Assessing Causality
by BradfordIs human intelligence a model for detecting intelligent design? If it is do we infer from the model based on human behavior and is there any way of detecting design, be it of human origin or other, without detecting the designer and observing designer behavior? Here's one view on the designer-centric approach:
The designer-centric approach not only gives up on the question of detecting design, but also gives up on trying to accurately reconstruct our past. There can be no evidence for design and there can be no evidence against design. Design would be forever hidden away firmly in our collective intellectual blind spot. The designer-centric position is thus fundamentally agnostic about ID.
Science is indeed limited in its ability to reconstruct the past. But that is problematic not only for ID. It is likewise so for a non-telic abiogenesis approach. If we need to observe both the designer and designer behavior before deducing intelligent design, do we not need to observe multiple pathways to a non-telic chemical cause for life before identifying the one implicated in the appearence of life on earth?
Do we need to observe one unicellular organism consume another and subsequently observe the consumed one evolve into an organelle before crediting endosymbiosis as plausible?
How do we credit a presidential candidate with an ability to bring about change in the absence of witnessing him do so? Rhetoric? How do we trust another to defend America against terrorism when he has yet to do so? Faith in the claim? Generally, how do we go about assuring that our beliefs are firmly grounded in evidence and not something else? As I was preparing this blog entry I felt what Yogi Berra would describe as deja vu all over again when I remembered this:
Or if life was the outcome of a designed event we will never know so by ruling out all approaches that could resolve the issue. More from Behe:
There is an elephant in the roomful of scientists who are trying to explain the development of life. The elephant is labeled "intelligent design." To a person who does not feel obliged to restrict his search to unintelligent causes, the straightforward conclusion is that many biochemical systems were designed. They were designed not by the laws of nature, not by chance and necessity. Rather, they were planned. The designer knew what the systems would look like when they were completed; the designer took steps to bring the systems about. Life on earth at its most fundamental level, in its most critical components, is the product of intelligent activity.
The conclusion of intelligent design flows naturally from the data itself, not from sacred books or sectarian beliefs. Inferring that biochemical systems were designed by an intelligent agent is a humdrum process that requires no new principles of logic or science. It comes simply from the hard work that biochemistry has done over the past forty years, combined with consideration of the way in which we reach conclusions of design every day.
What is "design" Design is simply the purposeful arrangement of parts. The scientific question is how we detect design. This can be done in various ways, but design can most easily be inferred for mechanical objects. While walking through a junkyard you might observe separated bolts and screws and bits of plastic and glass, most scattered, some piled on top of each other, some wedged together. Suppose you saw a pile that seemed particularly compact, and when you picked up a bar sticking out of the pile, the whole pile came along with it. When you pushed on the bar it slid smoothly to one side of the pile and pulled an attached chain along with it. The chain in turn yanked a gear which turned three other gears which turned a red-and-white striped rod, spinning it like a barber pole. You quickly conclude that the pile was not a chance accumulation of junk, but was designed, was put together in that order by an intelligent agent, because you see that the components of the system interact with great specificity to do something.
Why is a logical inference inferring design not possible by analyzing a designed outcome? Why, in principle, is it not possible to distinguish between natural phenomenon and a directed event in designating a most plausible cause?
March 11th, 2008 at 11:36 pm
According to intelligent design theory, human intelligence is a pre-requisite for detecting intelligent design (unless, of course, we have actual experience of, awareness of, and empirical evidence for, non-human intelligences).
Intelligent design is, at it's core, a statement about causal adequacy.
It denies the causal adequacy of "unguided random events coup[led with unguided selection events" and asserts the causal adequacy of "intelligent causation."
Comment by Mung — March 11, 2008 @ 11:36 pm
March 12th, 2008 at 12:02 am
Mung:
Human intelligence is a prerequisite in that it is the available standard by which high end capacities are tested. Nothing about human capabilities though leads me to believe that intelligence must be compartmentalized so that human intelligence would correlate to evidence exclusively indicative of humans.
I agree with this.
Comment by Bradford — March 12, 2008 @ 12:02 am
March 12th, 2008 at 6:51 am
Because there's no way to exclude the possibility that the "director" of the "directed event" is a natural phenomenon.
