Perry S. Marshall had a Google ad here on the left, and it led to his Random Mutation Generator. Enter a sentence and mutate it by changing one or more letters at a time, and wait until a new sensible sentence appears.
That it doesn't work is his proof that "the notion of Random Mutation as a source of evolutionary progress is utterly false and absurd."
The sensible counter argument is that just mutating and waiting for a new sentence to appear is akin to evolution in a flat fitness landscape. The generator does not differentiate between gibberish and meaning, even though we are sitting there waiting for meaning. But inside the computer there is no information about which kind of sentence is fitter - like in nature, if the landscape is flat, there is no selection, and we only observe neutral evolution. Marshall then explains that when a fitness function is supplied by a person, then it's design (since an intelligent person designed it with a specific goal in mind).
This is utter nonsense, because to demonstrate evolution via random mutation and selection, it doesn't matter where the goal comes from. In nature it comes from the environment, and in a simulation a person defined it. That doesn't make it design. Design in this case is equivalent to arriving at a new meaningful sentence by simply typing it.
Marshall says his generator does have selection, because it has a button that can be pushed to select the current text. And another button to revert to this selected text whenever desired. But, that's just like a reset button: it doesn't create a fitness function, so the landscape is still neutral/flat.
Q: The Random Mutation Generator doesn't simulate evolution because it doesn't have natural selection.That's just so inane that I can't get over it. A button!!!? that's Marshall's idea of selection? If we instead labeled it 'design', would we have disproved intelligent design, or what?
A: The Random Mutation Generator has a button labeled SELECT, and a button called REVERT TO SELECTED TEXT. You can select any version of the message you want and revert back to it later with the push of a button. And you're certainly welcome to save multiple copies of your message and mutate them all in tandem.
Dawkin's famous METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL program does work (I've tried it myself, like hundreds of people before me), but of course only if you score WEDOEL higher than TEDORL, etc.
Random Mutation fails computer simulations: Some readers will object to this statement, as there are many evolutionary programming algorithms available - for example Richard Dawkins' methinks it is like a weasel program, Thomas Schneider's Ev program, and Cal Tech's Avida. But in every case, the computer program does NOT evolve the same way Darwinian Evolution allegedly evolves. [It terms of selection, they exactly do.] All of these programs either 1) randomly mutate carefully selected portions of the code while keeping everything else intact (hey, that's design!) [hey, that's not design!], or 2) are designed to converge towards some pre-determined (pre-designed) state [which is equivalent to what happens in nature]. In the case of Schneider's Ev, "evolution" is merely defined as creating more bits of information, but the information itself is totally meaningless [to you, but not in terms of the environment in the simulation]. I'm not sure Schneider's program demonstrates much of anything at all. Every successful evolution simulation I'm aware of is, ironically, an example of intelligent design.Perry, you're a complete moron if you honestly think you have understood anything much about selection and evolution.
If you want to see real evolution in a simulated landscape, check out this simulation I wrote a little while ago.
The point is:
ReplyDeleteThey don't want real evolution, but their substitute BS.
Like Ray (un)Comfort perverts any evolutonary argument with his crazyness into an intellectual disaster and calls it proof that evoltuon does not occur.
I want a sticker that says: This item was improved by evolution or evoltionary algorithms, you can not use it if you are a fundamentalist christian.
These people would have to stop using everything that was improved by a GA, besides that basically all hightech like computrs, cars, planes, electronic devices are most of the time optimized by GAs, also the whole logistic business depends highly on them as well, as drug devlopment does... Back to the stoneage - wait that is what they want all along...
I want a sticker that says: This item was improved by evolution or evoltionary algorithms, you can not use it if you are a fundamentalist christian.
ReplyDeleteThat would be an excellent sticker to have. How about "This item was improved by an evolutionary algorithm. Please do not use if you don not believe in evolution" to make it more general.
Well, this sticker would have to be placed on every human. And animal. And so forth.
ReplyDeleteWell...
ReplyDeletehumans and everything else living just evolved - I am talking about "intelligent evolution" where evolution was used as a tool.
Crazy ain't it?
Cheers Arend
By Nils
ReplyDeleteIn reading this blog, I noticed many insulting words directed against Marshall. To be frank, that doesn't speak well of the authors. When I was very young, I was taught that such action usually appears to be a weak mind trying to express itself forcefully. I am not saying that is what is going on here, I am only saying that is the impression given to one interested more in the subject than the insults. So, about the subject, I am somewhat confused. I thought evolution was based upon the theory of random, non-directed change modified through natural selection. I understand this to mean the following:
1. A living subject experiences a random non-directed change to its DNA molecule that, when expressed, gives the subject greater reproductive success.
