AN opportunity for the religious to provide their evidence

[jeremyp]

Unfortunately for Feynman, there have been enough occasions when breakthroughs have occurred only after something has 'disagreed with experiment' to make this more of a platitude than a scientific truth.

It's not a platitude, it is fundamental to the way science works. When the orbit of Mercury was found not to be consistent with Newton's Theory of Gravity, it was the principle that forced scientists to turn away from Newton's theory and find something better. Newton is as close to a god as science has ever had and yet, when his ideas were found not to be congruent with nature, the problems weren't covered up, instead people went out and found better ones.

So you see it's not a platitude and if you think it is, you fundamentally misunderstand what science is and why it works.

[torridon]

Unfortunately for Feynman, there have been enough occasions when breakthroughs have occurred only after something has 'disagreed with experiment' to make this more of a platitude than a scientific truth.

Not sure what is meant by that.  Have any examples to quote ?

[torridon]

So it is an unevidenced piece of ultradarwinism then insatiable bonding not equating to evolution in the Darwinian sense.

I notice we have ''created'' self replicating RNA. Irony aside has evolution of this been observed? or evolution INTO this molecule from precursor been observed.

I don't know, probably not, in short.  Of course we don't always need to 'observe' something in real time. no one observed zebras evolving from a horse-like ancestor, it's what the extant evidence suggests. This was a pretty stunning piece of fundamental research though in its own right. Trying to recreate possible biochemical conditions of the primordial Earth, the researchers synthesised 100 trillion initial distinct variants of the RNA molecule to find one capable of transcription and replication and after several generations of selection molecules emerged replicating themselves 40,000 times per day.  Over a few days they had achieved what might have taken a billion years of random biochemical mixing and selection on early Earth.  That in itself is not life, in the fullest sense, but it one of the characterising aspects of life standing on one of several borderlines between chemistry and biology.

[Maeght]

Unfortunately for Feynman, there have been enough occasions when breakthroughs have occurred only after something has 'disagreed with experiment' to make this more of a platitude than a scientific truth.

In that case then surely the breakthrough was made because the experiment showed the existing theory to be wrong - which is what Feynman was saying - so really don't see why you would think this a platitude.

[Gordon]

Unfortunately for Feynman, there have been enough occasions when breakthroughs have occurred only after something has 'disagreed with experiment' to make this more of a platitude than a scientific truth.

'Unfortunately' for you, it seems you have utterly missed the point Feynman was making.

[Walter]

'Unfortunately' for you, it seems you have utterly missed the point Feynman was making.

So, here we have it , a perfect illustration of why some people are religious and others are not. That one sentence has exposed Hopes inability to understand reality and I don't think he does it deliberately. Its like me not understanding Dutch but pretending I do to avoid appearing stupid .
He is unaware of why he's wrong but continues to be wrong with increasing confidence as he's got older because he believes he now has more authority.
Hope, may your god go with you but don't piss up my back and tell me its raining.

[bluehillside Retd.]

jeremyp,

I'm afraid that doesn't follow at all. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes. Most other apes have 24. That tells us that our ancestors had more chromosomes than us and that two pairs fused together.

I think it does - random cell fusion does occur, but so do mistakes during meiosis that increase the number of chromosomal pairs. And for lots of extra chromosonal pairs you need lots of time. That's why ancient ferns have so many more base pairs than we do - they've been around much longer, so have had more opportunities for meiotic copying errors.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hope,

Unfortunately for Feynman, there have been enough occasions when breakthroughs have occurred only after something has 'disagreed with experiment' to make this more of a platitude than a scientific truth.

In which the Hopester shoots himself in the foot with quite spectacular effect.

[wigginhall]

I don't know whether stuff about information and codes is still live, but this is an interesting blog about them.

http://reciprocity-giving-something-back.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/who-put-it-there-information-in-dna.html

[Walter]

I don't know whether stuff about information and codes is still live, but this is an interesting blog about them.

http://reciprocity-giving-something-back.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/who-put-it-there-information-in-dna.html

Wiggy that was a brilliant link ,thanks

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I don't know, probably not, in short.  Of course we don't always need to 'observe' something in real time. no one observed zebras evolving from a horse-like ancestor,

Yes, but these leave fossil evidence. Your citation itself states these chemicals would have left no fossil evidence so analogy with the evolution of life is futile unless one dabbles in a bit of ultradarwinism.

I draw parallels with your support for this with some string theory advocacy. It's a good theory....and that's all unless a means to test it is found.

[jeremyp]

jeremyp,

I think it does - random cell fusion does occur, but so do mistakes during meiosis that increase the number of chromosomal pairs. And for lots of extra chromosonal pairs you need lots of time. That's why ancient ferns have so many more base pairs than we do - they've been around much longer, so have had more opportunities for meiotic copying errors.

Ferns aren't ancient. They have been evolving for the same amount of time as humans. and earthworms.

