Saturday, December 26, 2009

Calilasseia, on Getting an Education

In the comment section of my post (((Sigh)))Disappointing, Gorth attempted to enlighten me by cutting and pasting some comments by Calilasseia. It makes me sigh some more but the comments themselves require a reply. Calilasseia's comments are in quotations.

“Information is NOT a magic entity. It doesn't require magic to produce it.”

Calilasseia is correct of course. It does not require magic to produce the form of information that he is speaking of at this point. In fact, Calilasseia seems to be hoping that you think information is information is information. As an example, what's being suggested by Calilasseia, is that the sense of wind speed you get as you feel the wind on your face is information that's equal to the instructions the nurse uses to program the computer that controls your premature baby's respirator.

That may fly in atheist world, but in the real world specified or formulated information DOES require an Intelligent Agent to produce it, process it, translate it, actualise it, program it etc.. Give me an example where specified, formulated information does not require and Intelligent Agent for its presence and I'll quit posting about it.
================

“All that happens, in real world physical systems, is that different system states lead to different outcomes when the interactions within the system take place.”

Systems built by Intelligent Agents.
===================

“But this is precisely what we have with DNA”

Calilasseia has used a really good example in A Turing machine.
. For what is a Turing machine if not a theoretical device constructed by an Intelligent Agent?

. What but an Intelligent Agent assembles, constructs and / or uses logic?

. What but an Intelligent Agent constructs algorithms?

. What but Intelligent Agents construct thought experiments?
==========

“indeed, the DNA molecule plays a passive role in this: its function is simply to store the sequence of states that will result, ultimately, in the synthesis of a given protein.”

What but Intelligent Agents build storage systems for information? Are information storage systems built by Intelligent agents any less critical or impressive for being storage systems?
=============

“The real hard work is actually performed by the ribosomes,”

Yes, let's talk about the hard work, shall we? The ribozyme will not produce a single molecule with a functional specificity, or capacity to perform coordinate reactions, equivalent to that of the synthetases used in cells, yet without this specifificity and capacity to coordinate reactions, the construction of a sequence-specific arrangement of amino acids from the specific RNA transcript will not occur. In fact, RNA molecules possess very few of the specific enzymatic properties of proteins. They perform only a small handful of the thousands of functions performed by proteins.

I won't call Calilasseia a liar but one has to wonder why such a ridiculous statement would be made. The fact that Calilasseia is an atheist ideologue would be a safer bet.
---------------

“which take that state data and use it to bolt together amino acids into chains to form proteins,”

The whole question is, Where did the data come from?
--------------------

“whose job is to perform, mechanically and mindlessly in accordance with the electrostatic and chemical interactions permitting this, the construction of a protein using the information arising from DNA as the template.” (bold mine)

Again, the question is, Where did the information found in the DNA template come from? The information in the DNA did not form without the aid of a protein and the first protein did not form without the information in the DNA template.

As well, so what if it performs mindlessly. So does a computer but a computer does not perform at all without the information first put in by an Intelligent Agent.
------------------

“Anyone who thinks magic is needed in all of this, once again, is in need of an education.”

Anyone who thinks that specified, formulated information arises by mutation (of what?) before the DNA instructions are in place is in need of an education.
---------------

“the following sequence of hexadecimal bytes in a computer's memory:”

Who put it there in the first place you ignoramus?
--------------

“Indeed, it is entirely possible to regard ascribed meaning as nothing other than the particular interactions driven by the underlying data, once that data is being processed,”

Yes, and the data and the processor came from and were built by? An intelligent Agent.
----------------

“are in accord with observational reality to fifteen decimal places.”

Isn’t that cute? An atheist appeals to the magic of large numbers.
----------------

"What scientists actually postulate, and they postulate this with respect to every observable phenomenon in the universe, is that well defined and testable mechanisms are responsible." (bold mine)

Oh really?
. Observable and testable mechanisms bring something from nothing by no natural cause whatsoever?

. Observable and testable mechanisms bring forth life from inanimate and inorganic gases?

And both of these events which happened once and only once were observable?