Who designed the elaborate nests of leaf cutter ants?
Comment by Raevmo — March 12, 2008 @ 6:51 am
March 12th, 2008 at 7:56 am
Raevmo wrote:
That argument cuts both ways. It's also true that there is no way to exclude the possibility that the "director" of the "directed event" is some kind of intelligent agency. If there is an equal possibility for p (life was caused by some kind of intelligent agency) or ~p (life was caused by a non-intelligent or natural "agency") Why not consider, compare and contrast both possibilities?
Are leaf cutter ants conscious? Does consciousness play any role in the structures we see animals building (bird nests, spider webs, beaver dams etc.) What is consciousness and where does it come from? Can it be reduced to brute physical laws?
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — March 12, 2008 @ 7:56 am
March 12th, 2008 at 9:31 am
Analogies like this would seem to be designed to make scientists look stupid, and of course we can see the elephant so aren't we smart. The reality is that there is no elephant in the room; all we have are marks that just might be elephant footprints if you look at hem the right way. We do not have any evidence elephants even exist, for Dumbo's sake!
Comment by The Pixie — March 12, 2008 @ 9:31 am
March 12th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
John_A_Designer said: "If there is an equal possibility for p (life was caused by some kind of intelligent agency) or ~p (life was caused by a non-intelligent or natural "agency") Why not consider, compare and contrast both possibilities?"
First, there is not an equal probability. Since we have so far not detected traces of any specific action of any designers, then p=0 at the present time. Any scientific hypothesis must have some evidence before we can start to investigate it.
But, arguendo, suppose that p>0. There are two possibilities. If the designers' actions are unconstrained or arbitrary with respect to natural laws, then research into the designer hypothesis is futile, because we can't learn anything; it's a science-stopper. On the other hand, the designers may act with repeatable regularity, so that research into their actions would be fruitful; in that case, however, the designers are indistinguishable from strictly natural processes.
Thus, in any case, considering the possibilitiy of intelligent designers is scientifically a waste of time.
Comment by Olorin — March 12, 2008 @ 12:10 pm
March 12th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Pixie:
They're not designed to make scientists look stupid. The point is you will never find the right answer if you are looking in the wrong place. For disciplines that have produced great successes through research results one would dismiss the analogy out of hand. To do so with regard to life's origin is to convey the very ideological bent that obstructs our search for answers.
Comment by Bradford — March 12, 2008 @ 12:34 pm
March 12th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Pixie,
Every time I see "we have no evidence" in this kind of context, I wonder what would or could constitute evidence for the person saying it. What kind of phenomena are the skeptics expecting ID to produce, that they would count as evidence? It appears that nothing counts for them as "evidence" unless it lives up to being complete proof. That's not what evidence means, though.
The appearance of design is acknowledged by everyone, most famously Dawkins in Blind Watchmaker. It is, right on the face of it, evidence for design; and its evidential power grows every time biologists uncover a new level of nanotechnology or information coding in life.
Irreducible Complexity (to take a more specific example) is evidence, and should be considered so in one completely noncontroversial sense. It is evidence in the sense of information to be weighed. You can call it ambiguous evidence if you like, but that does not make it non-evidence.
Let's put this another way to make it more clear: ID skeptics say that Behe is wrong to claim there is no realistically probable undirected natural pathway toward his IC structures and functions. Let's grant for the sake of argument that such pathways are conceivable. Their conceivability does not zero out the evidential value of all putative IC. We still have to weigh the likelihood of various possibilities. That's what evidence is about: it's information to be weighed.
Consider a criminal trial. The woman says the man stole her purse, the man says he didn't. Neither statement has absolute proof to back it up. Which one of them is evidence? Is it neither, because neither can be proven? Hardly.
Consider an alternate situation in which the man's boss places him in another city at the time of the crime. Does that make the man's testimony evidence, and the woman's testimony non-evidence? Not at all. The prosecutor would examine the credibility of the boss's testimony. The jury would weigh that along with the other information they're given. Suppose they determined the boss was trustworthy and the man's alibi held. Would the court recorder go back and rewrite the record to re-name the woman's testimony from "evidence" to "non-evidence?" It would be regarded as insufficient evidence, or untrustworthy evidence, but not non-evidence.