2. If 1 is correct, then can we say that a DNA molecule is made up of a serial sequence of information carrying statements (proteins) comprised of words (three letter codons) made up of a series of single letters (base pairs)?
3. If the answer to #2 is yes, then can we say that before natural selection can take place, a change has to be made to one of the "letters" in the words that make up the DNA statement?
4. If the answer to #3 is correct, can we say that natural selection actually makes a choice between new meaningful statements by means of whether they transmit a reproductive advantage? In other words, a new meaningful sentence or paragraph must emerge by random selection before it can be chosen by a natural selection process.
5. If the answer to #4 is correct, how is that any different from Perry S. Marshall's computer program, if I understand it correctly? In other words, Marshall's program asks you to randomly generate one or more letters in a sentence (mutation of DNA base pairs to create an advantageous protein) that provides additional meaningful information.
If your answer requires an immense multiplexing processing system that snips out useless junk and then combines it into something new and useful, as I have sometimes read, that doesn't count. We have to go back to the very transition of when the environment changed from geochemistry to biochemistry. That would involve a very simple process modeled by Marshall's program. In the program, he is using operator intelligence to reduce the selection time by personally recognizing and picking the changes to be made as if by natural selection control. Even with this tremendous advantage, I think his point is, you will still not be able to add more significant information to the sentence or paragraph in your lifetime. Without being unnecessarily insulting, can anyone tell me which phase of this 5 step process is incorrect?
When I was very young, I was taught that such action usually appears to be a weak mind trying to express itself forcefully
ReplyDeleteYou were taught wrong. It's a symptom of frustration and irritation.
Thank you Bjorn for your correction, though I am sure that you don’t really mean it. If you do, I anticipate big problems in your future. I noticed that in your picture you include two fine looking boys, if I am not mistaken. Hopefully your future will be different from mine. I think I can say with a great deal of support from a vast host of people, that the two most frustrating and sometimes irritating things in my life have been by kid (I only have one) and my wife. If you ever have to face a similar circumstance, I hope you have learned by then that name calling and insults will be a disastrous way for you to deal with your frustration and irritation. That is why I said that, unless you change your attitude, “I anticipate big problems in your future for you” and your family.
ReplyDeletePeace
Nils
1. A living subject experiences a random non-directed change to its DNA molecule that, when expressed, gives the subject greater reproductive success.
ReplyDeleteAlmost. Let me rephrase so it doesn't sound so much like creationist-speak: At birth the genome of an organism is affected by random mutations of various kinds, and these changes in turn affect fitness either positively or negatively.
2. If 1 is correct, then can we say that a DNA molecule is made up of a serial sequence of information carrying statements (proteins) comprised of words (three letter codons) made up of a series of single letters (base pairs)?
No: The genome contains, among other things, genes that carry information about which proteins to make. The codons code for amino acids and consist of three nucleotides each.
3. If the answer to #2 is yes, then can we say that before natural selection can take place, a change has to be made to one of the "letters" in the words that make up the DNA statement?
No: Natural selection is always there acting on the organism, whether it's a clone of its parent or not. But, mutations can happen that changes a nucleotide, or many nucleotides (indel, reversions, transposons, etc.), and those in turn might change the protein produced when the gene is expressed. Additionally, mutations can cause the expression patterns of genes to change, and can duplicate a whole gene, part of a gene, or even the whole genome.
4. If the answer to #3 is correct, can we say that natural selection actually makes a choice between new meaningful statements by means of whether they transmit a reproductive advantage? In other words, a new meaningful sentence or paragraph must emerge by random selection before it can be chosen by a natural selection process.
No. NS does not make a choice between organisms, exactly. Rather, we can say that natural selection describes how organisms who have a higher reproductive output than others, because of the changes in their genome, will have a higher chance of becoming ancestors of a surviving lineage. There is no such thing as 'random selection'. In other words, random mutations leads to genotypic variation, whcih leads to phenotypic variation, which modulates reproductive success.
5. If the answer to #4 is correct, how is that any different from Perry S. Marshall's computer program, if I understand it correctly? In other words, Marshall's program asks you to randomly generate one or more letters in a sentence (mutation of DNA base pairs to create an advantageous protein) that provides additional meaningful information.