I think Calilasseia used the term bullshit at one point. It can be used again right here.
-----------------

“Scroll down to "Induced mutations on the molecular level can be caused by:"

Let me finish, Intelligent Agents working towards a predetermined goal, something, I might add that does not exist in natural selection and most certainly did not exist prior to the fist living cell.
---------------------

“scientists have classified a number of well defined chemical reactions leading to mutations,”

I believe it was Daniel Dennett who said that there is only “1 helpful mutation in every 500 TRILLION copyings.” Yes, I know. It took a long time.
==============

"you believe nothing created the universe"

That’s not quite accurate. It’s, “Nothing natural created the universe” since at the time of the singularity, nothing natural existed, at least according to science.
==============

“scientists postulate that well defined and testable natural mechanisms, operating upon the appropriate entities,”

I do wish he would tell us WHAT these entities were (no Matter existed) and WHERE they were at the singularity (no Space existed), or is he expecting us to know which atheist origin of the universe mythology is being used as a canard in this instance?

39 comments:

Ginx said...

Proverbs 26:11

Glen20 said...

Proverbs 26:11

Anonymous said...

Makarios:

I just spoke to God, and he asked me to let you know you made a terrible mistake to gloat over the suffering of anyone in your conception of the afterlife, such as you have done with recent comments on other blogs.

He asked me to pass along to you the ancient Greek history of the Brazen Bull. You can find this on Wikipedia.

He said it was no accident that your name was similar to the name Perillos of Athens, who invented the Brazen Bull as a new way to execute criminals. When Perillos presented his creation to the emperor, he was thrown into his own invention to be roasted alive.

God told me to tell you to pay very close attention to the fates you sanctimoniously presume await others - because they wait also for you. Just like what happened with Perillos.

Chris Mackey said...

Proverbs 26:11

(Getting in on the action)

Christ Follower (no longer) said...

Proverbs 26:11

(and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crank_%28person%29 )

JD Curtis said...

Anonymous,

I just spoke to Charles Darwin. He thinks you are a complete pussy for not posting at least with something resembling a screen name. He asks that you create a profile and make it public or STFU and that you have a wonderful holiday season.

Glen! Where the heck u been? Merry Christmas.

Ginx said...

In case there was doubt, I am not anon. You can be sure because I would NEVER reference wikipedia. Also, in all the debating with Mak, he's never told me I'm going to hell. Even if he did, I've said worse to him.

Damn impulsive anger...

Makarios said...

For those ignorant of my latest offence, there was this blog highlighting Vic Chesnutt's comments on him being an atheist.

In a flippant and insensitive manner (who me?) I said something about satan roasting Chesnutt o'er an open fire. Poor taste? I suppose. On the other hand most of the stuff that I find funny could be considered in poor taste by someone somewhere.
Anyhow -
================

"God told me to tell you to pay very close attention to the fates you sanctimoniously presume await others"

If what Jesus taught about heaven and hell is true, then saying that this or that deceased atheist is in hell is like saying that a fish in the ocean is wet.

It has nothing to do with being sanctimonious or judgmental. It's just a fact.

Oh, and unlike Perillos? Hell is not my invention.
===========

"Damn impulsive anger..."

I know.
=============

Ginx, That's an interesting comment about hell. I assume you don't believe in its existence?

However, you do know about Jesus' teaching - right?

Of course it's possible that hell exits BUT what Jesus taught about it is wrong. For example, hell exists but in order to go there you have to be a "worse" person than, um, let's see, where should the cut off line be, oh I know, in order to go to hell you have to be a worse person than Ginx.

On other hand, if hell exists and if what Jesus taught about heaven and is true, then surely you'd agree that hell IS your eternal destination, Ginx - yes?

So why would you find it so upsetting for me to state the obvious truth? You aren't afraid of truth - are you?

Hugo said...

Reading this made me lose faith in humanity I think...

Makarios said...

"Reading this made me lose faith in humanity"

Take a number and get to the back of the line.

Hugo said...

Ya nothing new I know, happens all the time...

Glen20 said...

Glen! Where the heck u been? Merry Christmas.

Wandering here and there across Australia. Having a great time. Hope everyone had a beaut Chrissy. That's Australian for merry Christmas.

Glen20 said...

