Atheistic intelligent design

[immortal]

How so? While there is no known way to test the idea that the material brain causes the mind, the concept of dualism is a scientific area of research with testable activity ongoing.

 

If the mind and brain are two different things then can you give me a testable hypothesis with in the scientific frame work where I can see the "MIND" and figure out how it looks like so that we can have a model of it.

 

True and these researchers are making use of this process.

I didn't understand what you are claiming.

 

Why should it be outside of science? Seeding from alien intelligence is one testable scientific area of study consistent with this thread just as John noted previously.

 

May be you have missed what John has also said.

 

If we were designed by alien intelligence then from where did the aliens came from in the first place. He said that it may be possible that they arosed randomly through random process. Now we can use your same argument that you used against our biological systems. So the information source had to come from somewhere else to design the aliens in the first place. Your's is a never ending story.

 

It is my speculation that these intelligent processes if it exists will not use the kind of processes that we normally see in our labs. I mean that they are not going to design DNA or try to organize proteins or something of that sort. The whole intelligent process might be completely different in the way they design our bodies. They might use different things which we can not see.

[Mr Skeptic]

A common mistake is to believe intelligent design is religious or has to include God as the designer. Agnosticism and atheism are compatible with intelligent design.

 

Quite. In fact, Intelligent Design wouldn't even function as cover for creationist agendas were there not legitimate alternative intelligences to function as the potential designer.

 

Most atheistic evolutionists call themselves "sceptics". If you are a skeptic then you will only believe in what you can observe yourself, the contradiction with a lot of atheists thesedays is that they put all their faith into a few textbooks on evolution when they themselves have never observed any of it so really this is no different than someone believing in what is in a holy book. It comes down to personal choice you either buy books supporting Intelligent Design and believe in it or you buy books on evolution and believe in it. The problem with some gullible and non sceptical (oooo the irony I thought evolutionists were meant to be skeptics) evolutionists would then say "but evolution has been observed on a small scale in a lab" ahhh but dear Mr. Evolutionist believer you were there were you? Nope. So what's the difference between believing in the bible creation story, the hindu or Islamic creation stories or some type of ID or believing that some evolutionist chap in a bedroom laboratory has witnessed evolution?

 

I'll go with "plausibility". If a tree fell in a forest and no one was there to see it, maybe some intelligent entity planted it sideways with damage to the nearby terrain. Or maybe it fell via well-known and observed set of rules that apply perfectly fine elsewhere. But as you say, what difference is there between believing the tree fell due to gravity or was planted sideways by God, if no one was there to see it actually happen. The only real difference is the the deduction via known rules would also make plenty of very specific predictions, such that the one who believes the tree fell can predict the damage to the surrounding vegetation, whereas the one who believes the tree was planted sideways by God really can't make any predictions.

 

Somebody needs to catch on camera an ape evolving into a human. Or a fish evolving into a land creature becuase that is what evolutionists believe. And i aint see any evidence for it. Infact i have never seen a specie evolve into a different specie... species simply do not evolve into different species. Get photo / real live footage of this evolution then i would support evolution, becuase it would be based on empirical evidence (science) but it can not be observed becuase it does not exist, it's just a theory.

 

So the only evidence you'd accept as proof for evolution would be evidence showing evolution to be false? That is very typical of your type.

[cypress]

If the mind and brain are two different things then can you give me a testable hypothesis with in the scientific frame work where I can see the "MIND" and figure out how it looks like so that we can have a model of it.

 

I spoke of this in another thread, now repeating it here:

 

Dualism predicts and can test these:

1) There will be some mental phenomena without brain function

2) As brain function is altered, the mind will not necessarily be altered

3) If the brain is damaged, then mental function will not necessarily be damaged

4) Brain development will not necessarily correlate with mental development

5) We will not always be able to correlate brain activity with mental activity

 

In this article several of the dualist predictions are confirmed.

 

Owen's study indicates that normal consciousness is present in some patients who have met the clinical criteria for persistent vegetative state, which is defined as a state lacking consciousness. The study shows that methods of assessing brain state and function (e.g., MRI, EEG, clinical examination, fMRI) can differ profoundly in their assessment of consciousness. Resulting in very different conclusions. And it demonstrates that an indirect assessment of brain function (fMRI, which measures regional blood flow and brain metabolism), may reveal evidence for consciousness when more direct methods (clinical examination, EEG) fail to detect consciousness.

 

Benjamin Libet, a neurophysiologist at UCSF one of the first in the scientific study of the relationship between the brain and the mind.

 

Neuroscientist Jeffery Schwartz, has shown there is substantial evidence that mental changes can induce measurable changes in brain function. I made reference to this work previously.

 

I didn't understand what you are claiming.

 

I was saying that the researchers testing predictions from dualism are using the scientific method.

 

If we were designed by alien intelligence then from where did the aliens came from in the first place. He said that it may be possible that they arosed randomly through random process. Now we can use your same argument that you used against our biological systems. So the information source had to come from somewhere else to design the aliens in the first place. Your's is a never ending story.

 

We can't use my argument with any degree of confidence with respect to alien intelligence since we don't know if their forms have these same biological characteristics.

 

It is my speculation that these intelligent processes if it exists will not use the kind of processes that we normally see in our labs. I mean that they are not going to design DNA or try to organize proteins or something of that sort. The whole intelligent process might be completely different in the way they design our bodies. They might use different things which we can not see.

 

Speculation is interesting this way.