[torridon]

Yes, but these leave fossil evidence. Your citation itself states these chemicals would have left no fossil evidence so analogy with the evolution of life is futile unless one dabbles in a bit of ultradarwinism.

I draw parallels with your support for this with some string theory advocacy. It's a good theory....and that's all unless a means to test it is found.

The underlying principle of chemical evolution is not controversial, nor is it speculative like string theory, we have understood this since the Miller experiment in the 1950's.  What we are not sure of is the full pathways from simple elements to replicating organic compounds of which there are potentially billions.  Research on self-replicating RNA at the Scripps Institute is essentially a proof of concept of this process.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Walter,

Wiggy that was a brilliant link ,thanks

Yes it is good – it essentially sets out the position I’ve been trying to explain to SOTS, albeit without success. He too confuses information with meaning, or purpose: he marvels at the unlikelihood of DNA producing him or giant redwoods or golden tree frogs just as any other sentient being that evolution might have produced instead that was also given to the reference point error might have marvelled at the unlikelihood of his existence. What are the chances eh?

It’s quite seductive I suppose: “I’m special, the chances of special me coming about by chance are infinitesimally small, therefore it didn’t happen” etc but it’s utterly backwards nonetheless. It’s circular too of course if you want to use your incredulity about evolution as an argument for “God”, while at the same time deciding that it was also this god who intended for you to be the end game all along.

Odd stuff indeed, but there it is: the triumph of solipsism.

[wigginhall]

And also that God is somehow engineering evolution the whole time.  As has been said, why would an all-powerful being use such an protracted hit and miss process like this, with many extinctions, mass extinctions, and so on.   Why is God so wasteful?

[bluehillside Retd.]

jeremy,

Ferns aren't ancient. They have been evolving for the same amount of time as humans. and earthworms.

Well, I'm happy to defer to you on this if the facts bear you out but pretty much every source I access suggests that the ancient-ness (?) of ferns is instrumental in their chromosomal profligacy. Here for example from the UC Santa Barbara science website:

The adder’s tongue fern is generally believed to have the largest number of chromosomes with 1262 compared to human’s 46. However, the number of chromosomes is not a good indicator of complexity. A lot of DNA in bigger genomes, like the ferns, is “junk DNA” and doesn’t actually code for anything useful. Humans on the other hand are more careful with no accumulating junk DNA and therefore have a smaller, more information-dense genome. In fact, the reason that ferns can have so many chromosomes is that they are ancient enough to have accumulated so many chromosomes.

(http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=4976)

[bluehillside Retd.]

Wiggs,

And also that God is somehow engineering evolution the whole time.  As has been said, why would an all-powerful being use such an protracted hit and miss process like this, with many extinctions, mass extinctions, and so on.   Why is God so wasteful?

Yes - that's weirder in a way than straight ahead green-inked creationism: "OK, so evolution happens but there's also a tinkerer God who gives it a nudge from time-to-time in order for it to produce the species he wanted all along". Maybe the answer is that, rather than an intelligent designer, there's a stupid one? God: "Look, making people and octopi and stuff is like, really haaard man, so, you know, the best I can manage is a really rubbish process that wastes bajillions of efforts but hey - it gets there in the end right?"   

[Walter]

And also that God is somehow engineering evolution the whole time.  As has been said, why would an all-powerful being use such an protracted hit and miss process like this, with many extinctions, mass extinctions, and so on.   Why is God so wasteful?

if god was an engineer he would have been sacked ages ago (don't remember who first said that)
perhaps god is just a baby , have you seen how wasteful they are?

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Walter,

Yes it is good – it essentially sets out the position I’ve been trying to explain to SOTS, albeit without success. He too confuses information with meaning, or purpose: he marvels at the unlikelihood of DNA producing him or giant redwoods or golden tree frogs just as any other sentient being that evolution might have produced instead that was also given to the reference point error might have marvelled at the unlikelihood of his existence. What are the chances eh?

It’s quite seductive I suppose: “I’m special, the chances of special me coming about by chance are infinitesimally small, therefore it didn’t happen” etc but it’s utterly backwards nonetheless. It’s circular too of course if you want to use your incredulity about evolution as an argument for “God”, while at the same time deciding that it was also this god who intended for you to be the end game all along.

Odd stuff indeed, but there it is: the triumph of solipsism.

And I can see why you continue to find it necessary to misrepresent my position completely in order to make your point.

Ok, some comments in response to the link below that wigginhall posted:

Who Put it There? Information in DNA

The first paragraph:

Among the claims that surface with the regularity of a pulsar are the claims that DNA is a code and, as such, requires the intervention of an intelligence to 'put the information there'. In this post, I want to give a brief treatment of that claim, and show why it doesn't stack up.

No citations. It’s certainly not something that I’ve claimed, nor seen any one else here claim. So already, it appears that the article may be addressing a problem that doesn’t exist!

What the article does do, in my opinion is do a good job of explaining how things happen working with what is already present.