So the claim that ID has absolutely no evidence in its favor is quite obviously wrong. It displays black-and-white, all-or-nothing, one-dimensional thinking; and like most one-dimensional thinking, it's rather closed-minded and intellectually uninteresting.
Design is evidence for a designer. It's evidence that's staring us right in the face, as obvious as the elephant in the room. You can argue that it's ambiguous evidence, but for the sake of your own reputation, don't make the mistake of saying it's no evidence at all.
Comment by TomG — March 12, 2008 @ 1:07 pm
March 12th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
TomG,
Ok, fine, semantically a false statement can be considered evidence. People like Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, and Sam Harris don't hold their views because they refuse to expose themselves to or acknowledge the evidence presented in favor of ID. They hold their views because the evidence is at best ambiguous and at worst irrelevant. Some of the evidence is like the Chewbacca Defense. Once a piece of evidence has been rejected as supporting a conclusion then due to the vagaries of the English language you might say "there is no evidence." Please just consider this a shortened notation for saying, "There is no evidence which creates a reasonable warrant for accepting the claimed position."
Comment by Todd Berkebile — March 12, 2008 @ 1:48 pm
March 12th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
I think that we just figured out that we have evidence the elephant is pink and only those over a certain alcohol toxicity level to see it.
Comment by Thought Provoker — March 12, 2008 @ 2:21 pm
March 12th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
Todd:
So those polymer sequence patterns that enabled cellular replication are reasonably explained by biomolecular chemical bonds or what? The no evidence position amounts to an expression of personal incredulity. If there is no evidence for design then there is no evidence for a slew of assumptions you take for granted. You can't move the goal posts to suit your metaphysical tastes.
Comment by Bradford — March 12, 2008 @ 3:14 pm
March 12th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Even if I do have a slew of unwarranted beliefs that in itself cannot possibly justify your beliefs. If anything that leads to "I don't know" being the only valid warrant.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — March 12, 2008 @ 3:20 pm
March 12th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Todd:
That's a reasonable position but when I see a claim to no evidence I almost always find ideological blinders on the claimant. Absolute statements like that are difficult to sustain.
Comment by Bradford — March 12, 2008 @ 3:25 pm
March 12th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Good point:
I just asked, in another forum, why would anybody want to think one-dimensionally about three-dimensional topics? And yet you see it all the time:
"ID is nothing but religion."
"There's absolutely no evidence for design."
"ID has never published anything in a peer-reviewed journal."
"Controversy? What controversy? There is no scientific controversy."
"ID proponents are all IDiots"
"Evolution is fact, FACT, FACT!"
I especially relish the "IDiots" theme when it comes from black-and-white thinkers like some of those who say things like this (not all, but certainly some).
Comment by TomG — March 12, 2008 @ 5:02 pm
March 12th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
TomG,
Again, please keep in mind that the uncivil actions of an idea's supporters says nothing about the idea itself. Whenever such a deep philosophical debate is thrust into the public zeitgeist you should expect a lot of noise and rabble-rousing. Some ID advocates are trying to push a religious political agenda, something I personally dislike, but my dislike of their politics is irrelevant to the arguments they put forward.
PS: By the way, evolution is a fact. The open questions are things like origin of life, single common origin, methods of inheritance, and many more. "Evolution" by itself is just a label and not a specific explaination of anything.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — March 12, 2008 @ 5:13 pm
March 12th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
Bradford
For reference, here is the quote: "There is an elephant in the roomful of scientists who are trying to explain the development of life. The elephant is labeled "intelligent design." " So whoever designed the analogy decided to use an elephant – a very big animal you cannot miss – in a room. How can someone fail to see an elephant in a room? I mean, you would have to be blind or stupid not to see it, whatever you are looking for. Thus it sounds to me like the analogy is suggesting scientists are blind and/or stupid. The analogy designer could have said an elephant's footprint or a mouse in the room, or perhaps an elephant in the jungle. How about an elephant in another room – that would fit your "you will never find the right answer if you are looking in the wrong place. But no, he chose an elephant in the same room. And a room not just with one scientist, but full of scientists, further implying that most or all scientists are blind and/or stupid. Maybe the anolgy designer did not mean it that way, but certainly that is how it comes across to me.