[immortal]

I spoke of this in another thread, now repeating it here:

 

Dualism predicts and can test these:

1) There will be some mental phenomena without brain function

2) As brain function is altered, the mind will not necessarily be altered

3) If the brain is damaged, then mental function will not necessarily be damaged

4) Brain development will not necessarily correlate with mental development

5) We will not always be able to correlate brain activity with mental activity

 

In this article several of the dualist predictions are confirmed.

 

Owen's study indicates that normal consciousness is present in some patients who have met the clinical criteria for persistent vegetative state, which is defined as a state lacking consciousness. The study shows that methods of assessing brain state and function (e.g., MRI, EEG, clinical examination, fMRI) can differ profoundly in their assessment of consciousness. Resulting in very different conclusions. And it demonstrates that an indirect assessment of brain function (fMRI, which measures regional blood flow and brain metabolism), may reveal evidence for consciousness when more direct methods (clinical examination, EEG) fail to detect consciousness.

 

The researchers of this work do not make those conclusions but you do and I have got no problem with it.

My problem is that you can't really prove that the mind and brain are two different things using scientific methods, just because there are no physical explanations for the outcomes of these experiments it doesn't necessarily mean that brain and mind are two different things. We can just speculate on it in two ways either there may be something other than the brain which explains the phenomena observed or there may be something with in the brain for accounting those observations. The latter speculation is the most probable one that can be testified by science and I don't see how we can provide scientific evidence for the former speculation. We can not use indirect evidences to prove our hypothesis in this case as there are alternative competing hypotheses that can explain the same phenomena. So we can not prove your claim beyond any doubt and this really doesn't statisfy or convince me.

 

 

Benjamin Libet, a neurophysiologist at UCSF one of the first in the scientific study of the relationship between the brain and the mind.

 

Was this a link i couldn't get it?

 

Neuroscientist Jeffery Schwartz, has shown there is substantial evidence that mental changes can induce measurable changes in brain function. I made reference to this work previously.

 

It is a book and it is wrong to make comments about it without studying it myself. However by looking at the abstract and the reviews the author of the book says that there is a mental force which accounts for the observations seen and this can not be used as a reasonable evidence for a dualistic approach for the mind-brain problem until one can measure that mental force and with QM floating all around his hypothesis i don't see why I can not put this under the definition of 'metaphysics'.

 

 

I was saying that the researchers testing predictions from dualism are using the scientific method.

 

Those predictions doesn't completely prove dualism.

 

 

We can't use my argument with any degree of confidence with respect to alien intelligence since we don't know if their forms have these same biological characteristics.

 

Why not? Irrespective of what forms they have or what they are made up of they have to be subjected to the laws of thermodynamic entropy. I know there are many versions of maxwell's daemons but it really doesn't satisfy me.

[cypress]

The latter speculation is the most probable one that can be testified by science.

 

What objective values of probability do you place on these two scenarios and how are they derived? The researchers showed how these patients reactions contradicted the posits derived from the materialism view and confirmed the posits from a dualism view. the research also confirms that dualism makes testable predictions.

 

and I don't see how we can provide scientific evidence for the former speculation. We can not use indirect evidences to prove our hypothesis in this case as there are alternative competing hypotheses that can explain the same phenomena. So we can not prove your claim beyond any doubt and this really doesn't statisfy or convince me.

 

The research provides and the book explained additional scientific evidence. That you are unconvinced is likely not a good indicator of the strength of the evidence given your preconceived notions about this world.

 

Was this a link i couldn't get it?

 

It was. It seems I misplaced it.

 

It is a book and it is wrong to make comments about it without studying it myself. However by looking at the abstract and the reviews the author of the book says that there is a mental force which accounts for the observations seen and this can not be used as a reasonable evidence for a dualistic approach for the mind-brain problem until one can measure that mental force and with QM floating all around his hypothesis i don't see why I can not put this under the definition of 'metaphysics'.

 

As you say, prejudging books is often not fruitful.

 

Those predictions doesn't completely prove dualism.

 

They demonstrate that dualism makes testable predictions.

 

Why not? Irrespective of what forms they have or what they are made up of they have to be subjected to the laws of thermodynamic entropy. I know there are many versions of maxwell's daemons but it really doesn't satisfy me.

 

Thermal entropy is not the issue. Biological systems on earth contain highly ordered information and molecular configurations that, at this time, defy a source for this order except by design. We don't know if a presumed alien necessarily must contain similar configurations.

 

A material only hypothesis that you imply does seem have this infinite regression problem. Cause and effect, mass/energy balance, and entropy laws all seem to indicate that matter/energy/space/time all must have a source. Can you explain how this is resolved?

[immortal]

What objective values of probability do you place on these two scenarios and how are they derived? The researchers showed how these patients reactions contradicted the posits derived from the materialism view and confirmed the posits from a dualism view. the research also confirms that dualism makes testable predictions.

 

Well if there is a process with in the brain itself which accounts for the observed phenomena then it is very much possible to test that hypothesis with the technologies that we have. However a dualistic hypothesis saying that a mental force acting on the brain will affect its function has to rely on the outcomes of the material hypotheses unless there is some way to get direct evidence for it.

 

 

The research provides and the book explained additional scientific evidence. That you are unconvinced is likely not a good indicator of the strength of the evidence given your preconceived notions about this world.

 

May be I should have said that it doesn't convince the larger part of the scientific community.

 

The research show evidences neither in favour of reductionism nor in favour of dualism. It simply shows the state of affairs in the field of neuroscience and especially demonstrates OCD patients developing new wiring networks. It doesn't convincingly provide an explanation for the question of how it develops.

