Although it is quite clear that random mutations occurs and it is equally clear that some genes get propagated and other genes do not I make no assumptions that "evolution" equals "RM+NS."

I don't know of any who claims it doesn't occur.

It seems to be only ID supporters who ever even try to make the claim that evolution=RM+NS

I wanted you to clarify. You know 'evolution' is a loaded term. And in your comment it was hard to find out exactly what you were refering to. You were conflating the common ancestry with the mechanism. So when you expressed mild shock over some not accepting evolution it was difficult to see what you meant when you were referencing a linear sequence of fossils.

Also, it's not only ID supporters who claim that evolution is randomness culled by orderly natural selection. Nor are you being honest when you say, "it seems to be only…". It appears that when you read RM you assume single point mutation, then take your assumption to be what all ID supporters assume.

It's hard having these discussions with you because you play with the flexibility of the words being used.

There are many known evolutionary mechanisms and likely many more waiting to be discovered.

See what I mean?
Are any of these other mechanisms not ultimately random? If not, could you explain to me what the consequences of a discovered mechanism would be if that mechanism was goal driven.

I realize the people on this blog tend not to deny the existence of evolution, but rather tend to focus on how their personal deity of choice might be guiding evolution.

And here's where you crumble apart with your introduction of 'personal deities'. We're talking about the evidence, you turn it into a theological discussion.

This view is completely compatible with an understanding of the available evidence, it simply pushes an unknown agency into the knowledge gaps.

Gaps? You mean that fundamental mechanism we were initially talking about? Randomness being culled by selection. Try to stay out of the propaganda for a bit.

But the people I talked about above do in fact completely deny the idea of evolution and common descent.

Then my advice to you; stay on topic when you're not discussing with those people.

You know these people exist as well as I do.

Ground breaking, Todd. Again…. stay on topic.

You'd like to think the well-reasoned ID camp is larger than the denialists, but I see little evidence of that.

How do you know what I'd like to think? Opposed to you, Todd… this is a past time for me. Not a witch hunt. If you're biggest concern with the people in the world is, "heaven forfend!! They don't all believe what I do!!!" I think you should consider yourself in good standings.
But regardless, Stay on topic.

The evidence for evolution is very much objective. Consider things like a fossil, its physical reality is not a matter for debate. We all agree about its size, shape, and weight.

You are confusing data with evidence. Yes, we all agree about its size, shape, and weight. Yet to convert such data into evidence you need to interpret these data according to the context of mental constructs. Evidence exists in the mind and is an example of human beings assigning meaning to their world.

Besides, many people who reject evolution aren't even aware of the evidence, they simply parrot what their fundamentalist ministers tell them. Its rare to encounter someone who understands the evidence for evolution and still rejects the theory.

But you are simply trying to qualify who counts and who doesn't count. Thus, what you consider "˜objective' is a matter of opinion.

…it's hard to see if you understand that the debate isn't so much over evolution happening or not. It's a debate over the mechanism (RM + NS).

Although it is quite clear that random mutations occurs and it is equally clear that some genes get propagated and other genes do not I make no assumptions that "evolution" equals "RM+NS." It seems to be only ID supporters who ever even try to make the claim that evolution=RM+NS, I've never seen a biologist make such a case. There are many known evolutionary mechanisms and likely many more waiting to be discovered.

I realize the people on this blog tend not to deny the existence of evolution, but rather tend to focus on how their personal deity of choice might be guiding evolution. This view is completely compatible with an understanding of the available evidence, it simply pushes an unknown agency into the knowledge gaps. But the people I talked about above do in fact completely deny the idea of evolution and common descent. You know these people exist as well as I do. You'd like to think the well-reasoned ID camp is larger than the denialists, but I see little evidence of that.

Besides, many people who reject evolution aren't even aware of the evidence, they simply parrot what their fundamentalist ministers tell them. Its rare to encounter someone who understands the evidence for evolution and still rejects the theory.

Hi Todd, while reading your comment it's hard to see if you understand that the debate isn't so much over evolution happening or not. It's a debate over the mechanism (RM + NS).

You're making the same mistake Behe was talking about in EoE. Evidence for common ancestry as being evidence for the proposed mechanism. Then you point to common ancestry and the evidence for it, then fault "fundamentalist ministers" for arguing against evolution. Equivocating the two: common ancestry and the mechanism.

This brings up the difficulty in defining "objective." If objective "certainly requires all observers to be able to reach the same conclusion," then what are you to do with all the people who don't accept evolution?

The evidence for evolution is very much objective. Consider things like a fossil, its physical reality is not a matter for debate. We all agree about its size, shape, and weight. When we sequence DNA we can all read and understand the resulting sequence without arguments over what is indicated. Even data like the results of radiocarbon dating is objective although some people reject them validity of the resulting number. Besides, many people who reject evolution aren't even aware of the evidence, they simply parrot what their fundamentalist ministers tell them. Its rare to encounter someone who understands the evidence for evolution and still rejects the theory.

Neither the field of of mechanical engineering nor the interior world of the cell fall outside of the scope of chemistry and physics, the former is not completely reducible to chemistry and physics.

The language of chemistry and physics alone cannot describe our machines even though our machines operate on nothing but chemistry and physics. Instead we build abstractions on top of chemistry and physics and name those abstractions. I'm not sure why I should expect life to be any different. In fact as a product of the very nature we are studying we might expect this. The fact that 1) our brains operate using layers of abstraction and 2) our brains seem to work rather well seems to imply that layers of abstraction are a fundamentally meaningful way of analyzing the world around us. Would our brains even operate using layers of abstraction if that structure did not match nature itself? We can only speculate, but I would guess they are related.

