Total Posts:103|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Another Testable Prediction From ID Theory

joepalcsak
Posts: 409
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2014 8:36:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
"As we continue to learn more about the genome, the epigenome, and the inner workings of life, we will discover several more semiotic programming languages and information systems."

This is a particularly useful prediction in the clash between ID theory and abiogenesis. Programming and information systems are perfectly compatible with ID theory. On the other hand, the presence of such systems underpinning all life is a serious blow to abiogenesis. Frankly, to the intellectually honest, it should be down right fatal to abiogenesis. Of course, several semiotic biological systems have indeed been discovered already, but this forward going prediction is offered in the spirit of and as a witness to the testable traction that has taken hold in the maturing theory of ID. The fulfillment of this prediction should have profound consequences in determining which paradigm - ID or abiogenesis - is reasonable.

I am happy to engage in conversations concerning this testable prediction with two main caveats:
1). All exchanges will be collegial and cordial. Of course, you may defend your position with passion and firmness (expect the same from me!), but we will not cross the line into ad-hominem and name calling.
2). Because Crick's Sequence Hypothesis is by far the most useful hypothesis in unlocking our understanding of the genome and epigenome, and continues to provide breathtaking explanatory power as our knowledge increases, anyone wishing to dispute the fact of biological information must falsify this hypothesis if they intend to be taken seriously in this forum.
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2014 6:27:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Questions:

1. What, specifically is the prediction made from ID Theory. Who made or discovered this prediction?

2. What observations would falsify this prediction?
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2014 9:48:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/7/2014 6:27:27 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
Questions:

1. What, specifically is the prediction made from ID Theory. Who made or discovered this prediction?

2. What observations would falsify this prediction?

ID takes a philosophical rather than scientific stance on information. This is why ID doesn't talk about information in the same terms as computer scientists or information theorists (for example, Shannon information), and instead invent new terms (like complex specified information) to discuss things like DNA, epigenetics, etc. often in the context of analogy to computers rather than in the context of the actual data. It's with this unique concept of information that they claim one of 'Information cannot be created' or 'Information has never been observed to be created' and hence evolution cannot be responsible for the origin of species.

Really, nothing short of the non-existence of DNA and related mechanisms would satisfactorily falsify this claim - which is ironic because genetics has provided perhaps the most substantial empirical support for evolution and insight into its mechanisms.
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2014 10:58:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/7/2014 9:48:17 AM, Enji wrote:
At 8/7/2014 6:27:27 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
Questions:

1. What, specifically is the prediction made from ID Theory. Who made or discovered this prediction?

2. What observations would falsify this prediction?

ID takes a philosophical rather than scientific stance on information.

I accept your concession.
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2014 11:07:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/7/2014 10:58:01 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 8/7/2014 9:48:17 AM, Enji wrote:
At 8/7/2014 6:27:27 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
Questions:

1. What, specifically is the prediction made from ID Theory. Who made or discovered this prediction?

2. What observations would falsify this prediction?

ID takes a philosophical rather than scientific stance on information.

I accept your concession.

You realise I'm not the OP, correct?
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2014 11:08:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/7/2014 11:07:53 AM, Enji wrote:
At 8/7/2014 10:58:01 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 8/7/2014 9:48:17 AM, Enji wrote:
At 8/7/2014 6:27:27 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
Questions:

1. What, specifically is the prediction made from ID Theory. Who made or discovered this prediction?

2. What observations would falsify this prediction?

ID takes a philosophical rather than scientific stance on information.

I accept your concession.

You realise I'm not the OP, correct?

I guess I didn't. So you just decided to interject and state you can't answer the questions?
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2014 11:09:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/7/2014 11:08:53 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 8/7/2014 11:07:53 AM, Enji wrote:
At 8/7/2014 10:58:01 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 8/7/2014 9:48:17 AM, Enji wrote:
At 8/7/2014 6:27:27 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
Questions:

1. What, specifically is the prediction made from ID Theory. Who made or discovered this prediction?

2. What observations would falsify this prediction?

ID takes a philosophical rather than scientific stance on information.

I accept your concession.

You realise I'm not the OP, correct?

I guess I didn't. So you just decided to interject and state you can't answer the questions?

I disagree with the OP.
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2014 11:12:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/7/2014 11:09:32 AM, Enji wrote:
At 8/7/2014 11:08:53 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 8/7/2014 11:07:53 AM, Enji wrote:
At 8/7/2014 10:58:01 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 8/7/2014 9:48:17 AM, Enji wrote:
At 8/7/2014 6:27:27 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
Questions:

1. What, specifically is the prediction made from ID Theory. Who made or discovered this prediction?

2. What observations would falsify this prediction?

ID takes a philosophical rather than scientific stance on information.

I accept your concession.

You realise I'm not the OP, correct?

I guess I didn't. So you just decided to interject and state you can't answer the questions?

I disagree with the OP.

My mistake, then.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2014 2:00:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/6/2014 8:36:37 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
"As we continue to learn more about the genome, the epigenome, and the inner workings of life, we will discover several more semiotic programming languages and information systems."

This is a particularly useful prediction in the clash between ID theory and abiogenesis. Programming and information systems are perfectly compatible with ID theory. On the other hand, the presence of such systems underpinning all life is a serious blow to abiogenesis. Frankly, to the intellectually honest, it should be down right fatal to abiogenesis. Of course, several semiotic biological systems have indeed been discovered already, but this forward going prediction is offered in the spirit of and as a witness to the testable traction that has taken hold in the maturing theory of ID. The fulfillment of this prediction should have profound consequences in determining which paradigm - ID or abiogenesis - is reasonable.

