I suppose “non-equiprobable” is what I have should have used instead of non-random, @Roy, to describe the observed nonuniformity in the relative probabilities of the various mutation types?
I’d go with “non-uniform probability distribution”.
Some dictionaries do define “random” as having an equiprobable definition, so your mistake is understandable - including Random House, who really ought to know better.
2 Likes
Well I didn’t look up it in a dictionary. I reasoned from a fair coin toss and dice roll experiments. I thought that because the relative frequencies of heads and tails become nearly equal if we tossed a fair coin long enough, then every other truly random (in a statistical sense, not the evolutionary sense) event would always yield equally probable outcomes. So that’s why I incorrectly thought getting more 7’s after multiple die rolls was non-random. When Tim mentioned the higher probability of 7 is expected with fair die toss, that’s when I realized I had it wrong.
Another question. How can we tell apart random from non-random in a statistical sense?
Thanks. That clarifies something I had long been confused about.
1 Like
I made another round of large scale changes from latest objections and backtracked on some of the things I said previously in regards to my hypothesis and more.
The problem with this John is that you actually never explained why we would not be able to constrain a Theistic God’s actions within science. Instead, you merely explained why my examples in the bible don’t show it. But, as I told another user, I already grant that God’s actions cannot be constrained when it comes to God’s relationship to humans.
The fact is the evidence suggests that if God did guide evolution, he mimics the behavior of humans NOT natural law:
“There is nothing in the physico-chemical world [apart from life] that remotely resembles reactions being determined by a sequence [the genome] and codes between sequences [the genetic code]. The existence of a genome and the genetic code divides living organisms from non-living matter.” (Computers and Chemistry, 24 (2000) 105-123)
“Only the measurement of information in the genome and the transcription of information from DNA to RNA to protein are mathematically identical to the measurement of information and the transcription of written language.”
Microsoft Word - 2005-11-16_Hubert_Yockey_reply_to_FTE_amicus.doc (ncse.ngo)
“For experiments aimed at demonstrating chemically more complex processes, such as multistep syntheses mimicking biochemical pathways or genetic replication, repeated interventions by the experimentalist have been necessary.”
Prebiotic chemistry and human intervention | Nature Communications
Therefore, unless you can provide a devastating counterargument, we can reasonably infer that a Divine intelligence guided evolution from experiments that simulate natural environments since there could not be any conscious life before simple life emerged. This would involve the experimentalist directly intervening ,unnaturally, within the experiment to obtain positive results. This leads me to restate my revised hypothesis…
Evolution by Divine Intelligence
A Divine intelligence created the first life (viruses) within hypothermal vents to eventually form the first cell and allow natural selection to take place afterwards.
(The PACE experiments and the creation of viruses from other researchers would provide support for this since they require human intervention to create and design viruses without a host)
Then, this agent used directed mutations to form the anatomical structures of multicellular life.
(The experiment has not been done yet but can be done. All a scientist needs to do is take one of Lenski’s failed E.coli populations and genetically modify those organisms to produce positive results according to the procedure I laid out)
Finally, this agent continues to maintain organisms by reducing the risk of harmful genetic changes in hot and cold spot locations in the genome that cause loss of fitness.
(We can support this by looking for other hot and cold mutation spots in other organisms)
How? Self-collapsing wave-function.
Why? Make sure species to survive, reproduce, and fill the biosphere.
Where? Every living thing
When? All the time from start to finish
Who? The God of classical theism
What? A personal non-contingent being
Falsification
Producing new genetic information from prebiotic experiments or Lenski’s experiment, which did not produce anything special according to a study:
“This was interpreted as a speciation event. Here we show why it probably was not a speciation event. Using similar media, 46 independent citrate-utilizing mutants were isolated in as few as 12 to 100 generations. Genomic DNA sequencing revealed an amplification of the citT and dctA loci and DNA rearrangements to capture a promoter to express CitT, aerobically. These are members of the same class of mutations identified by the LTEE. We conclude that the rarity of the LTEE mutant was an artifact of the experimental conditions and not a unique evolutionary event. No new genetic information (novel gene function) evolved.”
Testable Explanations for alleged design flaws
Benevolent Design Hypothesis
This explanation entails that sinister designs that seem to bring harm and degeneration have an underlying positive benefit to the species or population or other species. The positive benefit would involve maintaining or enhancing either survival or reproductive capabilities, or the ability to fit different environments.
We can test this by studying nociceptive sensitizations in animals. For example, injury in animals can lead to long-lasting distress, whereby frequent exposure to pain-producing stimuli causes a progressively amplified response well after the injury has healed. This phenomenon has been referred to as “nociceptive sensitization.” Biomedical researchers have long viewed nociceptive sensitization as maladaptive because, in humans, it is associated with anxiety.