 

They demonstrate that dualism makes testable predictions.

 

But those predictions if testified to be true are not enough to prove dualism.

 

Thermal entropy is not the issue. Biological systems on earth contain highly ordered information and molecular configurations that, at this time, defy a source for this order except by design. We don't know if a presumed alien necessarily must contain similar configurations.

 

I don't see how the probabilities some how increases in favour of the self origin of life in some other planet. Since we don't have a reasonable natural process for the abiogenesis of life on earth and since researchers like Robert Yockey say that we may never be able to solve the abiogenesis problem. I certainly doubt that there is a natural process which might help a different planet to develop life spontaneously with out the same information source that is required in biological systems of earth.

 

A material only hypothesis that you imply does seem have this infinite regression problem. Cause and effect, mass/energy balance, and entropy laws all seem to indicate that matter/energy/space/time all must have a source. Can you explain how this is resolved?

 

I never made a claim that only material processes can or should account for the observed phenomena. I said that if design processes indeed exists then it must be outside of science. So I don't really have a paradox which I have to resolve it in the first place.

Edited December 4, 2010 by immortal

[cypress]

Well if there is a process with in the brain itself which accounts for the observed phenomena then it is very much possible to test that hypothesis with the technologies that we have. However a dualistic hypothesis saying that a mental force acting on the brain will affect its function has to rely on the outcomes of the material hypotheses unless there is some way to get direct evidence for it.

 

In the research I offered, I don't see how the researchers relied on outcomes of the counter hypothesis that mind is a product of the brain. Instead they noted the direct evidence that patient reaction was consistent with predictions from dualism and inconsistent with predictions derived from the materialist hypothesis.

 

May be I should have said that it doesn't convince the larger part of the scientific community.

 

I m not sure we can know what the larger part of the scientific community believes. However this appears to be an appeal from authority, a logical fallacy, which I am told use of is a violation of site rules.

 

The research show evidences neither in favour of reductionism nor in favour of dualism. It simply shows the state of affairs in the field of neuroscience and especially demonstrates OCD patients developing new wiring networks. It doesn't convincingly provide an explanation for the question of how it develops.

 

This appears to be an opinion you personally hold. The research demonstrated patient reactions that are consistent with dualism and inconsistent with reductionism.

 

But those predictions if testified to be true are not enough to prove dualism.

 

They are enough to demonstrate your previous claim, that tests for dualism are intractable to scientific research, was incorrect.

 

I don't see how the probabilities some how increases in favour of the self origin of life in some other planet. Since we don't have a reasonable natural process for the abiogenesis of life on earth and since researchers like Robert Yockey say that we may never be able to solve the abiogenesis problem. I certainly doubt that there is a natural process which might help a different planet to develop life spontaneously with out the same information source that is required in biological systems of earth.

 

We can't accurately asses the probability of other life forms without awareness of the configuration, without this background knowledge we can't estimate probability and permutations and thus cannot make any meaningful estimates of information entropy. Since my argument is a probability argument, we cannot currently extend it to the posit of alien life. This is the point I am making.

 

I never made a claim that only material processes can or should account for the observed phenomena. I said that if design processes indeed exists then it must be outside of science. So I don't really have a paradox which I have to resolve it in the first place.

 

I don't understand how design processes must be outside of science. Can you explain how design is not testable or not falsifiable? It seems very obvious that design is both testable and falsifiable, again as John has noted previously.

[immortal]

In the research I offered, I don't see how the researchers relied on outcomes of the counter hypothesis that mind is a product of the brain. Instead they noted the direct evidence that patient reaction was consistent with predictions from dualism and inconsistent with predictions derived from the materialist hypothesis.

 

Well first of all I think if it has to be a healthy discussion we must stop using the statement "I don't see". I think we are seeing things only what we want to see. This is frustrating.

 

I mentioned previously that the researchers don't make any conclusions in favour of dualism from their observations. It is your opinion. They just noted that coma patients can indeed sense the instructions given to them from their surroundings and can communicate to the outside world by making cortical activity in the brain and one can measure the changes in these cortical regions and understand what they want to communicate. This just provides a new perspective on coma patients. Now where does the research indicate that it requires something other than the brain to account for the observations made.

 

 

I m not sure we can know what the larger part of the scientific community believes. However this appears to be an appeal from authority, a logical fallacy, which I am told use of is a violation of site rules.

 

There is a lot of difference between knowing what the scientific community believes in and convincing the scientific community. If one can provide undeniable and testable evidence for the existence of the mind seperate from the brain then one can certainly convince the scientific community. But if someone comes up with an hypothesis which is not testable with in the scientific frame work then the scientific community doesn't have to give importance to that hypothesis. It doesn't matter whether that hypothesis comes from Stephen Hawking or Roger Penrose.

 

May be I must go through once what the site rules say.

 

 

This appears to be an opinion you personally hold. The research demonstrated patient reactions that are consistent with dualism and inconsistent with reductionism.

 

Now again it simply indicates that there may be something other than the brain but it doesn't really prove that there is something other than the brain. Do you see the difference.

 

 

They are enough to demonstrate your previous claim, that tests for dualism are intractable to scientific research, was incorrect.

 

I said that the issues like how the mind generates low entropy information and also where one can see the source of low entropy functional information are difficult to deal with within science.

I asked you to give a testable model of the mind and you gave an evidence which just indicate that there might be something other than the brain. There is a lot of difference between the two.