I am happy to engage in conversations concerning this testable prediction with two main caveats:
1). All exchanges will be collegial and cordial. Of course, you may defend your position with passion and firmness (expect the same from me!), but we will not cross the line into ad-hominem and name calling.
2). Because Crick's Sequence Hypothesis is by far the most useful hypothesis in unlocking our understanding of the genome and epigenome, and continues to provide breathtaking explanatory power as our knowledge increases, anyone wishing to dispute the fact of biological information must falsify this hypothesis if they intend to be taken seriously in this forum.

1.) A scientific prediction should be something that is required by the theory that makes it. I cannot see how the theory that life was designed mandates or requires that there are more "information" systems than have currently been discovered.

2.) What is being predicted here is broad and ambiguous and cover an innumerable number of occurrences, predictions should be pretty specific.

3.) A prediction should be specific enough to be only compatible with one theory. A prediction that is equally consistent and/or compatible with current theories is not good evidence for one over another, especially if it is not a requiment of your theory (see 1). There is no fundamental argument being made for why this is incompatible with evolution or abiogenesis.

4.) a prediction shouldn't be an educated guess. We have known about epigenetics for a little while. Predicting that we will discover information systems, or "programming languages" is therefore more of a post diction, which is rather weak, especially as what is being predicted could be satisfied by finding so,e mechanism on DNA to explain what we already know happens.
joepalcsak
Posts: 409
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2014 7:21:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/7/2014 6:27:27 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
Questions:

1. What, specifically is the prediction made from ID Theory. Who made or discovered this prediction?

2. What observations would falsify this prediction?

1. the prediction appears at the top in quotation marks and is my own prediction. Perhaps others have made similar predictions, but this is my own. The prediction flows logically from the theory.

2. This is a prediction derived from a theory, not the theory itself. The theory of ID can be falsified by a single emperical example of a semiotic information storage and processing system arising unambiguously out of purely natural processes.

Thanks for your questions!
joepalcsak
Posts: 409
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2014 7:45:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/7/2014 9:48:17 AM, Enji wrote:
At 8/7/2014 6:27:27 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
Questions:

1. What, specifically is the prediction made from ID Theory. Who made or discovered this prediction?

2. What observations would falsify this prediction?

ID takes a philosophical rather than scientific stance on information. This is why ID doesn't talk about information in the same terms as computer scientists or information theorists (for example, Shannon information), and instead invent new terms (like complex specified information) to discuss things like DNA, epigenetics, etc. often in the context of analogy to computers rather than in the context of the actual data. It's with this unique concept of information that they claim one of 'Information cannot be created' or 'Information has never been observed to be created' and hence evolution cannot be responsible for the origin of species.

Really, nothing short of the non-existence of DNA and related mechanisms would satisfactorily falsify this claim - which is ironic because genetics has provided perhaps the most substantial empirical support for evolution and insight into its mechanism.

several things:
1. I chose my words very carefully. Note that semiotic information is not a term I have fabricated. I am certain that you are aware that programming language is indeed semiotic information, as is written language. Braille, semaphore, musical notation: all are examples of semiotic information. Genetic information is another.

2. Information theory encompasses much, much more than mere shannon uncertainty. . So-called shannon information has nothing to say about semiotics which encompasses code, syntax, and semantics. All of the examples given above do manifest semiotics.

3. As I noted in a previous post, one single emperical example of a semiotic language system arising unambiguously out of purely natural processes would falsify ID theory. Unless and until such an emperical example is forthcoming, the discovery that life is run by such a system, as I stated earlier, should, to the intellectually honest, cast grave doubt on any possible abiogenesis scenario.

4. Semiotic information is a straightforward concept and is embodied in Crick's sequence hypothesis. Once again, if you are not prepared to falsify this hypothesis, you will not be taken seriously in this thread. I mean it. Sorry.

5. When you say: genetics has provided perhaps the most substantial empirical support for evolution and insight into its mechanism,, you are making more than one mistake. First, genetics has provided much more empirical support for ID than it has for any alternative theory. Second, it is not evolution that is in direct conflict with ID. ID is perfectly compatible with guided, or programmed evolution. Finally, when you talk about a mechanism for evolution, you are not talking about a mechanism for the origin of genetic information, and that is what is at issue here.

6. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of ID. Perhaps you are getting your informaion about ID from its opponents who, believe it or not, like to present a straw man version of what ID really says.

Thanks for taking the time to comment though!
joepalcsak
Posts: 409
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2014 8:06:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/7/2014 2:00:26 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 8/6/2014 8:36:37 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
"As we continue to learn more about the genome, the epigenome, and the inner workings of life, we will discover several more semiotic programming languages and information systems."

This is a particularly useful prediction in the clash between ID theory and abiogenesis. Programming and information systems are perfectly compatible with ID theory. On the other hand, the presence of such systems underpinning all life is a serious blow to abiogenesis. Frankly, to the intellectually honest, it should be down right fatal to abiogenesis. Of course, several semiotic biological systems have indeed been discovered already, but this forward going prediction is offered in the spirit of and as a witness to the testable traction that has taken hold in the maturing theory of ID. The fulfillment of this prediction should have profound consequences in determining which paradigm - ID or abiogenesis - is reasonable.

I am happy to engage in conversations concerning this testable prediction with two main caveats:
1). All exchanges will be collegial and cordial. Of course, you may defend your position with passion and firmness (expect the same from me!), but we will not cross the line into ad-hominem and name calling.
2). Because Crick's Sequence Hypothesis is by far the most useful hypothesis in unlocking our understanding of the genome and epigenome, and continues to provide breathtaking explanatory power as our knowledge increases, anyone wishing to dispute the fact of biological information must falsify this hypothesis if they intend to be taken seriously in this forum.

