Irreducible complication

Imaginos1892 wrote:When religion pretends to be science, there is a conflict.

No argument there.

Is philosophy not considered a science? Mathematics is, and it has no physical component either.

Only in the most Classical sense ie Greek.

Modern usage has mathematics as a hard science while religion, philosophy etc are considered "social" or soft science. Yes Economists have come up with all kinds of mathematics and models to try to move from the stigma of social science.

WeirdlyWired wrote:Modern usage has mathematics as a hard science while religion, philosophy etc are considered "social" or soft science. Yes Economists have come up with all kinds of mathematics and models to try to move from the stigma of social science.

No, Economics is still very much a social studies field, and unlikely to ever get out of that niche unless someone pulls a Hari Seldon and invents Psychohistory, but that's not going to happen anytime soon.

The study of economics is similar to attempting to study nuclear physics by trying to model the behaviour of a naturally occuring nuclear reactor and occasionally tinkering with it.

The E wrote:

WeirdlyWired wrote:Modern usage has mathematics as a hard science while religion, philosophy etc are considered "social" or soft science. Yes Economists have come up with all kinds of mathematics and models to try to move from the stigma of social science.

No, Economics is still very much a social studies field, and unlikely to ever get out of that niche unless someone pulls a Hari Seldon and invents Psychohistory, but that's not going to happen anytime soon.

The study of economics is similar to attempting to study nuclear physics by trying to model the behaviour of a naturally occuring nuclear reactor and occasionally tinkering with it.

Yes but ... NOT stopping them from trying.

WeirdlyWired wrote:

The E wrote:"=WeirdlyWired"Modern usage has mathematics as a hard science while religion, philosophy etc are considered "social" or soft science. Yes Economists have come up with all kinds of mathematics and models to try to move from the stigma of social science."

No, Economics is still very much a social studies field, and unlikely to ever get out of that niche unless someone pulls a Hari Seldon and invents Psychohistory, but that's not going to happen anytime soon.

The study of economics is similar to attempting to study nuclear physics by trying to model the behaviour of a naturally occuring nuclear reactor and occasionally tinkering with it.

Yes but ... NOT stopping them from trying.

The closest I know at present to hard economics is the Austrian school of economics. Does anyone know another school that is doing better at predicting

TCTS I'm finding the ENCODE genomic experimental results interesting.
From: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22955616

The Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE) project has systematically mapped regions of transcription, transcription factor association, chromatin structure and histone modification. These data enabled us to assign biochemical functions for 80% of the genome, in particular outside of the well-studied protein-coding regions.

When deciding whether any theory is correct, it is useful to look at is its predictive success. The ID theorists predicted that most or all of the "junk DNA" is functional, except for mutations. The "chance and time" people predicted that much of it is not functional. AFAICS, their current arguments are circular.
See: Graur, D. et al. 2013. On the immortality of television sets: "function" in the human genome according to the evolution-free gospel of ENCODE. Genome Biology and Evolution.

Experiments are evidence; theory is not, but can only suggest experiments. Are any ENCODE:3 reports out


From:http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2012/09/05/encode-the-rough-guide-to-the-human-genome/#.WH9fsfPTNFQ

To put it more simply: our genomic city’s got lots of new players in it, but they may largely be bums.

See: http://www.nature.com/encode/#/threads if you want to follow ENCODE in more detail.

Is this a good test, and if not, why not

DDHv wrote:The closest I know at present to hard economics is the Austrian school of economics. Does anyone know another school that is doing better at predicting

Funny, that. Seeing how the Austrian school eschews rigorous modelling and empiricism in favour of trying to fit observed realities into a predetermined model.

When deciding whether any theory is correct, it is useful to look at is its predictive success. The ID theorists predicted that most or all of the "junk DNA" is functional, except for mutations.

It is interesting to me how almost every post you make in this thread shows your ignorance of what certain results and terms mean.

Let's have a round of definitions! What is "Junk DNA"? Simply put, all DNA that is not used as part of an intracellular process. In public parlance, "junk DNA" is actually a conflation of two distinct terms used in the literature. In it, "Junk DNA" refers only to DNA which doesn't code for any proteins and doesn't exist as part of the DNA molecule's structure. There's a distinct term, "non-coding DNA", for DNA which doesn't code for a protein but fulfills other purposes.

Now, whether or not a particular piece of the genome is "junk DNA" is obviously hard to determine. As our knowledge of intracellular processes increases, our estimation of what is and isn't junk changes; To claim that "ID theorists predicted this" is a rhetorical red herring. Go through the relevant literature, and try to find statements by non-ID people that would contradict them; everyone involved in genome research knows that we haven't managed to completely sort the junk from the actually relevant bits.