 

 

We can't accurately asses the probability of other life forms without awareness of the configuration, without this background knowledge we can't estimate probability and permutations and thus cannot make any meaningful estimates of information entropy. Since my argument is a probability argument, we cannot currently extend it to the posit of alien life. This is the point I am making.

 

But this claim neither disproves nor uphelds my claim that intelligent design process must be outside of science. Even if aliens indeed design the diversity of life here on earth we should have atleast by now known how they might do it and we should have known from where the low entropy information is coming from. Do we have a testable hypothesis with in the scientific framework which shows from where the low entropy information is coming from or to put it correctly do we have a testable hypothesis which shows that the low entropy information is coming from the aliens.

 

 

I don't understand how design processes must be outside of science. Can you explain how design is not testable or not falsifiable? It seems very obvious that design is both testable and falsifiable, again as John has noted previously.

 

Then why there is not even a single research paper of Intelligent Design published in reputed reviewed scientific journals. It doesn't upheld my claim but it really supports it.

[cypress]

Well first of all I think if it has to be a healthy discussion we must stop using the statement "I don't see". I think we are seeing things only what we want to see. This is frustrating.

 

I use those terms to make it clear that these are opinions and interpretations as distinct from fact.

 

Then why there is not even a single research paper of Intelligent Design published in reputed reviewed scientific journals. It doesn't upheld my claim but it really supports it.

 

If I were able to offer an paper or two that support design would you change your view?

[immortal]

If I were able to offer an paper or two that support design would you change your view?

 

A testable hypothesis or a model which explains how the intelligent design processes account for the observations made will certainly convince me and I will not have any second thoughts in changing my mind if you can come up with it.

 

But I don't want a paper which just indicates that there may be a design process to account for the observations.

[Mr Skeptic]

If I were able to offer an paper or two that support design would you change your view?

 

Want to know what would impress me more? A paper showing that evolutionary algorithm cannot account for design. And no, that does not mean showing that the evolutionary algorithm itself needs information, since we have an evolutionary algorithm based off the laws of physics with no need for any other information. Otherwise, showing that there is design will not say that evolutionary algorithm can't account for said design, which would make it pointless for this discussion.

[IM Egdall]

If you want to convince most scientists that Intelligent Design is to be preferred over Evolution theory; make a prediction. That is, using so-called Intelligent Design theory, make a specific prediction that is not found in Evolution theory. Then once an independent scientist validates this prediction by observation and measurement (and this proves repeatable by others); then scientists will stand up and pay attention to the new theory. This is generally how science works.

 

Scientists are skeptical. The reason why they overwhelmingly support the ephicacy of evolution is because of all the evidence supporting it. I suggest you read Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth R. Miller. It supports evolution and the existence of God. I found it quite interesting. He argues that evolution still fits within God's plan. Whether you agee with Miiler's point of view or not, you have to admit his arguments for evolution are most compelling.

Edited December 9, 2010 by I ME

[cypress]

A testable hypothesis or a model which explains how the intelligent design processes account for the observations made will certainly convince me and I will not have any second thoughts in changing my mind if you can come up with it.

 

But I don't want a paper which just indicates that there may be a design process to account for the observations.

 

Genetic engineering have successfully demonstrated that design is capable of generating new form and function in a population that previously lacked it. There are countless published examples of this. I have little doubt that in the near future, genetic engineering based on design processes will generate novel life forms. Do you doubt this?

 

Want to know what would impress me more? A paper showing that evolutionary algorithm cannot account for design.

 

There are several published papers in information theory and molecular biology that shows how and why evolutionary algorithms based solely on physical systems do not and cannot account for prescriptive information required for designed systems.

 

And no, that does not mean showing that the evolutionary algorithm itself needs information, since we have an evolutionary algorithm based off the laws of physics with no need for any other information.

 

We don't have any unambiguous evidence that evolutionary processes alone accomplish anything more that rearangement of existing information to produce adaptations of existing function. There is no confirmation that evolutionary processes produce evolutionary pathways greater than three selectable steps. There is no confirmation that evolutionary processes produce novel form or function. There is no confirmation that evolutionary processes drive an evolutionary algorithm in the sense you mean to imply. Every example where evolution does produce an adaptation, pre-existing information of equal or higher order was required so your statement is false. These evolutionary processes do require other information and even then they have not accomplished anything like what an evolutionary algorithm is posited to produce.

 

Otherwise, showing that there is design will not say that evolutionary algorithm can't account for said design, which would make it pointless for this discussion.

 

The only Evolutionary algorithms known to function in the sense you mean are designed by an intelligent agent and use information provided by the designer, so I wouldn't say such a thing. However there are no known evolutionary algorithms based solely on physical processes without use of prescriptive information as an input that can produce functional systems.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Genetic engineering have successfully demonstrated that design is capable of generating new form and function in a population that previously lacked it. There are countless published examples of this. I have little doubt that in the near future, genetic engineering based on design processes will generate novel life forms. Do you doubt this?

That doesn't answer the question. Is there a testable model for how intelligent design accounts for the current diversity of life?

 

There are several published papers in information theory and molecular biology that shows how and why evolutionary algorithms based solely on physical systems do not and cannot account for prescriptive information required for designed systems.

Could you cite these? Specifically.

 

We don't have any unambiguous evidence that evolutionary processes alone accomplish anything more that rearangement of existing information to produce adaptations of existing function.

This published paper disagrees with you:

 

http://evoinfo.org/p...h-for-a-search/

 

It shows that that evolutionary algorithms (and other simple searches) can generate information at a rate proportional to the amount of basic information available about the search space. Natural selection of course has great knowledge of the search space, since it is physically limited from exploring harmful parts of the search space. The search algorithms in this paper are in fact more limited than natural selection is in nature, because they are constrained to a fitness function that does not change in response to new adaptations. (Else the NFL theorems wouldn't apply.)

