The highly optimized genetic code

[shunyadragon]

Well, how do you know? Some believe humans have spirits. And now we get into the argument of the deduction of God from reason, if mindless atoms are at the foundation of all our thoughts, how is it that reason can be trusted?

Blessings,
Lee

We evolved by natural selection, and if our reason is flawed to the point it cannot be trusted our species would not survive.

Life evolved the degree of consistent optimal genetics for life to survive.

[Stoic]

Well, how do you know? Some believe humans have spirits.

As far as the methodology of science is concerned, human agency is not supernatural.

And now we get into the argument of the deduction of God from reason, if mindless atoms are at the foundation of all our thoughts, how is it that reason can be trusted?

You run into the same problem even if our minds are created. How do you know the creator can be trusted to create minds that reason reliably?

The answer in both cases is that the reliability of reason can be tested.

[TheLurch]

I think they are searching for evidence of aliens, though, as even their moniker makes clear, the Search for ExtraTerrestrial Intelligence.

They're searching for evidence that could be consistent with alien intelligence, yes. But their method for doing so is as i've described it, as would the consequences of finding such evidence. As such, arguing over what they're calling it is pointless semantics.

No, the ID approach is to estimate probabilities of natural causes, such as Behe's revised definition of irreducible complexity, where the degree of IC is the number of unselected steps.

No, that's not the ID approach. The ID approach is to say that's what they're doing, while doing something completely different.

Behe chooses examples that are unrelated to the origin of novel functions or the separation of species. He only considers a single aspect of selection, rather than the complex selective pressures that real organisms face - sometimes varying over time, sometimes balancing contradictory ones, etc. He ignores the existence of the entire field of population biology - which is now nearly a century old - that explains how mutations spread in populations under varying degrees of drift and selection.

The probabilities he generates can't be generalized, but he does so anyway because he thinks they make for a catchy argument.

That's what the ID crowd is actually doing. And they're doing it purely for theological reasons, rather than scientific ones, as they themselves frequently admit.

[rogue06]

They're searching for evidence that could be consistent with alien intelligence, yes. But their method for doing so is as i've described it, as would the consequences of finding such evidence. As such, arguing over what they're calling it is pointless semantics.

As I pointed out on another thread

SETI also continues to look for natural causes for everything they uncover. Even if they don't have a ready explanation, unlike Behe et al. they don't throw up their hands in surrender and declare it must be the result of divine intervention. Instead, they continue searching for a natural solution.

Similarly his using forensics to support his belief also fails in that the evidence is still explained by appealing to natural laws and processes with any conclusions they reach still needing to be explained and tested by reference to natural causes and events.

At no time do either give up looing for a natural cause for whatever it is they are examining.

[TheLurch]

As I pointed out on another thread...

yeah, Lee keeps bringing up archeology, forensics, and SETI in different threads, and you and i have both addressed them in different places. It's getting hard to keep track. Maybe we should just start a "Lee's bogus arguments" thread to keep them all tidy and avoid the redundancy?

[lee_merrill]

As far as the methodology of science is concerned, human agency is not supernatural.

Well, I think it is, if our actions are not deterministic.

You run into the same problem even if our minds are created. How do you know the creator can be trusted to create minds that reason reliably?

By getting to know the creator?

The answer in both cases is that the reliability of reason can be tested.

But you are assuming the validity of reason in order to prove the validity of reason, which is a circular argument.

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

Behe chooses examples that are unrelated to the origin of novel functions or the separation of species. He only considers a single aspect of selection, rather than the complex selective pressures that real organisms face - sometimes varying over time, sometimes balancing contradictory ones, etc. He ignores the existence of the entire field of population biology - which is now nearly a century old - that explains how mutations spread in populations under varying degrees of drift and selection.

No, Behe takes what evolution has actually done, for his numbers. And notes that no novel function has originated for malaria, and little for HIV, in multiplied billions of trials.

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

As I pointed out on another thread

SETI also continues to look for natural causes for everything they uncover. Even if they don't have a ready explanation, unlike Behe et al. they don't throw up their hands in surrender and declare it must be the result of divine intervention. Instead, they continue searching for a natural solution.

Until that find a signal that's probably not due to natural causes! They are looking for signs of extraterrestrial intelligence, if they find one, they will celebrate, and not continue looking for natural solutions.

Blessings,
Lee

[TheLurch]

No, Behe takes what evolution has actually done, for his numbers. And notes that no novel function has originated for malaria, and little for HIV, in multiplied billions of trials.

What you seem to be incapable of recognizing is that those are highly selective numbers, and unrelated to what evolution is doing most of the time. Evolution mostly isn't selecting for drug resistance. Or tweaking a virus that has already adapted to a new host. Those are such a tiny, tiny fraction of what evolution does that they are necessarily unrepresentative.

Why doesn't Behe compare all the primate genomes? Or all the Drosophila genomes?

One reason is that it seems he's not bothered to learn how to do so, even though he professes to care about evolution. The second is that those show new genes originating, new regulatory information evolving, duplicated genes diversifying, etc. etc. which is all very inconvenient for the narrative he wants to sell people like you.

Those are the things that evolution does that are actually relevant to the diversification of life. Behe doesn't look at those. What does that tell us?

