That’s news to me.
As far as I know, the broad consensus is that AI (artificial intelligence) isn’t at all like the human mind.
2 Likes
Several problems, remember?
- You can’t explain how mind is a mechanism, and when you’re asked to explain it you say explaining it is not science.
- You have been unable to provide any model, despite being asked repeatedly to do so.
- You have been unable to provide any test, despite being asked repeatedly to do so.
- You have been asked to demonstrate that your mind, or anyone else’s mind can produce a de novo protein, regardless of whether we can identify or explain the mechanism, but you have been unable to do so.
If “A mind is a known mechanism we can model and test”, then why have you failed to model and test it as a source of de novo proteins?
3 Likes
You aren’t paying attention to contradictory information. You need to seriously challenge your theory and not just sell it. I think this discussion has run its course.
A dawning field of research, artificial biology, is working toward creating a genuinely new organism. At Princeton, chemistryprofessor Michael Hecht and the researchers in his lab are designing and building proteins that can fold and mimic the chemical processes that sustain life. Their artificial proteins, encoded by synthetic genes, are approximately 100 amino acids long, using an endlessly varying arrangement of 20 amino acids.
Now, Hecht and his colleagues have confirmed that at least one of their new proteins can catalyze biological reactions, meaning that a protein designed entirely from scratch functions in cells as a genuine enzyme.
This does not gain credibility with repetition.
2 Likes
How is that relevant to anything I wrote? That is not a mind creating a de novo protein, that is a group of minds designing laboratory software, which is then programmed by people using their hands, and the software then “designs large libraries of novel proteins encoded by millions of synthetic genes” in a computer simulation.
This is not what you claimed at all. What you claimed is that a mind can create a de novo protein.
6 Likes
but that is the problem: evolution can explain anything, and thus cant be realy test.
i dont think so. first: we are not talking about YEC scenario here. just about design in general. there is no problem for designer to made different groups of creatures at different time periods. also remember that some creatures have higher chance to leave fossils than others because of different population size, different environment etc.
so again where is that limit? by pushing it 40 my earlier? 50?
The claim is that a mind is a mechanistic explanation for a de novo protein. If you eliminate minds from your explanation we don’t get the protein, we don’t get the computer and we don’t get the team working together.
You just described your own posts and attitude towards this information. I would suggest that you take your own advice.
3 Likes
Yes Bill but that was to rebut your recurring insinuation that gene loss can’t explain this pattern because you think the genes are all “mission critical” or similar such phrases of yours.
One of the problems with making gene loss the cause is we see gene gain.
No, that’s not a problem with making gene loss a cause. Genes can be gained, and genes can be lost, and the genes we are looking at, and the particular distributions of those genes we are dealing with, require invoking either one or the other, or both. It depends on context. When it comes to the whole Wnt family of genes across metazoan diversity, we are dealing with an ancient family that seems to have expanded by duplication (gene gain) before the common ancestor of most animals, and then subsequently different of these duplicates have been lost in different lineages.
And the particular pattern in the distribution of losses and gains here actually makes pretty good sense on a tree. It is somewhat noisy to be sure, but that’s to be expected when we are looking at so little data evaluated only in terms of gain or loss(just as we would expect noise if we try to estimate the demographics of smokers in a large population by only polling twenty random passerbys on the street). This is an important point. In general, the more people we poll, the closer we get to the “real” distribution. If we could poll everyone we’d get the actual distribution of course.
It basically works the same way with inferring phylogenies from genetic data. The more data we get, the more likely it is we get phylogenetically informative signal. With only 13 genes scored merely as fully absent or fully present, and no detail about in what way they are “lost”, we have next to nothing. Even so, as I have already explained, we can still see nesting hiearchical structure in that data set, and it is not really inconsistent with the depicted tree.
Technically, if we had more detail, we would see that numerous of the depicted examples of “loss” constitute mere pseudogenization, as opposed to wholesale deletion of some particular locus.
The appearance of a rare gene sequence is very hard to explain as to why the authors of the paper focused on gene loss.
There is no “appearance of a rare gene sequence” anywhere in the Evolution by Gene Loss paper SCD got the figure from. You’re spewing incoherent but technical-sounding babble again.
A mind explains gene gain as it can work through the problem of creating a complex sequence.
No, “a mind” doesn’t explain gene gain. We have no examples of “a mind” making new genes appear in any lineage. We have examples of human beings using science and technology to biosynthesize genes created with the help of decades upon decades of research and development.
