no evolutionary scientist believes life arose by pure chance

[spinoza99]

Chemistry isn't pure chance, next. Nor is selection, nor are mutagenic processes, the only thing stochastic about mutation is that you cannot predict where a mutation will occur and by which of the several possible processes when they act on a sequence of DNA.

Genes, I don't have enough time to take on both you and Wan, so I'm going to postpone responding to your critiques indefinitely.

[Eriku]

The mutations are random.

What proves advantageous or at least not disadvantageous goes through to the next round.

Also, spinoza99, you're shit.

Infract me, it needed saying all the same.

[spinoza99]

I agree with the main point of the linked article, viz that ID is BS. If you want us to agree with ID, just show us the Intelligent Designer. Can't?

This is the doubting Thomas fallacy: because I can't see something, it therefore is not true. I can't see Napoleon, therefore he does not exist.

FBM, thank you for trying to defend Cobb's thesis. First, it is quite shocking how poorly Cobb read the book Signature in the Cell. He does not quote once from the book. He obvious was informed of the thesis through someone else or by reading the back cover. We ID proponents are counciled to know Darwinian arguments better than they know them, Cobb obviously has not interest in doing something similar.

His attempt to refute Meyer's thesis is basically the standard Darwinian tact: because the design is not perfect, therefore it is not designed. This is like looking at a computer, pointing to its bug and concluding that it is not designed.

But regarding natural selection, genetics, ecology, development, physiology, and behavior in the evolution of genetic information, there is nothing substantive in Signature of the Cell.

This is just a thesis. Not sure why you bolded that. It is just an assertion of belief.

Did the Designer tweak the chimpanzee genome to make the human genome? Or, perhaps more likely, did the Designer use a preexisting genome and tweak it a bit to make the human genome and tweak it a different way to make the chimpanzee genome? Did the Designer go on tweaking genomes a bit at a time to design the genome of the gorilla and other primates, and more and more tweaking for other animals, all the way down to mice, and even to fruitflies, with which we share a good fraction of the genome?

This is the fallacy that the designer that tweaked genomes is the same designer that created the cosmos. There need not be one designer, nor a perfect designer. Christians don't like that but I'm not a Christian.

Perhaps one could attribute the obnoxious presence of the Alu sequences to degenerative biological processes that are not the result of ID. But was the Designer incompetent or malevolent in not avoiding the eventuality of this degeneration? Come to think of it: why is it that most species become extinct? More than two million species of organisms now live on Earth. But the fossil record shows that more than ninety-nine percent of all species that ever lived became extinct. That is more than one billion extinct species. How come? Is this dreadful waste an outcome intended by the Designer? Or is extinction an outcome of degeneration of genetic information and biological processes? If so, was the Designer not intelligent enough or benevolent enough to avoid the enormity of this waste?

Again, this is the because the design is not perfect, it is therefore not designed fallacy.

[Ronja]

...First, it is quite shocking how poorly Cobb read the book Signature in the Cell. He does not quote once from the book. He obvious was informed of the thesis through someone else or by reading the back cover. We ID proponents are counciled to know Darwinian arguments better than they know them, Cobb obviously has not interest in doing something similar.

His attempt to refute Meyer's thesis is basically the standard Darwinian tact: because the design is not perfect, therefore it is not designed. This is like looking at a computer, pointing to its bug and concluding that it is not designed.

etc.

Spinoza, did you read my comment above before you wrote this? Whose text are you criticizing, Ayala's or Cobb's (an if it is Cobb's please provide a link to that text, as the one you provided before is to Ayala's text quoted by Cobb)

[FBM]

I agree with the main point of the linked article, viz that ID is BS. If you want us to agree with ID, just show us the Intelligent Designer. Can't?

This is the doubting Thomas fallacy: because I can't see something, it therefore is not true. I can't see Napoleon, therefore he does not exist.

Incorrect. Rephrase that to: There is no direct evidence that suggests, much less entails, your supernatural explanation of observed phenomena. There is ample evidence to support the scientific explanation. Present evidence or you've got nothing.

FBM, thank you for trying to defend Cobb's thesis. First, it is quite shocking how poorly Cobb read the book Signature in the Cell. He does not quote once from the book. He obvious was informed of the thesis through someone else or by reading the back cover. We ID proponents are counciled to know Darwinian arguments better than they know them, Cobb obviously has not interest in doing something similar.

Straw man. Rhetorical parody. You have absolutely no knowledge of how much of the book Cobb read. If you do, please present that evidence for public scrutiny. Otherwise, admit that you're just spouting rhetoric.

His attempt to refute Meyer's thesis is basically the standard Darwinian tact: because the design is not perfect, therefore it is not designed. This is like looking at a computer, pointing to its bug and concluding that it is not designed.

And my refutation is that you have absolutely no evidence for your supernatural explanation. If you did, you'd have presented it by now. We're waiting...

But regarding natural selection, genetics, ecology, development, physiology, and behavior in the evolution of genetic information, there is nothing substantive in Signature of the Cell.