There's also some criticism to be made regarding the methodology the ENCODE project uses: Their definition of "functional" DNA is much wider than what mainstream genetic science is using, this should be taken into account when interpreting their results.

(Recommended reading:
http://www.genomicron.evolverzone.com/2013/04/critiques-of-encode-in-peer-reviewed-journals/, https://sandwalk.blogspot.de/2011/10/myth-of-junk-dna-by-jonathan-wells.html)

The "chance and time" people predicted that most of it is not functional. AFAICS, their argument is circular.
See: Graur, D. et al. 2013. On the immortality of television sets: "function" in the human genome according to the evolution-free gospel of ENCODE. Genome Biology and Evolution.

Have you actually read that paper? One of its conclusions is that ENCODE's definition of functionality is misleading in that it assigns functionality to any piece of DNA that could have a function (as in, code for a protein etc), regardless of whether or not this actually happens in a live organism.

Also, consider this excerpt from the paper:

We urge biologists not be afraid of junk DNA. The only people that should be afraid are those claiming that natural processes are insufficient to explain life and that evolutionary theory should be supplemented or supplanted by an intelligent designer (Dembski 1998; Wells 2004). ENCODE’s take-home message that everything has a function implies purpose, and purpose is the only thing that evolution cannot provide. Needless to say, in light of our investigation of the ENCODE publication, it is safe to state that the news concerning the death of “junk DNA” has been greatly exaggerated.

ENCODE also displayed a remarkably cavalier attitude towards the results:

Actually, the ENCODE authors could have chosen any of a number of arbitrary percentages as “functional,” and … they did! In their scientific publications, ENCODE promoted the idea that 80% of the human genome was functional. The scientific commentators followed, and proclaimed that at least 80% of the genome is “active and needed” (Kolata 2012). Subsequently, one of the lead authors of ENCODE admitted that the press conference mislead people by claiming that 80% of our genome was “essential and useful.” He put that number at 40% (Gregory 2012), although another lead author reduced the fraction of the genome that is devoted to function to merely 20% (Hall 2012). Interestingly, even when a lead author of ENCODE reduced the functional genomic fraction to 20%, he continued to insist that the term “junk DNA” needs “to be totally expunged from the lexicon,” inventing a new arithmetic according to which 20% > 80%. In its synopsis of the year 2012, the journal Nature adopted the more modest estimate, and summarized the findings of ENCODE by stating that “at least 20% of the genome can influence gene expression” (Van Noorden 2012). Science stuck to its maximalist guns, and its summary of 2012 repeated the claim that the “functional portion” of the human genome equals 80% (Anonymous 2012). Unfortunately, neither 80% nor 20% are based on actual evidence.

This is not exactly filling me with confidence that ENCODE is on to a winner here.

Experiments are evidence; theory is not, but can only suggest possible experiments.


Is this a good test, and if not, why not

You are using the word Theory wrong, again.

A Theory is a Hypothesis that has been confirmed experimentally. Therefore, a theory is as strong as the amount of evidence produced for or against it through experiments or observation; Witness the lack of experimental verification of creationist claims and judge for yourself whether or not the proponents of that hypothesis are worth taking seriously.

DDHv wrote:The closest I know at present to hard economics is the Austrian school of economics. Does anyone know another school that is doing better at predicting

I just have to pick this particular thing up again just because it's so funny.

So, DDHv, all throughout this thread, you are absolutely adamant that the only true science is science confirmed through experimentation and observation.

Here's what Ludwig von Mises, one of the austrian school's most influential figures has to say on that subject:

The subject matter of all historical sciences is the past. They cannot teach us anything which would be valid for all human actions, that is, for the future too ... No laboratory experiments can be performed with regard to human action ... Its statements and propositions are not derived from experience. They are, like those of logic and mathematics, a priori. They are not subject to verification or falsification on the ground of experience and facts.

(The above being a paraphrasation of his arguments here)

And then we come to the austrian school's predictive power: It is nil, or at the very least, not significantly better than competing theories. It seems to me that they're not much better than a stopped clock is when it comes to telling time.

The E wrote:

DDHv wrote:The closest I know at present to hard economics is the Austrian school of economics. Does anyone know another school that is doing better at predicting

I just have to pick this particular thing up again just because it's so funny.

So, DDHv, all throughout this thread, you are absolutely adamant that the only true science is science confirmed through experimentation and observation.

Here's what Ludwig von Mises, one of the austrian school's most influential figures has to say on that subject:

The subject matter of all historical sciences is the past. They cannot teach us anything which would be valid for all human actions, that is, for the future too ... No laboratory experiments can be performed with regard to human action ... Its statements and propositions are not derived from experience. They are, like those of logic and mathematics, a priori. They are not subject to verification or falsification on the ground of experience and facts.