Now, just because human beings CAN create novel genes, doesn’t mean any particular novel gene is therefore best explained by human beings. Or indeed by any particular imaginary intelligent designer you can come up with. You scold me in your first sentence for your perceiving me transgressing the idea that just because X could do it, that doesn’t mean X really did do it. And yet you go on to repeat that very same fallacious reasoning in the same post.
So which one is it, do you agree with the sentiment or not? Or are you just happy with working from a double standard again?
A mind can also work through the problem of selecting a group of genes that will build a specific animal.
No, “a mind” doesn’t seem to be able to do that at all. We have zero examples of that ever having occurred, and in fact it seems to be well beyond the capacity of any single intelligent designer known. Of which ourselves would be the only remotely plausible candidate.
And then there’s all the other issues with the “a mind” idea we’ve been over so many times before.
A mind is a very good solution to the problems we see in the patterns like the one showing the different WNT gene families in invertebrates.
No, for all the reasons already mentioned. In addition to the fact that the Wnt family manifestly evolved by duplication. The whole family of genes is homologus, and their distribution in animals, while noisy (as to be expected with so little data) still exhibits significant nesting hiearchical structure. Yes, also in invertebrates. In fact just as much in invertebrates, as in vertebrates. Look at the figure again Bill, there are multiple levels of nesting groups in the distribution of lost Wnt duplicates both in vertebrates and invertebrates.
4 Likes
And you have claimed that you can model and test this claim, even though when I asked you to do this you said it wasn’t science. So please model and test this claim.
But this is exactly what other people have been telling you repeatedly is wrong with your example; a mind is clearly an insufficient mechanism to create a de novo protein, because all this other stuff is necessary to even produce a computer simulation of a protein. In your example, the mind is only a mechanism for designing software. It doesn’t even design the protein, let along bring it into being.
3 Likes
Really? Where’s your mind model?
3 Likes
As I pointed out it is the element that if you eliminate you cannot create a de novo protein. Again it is a mechanistic explanation for the creation of a de novo protein. I am not claiming it is the only element involved in the creation it is simply the mission critical component.
Do you know that the WNT binds with frizzled. Are you claiming tandem duplication and compatible mutation? Are you aware that some different WNT’s have very little sequence similarity.
Why do you think the gene duplication and loss halted in the vertebrate lineage?
You have just repeated the point I already addressed. Please deal with what I wrote.
If that is your new claim then you have just agreed with Rumraket and all the other people who have told you repeatedly that a mind is not a sufficient mechanism for the creation of a de novo protein. So this destroys the argument you made previously.
This means that if you are claiming deo novo proteins were made in the distant past, you need to provide evidence not only of the mind that was involved, but all the technology and machinery involved also. As you have been told repeatedly.
2 Likes
I have never made the claim it is the only element. This is an argument that you created as a straw-man argument.
Are you holding all science to this standard? We have a mechanistic explanation for what we are observing. Why does this not meet scientific standards that are used for other theories.
Out for the day talk tomorrow.
Because of ridiculous hand waves like this, YEC can be dismissed as serious science. Trilobites and lobsters are both plentiful in the Mediterranean, so why are they not found together? Of the tens of thousands of dinosaur fossils on catalog, why none above the KT boundary? The sheer volume of evidence for the standard chronology of life history is crushing and incontrovertible.
3 Likes
That is completely untrue. As I have already said, every time people pointed out to you that a mind alone is insufficient for the phenomenon you wished to credit it for, you steadfastly opposed them. Now in a complete backflip you have suddenly accepted their argument and claim it was what you were saying all along.
Please show me all the posts in which you said that mind plus tools, plus computers, plus machinery, plus group discussions with other people, were the mechanism for the creation of a de novo protein. This should be really easy for you.
Here’s a sample of what you actually said.
- Is the mechanism (mind) offered capable of creating the structure observed?
- We have direct evidence that mind can form like structures
- In my opinion everything was designed by God. There are mechanisms however that He designed that are first order cause like matter or mind
- A mind fits this definition as it is a known cause of functional sequences and purposely arranged parts
- ID or mind as a mechanism is causal explanation of the first cell and the first of most all biological innovations
- God or mind would be a deterministic mechanism and a viable explanation for complex adaptions
- I propose a mind explains the noise
Examples could be multiplied.
Sure.
No, you have not yet explained the mechanism; “mind” is not a mechanism. When invited to explain the mechanism you have refused. Not only that but you claim you can model and test this mechanism, but refuse to do so.
3 Likes
remember what i said: the designer can made different groups in different time periods. so the fact that we cant find some creatures with other creatures doesnt falsify design.
You have to be joking. This is utterly desperate ad hoc argumentation. Where is the evidence for this ridiculous claim? This is literally nineteenth century concordism of the sort which was already dead by the end of that era.
1 Like