Give me an example where specified, formulated information does not require and Intelligent Agent for its presence and I'll quit posting about it.

DNA.

Ginx said...

I said something about satan roasting Chesnutt o'er an open fire

LOL, I get it :P

Ginx said...

Just got to the end of your novella and saw the comments directed at me, Mak. You can tell me I'm going to hell if you want, I don't get offended by anything.

As I've said before, I would much prefer an eternity in hell to what I believe awaits me upon death. The termination of my existence is far more frightening than an eternity in agony.

Also, I am reminded of Matthew 7:1-6

If you're perfect, with nothing left to improve, please continue your crusade with the confidence that you won't be burning next to me. But something tells me that if Jesus was right, we'll be able to continue this conversation for a long, long time.

Makarios said...

"You can tell me I'm going to hell if you want, I don't get offended by anything."

So what was this about?

"Also, in all the debating with Mak, he's never told me I'm going to hell. Even if he did, I've said worse to him."
=============

You've lost me. What do:
Matthew 6:1-6 and being perfect have to do with where one spends eternity - and - on what basis do you think that I will be joining you in hell?

Gorth Satana said...

I read this post a while ago.
I had to shut the web browser and walk away.
I believe you may be feigning this for attention.

Ginx said...

The original comment was just a statement of fact: you never told me I might go to hell, at least in my memory, so I was defending your honor from the cowardly Anonymous poster. Then you told me I might go to hell, but I was letting you know I am still not offended. I'm sure I've said meaner things to you... maybe not in your eyes, but I think saying your head is up your ass is more offensive than threatening me with imaginary places.

Repent and call out to Odin with love in your heart, or suffer the chilly fate of eternity in Hel! See, not offensive. That's about how it feels on my end.

The scripture is one which not enough Christians take to heart.

Makarios said...

Ginx: Exactly! My honour has been reset to 0. thank you.

scripto said...

Hey. Thanks for the award. I didn't even know I was an atheist. I thought I was just the World's Worst Catholic™. But if you say so.

Some more dumb questions that have gone unanswered:

What design event can be identified?

Why do these design events operate on a time scale and in a progressive manner that closely mimics descent with modification in response to changing environment conditions?

Which information theorists or statisticians have accepted Dembski's work on specified complexity as having any merit?

Which biologists are using Dembski's filter and which ones subscribe to the notion of Irreducible Complexity?

What design mechanisms have been proposed?

What is the definition of intelligence and what degree of intelligence is required to modify or create a structure that exhibits "Specified Complexity"?

What research has come out of the Biologic Institute regarding Intelligent Design?

If specified complexity is produced by intelligence and intelligence is something that produces specified complexity how do I even ask a question about it?

Makarios said...

Scripto - "If specified complexity is produced by intelligence and intelligence is something that produces specified complexity how do I even ask a question about it?"


If the question is asked by Scripto and if Scripto asked the question and if Scripto thinks this sounds profound then I don't think Scripto has what it takes to be allowed to ask ANY questions.

Gorth Satana said...

I think he's trying to point out the tautology.

scripto said...

You're kind of touchy. I'm just asking you to define a design event. Or propose a design mechanism. These are valid questions. Attacking me doesn't answer them. It may give you great comfort to predetermine that anyone who disagrees with you is an atheist or an idiot or an idiot atheist but you haven't really told me why I should abandon evolution in favor of intelligent design.

Makarios said...

Scripto:

I give you examples of design events in:

http://makarios-makarios.blogspot.com/2009/12/nothing-did-it.html

AND

http://makarios-
makarios.blogspot.com/2009/12/please-read-this.html

Zzzst said...

(just read the links)
So it boils down to an argument from ignorance? Makarios doesn't know and it looks complex therefore "Godditit!"... sorry I meant "Intelligent agentsdidit!"

scripto said...

I'm not sure your examples are events as much as analogies. And I'm not sure the chemically based "code" of DNA is similar to the derived independent codes of human computing. We know how one was generated and I guess you can say that the information in human codes can be transmitted independent of the medium. I'm not sure you can say the same with DNA which is totally dependent on its medium. But even if you are right, I was looking for a specific biological structure that we can determine was designed. Are you saying that the first cell was created with the potential of evolving into the myriad of life forms we see today?