(The above being a paraphrasation of his arguments here)

And then we come to the austrian school's predictive power: It is nil, or at the very least, not significantly better than competing theories. It seems to me that they're not much better than a stopped clock is when it comes to telling time.

Amazing ... yet somehow half the US wants to use economic models as the organizing principle of our society. with the president-elect pushing as hard as his office will permit

WeirdlyWired wrote:Amazing ... yet somehow half the US wants to use economic models as the organizing principle of our society. with the president-elect pushing as hard as his office will permit

Always remember that libertarians are mostly people who never got over the fact that their parents used to make them clean up their own rooms.

The main failing of both libertarianism in general and the austrian school in particular (and the reason for their popularity), is that they elevate the individual to be the only thing that matters. Anything that's good for the individual, they argue, must be good for the state as a whole, therefore actions by the state that aim at reducing the individual must be bad (like, for example, taxation. Or workplace safety laws. Or environmental protection regulation).

One should always remember that when Austrian School theories are actually put into practice, the results look like Somalia (which is certainly many things, but definitely not a shining beacon of advancement and prosperity).

But back to the main topic at hand.

DDHv wrote:When deciding whether any theory is correct, it is useful to look at is its predictive success. The ID theorists predicted that most or all of the "junk DNA" is functional, except for mutations. The "chance and time" people predicted that much of it is not functional. AFAICS, their current arguments are circular.

We know that in environments where the complexity of a genome makes a difference for the fitness of an organism (such as in bacteria, since replicating DNA has significant costs and thus mutations that speed up the replication process get promoted), their DNA tends to be very junk-free. Once multicellular organisms appear, the significance of this particular selection factor diminishes; when gestation periods start being measured in days or weeks, it disappears completely.
So, as a result, evolutionary theory predicts the existence of junk DNA. But, crucially, even if that prediction was wrong (and it isn't), it would not disprove evolutionary theory (whereas the existence of junk DNA poses huge problems for Creationists).

You see, junk DNA is actually something benefitial for complex organisms to have. If we assume that the chance of any given part of the DNA strand to be mutated is the same no matter where said part resides, having a large portion of the genome be inactive is an effective guard against mutations as the chance that a mutation will affect a functional part of the genome is much reduced.

EDIT: The reason why this is posing problems for Creationists is perhaps unclear. After all, a safety feature like this does seem like something an intelligent designer might bestow on a creature.
The problem however is that this fails to provide an adequate reasoning for why said designer chose to use viral DNA or DNA sequences borrowed from other species in the same family to build this safety repository; It also fails to explain why certain species (like the common Onion) require a much larger safety net than other species from the same family.
As a result, Creationists would much prefer it if every bit of DNA in a species' genome had some active function; after all, if every bit of DNA was in some way vital (despite there being experimental proof that pieces of DNA can be removed from an organism's genome without adverse effects), that would make the question of why the genome is as it is easy to answer.

The E wrote:snip

You are using the word Theory wrong, again.

A Theory is a Hypothesis that has been confirmed experimentally. Therefore, a theory is as strong as the amount of evidence produced for or against it through experiments or observation; Witness the lack of experimental verification of creationist claims and judge for yourself whether or not the proponents of that hypothesis are worth taking seriously.

I don't accept that any theory can be confirmed as correct, since there is always the chance that something else, either not yet thought of, or not accepted, is correct. It is, however, possible to prove a theory to be incorrect, using experiments and logic.

Look at the experimenting Louis Pasteur had to do to invalidate the spontaneous generation theories of his time. It is likely that genomics will be one of the major fields of research during the next century. At present, the evidence does not force a conclusion. Some time it will.

A hypothesis or theory increases our understanding. History tells us that many of our understandings have had to be revised - I don't think we are finished with that process

DDHv wrote:I don't accept that any theory can be confirmed as correct, since there is always the chance that something else, either not yet thought of, or not accepted, is correct. It is, however, possible to prove a theory to be incorrect, using experiments and logic.

Sure. But proving a theory to be false is only half the work, since you also need to provide a new theory that not only explains everything the old theory did but also the new observations that it didn't.

Look at the experimenting Louis Pasteur had to do to invalidate the spontaneous generation theories of his time. It is likely that genomics will be one of the major fields of research during the next century. At present, the evidence does not force a conclusion. Some time it will.

Not with regard to the theory of evolution or the concept of irreducible complexity, I'm afraid.

A hypothesis or theory increases our understanding. History tells us that many of our understandings have had to be revised - I don't think we are finished with that process

No, we are not (despite what creationists would like to believe).