However, researchers have studied nociceptive sensitizations in squids and concluded that heightened sensitivity to pain helps these creatures evade predation. Since nociceptive sensitization is pervasive, it likely serves a similar benefit among other animals, as well.
Nociceptive Sensitization Reduces Predation Risk: Current Biology (cell.com)
We can also test this by studying carnivores or predators because they often are responsible for producing mass extinctions within herbivore populations. However, studies show how animal death and carnivorous activity play a necessary role in preventing the fixation of harmful viruses within populations that would potentially cause a herbivore population to become extinct.
Design Tradeoff hypothesis
This explanation entails that certain designs are designed poorly for its perceived function because the designer had a different design goal in mind that achieves maximum efficiency for that goal but not for other goals. For example, a fork would be a poorly designed way to scoop liquid food if the designer intended it that way, but we know it was designed to scoop up solid food better.
We can test this by examining those designs from an engineer’s perspective. As one professional engineer has suggested:
“…there are practical limitations to the width and length of vehicles, and heavier bumpers can reduce gas mileage and the maneuverability of the vehicle. The reality is that virtually every feature in a designed structure such as a car is a compromise between competing objectives: safety, comfort, aesthetics, cost, ease of manufacturing, ease of repair (an objective often overlooked), stability, speed and acceleration, and so forth. Generally, not every desirable objective can be met”.
Intelligent Design and Design Flaws: Jury-Rigged Design in Nature? (jefflindsay.com)
There are examples of this found in nature already.
Yes, thank you for clearing this up for everyone. This definition of randomness is what I was referring to before. As Ayala suggested:
“In evolution, there is no entity or person who is selecting adaptive combinations. These combinations select themselves because the organisms possessing them reproduce more effectively than those with less adaptive variations…”
“…The mutations that yield the hereditary variations available to natural selection arise at random. Mutations are random or chance events because ( i ) they are rare exceptions to the fidelity of the process of DNA replication and because ( ii ) there is no way of knowing which gene will mutate in a particular cell or in a particular individual.”
Darwin’s greatest discovery: Design without designer | PNAS
The study I provided seems to suggest the latter and the former is what I am trying to argue can be tested further in other organisms to show its not a rare occurrence.
There is a third definition he provided but its not relevant to point out here.
Remember, my hypothesis involves God guiding evolution, which means that the goal is based on what we know from experiments done on natural selection already.
I was referring to major body plans and new genetic information being produced.
I think we are misunderstanding each other. What I mean by “past events” is the cause of how the first cell and body plans arose. I am saying those experiments can simulate causation potentially.
I was referring to a hypothesis that can only truly be confirmed as a “scientific” theory if it survives falsification in the form of testability. Sorry for the confusion.
Just watch the first 10mins of this video:
Unfortunately, you have only made the word salad worse. Is this truly the best you are capable of? It’s painful to read and nearly impossible to discuss.
What does “constrain within science” mean, and what does it have to do with “constrained to behave like a human”? This is still word salad.
1 Like
Then, tell me which part you want me to clear up and condense.
I am saying we can predict God’s actions in regards to nature because the evidence suggests that God mimics human behavior.
There is literally no single sentence that makes sense, and no single paragraph in which the sentences follow each other. I can’t do anything with that.
That’s not at all what you said before. If you can’t tell the difference, that’s a huge problem. And this new statement is problematic too. Furthere, In order to create your new model of how God operates you must assume that the data come from God, and thus you assume the truth of the model you claim to be testing.
2 Likes
The evidence suggests that if there is a Divine intelligence that guides evolution, he mimics the behavior of humans NOT natural law:
“ There is nothing in the physico-chemical world [apart from life] that remotely resembles reactions being determined by a sequence [the genome] and codes between sequences [the genetic code]. The existence of a genome and the genetic code divides living organisms from non-living matter. ” (Computers and Chemistry, 24 (2000) 105-123)
“ Only the measurement of information in the genome and the transcription of information from DNA to RNA to protein are mathematically identical to the measurement of information and the transcription of written language. ”
Microsoft Word - 2005-11-16_Hubert_Yockey_reply_to_FTE_amicus.doc (ncse.ngo)
“ For experiments aimed at demonstrating chemically more complex processes, such as multistep syntheses mimicking biochemical pathways or genetic replication, repeated interventions by the experimentalist have been necessary .”
Prebiotic chemistry and human intervention | Nature Communications
Therefore, we can reasonably infer that there is a Divine intelligence guiding evolution from certain experiments, especially since there could not be any conscious life before simple life emerged.