 

Furthermore, if I supply 10 bits of information to a search algorithm as described in the Dembski paper, it can generate more information at a rate determined by the information I supplied. A totally blind search is not prevented from generating information either, except in the sense that time constraints make it impractical.

 

There is no confirmation that evolutionary processes produce novel form or function.

If I recall correctly, I cited an antenna example and asked you to provide evidence that supplied information caused the final design, and you never came up with any.

 

Every example where evolution does produce an adaptation, pre-existing information of equal or higher order was required so your statement is false.

Can you cite a journal article supporting this claim?

[cypress]

If you want to convince most scientists that Intelligent Design is to be preferred over Evolution theory; make a prediction. That is, using so-called Intelligent Design theory, make a specific prediction that is not found in Evolution theory. Then once an independent scientist validates this prediction by observation and measurement (and this proves repeatable by others); then scientists will stand up and pay attention to the new theory. This is generally how science works.

 

A fair question.

 

Here is one testable prediction from design: Intelligent agents are known to be capable of producing functional prescriptive information. Physical processes alone do not produce novel functional prescriptive information. Biological systems will contain components and processes that are produced by design processes and are not producible by any known physical only processes without benefit of pre-existing functional prescriptive information.

 

The reason why they overwhelmingly support the ephicacy of evolution is because of all the evidence supporting it.

 

I suspect that most who support the idea that known evolutionary processes account for all observed biological diversity, do so because of a prior commitment to a materialistic worldview. I doubt it is because of the strength of evidence, it can't be because there is no compelling evidence that known evolutionary processes are capable of producing observed diversity.

 

Richard Lewontin provided excellent support of my point when he said this:

 

"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community of unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

 

I suggest you read Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth R. Miller. It supports evolution and the existence of God. I found it quite interesting. He argues that evolution still fits within God's plan. Whether you agee with Miiler's point of view or not, you have to admit his arguments for evolution are most compelling.

 

Thank you for the suggestion, I've read this book and I found it interesting in some ways but I also found the arguments to be far from compelling. Most of them were compelling arguments that organisms are similar in some ways and different in others. There was no compelling scientific argument for how the differences and similarities came to be, just that they are. He did not show how the proposed processes actually produced any of the differences.

 

That doesn't answer the question. Is there a testable model for how intelligent design accounts for the current diversity of life?

 

It does because Genetic engineers provide testable repeatable designed processes that produce novel form and function in organisms that lack them. Do you intend to claim that the several thousands of accumulated examples of novel form and function each involving hundreds to many thousands of point level differences in the genome are insufficient to make a general prediction of diversity? If so then consistency in your argument implies that evolutionary theory with zero examples of evolutionary pathways greater than three steps (and thus fewer than even ten point level differences) should be considered a failure.

 

Could you cite these? Specifically.

 

I will come back to this when I have access to my notes.

 

This published paper disagrees with you:

 

http://evoinfo.org/p...h-for-a-search/

 

It shows that that evolutionary algorithms (and other simple searches) can generate information at a rate proportional to the amount of basic information available about the search space. Natural selection of course has great knowledge of the search space, since it is physically limited from exploring harmful parts of the search space. The search algorithms in this paper are in fact more limited than natural selection is in nature, because they are constrained to a fitness function that does not change in response to new adaptations. (Else the NFL theorems wouldn't apply.)

 

There is no disagreement between this article and my claim. This is one of several papers (including the others on Marks' website) I intend to offer above. The paper demonstrated that designed evolutionary algorithms could make use of imported information to insert information into a component of a system when the designer provides prescriptive information. My statement was in reference to the known physical evolutionary processes of mutation and selection and not to an evolutionary algorithm that we know is designed. The paper did not show that natural selection holds or receives any information/knowledge of search space, and though we might speculate that it does, the question becomes from where did it originate? It did not demonstrate the knowledge of natural selection nor that there even exists a fitness function that stepwise genetic errors are capable of traversing more than just a few steps before encountering a harmful gap too broad for the step distance. You did not reach your conclusions from the information provided in this paper.

 

Furthermore, if I supply 10 bits of information to a search algorithm as described in the Dembski paper, it can generate more information at a rate determined by the information I supplied.

 

This is consistent with my arguments as well. Physical systems do not produce information order (more accurately, transfer information to a subsystem) greater than the information order that is input into the system as a whole.

 

A totally blind search is not prevented from generating information either, except in the sense that time constraints make it impractical.

 

Also consistent. Random processes can import a small amount of information with each random step commensurate with the nature of the probabilistic resources involved. I have made this point repeatedly so I am surprised you have not picked up on it yet.

 

If I recall correctly, I cited an antenna example and asked you to provide evidence that supplied information caused the final design, and you never came up with any.

 

The antenna example made use of a designed evolutionary algorithm and information imported by the designer, these are facts that the designers admit. The antenna example is not an example of the known evolutionary processes of which I was speaking here and the previous time you raised this logical fallacy.

 

Can you cite a journal article supporting this claim?

 

Do you mean to dispute the fact that the pre-existing genetic sequences represents prescriptive information and that this sequence is the input on which mutative processes act? For which part of this claim do you request support so I can locate an appropriate reference?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

It does because Genetic engineers provide testable repeatable designed processes that produce novel form and function in organisms that lack them. Do you intend to claim that the several thousands of accumulated examples of novel form and function each involving hundreds to many thousands of point level differences in the genome are insufficient to make a general prediction of diversity? If so then consistency in your argument implies that evolutionary theory with zero examples of evolutionary pathways greater than three steps (and thus fewer than even ten point level differences) should be considered a failure.