TomG
Rightly or wrongly, I take the elephant to be anologous to the designer, not to the design or to evidence of design. I see no evidence of a designer.
Is there evidence of design? You mention the appearance of design. Fool's gold appears to be gold; would you take that as evidence that it is gold? While something may appear to one thing, when we look closer it may be apparent that it could not possibly be. I am certainly not denying the possibility of design, but the superficial appearance is very weak evidence at best.
The irreducible complexity argument is based on the claim that evolution cannot produce a certain system. As soon as a feasible evolutionary route is proposed that argument falls apart. Sure, Behe can keep coming up with new IC systems, but science is doing well to disprove them. Again, at best very weak (and volatile) evidence.
That would be great to see in action. Sadly the usual ID trick is to do the calculation for evolution only, decide it is too improbable, and declare ID the winner by default (Dembski's EF for instance). I would love to see the likelihood of each possiblity estimated.
No, it is most definitely not as obvious as an elephant in the room. And the fact that the best you can offer is IC and the superficial appearance of design confirms that.
Comment by The Pixie — March 12, 2008 @ 5:38 pm
March 12th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
Pixie:
People are blinded by their beliefs. If you hate the idea of intelligent causality connected with the origin of life or the universe, you are going to wear blinders. People are very subjective creatures.
Or not having an option in mind and therefore not looking for evidence of it. This is not unusual and not limited to scientists. In fact there was an amusing part of The Design Matrix devoted to the issue of preconceptions. Chapter 6: Ducks and Rabbits. We tend to see what we expect to see.
Comment by Bradford — March 12, 2008 @ 5:59 pm
March 12th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
TomG said [3/12 @ 1:07pm]: "I wonder what would or could constitute evidence for the person saying it….. The appearance of design is acknowledged by everyone, most famously Dawkins in Blind Watchmaker. It is, right on the face of it, evidence for design…."
The appearance of design is not evidence of design. Comparison with human design is an analogy. Saying that the sun appears to be a ball of fire is not evidence that it is on fire. We measure the sun's temperature, magnetic field, and other parameters, and we find that the appearance is illusory—the evidence points to an entirely different process.
The appearance of design in biology comes from analogy to complexity of human artifacts. But when we make biological, geological, and paleontological measurements, we find instead evidence for descent from earlier forms. Where does the analogy with human designs break down? Biological systems have certain characteristics that human artifacts do not: variation among all individuals; the capability to reproduce and to pass on these variations; and selection of the most reproductively fit individuals by the environment. These differences from human designs are, of course, exactly the elements of the Darwinian mechanism.
Appearances and analogies may be useful for forming initial hypotheses. But they are not evidence for the hypotheses. Evidence for intelligent design would consist of pinpointing, say, a specific unambiguous design event, or finding an organism that could be shown to have no precursors or related forms. Even formulation of a model or mechanism for design would be helpful—something like the above 3-element mechanism of evolution. Unlike every other scientific theory, ID proposes no scientific mechanism.
(In particular, irreducible complexity is not evidence of design. In fact, that concept was originally put forth by biologist Herman Muller in 1918 as an expected result of Darwinian evolution. Prof. Behe should have done his homework better.)
Comment by Olorin — March 12, 2008 @ 6:08 pm
March 12th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
Olorin:
The Darwinian mechanism you allude to must be in place to support your argument that biological systems uniquely differ from human designs. There is no Darwinian selection process that explains the origin of life. That matter is an open question to which options need not be excluded based on metaphysical perspectives.
Comment by Bradford — March 12, 2008 @ 6:29 pm
March 12th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
Bradford:
Evolution by means of a Darwinian selection process (DSP) requires heritable variation in reproductive fitness. These requirements might well have been met in populations of self-replicating molecules – precursors of life. Therefore, a DSP might well explain the origin of life, whether you like it or not (of course, I know you don't).
Comment by Raevmo — March 12, 2008 @ 7:25 pm
March 12th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
The irreducible complexity argument is based on the claim that evolution cannot produce a certain system. As soon as a feasible evolutionary route is proposed that argument falls apart.