I watched the entire 18 minutes.
I seriously doubt that any materialist who is familiar with some physics would be persuaded that it debunks his materialism.
For myself – I have never considered myself to be a materialist. The video doesn’t persuade me of anything, other than that the author of the video is confused.
For example, he says that reality depends on the observer. But the video does not show any such thing. It shows only that observed reality depends on the observer. And that does not seem at all surprising.
2 Likes
But what does that even mean? What would it mean to say that God mimics the behavior of humans (ignoring the obvious implication, that humans have created God in their own image)? What would it mean to say that God mimics natural law? And, to put that in perspective, I personally do not believe that there is any such thing as natural law – there are laws of physics, but I do not see those as laws of nature.
1 Like
Yes you have been instructed by others that materialism is presupposed by the people you disagree with.
Sometimes it isn’t a presuppositon, but just a position.
2 Likes
Bolding some of the stuff you previously quoted doesn’t make it clearer as support for your claims, whatever they may be.
2 Likes
This screed therefore does not substantiate your original claim to me.
Addendum, taking it back further to your original assertion that I was responding to:
I would point out that the theology of Divine Ineffability directly contradicts the claim that we can “constrain the hypothesis within the context of human behavior”. This contradiction does not seem to be in any way related to how God may or may not relate to the Animal Kingdom.
Therefore I would suggest that not only is your original assertion unsubstantiated, but your attempts at argumentation since have been irrelevant.
This leads me to agree with @John_Harshman that it is difficult to make sense of your claims.
1 Like
Experiments involving natural selection say nothing about God-driven or human-driven evolution, because these experiments are meant to test hypotheses about natural selection itself. Can natural selection fix all mutations regardless of their fitness effects? Can natural selection overpower drift at small population sizes? Can natural selection increase complexity? These sort of questions being investigated in evolution experiments around the world probe the nature of natural selection itself, not anything else.
First, present your evidence that God was responsible for the evolution of body plans in the past. I want to see actual data.
Second, precisely define what you mean by “new genetic information”.
Your misunderstanding still remains because the Lenski’s LTEE and PACE experiments are concerned with processes that drove evolutionary change after the earliest lifeforms arose. In other words, these experiments depend on the existence of preexisting life forms, so they cannot show you how those life forms arose in the first place.
How life forms could have originated from organic and inorganic matter is under the purview of the field of abiogenesis, not biological evolution or biological evolution experiments like the LTEE and PACE.
Furthermore, Lenski’s LTEE and PACE experiments have nothing to offer on the evolution of body plans because they use microbes which lack body plans. If you want to learn about how body plans evolve, look at fossils and genome data related to extant organisms with body plans.
3 Likes
Isn’t that a tautology?
I suppose you could have a “god-that-doesn’t-believe-in-gods”, either by having a non-sentient god or a very deluded one, but otherwise it’s not much of a difference you’re highlighting there.
You really like this quote. It’s a pity you don’t understand it, and use it where it’s not remotely relevant.
But at least you’re citing it correctly now.
2 Likes
I haven’t been involved in this discussion, but I’ve read selections. It’d be silly for me to jump in and muddy up the science part of the conversation. But I do feel comfortable adding to the part of the conversation where Meerkat brings in a Bible passage.
I saw a recent comment that intrigued me and followed the rabbit trail up to what I quoted above.
I’ve posted recently about reading passages from the Bible with knowledge about the context within which it was written. I want say that the quote above tramples upon that idea. The author of John most likely has the beginning of Genesis, Proverbs 8 and probably many other portions of the Hebrew Bible in his head when he writes the passage Meerkat quotes. The author most likely also has Jesus’s life and mission in his head.
But, most importantly, the author of John is not trying to riff off of a greek dictionary to say something about the nature of God!
Maybe I’m going out on a limb, but my guess is that if the author of John could weigh in on someone co-opting this passage to say that “God is Digital information” or to suggest that “God became a COMPUTATION”, he’d…uhhh…disagree strongly (shake his head, be confused, tear his tunic and sit in sack cloth and ashes?).
7 Likes
If you want to imagine a scientist’s reaction to the scientific argument, just think of your reaction here to the biblical argument.
7 Likes
I’m not sure that any of us are capable of muddying it up more than it already is.
Why limit it to only those experiments?
Doesn’t your immune system routinely produce new, highly functional genetic information in just two weeks?