1.) A scientific prediction should be something that is required by the theory that makes it. I cannot see how the theory that life was designed mandates or requires that there are more "information" systems than have currently been discovered.

2.) What is being predicted here is broad and ambiguous and cover an innumerable number of occurrences, predictions should be pretty specific.

3.) A prediction should be specific enough to be only compatible with one theory. A prediction that is equally consistent and/or compatible with current theories is not good evidence for one over another, especially if it is not a requiment of your theory (see 1). There is no fundamental argument being made for why this is incompatible with evolution or abiogenesis.

4.) a prediction shouldn't be an educated guess. We have known about epigenetics for a little while. Predicting that we will discover information systems, or "programming languages" is therefore more of a post diction, which is rather weak, especially as what is being predicted could be satisfied by finding so,e mechanism on DNA to explain what we already know happens.

1. Semiotic inofrmation is consistent with one and only one theory of the origin of life
2. There is nothing ambiguous about a prediction of semiotic information systems.
3. Again, a system that is run by semiotic information is only consistent with ID theory. It is inconsistent with any abiogenesis scenario. Semiotic inofrmation systems are always the product of intelligent agency. Based on everything we know and understand to be true, natural processes are not capable of producing semiotic information systems
4. I am on record making a forward-going prediction as of August 6.

Finally, one single emperical example of a semiotic information processing system arising unambiguously out of purely natural processes would falsify ID theory (at least in my mind) and render my prediction completely irrelevant. Unless and until such an emperical example is fothcoming, the fulfillment of my prediction would constitute yet another positive step in distunguishing ID theory as the the undisputed strongest origin of life theory on the table.

Good to hear from you again!
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2014 8:23:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/7/2014 7:45:52 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
At 8/7/2014 9:48:17 AM, Enji wrote:
At 8/7/2014 6:27:27 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
Questions:

1. What, specifically is the prediction made from ID Theory. Who made or discovered this prediction?

2. What observations would falsify this prediction?

ID takes a philosophical rather than scientific stance on information. This is why ID doesn't talk about information in the same terms as computer scientists or information theorists (for example, Shannon information), and instead invent new terms (like complex specified information) to discuss things like DNA, epigenetics, etc. often in the context of analogy to computers rather than in the context of the actual data. It's with this unique concept of information that they claim one of 'Information cannot be created' or 'Information has never been observed to be created' and hence evolution cannot be responsible for the origin of species.

Really, nothing short of the non-existence of DNA and related mechanisms would satisfactorily falsify this claim - which is ironic because genetics has provided perhaps the most substantial empirical support for evolution and insight into its mechanism.

several things:
1. I chose my words very carefully. Note that semiotic information is not a term I have fabricated. I am certain that you are aware that programming language is indeed semiotic information, as is written language. Braille, semaphore, musical notation: all are examples of semiotic information. Genetic information is another.

2. Information theory encompasses much, much more than mere shannon uncertainty. . So-called shannon information has nothing to say about semiotics which encompasses code, syntax, and semantics. All of the examples given above do manifest semiotics.

3. As I noted in a previous post, one single emperical example of a semiotic language system arising unambiguously out of purely natural processes would falsify ID theory. Unless and until such an emperical example is forthcoming, the discovery that life is run by such a system, as I stated earlier, should, to the intellectually honest, cast grave doubt on any possible abiogenesis scenario.

4. Semiotic information is a straightforward concept and is embodied in Crick's sequence hypothesis. Once again, if you are not prepared to falsify this hypothesis, you will not be taken seriously in this thread. I mean it. Sorry.

5. When you say: genetics has provided perhaps the most substantial empirical support for evolution and insight into its mechanism,, you are making more than one mistake. First, genetics has provided much more empirical support for ID than it has for any alternative theory. Second, it is not evolution that is in direct conflict with ID. ID is perfectly compatible with guided, or programmed evolution. Finally, when you talk about a mechanism for evolution, you are not talking about a mechanism for the origin of genetic information, and that is what is at issue here.

6. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of ID. Perhaps you are getting your informaion about ID from its opponents who, believe it or not, like to present a straw man version of what ID really says.

Thanks for taking the time to comment though!

I've read Dembski's approach to information and how it relates to ID and evolution because he attempts to place ID concepts like irreducible complexity in a more scientific format. If you dislike his approach to information theory, then you're free to dismiss it. But Dembski's complex specified information is a philosophic approach to information theory, unlike traditional empirical approaches like Shannon's, and its purpose is to demonstrate that evolutionary mechanisms cannot create information and hence can't be responsible for the origin of species.

I think it's curious that you put so much focus on the sequence hypothesis which relates to the synthesis of proteins; other ID advocates I've encountered dismiss this as evolutionary dogma related to coding vs junk regions of DNA, whereas ID 'predicts' that most content of the genome is functional (if not necessarily coding).
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2014 6:55:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/7/2014 7:21:15 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
At 8/7/2014 6:27:27 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
Questions:

1. What, specifically is the prediction made from ID Theory. Who made or discovered this prediction?

2. What observations would falsify this prediction?

1. the prediction appears at the top in quotation marks and is my own prediction. Perhaps others have made similar predictions, but this is my own. The prediction flows logically from the theory.

Please provide the logical progression from ID Theory to your prediction:

"As we continue to learn more about the genome, the epigenome, and the inner workings of life, we will discover several more semiotic programming languages and information systems."


2. This is a prediction derived from a theory, not the theory itself. The theory of ID can be falsified by a single emperical example of a semiotic information storage and processing system arising unambiguously out of purely natural processes.