What can generally be observed empirically is typically a form of irreducible complexity where if a part is taken away then a lack of function results. For sociological, psychological, political, theological or some other reason many scientists do not treat what is generally observed as the evidence that it is. Look at yourself for example, you neglect empirical observation and instead focus on proposing "feasible evolutionary" routes in line with Darwinian reasoning: "If an organism could be found which I could not imagine coming about in a gradual sequence of events then my theory would absolutely break down." For some reason those who are the first to blindly assert: "There is no evidence." also seem to be those most willing to cite their own imaginations as the equivalent of empirical evidence.
Irreducible complexity isn't an "argument" similar to Darwinian reasoning, it's generally an empirical observation which can be observed in the form and function of organisms. If one does not go the Darwinian route of imagining your own imagination to be the equivalent of empirical evidence you quickly see that the capacity to imagine things doesn't change empirical facts or explain the history of all biological specification, form and species.
Comment by mynym — March 12, 2008 @ 7:28 pm
March 12th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
Raevmo:
Might explain this and might explain that. Is that what you like? How about shows that a self-replicator self-replicated itself into a system of interacting biological parts capable of reproducing as a unit and best of all- no intelligence required. You'd love that part.
Comment by Bradford — March 12, 2008 @ 7:31 pm
March 12th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
Pixie:
Feasability is based on a demonstration that the evolutionary route actually evolves. If it is conceptual and nothing more then IC has not been overcome for the system in question.
Comment by Bradford — March 12, 2008 @ 7:36 pm
March 12th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
Very well said mynym.
Comment by Bradford — March 12, 2008 @ 7:38 pm
March 12th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
Evolution by means of a Darwinian selection process (DSP) requires heritable variation in reproductive fitness.
It's interesting that some apparently believe that if a Darwinian process can be imagined to apply, then a whole history of progress can also be imagined. Darwin himself believed that, of course, yet he also knew that natural selection could more accurately be called natural preservation. How it is that the Darwinian mind gets from a process of natural culling, preservation and filtering to the creative acts of progress it weaves throughout Darwinian creation myths is never clear. Just to be clear, you think that if it could be shown that natural selection applied to the origin of life then the history of the origin of life would then be known as another "fact" of evolution just as the origin of species is known for a fact and so on?
Comment by mynym — March 12, 2008 @ 7:39 pm
March 12th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
It's worse than Raevmo imagines. When critics claim selection applies to an OOL scenario they are claiming that reaction outcomes are favored whose end result is a cell. But the details are missing. It could very well be that what is selected is the process of exhaustion which consumes all nitrogenous bases available in this prebiotic soup and in doing so short circuits the putative self-replicating process. Short circuiting would be selected for- not a promising thought for materialists
Comment by Bradford — March 12, 2008 @ 7:47 pm
March 12th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
The appearance of design in biology comes from analogy to complexity of human artifacts.
Human artifacts derive from the design of human biology. Note how human technology reveals layers of technology already in use in the human body, the lens of a microscope reveals the lens of the eye that looks through it. That is not an analogy, it's empirical observation.
It seems to me that an analogy is explaining one form by another, which is exactly what Darwinian reasoning typically consists of. You seem to use Darwinian reasoning as you standard here: "Evidence for intelligent design would consist of pinpointing, say, a specific unambiguous design event, or finding an organism that could be shown to have no….related forms."
I wonder what such life form would actually look like in theory? Since you have proposed such a form of no relationship as the standard to falsify and/or verify ID how about you sketch it out? Perhaps it would be an organism with just an eye? No…of course then people would relate it to all organisms with eyes. It's little wonder that some say that there is no evidence. After all, how could there be? Unfortunately once given Darwinian reasoning in theory there is overwhelming evidence, yet in fact there isn't any.
Comment by mynym — March 12, 2008 @ 8:01 pm
March 12th, 2008 at 8:13 pm
Bradford:
Yes, I like to speculate about mechanisms for the origin of life. What's your favorite mechanistic explanation? Don't be shy now.
That has been done already to some extent. There are mechanistic hypotheses for several steps in this transformation. What are your hypotheses?
Comment by Raevmo — March 12, 2008 @ 8:13 pm
March 12th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
I won't. There are zero mechanisms that lead to a cell in the absence of intelligent guidance.