4 Likes
Alright, let me take a different approach in explaining my contentions. When I argue that God can be a useful scientific hypothesis, I am NOT presupposing the following things: there is a Divine intelligence guiding evolution, its Personal like us, or the purposes of this designer. Instead, I am arguing that we can scientifically test to see whether or not those claims are true. For example, if a Divine Intelligence is guiding evolution, the logical consequence is that this being is all-powerful, all knowing, and all-good. We can test this by looking for an underlying positive benefit to the species or population or other species within sinister designs that seem to bring harm and degeneration.
We can also test this by examining whether the designer had a different design goal in mind that achieves maximum efficiency from bad designs.
I am not the only who has made this argument for testability:
“On one endpoint, you have a view of God as an intrinsically mysterious agent. Human reason is simply incapable of penetrating into the mysterious God’s motives, mechanisms, and the like. On the other end of the continuum, there is God as a rational God, a God whose motives and mechanisms are analogous to those of human intelligence (a phrase that came up in an earlier talk). In other words, a rational God is a God that we can understand in some important sense of that word.
"…A rational God has clear, practical consequences for a scientific theory. Suppose you posit a rational God and then assume that God designed the traits of organisms to maximize ________
"…Whatever goes in this blank, it seems we can then formulate a null hypothesis and say, "We expect God to be at least as good as a human engineer would be in designing traits to maximize ________. Any trait that seems poorly designed from a human perspective would then represent a prima facie problem for an ID theorist.”
Can Intelligent Design Become Respectable? | National Center for Science Education (ncse.ngo)
As I explained in previous exchanges, another argument for testability is what happens within lab experiments where the experimenter can become a representation for how God intervened in nature or part of the experiment in finding out whether he intervened at all. Again, I am not only who has made this argument:
“…Through the use of hypernaturalism, the dichotomy between natural process chemical evolution and Intelligent Design largely disappears. Instead, the origin of life can be seen to arise via hypernatural processes in which the Creator makes use of well-understood physicochemical mechanisms to affect the origin-of-life.
In this schema, the origin-of-life does not arise via the suspension of the laws and processes of nature but through them. The origin of life is a second stage interventionist miracle in which God intervenes within the created laws of nature (not a first stage miracle, in which God operates outside the laws of nature).
The point of applying hypernaturalism to the origin-of-life scenario is not to compromise a Christian’s position on God’s creative power, but to find as much common ground as possible with researchers and to avoid dismissing their hard work in the lab.”
Hypernaturalism and the Origin of Life - Reasons to Believe
Alright now, I am going to address your objections, but my responses will probably be redundant though.
I agree, but it has nothing to do with natural selection but so-called “random” mutations. I was arguing that we can test whether it was non-random or not.
I don’t know. My definition of it would probably be described in this article that I can’t access it fully:
Well first off, there is no established consensus on the definition of life and life could have arisen outside our biosphere under conditions as-yet unknown to us.
Secondly, the intelligent designer is a life form as well in this context. So we can potentially show whether or not a God guided evolution, which is my point. Again, I am not suggesting I know there is a Divine intelligence guiding evolution or how he did it. Instead, I am arguing that we can scientifically test to see whether or not those claims are true.
I agree. I was arguing that we can potentially use God to explain the origin of body plans. Sorry for the confusion.
In the context of Philosophical naturalism or realism, I agree. But, when it comes to Methodological naturalism, this is apparently not the case according to the consensus.
I think I pretty much explained this already at the start of this post. If you feel differently, just tell me.
When I referenced those previous observations I mentioned, I was arguing from those observations that this intelligence is PROBABLY like us and we can test it this way if this is the case. I was trying to make a stronger case for scientific credibility. But now, I’m starting to think it is not necessary but only recommended at best. What do you think?
Well first off, I am not obligated to support a claim you made. You are the one who is claiming theology suggests God behaves in a mysterious way before and after the inception of humans without even providing an article or source to support your contention . I merely responded to your assertion.
Secondly, I have actually indirectly responded to this objection in a different post.
For instance, “God is ineffable because the structure of his intrinsic nature is infinite” according to an article I looked up on the subject of Ineffability. However, this actually makes it more testable. For instance…
Wikipedia:
“a theory is falsifiable (or refutable ) if it is contradicted by possible observations —i.e., by any observations that can be described in the language of the theory, which must have a conventional empirical interpretation.[A] Thus the theory must be about scientific evidence and it must prohibit some (but not all) possible observations. For example, the statement “All swans are white” is falsifiable because “Here is a black swan” contradicts it.”
An intelligent designer must exist to guide all life on earth. This is falsifiable because “Here is an experiment showing life could have evolved by a unguided process” would contradict it. How can you say this is still unfalsifiable despite it being formulated in almost the exact same way that Karl Popper has suggested?