Makarios said...

Zzz - If you don't know what An Argument from Ignorance entails then you shouldn't comment on it.
==================
Scripto:
“Are you saying that the first cell was created with the potential of evolving into the myriad of life forms we see today?”

The whole series that I did regarding the question, “Where did the information come from that allowed for the rise of first life” was done via the scientific method of looking for causal adequacy within competing hypothesis. This was done by asking, What is BEST able to bring about, what we observe? The hypothesis looked at were Chance, Chemical Necessity, RNA replication and Intelligent Agent.

Because I’m a Christian and because I’m not a professional scientist, virtually anything I say is tossed aside as useless. I wish you’d simply read the series (I can give you the links if you want) but it would take over an hour to read - so let me try by giving you what scientists themselves are saying about the issue. All but two are secular scientists and the quotes are NOT taken out of context.
==============
Let me start with your comment, “I'm not sure the chemically based "code" of DNA is similar to the derived independent codes of human computing.”

“The machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like.” Richard Dawkins

“DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.” Bill Gates

“The technology of information theory and coding theory has been in place in biology for at least 3.85 billion years.” “River out of Eden”, 17
===================
Atheists tell us that the evolution of one thousand volumes of highly specified, formulated, coded information that is contained within each and every DNA molecule is like a million monkeys typing for a billion years and out comes the complete works of Shakespeare. It’s a slam dunk. It’s a done deal. It can’t help but happen. Well, not so fast.

“No living molecule is self-reproducing. Not only is DNA incapable of making copies of itself, but it is incapable of “making” anything else. The proteins of the cell are made from other proteins, and without that protein-forming machinery nothing can be made.” Richard Lewontin, “The Dream of the Human Genome.”

“Every cell displays levels of regularity and complexity that exceed by orders of magnitude,” anything found in the man-made world.”
Franklin Harold, “The Way of the Cell: Molecules, Organisms, and the Order of Life” 235

“Evolutionary biologists have failed to realise that they work with two more or less incommensurable domains: that of information and that of matter.

The gene is a package of information, not an object. The pattern of base pairs in a DNA molecule specifies the gene. But the DNA molecule is the medium, it is not the message.”
evolutionary biologist George Williams, “Natural Selection” 11

“Luck will certainly not do here. We need some rational explanation of how something this unlikely turned out to be the case”
Lee Smolin, “The Life of the Cosmos” 45

cont'd

Makarios said...

Information scientist Hubert Yockey, “The genetic code is constructed to confront and solve the problems of communication and recording by the same principles found in modern communication and computer codes.”

“The synthesis of proteins requires a tightly integrated sequence of reactions, most of which are themselves performed by the synthesis of proteins.”
David Goodsell, “The Machinery of Life.”

“The (DNA) code is meaningless unless translated. The modern cell’s translating machinery consists of at least fifty macromolecular components which are THEMSELVES coded in DNA: the code cannot be translated other than by products of translation. Jacques Monod, “Chance and Necessity.”

Stephen Meyer says, “If proteins must have arisen first then how did they do so, since all extant cells construct proteins from assembly instructions in DNA. How did either arise without the other?

A coded system is always the result of a mental process… It should be emphasized that Matter as such is unable to generate any code. All experiences indicates that a thinking being voluntarily exercising his own free will, cognition, and creativity, is required… There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this
Werner Gitt, In the Beginning Was Information, CLV, Bielenfeld, Germany, pp. 64-7, 79

The main question facing scientists today when trying to explain the origin of first life is: “How did the sequence-specific digital information necessary to building the first cell arise?”
Kuppers, “Information and the Origin of Life,” 170-172.

scripto said...

Thanks for all the interesting quotes. I still don't think the message can be separated from the medium as far as DNA goes. But like you, nobody cares what I think since my only qualification is my own interest. I wish you would quit using the term atheist when you really mean evolutionary biologist. I am sure you are well aware that the terms are not interchangable. To be fair, I think you have a point taking evolution back to a point where it is commonly called abiogenesis. I'm not sure there is a firm line that divides the disciplines. But I also think ultimately that the origin of life will turn out to be a solvable chemistry problem and underneath it all will be replication for replication's sake.