How about shows that a self-replicator self-replicated itself into a system of interacting biological parts capable of reproducing as a unit and best of all- no intelligence required. You'd love that part.
You have limited self-replication which fizzles out to nothing. No interacting parts, biological systems or anything resembling real genomes.
Comment by Bradford — March 12, 2008 @ 8:20 pm
March 12th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
But the details are missing.
I always wonder about those when reading Darwinian "reasoning"/imagining. It always seems to be blurring specification itself away, yet claims to explain it at the same time. Blurring or imagining things away is not information and evidence, it's not even really much of an explanation.
Imagining things is rather fun though, so I'd like to imagine a few things about these facts of evolution: "In the last ten years we have come to realize humans are more like worms than we imagined." (Bruce Alberts, National Academy of Sciences) "…the worm represents a very simple human." (geneticist Glen Evans)
That's more than I ever imagined too. Imagine that! But now that I'm imagining things I can see that worms are rather analogous to humans. I can't see evidence for design and intelligent specification in other species but I can see them as analogous to humans. Just look at a worm, now imagine it with little nubs which help it mate, which are co-opted to help it crawl and so on….my imagination almost failed to create enough functional forms but fortunately I can co-opt more forms by imagining even more about their past. I could imagine the whole evolution of worm form into human form, yet seeing how it is already a fact it seems that I need not bother.
If the writings of those who blindly imagine things about the "Blind Watchmaker" have more to do with the mating habits of ancient worms than the type of intelligent design born in the symbols and signs of a mind should one study worms or their words?
Comment by mynym — March 12, 2008 @ 8:25 pm
March 12th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
mynym
I am afraid I ended up asking rather a lot of questions in my response. I hope Bradford does not mind us going off-topic.
Take the heart out of a duck, and it dies. Is the duck IC? Remember, we know the duck grew all its IC structures from a single cell, so I think not (but it depends on which definition you use). We have observed empirically that the duck is IC, but also that the IC structure has developed without any intelligent designer getting involved. Yes, the designer could have set up the single cell to do that, just as the designer could have set up evolution to create apparently IC structure.
The reasons are scientfic. What sociological, psychological, political or theological reason do you think Behe has for not exploring IC systems any further?
Perhaps you could state (or link to) exactly what that empirical observation is, and we can explore where it logically takes us.
Sure, because the way I understand the argument is this:
This structure is IC
There are no feasible evolutionary routes to it
Therefore evolution is falsified
That logic falls apart if it has to be modified:
This structure is IC
There is a feasible evolutionary route to it
Therefore evolution is falsified
You just cannot draw that conclusion if there is a single evolutionary route imagined. I may be well off mark here. Perhaps you can go through the logic that leads you from IC to falsifying evolution. Or, if IC does not falsify evolution, explain why you think it is important.
Because the IC argument (as I understand it) only requires an imaginary answser.
Perhaps you could cite the empirical evidence for an IC structure. Hmm, better define IC too, while you are at it, so we can be sure we are talking about the same property.
It sure ain't.
Modern evolutionary theory makes a good, if incomplete, attempt to explain the history of all biological specification, form and species. What does ID do?
Comment by The Pixie — March 12, 2008 @ 8:26 pm
March 12th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
mynym:
Imagination is not necessary. Darwinian processes have been observed over and over again. The evolutionary history of life on earth is also not imaginary: independent fossil evidence and molecular evidence agree to a large extent. It's interesting that you think this is imaginary. Why is that?
Maybe it's not clear to you because you haven't bothered to read the scientific literature? Ignorance is not a very good argument.
That evolution occurs is a fact. It's also a fact that speciation has been observed, and that natural selection plays an important role in those observed instances. Speculation about the role of natural selection in the origin of life does not make it a fact.
Comment by Raevmo — March 12, 2008 @ 8:35 pm
March 12th, 2008 at 8:43 pm
mynym was citing imaginary pathways to IC systems. The pathways must be specific to the systems i.e. observed.
