From: Stephen E. Jones <sejones@iinet.net.au>
>Reflectorites
>
>On Thu, 21 Sep 2000 00:46:08 -0400, Ivar Ylvisaker wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>>PN>Hi Wesley:
>>>>
>>>>Do you have any examples of natural selection
>>>>actually generating CSI?
>
>[...]
>
>>SJ>To which Wesley, after a bit of huffing and puffing, replied, in effect
(see
>>>below), "well actually no Paul...but we have some *great* excuses why we
>>>haven't"!
>
>[...]
>
>IY>I'm not aware of an example of anything that can be labeled CSI. I've
>>seen claims by Dembski and others but have never seen any explicit
>>justification for such a claim.
>
>How about the genetic code for starters? Dawkins says of this:
>
> "After Watson and Crick, we know that genes themselves, within
> their minute internal structure, are long strings of pure digital
> information. What is more, they are truly digital, in the full and
> strong sense of computers and compact disks, not in the weak sense
> of the nervous system. The genetic code is not a binary code as in
> computers, nor an eight-level code as in some telephone systems,
> but a quaternary code, with four symbols. The machine code of the
> genes is uncannily computerlike. Apart from differences in jargon,
> the pages of a molecular-biology journal might be interchanged
> with those of a computer engineering journal." (Dawkins R., "River
> out of Eden," 1996, pp.19-20)
>
>How does unintelligent natural processes write "machine code" which is so
>"uncannily computerlike", that it could be "interchanged with" human
>designed code in "a computer engineering journal"?
>
>And there is not just one code. It is now realised that there are *several*
quite
>*different* codes to be explained:.
>
> "Four decades of dissecting genome function at the molecular level
> have brought many insights that were not anticipated in 1953. Two
> of the most far-reaching are: (1) There exist many different genetic
> codes in addition to the triplet code for amino acids. These codes
> affect many diverse aspects of genome function, such as replication,
> transcription, recombination, DNA packaging and chromatin
> organization, imprinting, RNA and proteinprocessing, and
> chromosome localization, pairing and movement." (Shapiro J.A.,
> "Genome system architecture and natural genetic engineering in
> evolution," Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 1999,
> May 18, Vol. 870, pp.23-35)
>
>Materialist-naturalistic evolution could not even explain the original DNA
>"triplet code for amino acids" but now it has "many different genetic codes
>in addition" to explain.
>
>Science's universal experience is that only intelligent designers write
codes.
>There is nothing in non-living nature which even remotely resembles
>a *code*. This is the whole premise that SETI is based on.
>
>And the good old `Swiss army knife', `one-explanation fits all
observations'
>favourite of Darwinian RM&NS doesn't work here, because these
>molecular and cellular level codes are needed before RM&NS will work at
>all! This is the same problem as trying to use RM&NS in prebiological
>evolution:
>
> "One way out of the problem would be to extend the concept of
> natural selection to the pre-living world of molecules. A number of
> authors have entertained this possibility, although no reasonable
> explanation has made the suggestion plausible. Natural selection is
> a recognized principle of differential reproduction which
> presupposes the existence of at least two distinct types of self-
> replicating molecules. Dobzhansky appealed to those doing origin-
> of-life research not to tamper with the definition of natural selection
> when he said:
>
> `I would like to plead with you, simply, please realize you cannot
> use the words "natural selection" loosely. Prebiological natural
> selection is a contradiction in terms.' (Dobzhansky T., "In The
> Origins of Prebiological Systems and of Their Molecular Matrices,"
> 1965, p310)
>
> Bertalanffy made the point even more cogently:
>
> `Selection, i.e., favored survival of "better" precursors of life,
> already presupposes self-maintaining, complex, open systems which
> may compete; therefore selection cannot account for the origin of
> such systems.' (von Bertalanffy L., "Robots, Men and Minds",
> 1967, p82).
>
> (Thaxton C.B., Bradley W.L. & Olsen R.L., "The Mystery of Life's
> Origin," 1992, p.147).
Stephen's long reply was in response to a statement that we have not yet
seen any demonstration of the existence of CSI. To quote Dembski:
"Do the calculation. Take the numbers seriously. See if the underlying
probabilities really are small enough to yield design."
So, where's the calculation?
Dembski has never backed up his claims with any calculation. Nor has he been
willing to clarify the method of the Design Inference. His silence on these
subjects is very telling. Even within the inner circle of the ID movement
it seems that there are major disagreements over the Design Inference. No
doubt Dembski and his supporters will try to brazen it out. But sooner or
later their bogus claims will go the way of the YEC Paluxy River track
claims. Those who've supported the Design Inference will be left with egg on
their faces.
My impression has been that Stephen generally steers clear of the subject of
the Design Inference and CSI. This is quite sensible, as he has probably not
read "The Design Inference." My suggestion to Stephen is that he avoid the
subjects of the Design Inference and CSI like the plague, if he doesn't want
to be one of those with egg on his face. ;-)
Richard Wein (Tich)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Oct 06 2000 - 12:16:26 EDT