Marshall's program only distinguishes between the one goal (the meaningful sentence) and everything else. His program does not increase an organism's fitness even it gets part of the sentence right, and that is not analogous to real biology.
If your answer requires an immense multiplexing processing system that snips out useless junk and then combines it into something new and useful, as I have sometimes read, that doesn't count.
Says who it doesn't count? Marshall's program and Me thinks it is like a weasel are not the right analogies to origin of life problems at all. They address the question of whether Ns works or not to improve fitness.
"Multiplexing"? Are you in telecommunications?
We have to go back to the very transition of when the environment changed from geochemistry to biochemistry.
Why do we have to go that far back? I don't have to. I don't work on abiogenesis.
That would involve a very simple process modeled by Marshall's program.
No, it would not. How do you know what happened back then? I suggest you look up some serious research on abiogenesis. While I don't work on it, I know about it, and it looks nothing like Marshall's program.
Thank you Bjorn for your correction, though I am sure that you don’t really mean it.
ReplyDeleteYou think I don't mean it? You imply I have a weak mind, cursing to express myself forcefully, but I think my arguments in the main post and in the comments to you I have explained why I think Marshall's program is irrelevant. So I say the program is idiotic and that he is a moron because I am exasperated at the amount of false information about evolution that I find on the web.
If you do, I anticipate big problems in your future. I noticed that in your picture you include two fine looking boys, if I am not mistaken. Hopefully your future will be different from mine. I think I can say with a great deal of support from a vast host of people, that the two most frustrating and sometimes irritating things in my life have been by kid (I only have one) and my wife. If you ever have to face a similar circumstance, I hope you have learned by then that name calling and insults will be a disastrous way for you to deal with your frustration and irritation. That is why I said that, unless you change your attitude, “I anticipate big problems in your future for you” and your family.
And if you keep psychoanalyzing people you don't know, I too foresee big problems for you in the future. I also predict that if you don't sit down with a serious textbook on evolution, you will not have learned enough to converse intelligently on the subject before the day you die.
Thank you again Bjorn for your correcting my simple comment with a complex response. I am glad I got at least one “almost.” Even though I purposely talked in simple-speak to avoid interpretation problems, I was still misunderstood. Your complex-speak answers, when cut to the essentials, was what I said without all the multiplexing (network processing at the DNA level).
ReplyDeleteAs is often the case in discussions like this, you were able to avoid the true issue by presuming a high level of complexity that is beyond the reach of Marshall’s program and then starting from there. Logically speaking, you probably already know that is a widely misused fallacy.
You say about abiogenesis “How do you know what happened back then?” as a response to my suggestion that a step by step process like Marshall’s program would be a good simulation. Then you suggest that I look up some serious research on abiogenesis. How do you know that I haven’t already looked up some “serious research on abiogenesis?” Remember, before you can achieve the complexity you assume, you have to get through the transition from non-living chemistry to biochemistry.
Otherwise, it is my opinion, that your arguments would not be any different from that of a theistic evolutionist. I think illustrating that point was the ultimate purpose for Marshall’s program. From where I stand, you really have no rebuttal arguments to his proposals unless you are willing to prove that biochemistry emerged by natural random (there is that word again) processes modified by natural unimaginable selection within 200 to 400 million years after the earth’s oceans formed.
Thanks for commenting on my response. It is always interesting to compare the various answers given for the questions that were raised.
Nils
Bjorn: I am sorry that I seemed to irritate you by sharing my experience of having to deal with frustration and irritation. That is the way I interpret your response when you said;
ReplyDelete“You imply I have a weak mind, cursing to express myself forcefully, but I think my arguments in the main post and in the comments to you I have explained why I think Marshall's program is irrelevant.”
I certainly am sorry if you took what I said personal. I thought I made it clear that it was not personal when I said:
“When I was very young, I was taught that such action usually appears to be a weak mind trying to express itself forcefully. I am not saying that is what is going on here, I am only saying that is the impression given to one interested more in the subject than the insults.”
As a final comment Bjorn, since I am much older than you, I have the experience of knowing the problems I have had to face and overcome. Fortunately for you, there is still time for you to avoid many of the same problems if you become less sensitive and realize that you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.