[rogue06]

Until that find a signal that's probably not due to natural causes! They are looking for signs of extraterrestrial intelligence, if they find one, they will celebrate, and not continue looking for natural solutions.

Blessings,
Lee

Really? Is that what you think?

Sort of like how, back in August of 1977, after detecting an intense 72 second long signal that has never repeated and emanated from some unknown source somewhere in direction of the Sagittarius Constellation in the Milky Way galaxy, they did that? Because that is still regarded as being one of the most credible evidence of a potential alien technosignatures.

But contrary to your belief not all scientists react the say way that the boys from the Discovery Institute nor respond in the same manner that they do. They didn't give up critically examining a discovery they thought might support something they hope is true. And even today, they continue looking for a natural explanation. Just a couple or so years ago the idea that the then-uncatalogued comet named 266P/Christensen might have been responsible was floated.

Similarly, they continue to try to determine the cause of a bunch of fast radio bursts (FRBs -- intense radio pulses lasting up to a millisecond) coming from another galaxy some 3 billion light years away and first detected in 2007. Nobody knows what causes them but one of the theories that typically gets a lot of attention is that they could be signatures of technology developed by extraterrestrial intelligent life.

But, again nobody is giving up looking for natural solutions for them.

[Stoic]

Well, I think it is, if our actions are not deterministic.

And how do we know that our actions are not deterministic?

But more to the point, regardless of what you think, science does not, and cannot, assume that human agency is supernatural.

By getting to know the creator?

It seems to me that that would only work if the creator can be trusted to create minds that reason reliably.

But you are assuming the validity of reason in order to prove the validity of reason, which is a circular argument.

We are both assuming the validity of reason in order to prove the validity of reason.

The fact is that you can't get anywhere unless you start by assuming that you have some ability to interpret your experiences. Then you can draw conclusions from your memories of previous experiences, and test those conclusions with new experiences. Do this correctly often enough, and you gain confidence in your conclusions.

After that, it's just a matter of trying to find an explanation for how that ability to interpret our experiences came about. One difference between us is that I don't think "God did it" counts as an explanation.

[shunyadragon]

Well, I think it is, if our actions are not deterministic.

Our actions have been objectively determined to be deterministic.

By getting to know the creator?

Brings to question the degree of validity of our reason since there are so many different conflicting ways people think they can get to know the Creator.

But you are assuming the validity of reason in order to prove the validity of reason, which is a circular argument.

Blessings,
Lee

No, it is the history of the success and reliability of human reasoning in the real world. Humans are very very successful reasoning and intelligent species. To question the validity and reliability of human reasoning would question God's existence as the Creator.

[Roy]

Well, they can be optimized for different habitats, ...

Assertion rejected as (i) unsupported, (ii) contrary to known facts, (iii) requiring vertebrates to be in a different habitat from themselves, (iv) coming from Lee 'can't remember my own argument' Merrill.

...as I have heard the isoleucine / methionine difference enhances viability for certain organisms.

See above, with (iii) replaced by 'indicating ignorance of the isoleucine / methionine difference'.

[lee_merrill]

Why doesn't Behe compare all the primate genomes? Or all the Drosophila genomes?

One reason is that it seems he's not bothered to learn how to do so, even though he professes to care about evolution. The second is that those show new genes originating, new regulatory information evolving, duplicated genes diversifying, etc. etc.

Well, the primate genomes are far enough apart that I think Behe would attribute new genes and so on to design. And I'm not that familiar with new genes in Drosophila, but I found this reference:

Source: PNAS

FDY originated 2 million years ago from a duplication of a contiguous autosomal segment of 11 kb containing five genes that inserted into the Y chromosome.

Source

© Copyright Original Source

But this seems like horizontal gene transfer, which is not duplication and diversification. And I note this:

Source: RTB

As I have discussed previously (here and here), scientists discovered that horizontal gene transfer in bacteria and archaea and also in vertebrates produces the same signature in the genome as common ancestry.

Source

© Copyright Original Source

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

And how do we know that our actions are not deterministic?

Because that destroys the basis of the validity of thought.

But more to the point, regardless of what you think, science does not, and cannot, assume that human agency is supernatural.

Well, why not? If our actions are not determined for us, then they are not the result of natural processes.

It seems to me that that would only work if the creator can be trusted to create minds that reason reliably.

And I believe there is a Creator who has revealed himself as trustworthy. And again, the other options only lead to insanity.

We are both assuming the validity of reason in order to prove the validity of reason.

No, I start with the validity of reason as a first principle. Proofs of the validity of reason are circular.

The fact is that you can't get anywhere unless you start by assuming that you have some ability to interpret your experiences. Then you can draw conclusions from your memories of previous experiences, and test those conclusions with new experiences. Do this correctly often enough, and you gain confidence in your conclusions.

This sounds like you are also making the validity of reason be a first principle, how can we interpret our experiences except by using reason?

After that, it's just a matter of trying to find an explanation for how that ability to interpret our experiences came about. One difference between us is that I don't think "God did it" counts as an explanation.

Well, we certainly didn't give ourselves that ability! And if reason can't come from non-reason, then we have to invoke an agent outside ourselves.

Blessings,
Lee