by ID guy — December 23, 2010 @ 10:23 pm

  126. Daniel Smith Says:
    December 24th, 2010 at 4:05 pm

    The definition of omniscient is from fallable humans. And I don't see God as a micromanager.

    Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground outside your Father’s care. And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Matthew 10:29,30

    127. Comment by Daniel Smith — December 24, 2010 @ 4:05 pm

  127. Daniel Smith Says:
    December 24th, 2010 at 4:13 pm

    Oops!
    I forgot to quote ID guy…
    Should have been:

    ID guy: The definition of omniscient is from fallable humans. And I don't see God as a micromanager.

    Sorry.

    128. Comment by Daniel Smith — December 24, 2010 @ 4:13 pm

  128. ID guy Says:
    December 25th, 2010 at 7:43 pm

    Are not two sparrows sold for a penny?

    No, they are not. :roll:

    129. Comment by ID guy — December 25, 2010 @ 7:43 pm

  129. Daniel Smith Says:
    December 27th, 2010 at 8:10 pm

    No, they are not.

    Apparently they were 2000+ years ago.

    130. Comment by Daniel Smith — December 27, 2010 @ 8:10 pm

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

  • Featured Books


    The Design Matrix: A Consilience of Clues by Mike Gene
    Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body

    Catalyzing Inquiry at the Interface of Computing and Biology

    System Modeling in Cellular Biology: From Concepts to Nuts and Bolts

    The Plausibility of Life By Marc W. Kirschner and John C. Gerhart

    Agents Under Fire by Angus Menuge

    Life's Solution by Simon Conway Morris

    Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life by Hubert P. Yockey

    The Fifth Miracle by Paul Davies

    Nature, Design, and Science by Del Ratzsch

    Origination of Organismal Form by Muller & Newman

    Biased Embryos and Evolution by Wallace Arthur

    Rare Earth by Peter Ward and Donald Brownlee

    The Privileged Planet by Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards

    The Way of the Cell by Franklin Harold

    The Volitional Brain by Benjamin Libet

    Evolution in Four Dimensions by Eva Jablonka & Marion Lamb

    The Evolution-Creation Struggle by Michael Ruse



Telic Thoughts is proudly powered by WordPress
Hosting provided by TopSoftware4Download.com & TBD.

Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).