Good-by and good luck Bjorn
Nils
That's dirty pool, implying negative things about your relationship with your kids. Frankly, if somebody made a comment like that on my blog, I'd probably just delete it. That's way out of bounds. Blech.. :(
ReplyDeleteAs is often the case in discussions like this, you were able to avoid the true issue by presuming a high level of complexity that is beyond the reach of Marshall’s program and then starting from there. Logically speaking, you probably already know that is a widely misused fallacy.
ReplyDeleteNo, Nils, you were the one who assumed that the program has any resemblance of the origin of life, and it does not. The question it deals with is one of Darwinian evolution (which is what evolutionary biologists call evolution by natural selection). Marshalls states it himself:
"Your Mission, should you choose to accept it, is to type a sentence into the Random Mutation Generator and then get it to say something else - something sensible, something more meaningful - without first producing a jumble of mis-spellings that drive your message into extinction."
In other words, you start well adapted, and then by mutation and selection try to evolve a function (new sentence). That has nothing to do with abiogenesis.
How do you know that I haven’t already looked up some “serious research on abiogenesis?”
It is the most reasonable assumption when you attempt to model abiogenesis using Marshall's program. It simply does not make sense given what current theory suggests.
Remember, before you can achieve the complexity you assume, you have to get through the transition from non-living chemistry to biochemistry.
Again, that is your idea, not mine, and not even Marshall's. Marshall, Dawkins, and I are talking about evolution, not abiogenesis.
From where I stand, you really have no rebuttal arguments to his proposals unless you are willing to prove that biochemistry emerged by natural random (there is that word again) processes modified by natural unimaginable selection within 200 to 400 million years after the earth’s oceans formed.
I have answered this enough: Serious researchers are working hard to find out how life could have originated. If you come to the Alife XII conference in Odense, Denmark next month, I can introduce you to a few of them. I guarantee you they will unanimously laugh you out of the house if you mention Marshall's program.
P.S. I obviously don't need your advice based on your life experience, right?
Bjorn: Sorry to intrude again. I didn’t think we really had any more to say about this subject because it should be obvious that we have a different interpretation of the basic question. However, I had to respond to your latest message because it may provide a clue to why we differ about the role of abiogenesis vs. evolution. I think you have misinterpreted Marshall’s Mission.
ReplyDelete"Your Mission, should you choose to accept it, is to type a sentence into the Random Mutation Generator and then get it to say something else - something sensible, something more meaningful - without first producing a jumble of mis-spellings that drive your message into extinction."
Marshall’s mission statement matches my first proposition that one protein equals a sentence, paragraph, or statement. It is true that Marshall gave you more than nothing. He has allowed you to assume a functional cell isolation membrane is present along with sufficient reproductive tools to process one protein which is also assumed to be equipped to compete in accord with Darwin’s theory. Given these conditions, it should fall within the biochemistry category. However, given the short time frame within which we have to work, this in itself is a big gift because it allows you to already assume what Francis Crick thinks is the impossible. Francis Crick set forth the hypothesis of Panspermia in his book, “Life Itself”, saying that life came from outer space already formed.
If you do not believe in Panspermia hypothesis, then you have to explain abiogenesis using Darwinian processes. Otherwise, as I have already stated, this is the logical fallacy of begging-the-question. You assume there is no supernatural. Then no matter what facts you discover, they must be supported by natural laws of nature, even if is an unbelievable “big stroke of luck” as Dawkins has stated in his book, “Climbing Mount Improbable, on pages 282 – 283”.
You answered my question:
How do you know that I haven’t already looked up some “serious research on abiogenesis?”
It is the most reasonable assumption when you attempt to model abiogenesis using Marshall's program. It simply does not make sense given what current theory suggests.
You are right, I am not familiar with the “current theory.” However, I am somewhat familiar with the foremost three current hypotheses being researched. Maybe you can direct me to a source that describes the “current theory” in some detail.
You said:
P.S. I obviously don't need your advice based on your life experience, right?
Yes, you may be right. However, you may also learn from those who follow you that “smart kids” who know it, often do “dumb things” and don’t know it. You should be very careful with your unflattering characterizations of people who don’t agree with you. It may be that some will think that the old Arabic proverb saying, “The Camel can’t see the crookedness of his own neck,” applies to you.
Selam, Nils
Bjorn: Sorry to intrude again. I didn’t think we really had any more to say about this subject because it should be obvious that we have a different interpretation of the basic question. However, I had to respond to your latest message because it may provide a clue to why we differ about the role of abiogenesis vs. evolution. I think you have misinterpreted Marshall’s Mission.