An evolutionary model can be used to explore the current diversity of life and explain why various species exist in various places, testably. Does design offer a testable similar hypothesis? How can a designer explain

 

There is no disagreement between this article and my claim. This is one of several papers (including the others on Marks' website) I intend to offer above. The paper demonstrated that designed evolutionary algorithms could make use of imported information to insert information into a component of a system when the designer provides prescriptive information. My statement was in reference to the known physical evolutionary processes of mutation and selection and not to an evolutionary algorithm that we know is designed. The paper did not show that natural selection holds or receives any information/knowledge of search space, and though we might speculate that it does, the question becomes from where did it originate? It did not demonstrate the knowledge of natural selection nor that there even exists a fitness function that stepwise genetic errors are capable of traversing more than just a few steps before encountering a harmful gap too broad for the step distance. You did not reach your conclusions from the information provided in this paper.

If you would read the paper, you would see that search algorithms are capable of generating information. See section 4, which points out that "a good search is one that generates the active information necessary for success" and explains that for such a search to succeed, it must either take an exceedingly long time, or be given information about the search space. That is, blind searches can generate information, just very slowly.

 

Furthermore, I will note yet again that the NFL restrictions do not apply here.

 

As for my conclusions about natural selection's endogenous information: it's quite simple. Suppose we have a multidimensional search space and our blind walk algorithm must traverse all of it to find an area of maximal fitness. A totally random walk would take an exceedingly long time. However, natural selection provides some information about the fitness space. For example, if the random walk tries to walk into a large region of low fitness, it will be forced to stop -- the organisms mutating in this direction will die, and will not explore that portion of the space.

 

On the other hand, organisms randomly walking into a higher-fitness portion of the search space will thrive. By having more offspring, they will increase the number of organisms exploring this part of the search space, and will naturally explore it faster, by virtue of being more fit and having more offspring.

 

This is consistent with my arguments as well. Physical systems do not produce information order (more accurately, transfer information to a subsystem) greater than the information order that is input into the system as a whole.

That's not what I said. The rate of production is limited by the information input, but the total amount is not bounded by that. Unless you wish to provide a peer-reviewed citation stating otherwise?

 

Also consistent. Random processes can import a small amount of information with each random step commensurate with the nature of the probabilistic resources involved. I have made this point repeatedly so I am surprised you have not picked up on it yet.

So: random processes can create information in small amounts, but as you said earlier, they can't create any information?

 

The antenna example made use of a designed evolutionary algorithm and information imported by the designer, these are facts that the designers admit.

You will kindly cite this claim. I provided the design documents, which show that the evolutionary algorithm merely measures whether the antenna will match the propagation characteristics desired for the probe. The fact that it designed an antenna more functional than those created by a human designer undermines the claim that human designers made it.

 

Do you mean to dispute the fact that the pre-existing genetic sequences represents prescriptive information and that this sequence is the input on which mutative processes act? For which part of this claim do you request support so I can locate an appropriate reference?

The part saying "pre-existing information of equal or higher order was required". Cite it.

[immortal]

Genetic engineering have successfully demonstrated that design is capable of generating new form and function in a population that previously lacked it. There are countless published examples of this. I have little doubt that in the near future, genetic engineering based on design processes will generate novel life forms. Do you doubt this?

 

Let me make my argument more clear when I said Inteligent processes I meant those processes which account for the already existing functional forms and not a design process which account for the newly created novel forms. I said those Intelligent processes which account for the already existing forms must be outside of science.

 

I also want a clear picture of what the Intelligent Design idea claim to explain. Does it claim to account for how the functional life forms arosed with the diversity we see today or Is it just a new field of science which deals with how genetic engineers generate novel new functional forms?

[Mr Skeptic]

There are several published papers in information theory and molecular biology that shows how and why evolutionary algorithms based solely on physical systems do not and cannot account for prescriptive information required for designed systems.

 

Good, the more there are the less excuse you have for not citing one. Please note that arguments concerning the design of the evolutionary algorithm are irrelevant to my question, since we already have an evolutionary algorithm with all the information needed for it. And yes, this does include the fitness function.

 

A fair question.

 

Here is one testable prediction from design: Intelligent agents are known to be capable of producing functional prescriptive information. Physical processes alone do not produce novel functional prescriptive information. Biological systems will contain components and processes that are produced by design processes and are not producible by any known physical only processes without benefit of pre-existing functional prescriptive information.

 

OK, let me check... Nope, he didn't ask you to repeat your claim without any evidence. He asked for a specific prediction. You've already said elsewhere that the universe is full of information (in our discussions about photographs and information), that "functional" is essentially meaningless and you'd stop using that word, and now you add a new word, prescriptive. But rather than argue the semantics, I'll just point out that your prediction is still consistent with evolution, since you have not said that the universe doesn't contain prescriptive information, so that your prediction says nothing about abiogenesis. Please also note that evolution assumes the existence of prescriptive information in the form of a cell.

 

(I'm sure we're all grown up enough not to intentionally confuse evolution and abiogenesis, rather than use the uncertainties about abiogenesis to pretend there are similar issues for evolution. Evolution presupposes a living cell and an evolutionary algorithm due to the functioning of said cell.)

[cypress]

Could you cite these? Specifically.