Comment by Bradford — March 12, 2008 @ 8:43 pm
March 12th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
In the other thread I pointed out that only the process of elimination of all other options leads to the conclusion of design. Here Bradford agrees with me by boldly stating that all possible non-intelligent solutions have been eliminated! That proves it, every option has been considered, we can all go home now.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — March 12, 2008 @ 8:50 pm
March 12th, 2008 at 8:51 pm
mynym:
It is not uncommon to observe that a device invented by humans already had a biological counterpart long before the invention.
Comment by Bradford — March 12, 2008 @ 8:51 pm
March 12th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
Since I was presented with an unsupported personal opinion I returned the favor.
Comment by Bradford — March 12, 2008 @ 8:53 pm
March 12th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
Just how many billions of years back in time do you have to go to find an IC system for which there isn't evidence of the evolutionary pathway? Four billion years all the way back to the first nucleotide? Had to look pretty far to find a knowledge gap large enough to stick the latest God-of-the-Gaps theory into.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — March 12, 2008 @ 8:53 pm
March 12th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
In particular, irreducible complexity is not evidence of design. In fact, that concept was originally put forth by biologist Herman Muller in 1918 as an expected result of Darwinian evolution.
Given Darwinian reasoning, what result is unexpected? How much reducible complexity is expected? Is an organism with no analogous relationships in form all that is unexpected? Note that reducible complexity and irreducible complexity, a single common ancestor and more than one common ancestors, men who cheat on their wives and those who do not and so on and on all comport with Darwinian evolution and/or have been "predicted" by it. What is predicted?
Natural selection is a trivial observation which is hardly a theory, it's not a theory from which predictions can be derived in the same sense as the theory of gravity. Apparently that's why so much progress can be imagined based on it without fear of falsification or hope of verification. (It doesn't predict progress, it's just the explanation for the majority of progress as we know it.)
Comment by mynym — March 12, 2008 @ 8:55 pm
March 12th, 2008 at 8:56 pm
A jump from a first nucleotide to a functional genome without supporting data and you talk about gaps! You filled that one with what- the assumption of the adaquacy of naturalism?
Comment by Bradford — March 12, 2008 @ 8:56 pm
March 12th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
Great, sure, that's a huge gap, science can't explain it, but its still four billion years ago. Got anything recent enough to actually study? These theories are all rooted not in the evidence, but in the lack of evidence caused by the passage of vast amounts of time.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — March 12, 2008 @ 9:00 pm
March 12th, 2008 at 9:08 pm
Todd:
My beef has always been with abiogenesis. Why should I object to something that took place more recently? Is that what you do- object to ID as a reflex reaction?
Comment by Bradford — March 12, 2008 @ 9:08 pm
March 12th, 2008 at 9:25 pm
Imagination is not necessary. Darwinian processes have been observed over and over again.
Natural selection is a trivial observation which tends to refute imaginary notions of Nature designing technology.
The evolutionary history of life on earth is also not imaginary…
To a large extent, yes it is.
…independent fossil evidence and molecular evidence agree to a large extent. It's interesting that you think this is imaginary. Why is that?
I might imagine that my thoughts have to do with the mating habits of ancient worms, as I said. Of course, symbols and signs of my own design like this text you are reading are an illusion brought about by the mating patterns of ancient worms and so on so you can imagine what you will about it.
Maybe it's not clear to you because you haven't bothered to read the scientific literature? Ignorance is not a very good argument.
Or maybe it's not clear because many who write scientific literature tend to cite their own imaginations as evidence in order to blur life forms together. Perhaps if one doesn't imagine things as such writers do then what will be seen is a blurred pattern of thinking.
That evolution occurs is a fact.
Change happens just like excrement, noting or observing that change occurs is not a theory which explains it. Again, natural selection is a trivial observation which is of little help in developing a theory explaining origins of life forms and the type of specification typically found in them.
It's also a fact that speciation has been observed…
It's a fact that irreducible complexity can be observed in general and it has more to do with the issue of the origin of life forms than the speciation which has been observed.
…and that natural selection plays an important role in those observed instances.
Those who engage in Darwinian reasoning have a long history of comparing the theory of natural selection to the theory of gravity so it would seem that you should be able to be pretty specific about its role. For example, what trajectory of adaptation was predicted using the theory of natural selection and then verified in patterns of speciation in groups of organisms?
Speculation about the role of natural selection in the origin of life does not make it a fact.
