Gil I’m still waiting for an explanation of how you know what God would or wouldn’t do.
“It’s existence” is not what is in question here. It is potential meddling by the “it” that is in question.
Same thing here. There is a way to empirically test whether the body was dead and then alive, but the vehicle that would have caused such an event is supernatural and outside of science (even observation.) You could only test the death to life aspect. The cause would be outside of science because it is supernatural. Literally outside of nature.
Take this discussion and apply it to the ID world. They are saying that some intelligence has intervened so as to cause things to be how they are. No one is looking for the existence of the intelligence itself to determine whether or not this has happened. Instead, they are looking to the living object purportedly affected by the intelligence. You have changed subjects here.
The point that I was making (and @ronsewell also) was that there are separate domains for these kinds of events. Science is not capable of handling both kinds.
1 Like
9 posts were split to a new topic: The Fossil Record and Evolution
Might it not kill of the general case for common descent instead?
How do you know that these NOPs strings are completely irrelevant for non-genic sequences? As for me, I can see for example that they could be essential for proper timing of gene expression during development.
With all due respect, I am wandering whether you are not falling into « the pretense of knowledge » pitfall.
Or you have no idea what you’re talking about and are trying to bluff your way through using Behe’s lame excuses.
1 Like
How do you know that? Have you actually encountered such a situation and tried to determine the cause? Has anyone?
Yes, that’s unfortunate. So many people into genomics are ignorant of the relevant science. How interesting that you believe all these people about junk DNA based purely on credentialism, but discredit their views on evolution. You need to stop getting all your information from creationist cherrypicking. I advise checking out Larry Moran’s blog for a corrective.
I don’t think that’s what Larry actually said. Molecular biologists, perhaps.
1 Like
There are certainly many people who have been misled by the ENCODE hype fiasco, but even the ENCODE leaders have been out there walking back their claims.
It didn’t. Some researchers(ENCODE) mistakenly confused biochemical activity, aka low-level transcription, with function. But as explained in my previous post, the mere fact that most DNA is transcribed doesn’t show it its functional. As revealed by experiments that show that the cellular transcription machinery will actively transcribe even random DNA designed to have no function.
Which knowledgeable biochemists had known about for almost half a century already at that point.
And they were misled. They, too, had the misconception that junk-DNA was supposed to mean completely chemically inert DNA. But it never did. They were uninformed about the concept, has got the history of it completely wrong because they’ve been reading people like John Mattick who also never understood it, combined with the fact that a lot of bad science press has been mistakenly hyping every new finding in genetics as the Next Big Thing that “overturns everything we used to think”. And the concept of junk-DNA never fails to catch people’s attention and generate clicks. Sadly a lot of otherwise well-meaning researchers have been misled by these click-bait articles too.
All you have succeeded in doing is find a list of people who didn’t understand the case for junk-DNA, don’t know it’s history, and don’t understand how the inference were made in the first place, or what evidence for and against it is.
LOL. No it didn’t. Your understanding of this subject is truly abysmal if you think so.
Dawkins “selfish gene theory” is really just another description for the gene-centric view of evolution. It made ZERO predictions about the proportion of the genome that should constitute junk DNA.
If you disagree, then find the prediction. Give a reference to the theory of selfish genes being employed to derive a prediction about how much junk DNA there should be in the human genome.
Let me save you some time: No such reference exists.
What actually happened, in real history instead of the extremely misleading pseudohistorical nonsense you’re actively participating in propagating here, is that the “selfish gene theory” about the gene-centric view of evolution made sense of the discovery that a large proportion of the human genome constitutes accumulated remnants of selfish genetic elements such as retrotransposons.
Helped make sense of, it was not “predicted” by “selfish gene theory”.
None of the references you give actually support the claim. Dawkins sefish gene concept is just a theory of adaptive evolution that says selection is best understood to occur at the level of genes, not at the level of species or populations. It’s called the gene-centric view of evolution.
Yes it does, you’ve got it completely wrong. The idea is that if the DNA is truly nonfunctional and does nothing for the organism, then it has an energy cost in terms of replicating it during cell division, and a cost associated with expressing it, in turn leading to the naive prediction that to get rid of it would be beneficial because it would save energy for the cell. So a priori, without looking at the strength of the selective pressures actually involved, a Darwinist would predict no junk-DNA because selection would work against it’s existence.
Now once other factors are included, the naive prediction changes.
1 Like
Is ID science?
I’ve said, **“NO” for years.
I’ve not been quite forgiven by my colleagues for saying so.
Saying however, “origin of life is so improbable and violates normative expectation of accepted laws of chemistry and physics that it is a statistical miracle” is science.