We know that the products of our technological and engineering prowess are not simply the result of the laws of chemistry and physics. While they do not contradict those laws, those products are also not entirely reducible to those laws. There's another factor at play.

Agreed, when these simple parts are combined the result does seem to be somehow greater than the parts. But as I mention above this may simply be the utility of abstraction. Abstraction works so I don't find it surprising that it would be used in so many places.

If no analogies could be drawn we would have a heck of a time trying to explain or understand what is exactly occuring at the molecular level. It's because of our technological advance that our ability to comprehend the cellular workings increased; via the utilization of metaphors.

It is certainly true that analogy makes things a lot easier to understand, but creative humans have managed to create whole new lexicons from scratch to solve difficult problems before. For example, things like differential calculus have their own "language" that's a foreign as Linear B to someone that hasn't studied the field. Had it been required biology could have created its own specialized jargon as chemistry and physics have done but it wasn't required. The main thing complicated jargon would have done is prevented laypersons like myself from having any hope of understanding biology. It remains to be seen whether the involvement of laypersons in biology will help or hinder the advancement of biology.

It would have been one thing if our knowledge of chemistry and physics alone would have been enough to understand the cell, but what is allowing us that level of undestanding is our own ingenuity in engineering and design.

I don't really see it as fundamentally different whether it's our chemistry ingenuity or our physics ingenuity or our mechanical ingenuity that lets us understand the cell. Its all just layers of abstraction and I don't see any hard barrier between these layers that would force "nature" only to use layers 1 through X while us humans get to use layer X+1. You could just as easily say that all of the cell should be definable in terms of quantum physics, you shouldn't need the higher level abstraction of chemistry to explain anything. Why even chemistry should be completely reducible to physics so we shouldn't chemistry at all!

Todd B.: I might agree that being "objective" doesn't require the ability to quantify on an absolute numerical scale, but it certainly requires all observers to be able to reach the same conclusion. In the case of Mike's Design Matrix scores they are completely subjective, however. There is no basis for mutual agreement built into the method at all. They are the very definition of subjective.

From Mike's book:

…imagine James using the Design Matrix to give a biological feature the score of 4. John gives the same feature a score of -3. We would want James and John to lay their reasoning on the table, explaining the basis for their scores. Upon hearing their arguments, we might decide to agree with James and score it 4, agree with John and score it -3, or disagree with both, giving it our own score of 1. What matters is that arguments are placed on the table such that everyone can evaluate the scoring. Once the score, and the basis for the scoring, has been made clear, it will be possible to conceive of research that can strengthen or weaken the score. (p.273)

I don't think the usefulness of these descriptive terms is a coincidence, nor do I think its particularly surprising.

I think it's surprising for the fact that (as Mike showed in his book) these mechanical engineering terms, while applicable to molecular biology, fall short in their usefulness for chemists and physicists. Neither the field of of mechanical engineering nor the interior world of the cell fall outside of the scope of chemistry and physics, the former is not completely reducible to chemistry and physics. So the claim of possibly the latter is not completely reducible either appears to be a valid question to test.

Both human machines and biological organisms are operating in a universe built from the same components (atoms, electrons, etc) operating under the same laws (chemistry, physics, etc). Many of these devices are solving the same sorts of problems (pumping fluids, transporting solids, distributing energy).

Completely agree with you, Todd. That's why the metaphorical usefulness of mechanical engineering terms is so intriguing. We know that the products of our technological and engineering prowess are not simply the result of the laws of chemistry and physics. While they do not contradict those laws, those products are also not entirely reducible to those laws. There's another factor at play. And to borrow even more heavily from Mike's book (if I haven't already done that), that other factor channels the laws of chemistry and physics to produce that idea or to give mechanical form to that thought.

Given how malleable English (all language really) is it would be far more surprising if no analogies could be draw between human machines and life.

If no analogies could be drawn we would have a heck of a time trying to explain or understand what is exactly occuring at the molecular level. It's because of our technological advance that our ability to comprehend the cellular workings increased; via the utilization of metaphors.

That these seemingly necessary analogies which work at various levels of detail indicate some deeper meaning is where I disagree with Mike.

But if the cell would have ultimately looked like an amorphous glob containing random interactions there wouldn't even be need to worry about the possibility. What we find are proteins whose function is highly dependent on their form, specific spatial arrangement playing a necessary role.

Life differs from human machines in many more ways than it is similar and the similarities seem like simple requirements of operating in the physical world.

With our technological advances in a short order of time we know that this field is not static. It's developing, and as it develops it allows us even more insight into the world of the cell.
It would have been one thing if our knowledge of chemistry and physics alone would have been enough to understand the cell, but what is allowing us that level of undestanding is our own ingenuity in engineering and design.

I might agree that being "objective" doesn't require the ability to quantify on an absolute numerical scale, but it certainly requires all observers to be able to reach the same conclusion.

This brings up the difficulty in defining "objective." If objective "certainly requires all observers to be able to reach the same conclusion," then what are you to do with all the people who don't accept evolution? It would seem you'd have to begin qualifying the observers, which means your definition of objective would be subjective.

In the case of Mike's Design Matrix scores they are completely subjective, however. There is no basis for mutual agreement built into the method at all. They are the very definition of subjective.

There is nothing wrong with this, especially if Monod's observation is a necessary element of design detection. And while the DM does not provide a basis for mutual agreement, it is an open-ended method that a) brings about better awareness of one's own subjectivity while b) providing a better understanding of another's subjectivity. It helps us move beyond the realm of suspicion, as the score itself can serve as both an impetus and a focal point for new research ideas that can in turn feed back into the score, either strengthening it or weakening it over time.