ReplyDeleteI have tried to explain already that Marshall's program have nothing to say about abiogenesis.
"Your Mission, should you choose to accept it, is to type a sentence into the Random Mutation Generator and then get it to say something else - something sensible, something more meaningful - without first producing a jumble of mis-spellings that drive your message into extinction."
Marshall’s mission statement matches my first proposition that one protein equals a sentence, paragraph, or statement. It is true that Marshall gave you more than nothing. He has allowed you to assume a functional cell isolation membrane is present along with sufficient reproductive tools to process one protein which is also assumed to be equipped to compete in accord with Darwin’s theory. Given these conditions, it should fall within the biochemistry category. However, given the short time frame within which we have to work, this in itself is a big gift because it allows you to already assume what Francis Crick thinks is the impossible. Francis Crick set forth the hypothesis of Panspermia in his book, “Life Itself”, saying that life came from outer space already formed.
So? Again, if you start with a membrane and a functioning protein, then it says nothing about abiogenesis. I don't really care what Francis Crick thought was impossible, and panspermia just pushes the problem to some other extra-terrestrial place, and solves nothing. I don't get why you fail to grasp this distinction.
If you do not believe in Panspermia hypothesis, then you have to explain abiogenesis using Darwinian processes. Otherwise, as I have already stated, this is the logical fallacy of begging-the-question. You assume there is no supernatural. Then no matter what facts you discover, they must be supported by natural laws of nature, even if is an unbelievable “big stroke of luck” as Dawkins has stated in his book, “Climbing Mount Improbable, on pages 282 – 283”.
Again, no I do not have to explain abiogenesis. I do not work on that. And I didn't blog about it here, I blogged about Marshall's program, which says nothing relevant about abiogenesis. Argh!!!
You answered my question:
ReplyDeleteHow do you know that I haven’t already looked up some “serious research on abiogenesis?”
It is the most reasonable assumption when you attempt to model abiogenesis using Marshall's program. It simply does not make sense given what current theory suggests.
You are right, I am not familiar with the “current theory.” However, I am somewhat familiar with the foremost three current hypotheses being researched. Maybe you can direct me to a source that describes the “current theory” in some detail.
If you really are, then I am baffled that you would give any credence to Marshall's program.
Start here for some names and titles: http://www.alife12.org/program/#ChemAssem, http://www.alife12.org/program/#OrigLife, and http://www.alife12.org/program/#ChemAssem. Also try Gerald Joyce and Jack Szostak.
For the last time: I don't work on abiogenesis, and have no particular expertise in the area, so please don't expect me to discuss it any further. I'll gladly share what I can about evolution, though. Just let me know.
You said:
P.S. I obviously don't need your advice based on your life experience, right?
Yes, you may be right. However, you may also learn from those who follow you that “smart kids” who know it, often do “dumb things” and don’t know it. You should be very careful with your unflattering characterizations of people who don’t agree with you. It may be that some will think that the old Arabic proverb saying, “The Camel can’t see the crookedness of his own neck,” applies to you.
Again, telling me what to do! If I need advice on how to run my life, I'm not taking in the comments to my blog, and least of all from people like yourself. The internet reaches all over the world, and what I blog about evidently attracts lots of nutcases, so caring what visitors here think about my personal life would be stupid. I called Marshall a moron, and that is an attack based on his work. You badmouthed and belittled me, and continue to do so, based on not liking my tone. Let that be the last of it, okay?
Bjorn,
ReplyDeleteAgain, if you prefer to take my generalized statements as personal attacks, I can’t do anything about that. I will say, however, that they are not intended as personal attacks unless you AGREE that they apply to you. Since this is an area of continued misunderstanding I will no longer advise you regarding how I believe your “tone” detracts from your credibility. With regard to your recommended sources to better familiarize me with the subject of “Abiogenesis,” I have the following to say:
Bjorn Writes:
Nils said: “You are right, I am not familiar with the “current theory.” However, I am somewhat familiar with the foremost three current hypotheses being researched. Maybe you can direct me to a source that describes the “current theory” in some detail.”
Bjorn answered: “If you really are, then I am baffled that you would give any credence to Marshall's program. Start here for some names and titles: http://www.alife12.org/program/#ChemAssem, http://www.alife12.org/program/#OrigLife, and http://www.alife12.org/program/#ChemAssem. Also try Gerald Joyce and Jack Szostak.”