That is not a falsification criteria for ID because you are using the mere existence of "semiotic information storage and processing systems" (SESAPS) as evidence that ID is true. This is somewhat begging the question. Whenever you see these things (SESAPS) you say, "Aha! Look! ID is true!" It doesn't seem that you accept the situation that they can arise naturally, so this is not an example of a falsification criteria.

Please provide another.


Thanks for your questions!
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2014 8:42:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/7/2014 8:06:13 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
At 8/7/2014 2:00:26 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 8/6/2014 8:36:37 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
"As we continue to learn more about the genome, the epigenome, and the inner workings of life, we will discover several more semiotic programming languages and information systems."

This is a particularly useful prediction in the clash between ID theory and abiogenesis. Programming and information systems are perfectly compatible with ID theory. On the other hand, the presence of such systems underpinning all life is a serious blow to abiogenesis. Frankly, to the intellectually honest, it should be down right fatal to abiogenesis. Of course, several semiotic biological systems have indeed been discovered already, but this forward going prediction is offered in the spirit of and as a witness to the testable traction that has taken hold in the maturing theory of ID. The fulfillment of this prediction should have profound consequences in determining which paradigm - ID or abiogenesis - is reasonable.

I am happy to engage in conversations concerning this testable prediction with two main caveats:
1). All exchanges will be collegial and cordial. Of course, you may defend your position with passion and firmness (expect the same from me!), but we will not cross the line into ad-hominem and name calling.
2). Because Crick's Sequence Hypothesis is by far the most useful hypothesis in unlocking our understanding of the genome and epigenome, and continues to provide breathtaking explanatory power as our knowledge increases, anyone wishing to dispute the fact of biological information must falsify this hypothesis if they intend to be taken seriously in this forum.

1.) A scientific prediction should be something that is required by the theory that makes it. I cannot see how the theory that life was designed mandates or requires that there are more "information" systems than have currently been discovered.

2.) What is being predicted here is broad and ambiguous and cover an innumerable number of occurrences, predictions should be pretty specific.

3.) A prediction should be specific enough to be only compatible with one theory. A prediction that is equally consistent and/or compatible with current theories is not good evidence for one over another, especially if it is not a requiment of your theory (see 1). There is no fundamental argument being made for why this is incompatible with evolution or abiogenesis.

4.) a prediction shouldn't be an educated guess. We have known about epigenetics for a little while. Predicting that we will discover information systems, or "programming languages" is therefore more of a post diction, which is rather weak, especially as what is being predicted could be satisfied by finding so,e mechanism on DNA to explain what we already know happens.

1. Semiotic inofrmation is consistent with one and only one theory of the origin of life

If this is true, then you don't need the prediction at all, because DNA in some form or fashion counts and therefore already proves ID.

What ID does here, is asserts that it can't occur naturally, without demonstrating it. Remember biological "coding" systems and information share none of hallmarks of human made information systems as they lack definitive, specific objective meaning:

There is no beethovens fifth symphony in DNA that conveys intelligence, only IDers implying that because DNA codes for protein it is created intelligently, despite mechanisms that demonstrate complex information can arise through trial and error. As a result the "information" argument is merely rhetorical equivocation.

It is a case of asserting something is true, then lumping out a prediction for which assumes the assertion is true and then claim the assertion is true.

Even so, you haven't really answered point 1 of the "prediction". Why should we find MORE? Why can ID not cope with only having DNA? Why is one or more additional languages required by ID, you haven't answered that in the reply.

2. There is nothing ambiguous about a prediction of semiotic information systems.

Well actually there is. You have not clearly defined the nature of the system you wish to find, as a result the system you suggest can cover a wide range of possible occurrences, many of which such as things along the lines of DNA are not out of line with evolution.

If you made a specific suggestion that information will be found in those coding systems indicitive of intelligence, fine; but the system itself existing, as per point one, is not enough.

3. Again, a system that is run by semiotic information is only consistent with ID theory. It is inconsistent with any abiogenesis scenario. Semiotic inofrmation systems are always the product of intelligent agency. Based on everything we know and understand to be true, natural processes are not capable of producing semiotic information systems

This is actually false. As I stated in 1. You assert it to be true and offer no real argument other than the standard equivocation of ANY information, and information that can only result by intelligence,

Moreover, there is no explanation of why it the existance of DNA is incompatible with abiogenesis. Saying something is true does not make it so,

4. I am on record making a forward-going prediction as of August 6.

Which has no bearing whatsoever on the point I was making.

As stated, we know there are other mechanisms at play so saying something new will be discovered is not a big conclusion. The arbitrary definition of information systems, means that anything with information can be claimed to be proof of ID because you resort to the general assertion of something that you cannot demonstrate.

Finally, one single emperical example of a semiotic information processing system arising unambiguously out of purely natural processes would falsify ID theory (at least in my mind) and render my prediction completely irrelevant. Unless and until such an emperical example is fothcoming, the fulfillment of my prediction would constitute yet another positive step in distunguishing ID theory as the the undisputed strongest origin of life theory on the table.

What falsifies ID is the extensive evidence that it can happen. This destroys the underpinning argument that such a system "can't" arise via natural processes. Because the laws of chemistry, combined with the statistics of evolution show that such steps can indeed arise without intelligent intervention.

Good to hear from you again!

I'll soon change that!

D
v3nesl
Posts: 4,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2014 2:32:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/7/2014 9:48:17 AM, Enji wrote:
At 8/7/2014 6:27:27 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
Questions:

1. What, specifically is the prediction made from ID Theory. Who made or discovered this prediction?

2. What observations would falsify this prediction?

ID takes a philosophical rather than scientific stance on information. This is why ID doesn't talk about information in the same terms as computer scientists or information theorists (for example, Shannon information),

Actually, it's exactly the same. That's the point here - the DNA behaves like a well constructed information channel and store.