You create a false dichotomy by defaulting to ID where you think evolutionary theory is lacking. Evidence against evolution is not evidence for ID. The problem I find with ID is that it is a grand theory with no specifics. I don't see how you can compare it with a fleshed out theory of descent with modification comprising hundreds of thousands of corroborating bits of evidence.

Anyway, you've obviously given this a lot of thought and I am more interested in your answers to my questions. How do you reconcile Intelligent Design with the progression of life found in the fossil record? What kind of timeline do you invision?

Makarios said...

Sorry Glen - I just noticed this comment of yours - I'd said, "Give me an example where specified, formulated information does not require and Intelligent Agent for its presence and I'll quit posting about it."

And you said,
"DNA."
=============

Well, that sounds pretty good. However, while you were busy criss crossing Australia I was being told by your comrades that what we find in DNA, RNA and proteins ISN'T specified, formulated coded information. It's just, stuff. Chemical interactions that luckily for us happen to make life possible. Right Gorth?
Gorth’s mentor, Calilasseia has told him as much and since Calilasseia is an atheist - well - listen in, “Indeed, it is entirely possible to regard ascribed meaning as nothing other than the particular interactions driven by the underlying data, once that data is being processed,”

Bottom line, in atheist world, the stuff we find in DNA, RNA and proteins doesn’t count as specified coded information because as we all know, specified coded, formulated information only comes from and Intelligent Agent. And admitting that would, well, open the door for something VERY unpleasant in atheist world.
========
Scripto: "But like you, nobody cares what I think since my only qualification is my own interest"

Well that sucks! Maybe we could start a club.
==============

"atheist when you really mean evolutionary biologist"

I use the term, not JUST to be an asshole but because the conclusions reached are atheist influenced. They are not pure science.
===============

"I'm not sure there is a firm line that divides the disciplines."

There used to be - until Dawkins because saying that inanimate and inorganic gases can and do evolve.
==============

"But I also think ultimately that the origin of life will turn out to be a solvable chemistry problem and underneath it all will be replication for replication's sake."

Perhaps :-)
==============

You create a false dichotomy by defaulting to ID where you think evolutionary theory is lacking."
I don't believe I'm doing that. THAT would be an argument from ignorance. This series and where it goes is not an argument from ignorance. What I’ve done, in my mind at least, is show that evolutionary thinking, regarding origins does not provide a case for causal adequacy. It is NOT the best evidence or best theory based on what we observe.
==========

As to your question, I have no idea what role, if any, Intelligent Design plays. Also, changing Intelligent Agent, to Intelligent Design, makes it too broad.

While I've failed repeatedly, I've tried to keep the series to the question, What is the origin of the information that made firs life possible? I think the best evidence points to an Intelligent Agent - Full Stop.

I simply do not believe that anyone can say that it's impossible that Intelligent Life existed prior to life on our planet - Full Stop.

Makarios said...

Oh, and Z regarding you statement that what I've been saying is an argument from ignorance -

http://makarios-makarios.blogspot.com/2009/12/id-and-ignorance.html

Makarios said...

Scripto: I forgot yor comment -

“I still don't think the message can be separated from the medium as far as DNA goes.”

. There are no chemical bonds linking the nucleotide bases along the message bearing axis of the DNA molecule.

. The same kind of chemical bonds are responsible for linking the different nucleotide bases to the backbone of the molecule.

. Any nucleotide base can hook up to the backbone of the DNA molecule at any one site just as easily as it can hook up to any other site.

Because of the issue re: irreducible complexity, there is no reason for any of them to hook up in a specified, formulated coded sequence, however primitive until they are connected in a way that allows for the first replication.

Any failures should have disappeared and the life originating process should have disappeared forever.

Think about it.

scripto said...

So you're saying that known evolutionary processes are inadequate to explain the origin of the cell, but they are adequate to explain the diversification of life after the first cell was created?

scripto said...

I don't have much knowlege or interest in abiogenesis research but I remember reading somewhere there was promising research in self replicating RNA

Joyce and Lincoln

Anyway, there is a lot of work being done - none of it based on ID.

Hugo said...

@scripto
...self replicating RNA...