My response:
You are right Bjorn, we have reached an impasse. Regarding your Abiogenesis references I am familiar with them, especially those from the Scripps Institute at La Jolla. My daughter, you know the one that has sometimes frustrated and irritated me, is currently post docking there. I also live in San Diego.
Bjorn answered:
“I don't really care what Francis Crick thought was impossible, and panspermia just pushes the problem to some other extra-terrestrial place, and solves nothing.”
It doesn’t surprise me that you don’t care about Francis Crick’s findings on this subject. However, let me say this, you are, by definition, a theistic evolutionist if you agree with the panspermia hypothesis. Since, life is said to have come from outer-space because there isn’t enough time for it to have evolved on earth naturally, then there is no basis to say it isn’t of a divine origin. The only rationalization that can be offered for this view is to assume that there is no supernatural. That is not a scientific fact; it is only a philosophy or a religion. So what we have been discussing all this time is not based on science, it is based on whose religion is right. For the answer to that question, I probably agree with you, future research will be needed. I have enjoyed our discussion. It has given me the opportunity to see what arguments those with whom I disagree have to offer.
Peace
Nils
James: I am sorry if I gave a wrong impression. I didn’t intend to imply “negative things about your [Bjorn’s] relationship with your [Bjorn’s] kids.” I was responding to his comment which said:
ReplyDelete>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
“Bjørn Østman said as an answer to my statement:
When I was very young, I was taught that such action [abusive name calling] usually appears to be a weak mind trying to express itself forcefully
Bjorn Answered:
You were taught wrong. It's a symptom of frustration and irritation.’
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
James, If you carefully reread my response to Bjorn’s statement, you will find that I said:
“I think I can say with a great deal of support from a vast host of people, that the two most frustrating and sometimes irritating things in my life [meaning ME] have been my kid (I only have one) and my wife.”
Then I said:
“If you ever have to face a similar [family] circumstance, I hope you have learned by then that name calling and insults will be a disastrous way for you to deal with your frustration and irritation.”
James, don’t you agree with this statement? Or do you think that “name calling and insults” is a good way to deal with family “frustration and irritation?” You say you would delete my blog if I said this to you. Well, I am glad Bjorn apparently understood that I was not insulting his family but only expressing a opinion about my experience in dealing with my family “frustration and irritation.” Often, without really knowing it, how we deal with others in the work place or on blogs manifests itself at home also. I am only speaking from personal experience and suggest that dealing with others civilly, no matter what we assume about their personal character, is good advice. When one resorts to insulting behavior, it places in doubt the credibility of all their arguments. It takes far more skill to be considerate than to be hostile.
Peace
Nils
Again, if you prefer to take my generalized statements as personal attacks, I can’t do anything about that.
ReplyDeleteYou could stop it, as I have asked.
I will say, however, that they are not intended as personal attacks unless you AGREE that they apply to you.
Wow, that's novel. Nils, you clearly are an ignorant idiot with an IQ of 47, and you smell really bad, etc. etc. I don't mean those as insult, UNLESS you actually agree that these statements about you are true.
Since this is an area of continued misunderstanding I will no longer advise you regarding how I believe your “tone” detracts from your credibility.
You just had to do it one more time, eh? You could have just said " I will no longer advise you period."
It doesn’t surprise me that you don’t care about Francis Crick’s findings on this subject.
Oh, so we agree that both his throwing-arms-in-air attitude of giving up and panspermia are best ignored. Progress!
However, let me say this, you are, by definition, a theistic evolutionist if you agree with the panspermia hypothesis.
I don't agree with it, as I made abundantly clear.
Since, life is said to have come from outer-space because there isn’t enough time for it to have evolved on earth naturally, then there is no basis to say it isn’t of a divine origin. The only rationalization that can be offered for this view is to assume that there is no supernatural. That is not a scientific fact; it is only a philosophy or a religion. So what we have been discussing all this time is not based on science, it is based on whose religion is right. For the answer to that question, I probably agree with you, future research will be needed. I have enjoyed our discussion. It has given me the opportunity to see what arguments those with whom I disagree have to offer.
I have not been discussing panspermia. You don't believe it, and neither do I. And "there is no basis to say it isn’t of a divine origin"!??! There's ALWAYS the basis that it's a hypothesis with no evidence in its favor.