In information theory, information isn't really defined, it's assumed. The utility of information theory is in being able to work with representations of information, rather than worrying about what information is in a philosophical sense. So, the same telephone wire can carry "I love you" and "Don't ever call here again" without knowing anything about emotion.

So we can say that DNA looks like a communication channel and a database, and thus the inference of information.


Really, nothing short of the non-existence of DNA and related mechanisms would satisfactorily falsify this claim - which is ironic because genetics has provided perhaps the most substantial empirical support for evolution and insight into its mechanisms.

We distinguish genetics from evolution. Genetics is selecting from existing information, often with a randomized aspect, and is amenable to scientific inquiry. Evolution claims that features that could not be inferred from existing DNA will spontaneously appear over generations, and I don't know how that could be analyzed scientifically even if it did happen. But there's really no scientific evidence that it's even possible, just the same fanciful hypothesis that's been elevated to dogma over the past 150 years.
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2014 2:37:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/8/2014 8:42:44 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 8/7/2014 8:06:13 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
At 8/7/2014 2:00:26 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 8/6/2014 8:36:37 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
"As we continue to learn more about the genome, the epigenome, and the inner workings of life, we will discover several more semiotic programming languages and information systems."

This is a particularly useful prediction in the clash between ID theory and abiogenesis. Programming and information systems are perfectly compatible with ID theory. On the other hand, the presence of such systems underpinning all life is a serious blow to abiogenesis. Frankly, to the intellectually honest, it should be down right fatal to abiogenesis. Of course, several semiotic biological systems have indeed been discovered already, but this forward going prediction is offered in the spirit of and as a witness to the testable traction that has taken hold in the maturing theory of ID. The fulfillment of this prediction should have profound consequences in determining which paradigm - ID or abiogenesis - is reasonable.

I am happy to engage in conversations concerning this testable prediction with two main caveats:
1). All exchanges will be collegial and cordial. Of course, you may defend your position with passion and firmness (expect the same from me!), but we will not cross the line into ad-hominem and name calling.
2). Because Crick's Sequence Hypothesis is by far the most useful hypothesis in unlocking our understanding of the genome and epigenome, and continues to provide breathtaking explanatory power as our knowledge increases, anyone wishing to dispute the fact of biological information must falsify this hypothesis if they intend to be taken seriously in this forum.

1.) A scientific prediction should be something that is required by the theory that makes it. I cannot see how the theory that life was designed mandates or requires that there are more "information" systems than have currently been discovered.

2.) What is being predicted here is broad and ambiguous and cover an innumerable number of occurrences, predictions should be pretty specific.

3.) A prediction should be specific enough to be only compatible with one theory. A prediction that is equally consistent and/or compatible with current theories is not good evidence for one over another, especially if it is not a requiment of your theory (see 1). There is no fundamental argument being made for why this is incompatible with evolution or abiogenesis.

4.) a prediction shouldn't be an educated guess. We have known about epigenetics for a little while. Predicting that we will discover information systems, or "programming languages" is therefore more of a post diction, which is rather weak, especially as what is being predicted could be satisfied by finding so,e mechanism on DNA to explain what we already know happens.

1. Semiotic inofrmation is consistent with one and only one theory of the origin of life

If this is true, then you don't need the prediction at all, because DNA in some form or fashion counts and therefore already proves ID.

What ID does here, is asserts that it can't occur naturally, without demonstrating it. Remember biological "coding" systems and information share none of hallmarks of human made information systems as they lack definitive, specific objective meaning:

There is no beethovens fifth symphony in DNA that conveys intelligence,

Was Beethoven not a product of DNA? So this is a pretty self-defeating argument - if DNA doesn't code intelligence, i.e. contain intelligence, then humans don't have intelligence. Or intelligence is metaphysical, take your pick.
This space for rent.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2014 3:08:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/8/2014 2:37:13 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 8/8/2014 8:42:44 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 8/7/2014 8:06:13 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
At 8/7/2014 2:00:26 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 8/6/2014 8:36:37 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
"As we continue to learn more about the genome, the epigenome, and the inner workings of life, we will discover several more semiotic programming languages and information systems."

This is a particularly useful prediction in the clash between ID theory and abiogenesis. Programming and information systems are perfectly compatible with ID theory. On the other hand, the presence of such systems underpinning all life is a serious blow to abiogenesis. Frankly, to the intellectually honest, it should be down right fatal to abiogenesis. Of course, several semiotic biological systems have indeed been discovered already, but this forward going prediction is offered in the spirit of and as a witness to the testable traction that has taken hold in the maturing theory of ID. The fulfillment of this prediction should have profound consequences in determining which paradigm - ID or abiogenesis - is reasonable.

I am happy to engage in conversations concerning this testable prediction with two main caveats:
1). All exchanges will be collegial and cordial. Of course, you may defend your position with passion and firmness (expect the same from me!), but we will not cross the line into ad-hominem and name calling.
2). Because Crick's Sequence Hypothesis is by far the most useful hypothesis in unlocking our understanding of the genome and epigenome, and continues to provide breathtaking explanatory power as our knowledge increases, anyone wishing to dispute the fact of biological information must falsify this hypothesis if they intend to be taken seriously in this forum.

1.) A scientific prediction should be something that is required by the theory that makes it. I cannot see how the theory that life was designed mandates or requires that there are more "information" systems than have currently been discovered.