 

As I mentioned previously, publications form Dr. Marks and Evolutionary Informatics Lab.

 

also this publication from the International Journal of Molecular Science

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

As I mentioned previously, publications form Dr. Marks and Evolutionary Informatics Lab.

I said "Specifically" because I knew you would cite this. Many of the papers there are actually book chapters or less-formally-reviewed conference proceedings, and quite a few deal specifically with the success of search algorithms, not the generation of information. Could you be more specific?

 

also this publication from the International Journal of Molecular Science

This paper seems to reject the definition of "information" used by most of information theory, so it's hard to grasp its relevance to our current conversation or how it fits into any other presented research:

 

Those trained in information theory will be quick to point out at this point that "information is always defined in terms of an observer or knower." They argue that information is not in the law's parsimonious statement or equation, but in the difference ® between all of the uncertainty of the raw data, and the lesser amount of uncertainty generated by knowing the law. The problem with this concept of information is that for most of life's history, linear digital genetic instructions have been prescribing exquisite metabolic organization long before any observers or knowers existed. Observers and knowers themselves would not exist except for the extraordinary amount of cellular programming and organization that produced humans. Prescriptive Information (PI) [3] cannot be reduced to human epistemology. To attempt to define information solely in terms of human observation and knowledge is grossly inadequate.

 

To support your claim of published papers in information theory (not search theory, or a new system that rejects information theory) you'll have to produce specific papers showing how evolutionary algorithms based on physical systems cannot create adequate information.

 

A paper titled "The failure of evolutionary algorithms to generate functional information" would be rather nice, if you have it.

[cypress]

If you would read the paper, you would see that search algorithms are capable of generating information. See section 4, which points out that "a good search is one that generates the active information necessary for success" and explains that for such a search to succeed, it must either take an exceedingly long time, or be given information about the search space. That is, blind searches can generate information, just very slowly.

 

The article establishes that searches require information and that typically the designer imports that information into the search. Your quote refers to the hypothetical situation where a designer does not import information into the search and thus the system will have to search for a search (S4S) since it has been established that "a good search [that is not designed] is one that generates the active information necessary for success". They then proceed to show that S4S are no easier and on average exponentially more difficult than a blind search for the primary target in the original search space. Nowhere do they establish that a blind search for a search can or will turn up a good search. They do not show that searches that are not designed in actual terms generate active information,on the contrary they show that they can't generate active information.

 

The authors say:

 

Needle-in-the-haystack problems look for small targets in large spaces. In such cases, blind search stands no hope of success. Conservation of information dictates any search technique will work, on average, as well as blind search. Success requires an assisted search. But whence the assistance required for a search to be successful? To pose the question this way suggests that successful searches do not emerge spontaneously but need themselves to be discovered via a search. The question then naturally arises whether such a higher-level “search for a search” is any easier than the original search.

 

And the conclusion is:

 

The Horizontal NFLT illustrates the law of conservation of information by revealing that unsubstantiated arbitrary assumptions about a search will, on average, result in a search with less than average performance as measured by the search’s active information. This results from the average active information, e.g., the active entropy, being negative. The Vertical NFLT establishes the troubling property that, under a loose set of conditions, the difficulty of a Search for a Search (S4S) increases exponentially as a function of minimal acceptable active information being sought.

 

The article does not show that random processes generate what they term the endogenous information available to a blind search. What is the source of this information and how is it formally made available?

 

Furthermore, I will note yet again that the NFL restrictions do not apply here.

 

You have made this claim on several occasions and once offered an article raising informal objections, but you have not offered formal proof.

 

As for my conclusions about natural selection's endogenous information: it's quite simple. Suppose we have a multidimensional search space and our blind walk algorithm must traverse all of it to find an area of maximal fitness. A totally random walk would take an exceedingly long time. However, natural selection provides some information about the fitness space. For example, if the random walk tries to walk into a large region of low fitness, it will be forced to stop -- the organisms mutating in this direction will die, and will not explore that portion of the space.

 

How though did natural selection obtain the information you claim is endogenous? This was the question I asked, could you answer it please? Your hypothetical example addresses how adaptation does locate local optimums but to show that natural selection acting on a random walk (random genetic errors) can account for all diversity, you must demonstrate that natural selection contains information on how to guide the random walk over or around vast crevasses of low fitness via long evolutionary pathways involving many countless steps. You must also show that there are in actual existence such pathways.

 

That's not what I said. The rate of production is limited by the information input, but the total amount is not bounded by that. Unless you wish to provide a peer-reviewed citation stating otherwise?

 

I think we are saying the same thing, and that is why I previously said I am consistent with this article. The peer reviewed articles from Evolutionary Informatics Lab, including the one you previously cited do demonstrate a limit on the net total amount of information in relation to the probabilistic resources (and information) brought to bear plus the quantity of active information imported.

 

 

So: random processes can create information in small amounts, but as you said earlier, they can't create any information?

 

Read my statement again. I used the word import. You committed a logical fallacy by assigning a word with a very different meaning.

 

 

You will kindly cite this claim. I provided the design documents, which show that the evolutionary algorithm merely measures whether the antenna will match the propagation characteristics desired for the probe. The fact that it designed an antenna more functional than those created by a human designer undermines the claim that human designers made it.

 

As I previously said, the designers admit they designed the algorithm, and the design documents and links you provided make it clear that the evolutionary algorithm was designed. The human designers designed a system that designed an antenna. without the humans, the antenna design would not come into existence so the humans were a necessary component of the design. They designed the design. They caused the design.

 

The part saying "pre-existing information of equal or higher order was required". Cite it.