This is just a thesis. Not sure why you bolded that. It is just an assertion of belief.

To me, it's pretty clearly an indication that he READ THE BOOK AND FOUND IT TO BE SHITE.

Did the Designer tweak the chimpanzee genome to make the human genome? Or, perhaps more likely, did the Designer use a preexisting genome and tweak it a bit to make the human genome and tweak it a different way to make the chimpanzee genome? Did the Designer go on tweaking genomes a bit at a time to design the genome of the gorilla and other primates, and more and more tweaking for other animals, all the way down to mice, and even to fruitflies, with which we share a good fraction of the genome?

This is the fallacy that the designer that tweaked genomes is the same designer that created the cosmos. There need not be one designer, nor a perfect designer. Christians don't like that but I'm not a Christian.

Yeah, we deeply care about what you label your brand of woo-ism. Your attempt at a dodge is transparent. Nobody mentioned xtianity. You're a theist. Ergo, you're deluded. Get over it. Grow up and accept the reality that stares you in the face every waking hour of every day. It ain't that hard. For adults, anyway.

Perhaps one could attribute the obnoxious presence of the Alu sequences to degenerative biological processes that are not the result of ID. But was the Designer incompetent or malevolent in not avoiding the eventuality of this degeneration? Come to think of it: why is it that most species become extinct? More than two million species of organisms now live on Earth. But the fossil record shows that more than ninety-nine percent of all species that ever lived became extinct. That is more than one billion extinct species. How come? Is this dreadful waste an outcome intended by the Designer? Or is extinction an outcome of degeneration of genetic information and biological processes? If so, was the Designer not intelligent enough or benevolent enough to avoid the enormity of this waste?

Again, this is the because the design is not perfect, it is therefore not designed fallacy.

[/quote]

You missed something: Any entity with the magical power to create the system in the first place would have the magical power to be a helluva lot more effective than the evidence supports. >99% failure rate? And you want us to revere this being? Fuck, I can do better than that. My 97 y.o. grandmother who never finished middle school could do better than that. Something this lame doesn't deserve belief, much less worship. I guess he went to god-school on the short bus.

No sale. Make a better offer.

[MrFungus420]

over at why evolutionistrue.com I came across a rather surprising admission

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com ... -the-cell/

The keystone argument of Signature of the Cell is that chance, by itself, cannot account for the genetic information found in the genomes of organisms. I agree. And so does every evolutionary scientist, I presume. Why, then, spend chapter after chapter and hundreds of pages of elegant prose to argue the point?

Mathew Cobb

What's surprising?

Who, except for people who don't understand it or those who are misrepresenting it, says that the evolution of ANYTHING is the result of chance itself?

he doesn't say it in the article but I'm pretty sure most scientists believe life arose due to some law, also known as necessity. But I thought many believe that life arose through a combination of chance and necessity.

You are right. It doesn't say that in any way. So what does this speculation add?

I was wondering how many here agree with Cobb

I would say that I do. The book is derided, as is ID in general. I like what is immediately after the bit that you quoted:

"The keystone argument of Signature of the Cell is that chance, by itself, cannot account for the genetic information found in the genomes of organisms. I agree. And so does every evolutionary scientist, I presume. Why, then, spend chapter after chapter and hundreds of pages of elegant prose to argue the point? It is as if in a book about New York, the author would tell us that New York is not in Europe, and then dedicate most of the book to advancing evidence that, indeed, truly, New York is not in Europe.

Signature of the Cell offers Intelligent Design (ID) as the alternative explanation to chance in order to account for genetic information. This suggestion turns out to be no more convincing than a proposal by the author of the book about New York, who having exhausted all possible ways of telling us that New York is not in Europe, would now offer Peoria as the alternative city to visit. We would rather read about New York’s architecture, splendid avenues, and great parks; about the rich culture and ethnic diversity of the city; about its restaurants, concert venues, theatres, and wonderful sights in and around the city. But regarding natural selection, genetics, ecology, development, physiology, and behavior in the evolution of genetic information, there is nothing substantive in Signature of the Cell."

So, again, I would ask what is surprising?

That he is pointing out one of the implications of ID, that defective genomes are the result of God's "Intelligent" design?
That he is fully dismissing ID?
That you quote-mined him?

[MrFungus420]

I agree with drl, zilla. Getting it wrong =/= lie.

ID = purposefully misrepresenting evolution.

It is inherently dishonest.

[Clinton Huxley]

iCreationism is the most wretched puddle of vomit ever ejected by the human mind. Intellectually lazy, dogmatic, institutionally dishonest and the preserve of the total mental failure. It possesses fractal preposterousness.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I agree with drl, zilla. Getting it wrong =/= lie.

ID = purposefully misrepresenting evolution.

It is inherently dishonest.

The keystone argument of Signature of the Cell is that chance, by itself, cannot account for the genetic information found in the genomes of organisms. I agree. And so does every evolutionary scientist, I presume.

This is a flat-out lie.

[GenesForLife]

I agree with drl, zilla. Getting it wrong =/= lie.