2.) What is being predicted here is broad and ambiguous and cover an innumerable number of occurrences, predictions should be pretty specific.

3.) A prediction should be specific enough to be only compatible with one theory. A prediction that is equally consistent and/or compatible with current theories is not good evidence for one over another, especially if it is not a requiment of your theory (see 1). There is no fundamental argument being made for why this is incompatible with evolution or abiogenesis.

4.) a prediction shouldn't be an educated guess. We have known about epigenetics for a little while. Predicting that we will discover information systems, or "programming languages" is therefore more of a post diction, which is rather weak, especially as what is being predicted could be satisfied by finding so,e mechanism on DNA to explain what we already know happens.

1. Semiotic inofrmation is consistent with one and only one theory of the origin of life

If this is true, then you don't need the prediction at all, because DNA in some form or fashion counts and therefore already proves ID.

What ID does here, is asserts that it can't occur naturally, without demonstrating it. Remember biological "coding" systems and information share none of hallmarks of human made information systems as they lack definitive, specific objective meaning:

There is no beethovens fifth symphony in DNA that conveys intelligence,

Was Beethoven not a product of DNA? So this is a pretty self-defeating argument - if DNA doesn't code intelligence, i.e. contain intelligence, then humans don't have intelligence. Or intelligence is metaphysical, take your pick.

Are you seriously suggesting that if I scan beethovens DNA that I will find, somewhere, a perfectly encoded version of his fifth symphony?

I'm assuming not, and you have simply completely misinterpreted my argument and decided to run with the straw man,
joepalcsak
Posts: 409
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2014 7:35:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Hi all....

I am very grateful to discover the amount of activity on this post in the past 24 hours or so. I was on airplanes most of the day yesterday. I am excited to catch up as I am able, but will only have a moment or two here and there for the next several days. I solicit your patience

Joe
joepalcsak
Posts: 409
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2014 7:52:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/7/2014 8:23:33 PM, Enji wrote:
At 8/7/2014 7:45:52 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
At 8/7/2014 9:48:17 AM, Enji wrote:
At 8/7/2014 6:27:27 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
Questions:

1. What, specifically is the prediction made from ID Theory. Who made or discovered this prediction?

2. What observations would falsify this prediction?

ID takes a philosophical rather than scientific stance on information. This is why ID doesn't talk about information in the same terms as computer scientists or information theorists (for example, Shannon information), and instead invent new terms (like complex specified information) to discuss things like DNA, epigenetics, etc. often in the context of analogy to computers rather than in the context of the actual data. It's with this unique concept of information that they claim one of 'Information cannot be created' or 'Information has never been observed to be created' and hence evolution cannot be responsible for the origin of species.

Really, nothing short of the non-existence of DNA and related mechanisms would satisfactorily falsify this claim - which is ironic because genetics has provided perhaps the most substantial empirical support for evolution and insight into its mechanism.

several things:
1. I chose my words very carefully. Note that semiotic information is not a term I have fabricated. I am certain that you are aware that programming language is indeed semiotic information, as is written language. Braille, semaphore, musical notation: all are examples of semiotic information. Genetic information is another.

2. Information theory encompasses much, much more than mere shannon uncertainty. . So-called shannon information has nothing to say about semiotics which encompasses code, syntax, and semantics. All of the examples given above do manifest semiotics.

3. As I noted in a previous post, one single emperical example of a semiotic language system arising unambiguously out of purely natural processes would falsify ID theory. Unless and until such an emperical example is forthcoming, the discovery that life is run by such a system, as I stated earlier, should, to the intellectually honest, cast grave doubt on any possible abiogenesis scenario.

4. Semiotic information is a straightforward concept and is embodied in Crick's sequence hypothesis. Once again, if you are not prepared to falsify this hypothesis, you will not be taken seriously in this thread. I mean it. Sorry.

5. When you say: genetics has provided perhaps the most substantial empirical support for evolution and insight into its mechanism,, you are making more than one mistake. First, genetics has provided much more empirical support for ID than it has for any alternative theory. Second, it is not evolution that is in direct conflict with ID. ID is perfectly compatible with guided, or programmed evolution. Finally, when you talk about a mechanism for evolution, you are not talking about a mechanism for the origin of genetic information, and that is what is at issue here.

6. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of ID. Perhaps you are getting your information about ID from its opponents who, believe it or not, like to present a straw man version of what ID really says.

Thanks for taking the time to comment though!

I've read Dembski's approach to information and how it relates to ID and evolution because he attempts to place ID concepts like irreducible complexity in a more scientific format. If you dislike his approach to information theory, then you're free to dismiss it. But Dembski's complex specified information is a philosophic approach to information theory, unlike traditional empirical approaches like Shannon's, and its purpose is to demonstrate that evolutionary mechanisms cannot create information and hence can't be responsible for the origin of species.

I think it's curious that you put so much focus on the sequence hypothesis which relates to the synthesis of proteins; other ID advocates I've encountered dismiss this as evolutionary dogma related to coding vs junk regions of DNA, whereas ID 'predicts' that most content of the genome is functional (if not necessarily coding).

I am glad that you are familiar with Dembski's groundbreaking work. The ID community owes him much gratitude for his diligent work which even many of his critics admire. Rest assured that I do not "dismiss" his work. I simply prefer a more straight forward approach. It has always struck me that Specified Complexity opens the door to interpretations of the sort that you are advancing here, which is why I prefer different wording.

