No, simply pointing out that you’re not doing anything scientific. Why don’t you participate in the new thread I started on a truly testable hypothesis offered by @Giltil?
That hypothesis is not being tested, Bill. Maybe my new thread will help you understand how this works in real life.
Let’s recall the question that you have been asked: You were asked to describe the ID model by which mind without a body would be able to create a chemical compound like DNA or a protein.
This is the abstract of the (non-peer reviewed) paper you claimed provides the model:
The hierarchical classification of life has been claimed as compelling evidence for universal common ancestry. However, research has uncovered much data which is not congruent with the hierarchical pattern. Nevertheless, biological data resembles a nested hierarchy sufficiently well to require an explanation. While many defenders of intelligent design dispute common descent, no alternative account of the approximate nested hierarchy pattern has been widely adopted. We present the dependency graph hypothesis as an alternative explanation, based on the technique used by software developers to reuse code among different software projects. This hypothesis postulates that different biological species share modules related by a dependency graph. We evaluate several predictions made by this model about both biological and synthetic data, finding them to be fulfilled.
Was that supposed to be a joke?
While many equivocate between the terms, I think that most scientists use “model” to describe a bundle of hypotheses. In the fields in which I work, we usually refer to a speculative diagram in the last figure, almost always cited in the discussion of the paper, as a model. “Model” is usually looser than “hypothesis.”
And that would be an example, except weather models tend to include multiple hypotheses.
That fuzziness aside, it is clear that Bill has presented neither a model nor a hypothesis in any way in which either concept are used in science.
You might like to check that out again. The tale I heard was that Newton could solve the two body problem, which predicts elliptical orbits for the two bodies, but that he didn’t have the mathematical or computational tools to handle the pertubations on one planet on another, and ended up appealing to God to keep the solar system stable. (Wikipedia adopts this position, citing, if I read it correctly, Encyclopedia Britannica.)
Can YOU see that you have omitted the sloppy recombination between the segments, somatic hypermutation, and VH substitution, and many rounds of selection, all mechanisms that increase FI as @gpuccio defines it, in real time?
If you’d like to argue that these mechanisms aren’t important in generating FI, that would be fun. You’ve actually and accidentally offered a perfectly testable hypothesis as your unsupported claim:
Are you interested in learning more, Gil?
I can understand someone being personally incredulous of the possibility of spontaneous abiogenesis (Spiegelman’s Monster notwithstanding), but I can’t see how someone can make your statement.
The hypothesis that ID opinions are sincerely held does not have any empirical support, though.
It’s very difficult to follow your argument when you keep writing sentences like this, which don’t even make grammatical sense. What is this supposed to mean?
No. Humans having a conversation is not a test of ID, because it is not a test of a proposed mechanism for creating de novo proteins, nor is it a prediction of a result for which ID is the “best fit” explanation.
@Giltil, are you saying ID is creationism? I’ve asked you this three times now.
I find Tyson is about as trustworthy on the history of science as Sagan, which is to say “Not very”. Luke Barnes is pretty great.
From “The Dependency Graph of Life” paper…
We present the dependency graph hypothesis as an alternative explanation, based on the technique used by software developers to reuse code among different software projects.
Object oriented ID. Unfortunately, I believe that was meant to be taken seriously.
No. When I said that ID/creationism was the dominant view in science before 1859, the ID label referred more to natural theology whereas creationism referred to the view that each species has been independently created. And as a matter of fact, these two notion were intermingled at the time. This is not the case anymore, for many ID proponents don’t think each species were independently created.
Thank you. So why are you characterizing nineteenth century natural theology, as ID? According to the overwhelming majority of modern ID proponents, ID is not theology at all and has nothing to do with theology; it’s just science.
Now if ID is actual science then it should have no problem with methodological naturalism. So why does it have a problem with methodological naturalism?
Yes, absolutely. But by now, I maintain my claim that « V(D)J recombination doesn’t produce high FI for most of the genetic information necessary for implementing the function preexist in the stem cells that develop into B cell »
It that really had been a final post, then it truly would have been a merry Xmas.
Alas, colewd continued posting on the same topic to the same person only a few minutes later.
As can be seen from the restored context, they were colewd’s words.
Either colewd is lying and hopes no-one else knows how to use a scrollbar, or colewd is forgetful and doesn’t himself know how to use a scrollbar.
All I want for Christmas is for colewd to be given his own special area on PS.
As an ardent opponent and critic of Intelligent Design Creationism, I welcome and celebrate @colewd’s active participation in this forum. His posts are as strong an argument against ID as can be.
Why do you think that Rum and everyone else is changing the words I am using?
That’s essentially the same thing.
[“A mind”] = [“ A mind ”]
[“can make”] = [“ as a mechanistic explanation for ”]
[“X”] = [“ functional information and other cellular artifacts ”]
Here is an example.
How is that an example?