ID = purposefully misrepresenting evolution.

It is inherently dishonest.

The keystone argument of Signature of the Cell is that chance, by itself, cannot account for the genetic information found in the genomes of organisms. I agree. And so does every evolutionary scientist, I presume.

This is a flat-out lie.

Well, actually, it isn't.

What scientists do postulate is testable natural processes, which drives an ostrich egg into the rectum of those who intentionally misrepresent the argument as chance vs design (a false dichotomy) and say "chance cannot, therefore design" while failing to consider natural processes, which are themselves testable.

The processes that cause mutation are natural, the stochastic nature of mutations is also natural, and so are the effects of said mutations and how they affect survival.
What is a flat out lie is not that quote, but the false dichotomy that IDists set up while setting up a strawman caricature of evolution where everything is by chance itself.

My two cubes of cheese.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The lie is more subtle than that, it's the implication that Signature of the Cell is what they're agreeing to. It's a sneaky way to lie.

[Coito ergo sum]

over at why evolutionistrue.com I came across a rather surprising admission

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com ... -the-cell/

The keystone argument of Signature of the Cell is that chance, by itself, cannot account for the genetic information found in the genomes of organisms. I agree. And so does every evolutionary scientist, I presume. Why, then, spend chapter after chapter and hundreds of pages of elegant prose to argue the point?

Mathew Cobb

he doesn't say it in the article but I'm pretty sure most scientists believe life arose due to some law, also known as necessity. But I thought many believe that life arose through a combination of chance and necessity.


I was wondering how many here agree with Cobb

Where do you get this "necessity" word? Not used in evolutionary biology...

It's not pure chance. There are natural laws governing the universe. Just like solar systems don't form "by pure chance", but rather in accordance with known, predictable, physical laws, so too do chemical processes by which atoms form molecules, molecules form even more complex molecules -- some of those more complex molecules are nucleotides, amino acids, proteins, nucleic acids etc....and still according to natural laws, under the right circumstances self-replicating molecules develop, and under the right circumstances these can develop into more complex structures still....

[Coito ergo sum]

What I mean by necessity is better described with the word inevitability. If you shine a light, it is inevitable that the photons will cover 300,000 km per second.

Well, there is some chance involved, but it's not "pure" chance. It's not necessarily inevitable. We could have had a totally lifeless universe, as far as we know. I think, at present, it is unknown whether at the earliest instant of this universe it was inevitable that we all be sitting here just as we are today. There seems to be some degree of chance and decision making that changes things. For example, it's not inevitable that your parents had sex the night you were conceived. Maybe your mom was tired and was about to say "no, let's wait until the morning," but she thought otherwise and decided to have a go. Maybe if she had decided to wait, you'd never have been born.

We're also learning more and more about various particles in the universe that do behave "randomly" and have weird properties at the quantum level. This may, at bottom, make nothing "inevitable," and make the universe a game of laws as well as chance. Sort of more like the game of "Risk." There's plenty of chance in the game of Risk, as each turn involves dice rolls that may effect the outcome of things, and those things have a butterfly effect downstream. But - it's also a game with rules -- laws by which the game is played (like the laws of nature), and those rules are non-random.

So - like a game of Risk, life does depend to some extent on chance, but it's not determined SOLELY by chance.

[spinoza99]

What I mean by necessity is better described with the word inevitability. If you shine a light, it is inevitable that the photons will cover 300,000 km per second.

Well, there is some chance involved, but it's not "pure" chance. It's not necessarily inevitable. We could have had a totally lifeless universe, as far as we know. I think, at present, it is unknown whether at the earliest instant of this universe it was inevitable that we all be sitting here just as we are today. There seems to be some degree of chance and decision making that changes things. For example, it's not inevitable that your parents had sex the night you were conceived. Maybe your mom was tired and was about to say "no, let's wait until the morning," but she thought otherwise and decided to have a go. Maybe if she had decided to wait, you'd never have been born.

We're also learning more and more about various particles in the universe that do behave "randomly" and have weird properties at the quantum level. This may, at bottom, make nothing "inevitable," and make the universe a game of laws as well as chance. Sort of more like the game of "Risk." There's plenty of chance in the game of Risk, as each turn involves dice rolls that may effect the outcome of things, and those things have a butterfly effect downstream. But - it's also a game with rules -- laws by which the game is played (like the laws of nature), and those rules are non-random.

So - like a game of Risk, life does depend to some extent on chance, but it's not determined SOLELY by chance.

agree mostly. the further you get away from the quantum level the more objects adhere to predictable laws. but yes on the quantum level particles are unpredictable.

[Coito ergo sum]

To answer your question, if you find information, the cause will be intelligence. So let's say you find something that looks like the rosetta stone, you can predict that its cause will be intelligence.

I'm not clear on what your definition of "information" is here. It sounds like you're describing a thing of some sort, or a substance. Can you fill a container with this "information" you're talking about?

Or, by "information" do you mean "knowledge concerning a particular fact or circumstance?"