While it it true that a fully functional genome is yet another testable prediction from ID theory (thanks for bringing it up by the way), I know of no ID proponent who dismisses the Sequence hypothesis. Indeed, this hypothesis does refer to the synthesis of proteins, first appearing as it does in Crick's seminal paper, "On Protein Synthesis," but it also clearly identifies the DNA/RNA protein synthesis system as "code," establishing this system as a semiotic information processing system. Again, information of this nature clearly transcends mere shannon probablistic uncertainty. For this type of information system there is one and only one causally sufficient explanation: intelligent agency.

I hope this helps!
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2014 6:14:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/6/2014 8:36:37 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
[...]
2). Because Crick's Sequence Hypothesis is by far the most useful hypothesis in unlocking our understanding of the genome and epigenome, and continues to provide breathtaking explanatory power as our knowledge increases, anyone wishing to dispute the fact of biological information must falsify this hypothesis

Isn't this already falsified? I thought 3D structures of proteins weren't determined by their sequences, but by helper enzymes that molded them to the correct 3D shape.

Yet, according to Wikipedia, Crick's Hypothesis says the amino acid sequence determines 3D shape
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2014 7:31:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/9/2014 6:14:10 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 8/6/2014 8:36:37 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
[...]
2). Because Crick's Sequence Hypothesis is by far the most useful hypothesis in unlocking our understanding of the genome and epigenome, and continues to provide breathtaking explanatory power as our knowledge increases, anyone wishing to dispute the fact of biological information must falsify this hypothesis

Isn't this already falsified? I thought 3D structures of proteins weren't determined by their sequences, but by helper enzymes that molded them to the correct 3D shape.

Yet, according to Wikipedia, Crick's Hypothesis says the amino acid sequence determines 3D shape

I don't believe Crick mentions the 3D structure of proteins in his presentation of the sequence hypothesis. The sequence hypothesis as originally stated is "that the specificity of a piece of nucleic acid is expressed solely by the sequence of its bases, and that this sequence is a (simple) code for the amino acid sequence of a particular protein." which makes no mention of protein structure, just the amino acid sequence of the protein. The problem with this would be that not all DNA sequences code for proteins.
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2014 8:17:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/9/2014 7:31:12 PM, Enji wrote:
At 8/9/2014 6:14:10 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 8/6/2014 8:36:37 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
[...]
2). Because Crick's Sequence Hypothesis is by far the most useful hypothesis in unlocking our understanding of the genome and epigenome, and continues to provide breathtaking explanatory power as our knowledge increases, anyone wishing to dispute the fact of biological information must falsify this hypothesis

Isn't this already falsified? I thought 3D structures of proteins weren't determined by their sequences, but by helper enzymes that molded them to the correct 3D shape.

Yet, according to Wikipedia, Crick's Hypothesis says the amino acid sequence determines 3D shape

I don't believe Crick mentions the 3D structure of proteins in his presentation of the sequence hypothesis. The sequence hypothesis as originally stated is "that the specificity of a piece of nucleic acid is expressed solely by the sequence of its bases, and that this sequence is a (simple) code for the amino acid sequence of a particular protein." which makes no mention of protein structure, just the amino acid sequence of the protein. The problem with this would be that not all DNA sequences code for proteins.

Wouldn't base marker molecules also falsify the hypothesis? Or since they just enable/disable sequences, it doens't count as modifying the specificity of the peice of nucleic acid?
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2014 8:35:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/9/2014 8:17:00 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
Wouldn't base marker molecules also falsify the hypothesis? Or since they just enable/disable sequences, it doesn't count as modifying the specificity of the piece of nucleic acid?

Presumably the latter. In general, the sequence hypothesis is simply stating that a sequence of nucleic acids codes for the sequence of amino acids in a protein.
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2014 8:48:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/9/2014 8:35:06 PM, Enji wrote:
Presumably the latter. In general, the sequence hypothesis is simply stating that a sequence of nucleic acids codes for the sequence of amino acids in a protein.

Ok, so what does that mean for Crick's hypothesis?

If I'm correct that only a small portion of DNA codes for amino acids, that would make it "rarely true." If parts of this small portion can also be read another way (e.g.antisense) that doesn't code for amino acids, that would put emphasis on the "rarely".
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2014 9:01:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/9/2014 8:48:53 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
Ok, so what does that mean for Crick's hypothesis?

If I'm correct that only a small portion of DNA codes for amino acids, that would make it "rarely true." If parts of this small portion can also be read another way (e.g.antisense) that doesn't code for amino acids, that would put emphasis on the "rarely".

I mentioned earlier that the problem with the sequence hypothesis would be that not all DNA sequences code for proteins. But it's still useful with regards to protein coding DNA, and from an ID/creationist standpoint you can use it to reinforce your claim that DNA is a code like in computers and hence requires intelligence.
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2014 9:05:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/9/2014 9:01:42 PM, Enji wrote:
At 8/9/2014 8:48:53 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
Ok, so what does that mean for Crick's hypothesis?

If I'm correct that only a small portion of DNA codes for amino acids, that would make it "rarely true." If parts of this small portion can also be read another way (e.g.antisense) that doesn't code for amino acids, that would put emphasis on the "rarely".

I mentioned earlier that the problem with the sequence hypothesis would be that not all DNA sequences code for proteins. But it's still useful with regards to protein coding DNA, and from an ID/creationist standpoint you can use it to reinforce your claim that DNA is a code like in computers and hence requires intelligence.

Hmm but you know, Crick's hypothesis is falsified if it turns out that every amino-acid coding portion of DNA ALSO codes for something other than amino acids.

Is it true that all amino-acid coding sequences have another function? Cuz that'd falsify it.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2014 9:06:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/9/2014 9:05:22 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 8/9/2014 9:01:42 PM, Enji wrote:
At 8/9/2014 8:48:53 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
Ok, so what does that mean for Crick's hypothesis?