No. That makes no sense, and it suggests you don’t understand the data at all. The mechanism by which large indels occur is well understood.
What would they do? What do you think is the point of timing?
How would they do that?
Yes, you are wandering quite a bit.
1 Like
With all due respect, I am wondering whether you are not falling into « the pretense of knowledge » pitfall.
Your ability to dream up ad-hoc explanations for what this DNA could be doing is not evidence that it is functional, and does nothing to rebut the actual evidence that it is nonfunctional.
It seems that you simply want to argue for argument’s sake. That’s fine. The example that you used was a “miracle” that caused an event that does not happen naturally (a decapitated head rejoining itself to a dead body, and the person coming back to life.) If this is in the realm of science (as you are professing) then go ahead and describe how you’d approach it, empirically.
Hi Michael
The similarity is that both theories have testable mechanisms. In the case of GR it is mass that is causing what we observe. Planets moving and the and the attraction out bodies feel to earth. In the case of ID mind is what causes certain things in nature especially what we observe in the cell such as long functional sequences (DNA/Proteins) and the complex arrangement of organelles. Humans act as test vehicles for the design hypothesis as we know they are capable of sophisticated design. In the same vein originally the sun along with measurement equipment was used to test general relativity. The key difference is GR has a model as gravity is, unlike a mind, highly deterministic.
The ID hypothesis is that mind is the direct cause. If a natural cause is found then the theory is falsified as a direct cause of the specified event even if it might be the ultimate cause. GR falsified design as the reason for the motion of the planets as Newton hypothesized design involvement as his equations did not predict their exact movement.
1 Like
Thanks very much for this reply, Bill. Is there a more-developed operational definition than what is italicized above?
Not that I know of Michael. It is work in progress.
1 Like
ID offers no testable mechanisms
How do you test the idea a mind can directly cause the physical manipulation of matter? Why hasn’t anyone in the ID community actually tested the claim?
Under that criteria ID has already been faslified. Thanks for that admission which I’m sure you will promptly forget.
1 Like
Wouldn’t this falsification apply to each individual event that is suspected to be caused by an intelligence? If so, there would be an infinite number of opportunities for it to fail, and it would never be falsified. Which may also push it outside of the realm of science, right?
First of all, there’s no reason to think the two concepts “mind” and “natural” are contradictory.
Second, no it isn’t falsified by that. How can you keep getting this wrong? Please allow yourself to think this over Bill.
There could simply be two possible causes for the same phenomenon, and then you’d have to try to determine which one was responsible.
I could have laid rocks outside in some pattern intentionally, or they could have sorted like that due to some combination of physical process of rain, wind, erosion and so on.
You are saying we should think “a mind” can cause X. Right? And then you’re saying that if we find that a “natural process” also can cause X, then the “mind can cause X” hypothesis is falsified.
But clearly it isn’t. If we have good reason to think “a mind” can cause X, that doesn’t mean that a “natural process” can’t. It it entirely possible it can too.
I must repeat myself again here: If the model does not predict anything, then it is not testable. A model can only be testable if it says that something should be a certain way , and reciprocally that it should not be some other way.
Because only then, when the model says “it should be like this , and not like that” can it become possible for observation or experiment to contradict the model.
It is clearly NOT a prediction of any design model for X, that a “natural process” could not produce it.
A model that accounts for something is supposed to explain how X came to be by invoking some mechanism that explains in detail how it comes to exist and takes the form and attributes it does.
Supposing you could give such ID account for some entity, you would be explaining how this mind achieves the results that it does. Perhaps you have some model of how thinking works at a physical or material level, or even if we speculate that the mind is immaterial, how it can interact with them material and produce physical effects. You would then use this model to explain what happens in the real world to bring X into existence. This atom over here, moves over there, and shares electrons with this other atom, etc. etc.
At no point in such a design account, material or immaterial, natural or supernatural, is there going to come as part of the account for X, that “but X could not occur naturally”. That’s just not a sensible prediction of a theory of ID.
I just don’t understand how you can keep droning out this obvious, obvious nonsense day in and day out.
1 Like
Why would that push it out of the realm of science? Why is everyone trying to arbitrarily kill this theory? The reason is some in science want to be in the ideology business which is difficult as the design hypothesis keeps science honest.
Science has great difficulty with origin events without the design hypothesis.
That is simply false and will remain false no matter how many times you make the same logical blunder. What humans are capable of in no way shape or form provides evidence biological life was dreamed up and physically manufactured by a disembodied supernatural mind.
Scientific facts and logic don’t slow down your fantasizing even a little bit, do they?
1 Like