The illustration with the string of 1’s. no argument from me about the increase in information

111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111

to

11111111101111111110111111111011111111101111111110111111111
01111111110111111111011111111101111111110

As the increase comes from a change in some of the digits. All that is done is built on what exists, namely digits. Now, if you had this:

111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111

to

111111111X111111111X111111111X111111111X111111111X111111111
X111111111X111111111X111111111X111111111X

That would represent a gain in information. The question would be, where did the X’s come from as they are not digits.

SAND DUNES
Sand dunes exist, and the patterns shown in the photo are created from what is already present, by what is already present.

Forgive me if I skip the dogshit one…

Onto what is said about DNA. I found this interesting…

DNA is information in the sense that it informs us about the system, not that it contains a message. It is not a code, more something akin to a cipher, in which the chemical bases are treated as the letters of the language.

From Wikipedia(1): In cryptography, a cipher (or cypher) is an algorithm for performing encryption or decryption—a series of well-defined steps that can be followed as a procedure.

So the objection to the use of a word because it allows some to argue for an intelligent cause is replaced by … a word that allows some to argue for an intelligent cause!!

The article ends thus:

Moving on to the 'genetic code', in DNA, we have the nucleobases Cytosine, Adenine, Guanine and Thymine (In RNA, thymine is replaced by uracil (U)). These are the digital states of DNA. We use only the initial letters in our treatment, CAGT. Further, they come in pairs, with C always pairing with G, and A always pairing with T (or with U in RNA).

From here, we can build up lots of 'words', in that when they pair in certain ordered sequences (no teleology here), they produce specific proteins, that go into building organisms (loosely). The point is that this is all just chemistry, while the code itself is our treatment of it. In other words, the map is not the terrain.

Considering all the criticism I was getting for comparing DNA with the alphabet, musical notes or computer code, the above supports all that I was saying!

But here’s the proverbial elephant in the room: All that is said in that link, every analogy and illustration works with what is already present. What is not addressed is, where did that which is already present come from?

The problem is always going to be, the taking of a process that works with what is already present, to explain how that which is already present came to be. In other words, circular reasoning; assuming evolution to prove evolution.

(1): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cipher

[bluehillside Retd.]

SOTS,

And I can see why you continue to find it necessary to misrepresent my position completely in order to make your point.

What misrepresenting do you think I have done? You commit the reference point error over and again, and - so far as I'm aware - you've not even indicated that you're aware of the problem it gives you.

[bluehillside Retd.]

SOTS,

That would represent a gain in information.

Nope. If, say, the sequence of unbroken 1s happened to be the code for a safe and the sequence with the Xs in it rendered the lock inoperable the latter would be a reduction in information. Again, you mistake information for purpose or meaning.

[Dicky Underpants]

Wiggs,

Yes - that's weirder in a way than straight ahead green-inked creationism: "OK, so evolution happens but there's also a tinkerer God who gives it a nudge from time-to-time in order for it to produce the species he wanted all along". Maybe the answer is that, rather than an intelligent designer, there's a stupid one? God: "Look, making people and octopi and stuff is like, really haaard man, so, you know, the best I can manage is a really rubbish process that wastes bajillions of efforts but hey - it gets there in the end right?"

You know, Bergson in his Creative Evolution used the eye of the octopus and the pecten (another form of mollusc) as examples of how the 'Life Force' had done its best on that line of evolution to consolidate its ultimate plan (in fact the job was done better than the equivalent human eye). Unfortunately, the 'plan' seems to have got just about everything else wrong on that line of invertebrate evolution

[Gordon]

Sword.

Re, evolution and information;

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

(Typo corrected)

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Dicky,

You know, Bergson in his Creative Evolution used the eye of the octopus and the pecten (another form of mollusc) as examples of how the 'Life Force' had done its best on that line of evolution to consolidate its ultimate plan (in fact the job was done better than the equivalent human eye). Unfortunately, the 'plan' seems to have got just about everything else wrong on that line of invertebrate evolution

Thanks for that. Of course though the same question arises for Bergson: if there was an omniscient god with an ultimate plan then why bother with evolutionary processes at all? There's also something called convergent evolution (from memory) - disparate organisms arrive at solutions that are analogous but different, the eyes of cephalopods and of mammals being a good example. There was something on the TV the other night that was discussing the way a mammal (I forget which) has found a way on its island to occupy the same niche that woodpeckers occupy in their habitats.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The underlying principle of chemical evolution is not controversial, nor is it speculative like string theory, we have understood this since the Miller experiment in the 1950's.  What we are not sure of is the full pathways from simple elements to replicating organic compounds of which there are potentially billions.  Research on self-replicating RNA at the Scripps Institute is essentially a proof of concept of this process.

Yes it's all good stuff but explaining the existence of an evident self replicating molecule by means of the evolution of previous self replicating molecules can't help with the origin of self replicating molecules can it? In other words isn't there a point where the darwinianism has to stop?