Actually Makarios has been babbling about this for a while...

He keeps on insisting that Chance, Chemical necessity and RNA replication are not useful at explaining the origin of life, leaving him with one other competing hypothesis: ID.
This explains nothing, but according to his scientific method, when 3 competing hypothesis fail, if a 4th one exist, it must be true.

He wrote: Neither Chance, nor Predestination nor RNA replication are workable, but those are the only theories that atheists will allow themselves to choose from. How scientific is that?

So scripto in a way you just conceded Makarios the point here... even though I do not agree with him of course, lol. Being an atheist does not entitle a person to believe one of these three theories that Makarios mentions... he is just plain wrong, but if you fall in his "trap", well you basically convince him that he is right.

The guy does not understand that we are not fighting for our beliefs, we are just trying to tell him why some of his are wrong... or when he is telling lies... but him, on the other hand, has a lot at stake, since the belief he is defending is of cosmological proportions! an eternity of consequences! The only and true creator GOD!

Ok, so Makarios, in order to change the discussion a little bit, what if we assume that your belief in God is true, and that he is the intelligent mind behind the first self-replicating cells. Can you point me to an explanation as to why he only started life but guided nothing after? Why make such a design but then make it go toward an aberration of the worse possible imagination? Natural selection is probably the most disgusting technique for creating complex animals an intelligent mind could think of; and that's the kind of mind you worship?

Perhaps you don't get what I mean by "most disgusting"? Well, just think of any prey that runs for its life, but lose... or caterpillars that gets paralyzed by wasps so that they can lay their eggs in caterpillars so that the larva can eat the animal, alive, from the inside... or perhaps any suffering induced by the human body...?

i.e. Makarios, no matter if life started by a miracle event or not, the rest is either the work of natural unintentional processes, or the intentional disgusting work of a mind that chose suffering as a design tool.

Makarios said...

“So you're saying that known evolutionary processes are inadequate to explain the origin of the cell, but they are adequate to explain the diversification of life after the first cell was created?”

I’d nod slowly to that.
================

“there was promising research in self replicating RNA”

As Hugo explains I’ve talked about that at:
http://makarios-makarios.blogspot.com/2009/12/prove-my-point-much.html
=================

“when 3 competing hypothesis fail, if a 4th one exist, it must be true.”

No I didn’t - http://makarios-makarios.blogspot.com/2009/12/id-and-ignorance.html

As Joyce and Lincoln so graciously point out Intelligent Agents were involved all along the way.
=================

“but if you fall in his "trap",
well you basically convince him that he is right.”

This is no trap. This is a straight up comparison of four competing hypothesis to see which is causally adequate or which best explains the presence of the information required for the origin of first life.

Just because your narrow definition of evidence doesn’t allow for the best explanation doesn’t mean that it’s a trap.

Remember? Scientists WANT to go where the evidence leads?
===========

“Can you point me to an explanation as to why he only started life but guided nothing after?”

No.

scripto said...

"“So you're saying that known evolutionary processes are inadequate to explain the origin of the cell, but they are adequate to explain the diversification of life after the first cell was created?”

I’d nod slowly to that."


Well, if that's the case, either the first bacterium would have to contain all the information necessary to lead to the diversification of life that we see presently or natural processes (mutation, selection, genetic drift, etc.) are capable of creating information. Since we have seen bacteria evolve novel functions in the lab, I know which one I think is more likely.

Happy New Year

Anonymous said...

I would like to exchange links with your site makarios-makarios.blogspot.com
Is this possible?

Anonymous said...

[url=http://biblebite.com/deals/Leather+Bible/]Leather Bible[/url]. Zondervan Niv Study Bible Personal Black Brown Duo New niv bible large print The Power Of A Praying Woman Bible Niv New Thinline Bible Niv Large Print New Niv Teen Study Bible Compact Jasper Leaf Green New. Niv Thompson Student Bible Holy Bible The Niv Study Bible 10th Anniversary Edit.. Niv Large Print Thinline Reference Bible Brown. Bible King James Bible Study Bible(kjv) The Holy Bible Rex Humbard. Douay Rheims Version Leather Black bible cover 1901 American Standard Version.