If I'm correct that only a small portion of DNA codes for amino acids, that would make it "rarely true." If parts of this small portion can also be read another way (e.g.antisense) that doesn't code for amino acids, that would put emphasis on the "rarely".

I mentioned earlier that the problem with the sequence hypothesis would be that not all DNA sequences code for proteins. But it's still useful with regards to protein coding DNA, and from an ID/creationist standpoint you can use it to reinforce your claim that DNA is a code like in computers and hence requires intelligence.

Hmm but you know, Crick's hypothesis is falsified if it turns out that every amino-acid coding portion of DNA ALSO codes for something other than amino acids.

Is it true that all amino-acid coding sequences have another function? Cuz that'd falsify it.

I don't believe that's the case.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2014 8:04:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/6/2014 8:36:37 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
"As we continue to learn more about the genome, the epigenome, and the inner workings of life, we will discover several more semiotic programming languages and information systems."

This is a particularly useful prediction in the clash between ID theory and abiogenesis. Programming and information systems are perfectly compatible with ID theory. On the other hand, the presence of such systems underpinning all life is a serious blow to abiogenesis. Frankly, to the intellectually honest, it should be down right fatal to abiogenesis.

Can i ask, why exactly is this fatal to abiogenesis? Youre assuming that this cannot come from nature, through natural means. I hope you have some evidence to back up this assertion.

Of course, several semiotic biological systems have indeed been discovered already, but this forward going prediction is offered in the spirit of and as a witness to the testable traction that has taken hold in the maturing theory of ID. The fulfillment of this prediction should have profound consequences in determining which paradigm - ID or abiogenesis - is reasonable.

Sure. The discussion isnt whether semiotic biological systems exist, but rather, whether they can arise naturally or require intelligence.

I mean, my problem with biosemiotics, when used by creationists, is that they dont understand that this is being used in a different way than regular semiotics, i.e. as a metaphor.

But, the prediction that is being made here, isnt necessarily for or against neither natural abiogenesis or ID.

Also, if i remember my molecular biology class, Cricks sequence hypothesis sets it up specifically so that information can only pass from the DNA/RNA to the protein, but not to the Protein back to the DNA/RNA. But this is the exact opposite with regards to man-made programming languages.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2014 8:05:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/8/2014 3:08:31 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 8/8/2014 2:37:13 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 8/8/2014 8:42:44 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 8/7/2014 8:06:13 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
At 8/7/2014 2:00:26 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 8/6/2014 8:36:37 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
"As we continue to learn more about the genome, the epigenome, and the inner workings of life, we will discover several more semiotic programming languages and information systems."

This is a particularly useful prediction in the clash between ID theory and abiogenesis. Programming and information systems are perfectly compatible with ID theory. On the other hand, the presence of such systems underpinning all life is a serious blow to abiogenesis. Frankly, to the intellectually honest, it should be down right fatal to abiogenesis. Of course, several semiotic biological systems have indeed been discovered already, but this forward going prediction is offered in the spirit of and as a witness to the testable traction that has taken hold in the maturing theory of ID. The fulfillment of this prediction should have profound consequences in determining which paradigm - ID or abiogenesis - is reasonable.

I am happy to engage in conversations concerning this testable prediction with two main caveats:
1). All exchanges will be collegial and cordial. Of course, you may defend your position with passion and firmness (expect the same from me!), but we will not cross the line into ad-hominem and name calling.
2). Because Crick's Sequence Hypothesis is by far the most useful hypothesis in unlocking our understanding of the genome and epigenome, and continues to provide breathtaking explanatory power as our knowledge increases, anyone wishing to dispute the fact of biological information must falsify this hypothesis if they intend to be taken seriously in this forum.

1.) A scientific prediction should be something that is required by the theory that makes it. I cannot see how the theory that life was designed mandates or requires that there are more "information" systems than have currently been discovered.

2.) What is being predicted here is broad and ambiguous and cover an innumerable number of occurrences, predictions should be pretty specific.

3.) A prediction should be specific enough to be only compatible with one theory. A prediction that is equally consistent and/or compatible with current theories is not good evidence for one over another, especially if it is not a requiment of your theory (see 1). There is no fundamental argument being made for why this is incompatible with evolution or abiogenesis.

4.) a prediction shouldn't be an educated guess. We have known about epigenetics for a little while. Predicting that we will discover information systems, or "programming languages" is therefore more of a post diction, which is rather weak, especially as what is being predicted could be satisfied by finding so,e mechanism on DNA to explain what we already know happens.

1. Semiotic inofrmation is consistent with one and only one theory of the origin of life

If this is true, then you don't need the prediction at all, because DNA in some form or fashion counts and therefore already proves ID.

What ID does here, is asserts that it can't occur naturally, without demonstrating it. Remember biological "coding" systems and information share none of hallmarks of human made information systems as they lack definitive, specific objective meaning:

There is no beethovens fifth symphony in DNA that conveys intelligence,

Was Beethoven not a product of DNA? So this is a pretty self-defeating argument - if DNA doesn't code intelligence, i.e. contain intelligence, then humans don't have intelligence. Or intelligence is metaphysical, take your pick.

Are you seriously suggesting that if I scan beethovens DNA that I will find, somewhere, a perfectly encoded version of his fifth symphony?


Well, where else did it come from? Of course environment shapes us, that's why Beethoven didn't write for the electric guitar, but other than our genetics and our environment, what other sources are there for what we do?

This is one of those "check your answers" moments. I just don't think evolutionists do that very much, don't say to themselves "Wait a minute - is what I'm buying into really consistent with what I observe humans to be?"
This space for rent.