Whatever. Just keep in mind that from deciphering what you say here, you have clearly not understood my position. But I don't actually care anymore.
Bjorn,
ReplyDeleteThank you for parting without any malice. I take you at your word. You said:
“Wow, that's novel. Nils, you clearly are an ignorant idiot with an IQ of 47, and you smell really bad, etc. etc. I don't mean those as insult, UNLESS you actually agree that these statements about you are true.”
This may be your opinion, but you have not given me any advice on how to improve. So, clearly, I DON’T take it personal as you have suggested. So, I can truthfully say that we BOTH now agree on this issue.
On the other hand, If your remark was intended to be personal, it still doesn’t bother me. You know the old saying, “stick and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.” However, I can also say, from personal experience, such forceful language is not the mark of a clever person; it is both simple and crude. If that is the way you want to come across, you have exceeded your expectations.
See this is another “it is up to you” challenge. If you didn’t mean your remark to be insulting, than my last comment is clearly irrelevant. On the other hand, if you did intend it as an insult, then consistent with my personal conduct standards, it is my opinion that you are … . I really have no reason to care one way or another what kind of person you are. It is up to you to decide which description fits you best. Once again, an old proverb; “If the shoe fits, then you will have to wear it.” Thank you for being patient with me Bjorn.
Peace
Nils
“Wow, that's novel. Nils, you clearly are an ignorant idiot with an IQ of 47, and you smell really bad, etc. etc. I don't mean those as insult, UNLESS you actually agree that these statements about you are true.”
ReplyDeleteThis may be your opinion, but you have not given me any advice on how to improve. So, clearly, I DON’T take it personal as you have suggested. So, I can truthfully say that we BOTH now agree on this issue.
It is of course not my opinion, since I could not know it purely from what you write here. I wrote it to make it clear that one can be insulting even though the other does not agree with the statements.
On the other hand, If your remark was intended to be personal, it still doesn’t bother me. You know the old saying, “stick and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.” However, I can also say, from personal experience, such forceful language is not the mark of a clever person; it is both simple and crude. If that is the way you want to come across, you have exceeded your expectations.
See this is another “it is up to you” challenge. If you didn’t mean your remark to be insulting, than my last comment is clearly irrelevant.
Most things you have said so far are irrelevant, I am afraid, about me and about evolution.
Now be gone.
Must say I am very Impressed by this blog sir. I am a Biotechnology Student. Many of my friends my classmates who have their friends in BTech(computer science) have brought me this argument of perry marshal again and again.
ReplyDeleteOne was this random mutation generator. I was shocked to see that even after studying biology in an engineering stream they were so ignorant about evolution. I have used same arguments as yours about this. Explained them cellular automata and chaos. Gifted them James Gleick Book. Even shown them Robert Sapolsky lectures and what not. They seem to agree but somehow they always seem to rephrase their words in new context. A context supporting their belief system.
And its always that after their ideas be debunked they go back to this cosmicfingerprint site and get something new to discuss against. Most irritating one was one was in which this guy Perry Marshal applies information theory on DNA. Declares all codes come from mind and hence DNA that is a code comes from mind too. I have millions of arguments to prove this wrong but what is most interesting flaw is -
All known codes are designed from mind
-He never mentions all codes are also read by brain and mind is a instance of brain state
-Rather he will argue that brain is coded by DNA (completely forgetting cellular automata here that brain states are network of pattern of neural activity and while some networks are genetic most are formed by experience)
-He will argue that show me a naturally occurring code that is not linked to DNA. And if you bring him face to face with it he will discard them coz he wont be either able to find a encoder or decoder will be a living being.
etc etc etc
-One thing which no one sees is if all codes are designed by mind. And mind is deigned by code for the designer himself. Then saying God intelligently designed DNA will put u in dead end that if God is a designer than what is code for God. If DNA is designed information code that what was code for the information source who had this information to code something. And if he have any code who is designer of that and whats his code... Eventually u will end up in "it turtles all the way down argument"
And secondly since Perry also argues that universe was made by designer and debunks all things as light, forms, patterns to be a code he also debunks his own argument of a designer. Which I find as a trait of self-contradicting creationist.
In the end I would just say that it is not difficult to see how perry's arguments hold no water but it is equally difficult for any creationist to believe you cause they are not looking for rational arguments. Instead they are looking "Sky Daddy" everywhere and their brain will fit any pattern that they consider unexplainable as mark of their Sky Daddy aka God.