 

Cited above and here.

 

I said "Specifically" because I knew you would cite this. Many of the papers there are actually book chapters or less-formally-reviewed conference proceedings, and quite a few deal specifically with the success of search algorithms, not the generation of information. Could you be more specific?

 

The list of papers are a specific list and these papers collectively and a couple individually demonstrate my claim. I am at a loss to understand how I can be more specific in terms of what list of papers was intended by my statement other that the list I provided. If your personal opinion contradicts the conclusions of these papers, so be it, I am not likely to change your opinion with a different list. On the other hand if you find the conclusions to be factually in error, I would be interested in the factual errors.

 

This paper seems to reject the definition of "information" used by most of information theory, so it's hard to grasp its relevance to our current conversation or how it fits into any other presented research:

 

It is very relevant because it specifically addresses functional information, prescriptive information and biological information. It is also peer reviewed and the conclusion supports my claim.

 

As a bonus, many of the 335 citations in this paper also serve to support the claims I have made in this thread.

[Mr Skeptic]

So cypress, you agree then that you can find no flaws in evolution, and instead wish to focus on abiogenesis? I say this because the things you are saying here (even if true) don't seem to apply to evolution but only to abiogenesis.

[Edtharan]

Also consistent. Random processes can import a small amount of information with each random step commensurate with the nature of the probabilistic resources involved. I have made this point repeatedly so I am surprised you have not picked up on it yet.

But earilyer you were arguing against this. If a random process can "import a small amount of information with each random step", then what is your problem with a process that selects for this "small amount of information"?

 

The only information needed for such a selection is: The quality of the previous data set and the quality of the new data set. Using just these two pieces of information a system can compare them and test if one is better (lower information entropy) than the other. If the new data set is of a lower or equal entropy, then the new data set is kept and the old data set is rejected. If the entropy of the new data set is greater, then the new data set is rejected and the old data set is kept.

 

As a specific example of this (which you can do yourself if you want to test it):

 

1) Start with a random string of letters.

 

2) Generate several new strings of letters based on the first string, but with one or two changes to it (additions, deletions, single letter changes, etc)

 

3) Calculate the entropy of the new strings as compared to the first string

 

4) Take the string with the lowest information entropy and use that as the new first string

 

5) Repeat steps 2 through 4 until a maximally low entropy string is reached.

 

This requiers no outside inforamtion as the only information you are using is the comparisons between the strings (which you already have - and even the original string was generated by random method). This fullfills your critera of no outside information, it also consistant with what you are willing to accept (that random processes can import small amounts of information).

 

As you are selecting only on the basis of lower entropy and discarding strings with increased entropy, then you will end up with a low entropy string (as you hav kept the randomly lower entropy strings and discarded the higher entropy strings).

 

If you do this experiment and can show that you end up with a higher entropy string in the end, then this will prove that evolution, as a process, can not cause a reduction in information entropy. You will provethat you are rights. However, if you do this experiment and end up with a lower entropy string, then it will disprove your claims about evolution.

 

This is an experiment designed to test both the claims being made (for and against evolution). I have tried to design this to fit with what you are willing to accept as initial premises (eg: that random processes can "import a small amount of information"). Also as all the information that is used by this experiment originates from random processes and no information is brought in from out side the experiment, then this experiment starts with a high information entropy data set and has no low entropy information coming in from anywhere.

 

So it fits all the constraints you have placed upon any argument. It fits with every thing you are willing to accept. So give this a go and see if you are right (remember science requiers experimental testing).

[cypress]

So cypress, you agree then that you can find no flaws in evolution, and instead wish to focus on abiogenesis?

 

No. These observations and the apparent constraints imposed by physical laws apply to both.

 

I say this because the things you are saying here (even if true) don't seem to apply to evolution but only to abiogenesis.

 

They apply to changes in ordered systems generally and across the board. Abiogenesis and evolution (as an explanation for all observed biological change and diversity) both posit large changes in molecular and information order. Molecular order is a physical configuration in spacial dimensions involving both spacial and bonding affinity. Functional information is a formal configuration whereby the formal information is stored as discrete sequences of characters by molecular patterns independent of the physical chemical constraints of traditional chemic processes by virtue of the high entropy chemic backbone carrier. this stored information is retrieved, transcribed and processed to manage and control biological processes.

[Mr Skeptic]

No. These observations and the apparent constraints imposed by physical laws apply to both.

 

 

 

They apply to changes in ordered systems generally and across the board. Abiogenesis and evolution (as an explanation for all observed biological change and diversity) both posit large changes in molecular and information order. Molecular order is a physical configuration in spacial dimensions involving both spacial and bonding affinity. Functional information is a formal configuration whereby the formal information is stored as discrete sequences of characters by molecular patterns independent of the physical chemical constraints of traditional chemic processes by virtue of the high entropy chemic backbone carrier. this stored information is retrieved, transcribed and processed to manage and control biological processes.

 

However, evolution starts off with a premise of a living cell, with its cellular processes such that there is an evolutionary algorithm (mutation and selection). The information in the cell must be considered functional, prescriptive, and whatever other attributes you want such that it produces a living cell. Therefore, even if you could show that these things are necessary to have, evolution already has them. That your arguments are limited to the creation of the processes that evolution presupposes leads me to believe that you have given up arguing evolution and instead are arguing against abiogenesis only. But perhaps I missed something. I just don't see how your recent arguments apply to evolution, since evolution already has the evolutionary algorithm and some starting information in the form of a functional (for reproductive purposes) system.