Great, so that just makes the total disanalogy between your handwaving wrt “mind” and de novo proteins, and explanations for gravitational attraction, all the more obvious.
You have no mechanism, no explanation for how or why mind explains de novo proteins, while in contrast physicists have actual mechanistic explanations for why matter curves space-time.
Nice own-goal there Bill.
The paper I gave is untested and highly speculative models being developed. Einsteins theory has been around for over 100 years with no model for quantum gravity. Minds can create information. We know this and it’s tested. Enough for today will check comments tomorrow.
But you’re claiming minds can create de novo proteins. How do I do this with my mind? How have you tested this? Just tell me how to do it
They just by themselves have no mechanism to put that information into a physical form. Looks like your mind magic POOF! hypothesis is still a non-starter.
I can see two things:
Presumably you just took a cladogram and erased the connections. But that erases all the information in the cladogram too.
In other words, even you have no idea what your picture means.
Let’s also remember that you’re a young-life creationist, so all that divergent evolution wouldn’t have had time to happen.
You’re understating the evidence. Mainly the observation from BIOLOGY that minds are dependent on physical brains. You’re ignoring a lot of observations that bring your hypothesis into doubt
good question. im talking about something like that:
indeed since we dont know what was their initial difference. but for the sake of the argument i will say that these lines above represent when they appared.
i actually never said that, and for the sake of the argument lets agree that the earth is old (even that some may explain it by higher mutation rate in the past).
I see you are unwilling to commit to anything. I also see you’re ignoring the entire nested hierarchy idea, which completely falsifies your notions regardless of how much time you give them.
as i said: since i dont know what was the initial difference i cant be sure in anything. so just for the sake of the argument im saying that it represent the time that was past.
how this is relevant? a designer could make creatures by groups: reptiles, fishes, mammals etc. it doesnt prove non-design. have you heard about the transformers? they contain many groups but everyone know that they were designed:
(image from omega-shockwave User Profile | DeviantArt)
Phenotypic differences doesn’t necessarily requires genetic differences. Indeed, although they share the same genetic makeup, different cell types in an individual organism can display very different phenotypes.
Yeah but that’s because they experience different local microenvironments that affect how they express their genes. As layers of cells build up, the conditions around any single cell change as they become surrounded by other cells, in turn leading them to express their genes differently and start differentiating.
So your explanation can’t be invoked to postulate that two hypothetical species with the same genome, nevertheless develop radically different morphologies while inhabiting the same environment. If you start out with the basically identical single cell, and the same genome, then given the same local conditions you’ll get the same trajectory of differentiation and development.
The hypothesis is based on the observed mechanism having the power to perform the task. The detailed make up of the mechanism is a separate issue. We have very little detailed understanding of how minds create information as we have very little detailed information of how matter curves space time. We also know that human minds are limited in how much they eventually can account for the observations in nature. Every year they are making progress.
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.
But what is the mechanism? Remember, the task is “bring a de novo protein into being”. What is the mechanism which does this? A mind is not a mechanism.
The actual mechanism is the issue. You are proposing that there is a mechanism, while being totally unable to even say what the mechanism is, let alone test it. This is not a scientific explanation of any kind.
I have a mind, so according to you I should be able to create a de novo protein, with my mind. Tell me how to do this. What do I do with my mind to bring a de novo protein into being?
Stop changing the subject. The subject is not “create information”, the subject is “create a de novo protein”. If you want to throw out your original claim that a mind can create a de novo protein, then do so explicitly, and acknowledge you have no explanation for how a de novo protein could come into being. But don’t bait and switch, making the claim that a mind can use an unidentified mechanism to create a de novo protein, and then switch that out for “a mind can create information”.
Is there any evidence whatsoever that minds can create de novo proteins? If so, present the evidence, describe the mechanism, and explain how you have tested it.
You are making the assertion that mind is not a mechanism,
It is indeed not a complete mechanistic explanation for what is being observed but it explains the bulk of the mechanistic requirements to do the job. Matter in itself is not adequate unless it is organized in the form of a mind. For instance how did the genes of these four different animals get arranged in Sal’s flower that I posted previously. A mind as a mechanistic explanation along with the ability to arrange DNA and other molecules would explain it.
Random gene loss and selection is certainly not a complete explanation if it explains anything at all.
And you are making the claim that it is, but you can’t explain that it is a mechanism.
It not a mechanistic explanation at all.
How? The actual job is bringing a de novo protein into existence. How is the mind the bulk of the mechanistic requirements to do this?
Empty assertion.
Maybe learn something about actual genetics? How did the genes that make up me, get arranged in my body? That’s not a difficult question; it’s explained extremely well by common descent.
How would it explain it? You’re now adding something else. Now you’re acknowledging that a mind is not adequate to the task. You’re admitting that other people here were correct; you need “the ability to arrange DNA and other molecules”. What is it that is arranging the DNA and other molecules? What is the mechanism?
Here is the task again.
I have a mind, so according to you I should be able to create a de novo protein, with my mind. Tell me how to do this. What do I do with my mind to bring a de novo protein into being? If something else is necessary in addition to my mind (as you finally admit), what is that thing, do I have it, how do I use it if I do have it, and how do I get it if I don’t have it?
Empty assertion.
No Bill, it is you making the completely unsupported assertion that a disembodied mind IS a mechanism capable of physically manipulating matter into a desired form.
People keep pointing this out to you yet you keep making the same baseless claim. Numerous people have also pointed out how you’re acting like a petulant child who keeps going NUH-UH! when corrected.
We may be using the work mechanism differently. If I look at how science uses the term it is usually a cause that can explain the observed effect. If we use this I think mind fits the explanation very well. Electromagnetism is a very abstract concept which explains the field that surrounds a wire containing changing current however it is a mechanistic explanation or cause of many of the observations we see in the natural world.
You are back to assertion. You can equally say it is very poorly explained by common descent by looking a Sal’s flower. With common descent I would not expect such a dramatic mixing and matching of gene sets.
You are using it as a synonym for MAGIC! That’s why no one accepts your non-scientific empty assertion.
Since you’ve demonstrated you have zero understanding of evolutionary biology or genetics who cares what you personally would expect?
OK, were I to say, “I believe God miraculously created the bacterial flagellum”, would you tell me, “no no, that is not it at all. There is no miracle here, only mind”?
If God intervenes in nature, that is generally, and Biblically, considered a miracle. Why not frame the discussion in those terms?
Because I think mind is an important scientific hypothesis to help science both in biology and potentially physics. The observation of functional information in nature is a real issue that needs to be dealt with by science. Matter itself unless it is highly organized does not explain it. I am out for the rest of the day but would be happy to pick this up tomorrow.