No, yet some seem to have a habit of blurring fact, theory, hypothesis, speculation and their own imagination together with no concern for definition, specification and epistemic distinctions. Perhaps it has to do with imagining things about the origin of form and specification in life itself when one is still living it. For example, some will be imagining things about the origin of life forms and then equate what they imagine to the fact that the earth is not flat, that the earth revolves around the sun or all hard forms of scientia/knowledge as we know it. They also seem fond of imagining that a natural capacity for imagining things has something to do with Progress.
Comment by mynym — March 12, 2008 @ 9:25 pm
March 12th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
Sure, I object to ID as a reflex response to explain the unknown. It seems clear there are no warranted ID theories that have taken effect within the period of observable history. Its not an explanation, its a cop out. Where did information come from? Why some magical previously existing source of information of course! Regress ad nauseum. The only reasonable explanation for the OOL given current knowledge is "I don't know." Anything else is speculation. Assuming a Designer with arbitrary "magic" (not reducible to law and structure) powers, even if that turns out to be the correct explanation, isn't going to increase human understanding. Even if we discover a four billion year old crashed spaceship inside of which are cans marked "Insta-Grow Life Juice: guaranteed sentience in four billion years or your money back!" that still wouldn't answer the OOL question because them aliens must have come from someplace. ID theories don't even begin to address these issues beyond claiming either "X has always existed" or "X was injected by God from outside the universe."
Comment by Todd Berkebile — March 12, 2008 @ 9:26 pm
March 12th, 2008 at 9:31 pm
If you reject the very validity of the scientific process then there is no possible evidence that can be of any meaning to you. Thus you are free to believe in anything you want, be it fact or fiction, with equal conviction. Congratulations, your beliefs are now completely unassailable. Unfortunately it also means your believes are of little value to those who do accept the validity of the scientific process.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — March 12, 2008 @ 9:31 pm
March 12th, 2008 at 9:38 pm
The only reflex is yours. When you hear ID you object before you know the basis of a claim.
FL would occur within observable history but so what? If nature is ordered so as to make life inevitable from chemical reactions, the fact that such reactions are hypothesized to have occured billions of years ago is no barrier to the occurence today on earth or in other parts of the universe.
An intelligent source. That's where information connected with symbolic coding systems comes from.
Comment by Bradford — March 12, 2008 @ 9:38 pm
March 12th, 2008 at 9:46 pm
Ok, so what is the origin of intelligence then? ID explains nothing, it just pushes the unknown into the unobservable. If intelligence created us then its the origin of that intelligence that is interesting. Where does ID stop the regression? Some magical deity?
Comment by Todd Berkebile — March 12, 2008 @ 9:46 pm
March 12th, 2008 at 10:17 pm
Todd:
LOL. You actually think you made a point by pointing to the unobservable. In case you hadn't noticed what precceded and brought about the universe is unobservable. One could just as easily ask what is the origin of matter and energy. If the universe is of a finite age it did not always exist and if its precursor existed within some pre-BB singularity you have the same problem explaining its origin. You see Todd, the ultimate origin issue is empirically unresolvable.
Where do critics stop the regression. Did magic bring about the ordered genomic sequences and translation mechanisms needed for life. Or do you just call your version science?
Comment by Bradford — March 12, 2008 @ 10:17 pm
March 12th, 2008 at 10:30 pm
Take the heart out of a duck, and it dies. Is the duck IC?
In a sense, yes.
Remember, we know the duck grew all its IC structures from a single cell…
Yet if you took information out of its DNA so that its heart was not "coded" for or did not unfold properly it would be a dead duck unless another organ was "co-opted" rather quickly. The notion of irreducible complexity is linked to function and actual fitness which can be observed, Darwinian notions of fitness are generally imaginary and rooted in past events that cannot be observed.
We have observed empirically that the duck is IC, but also that the IC structure has developed without any intelligent designer getting involved.
Did we? If someone made a self-replicating machine which unfolded copies of itself it would be said to be designed by them.
Yes, the designer could have set up the single cell to do that, just as the designer could have set up evolution to create apparently IC structure.
What apparently irreducibly complex structures are predicted by natural selection/Darwinian theory?
Perhaps you could state (or link to) exactly what that empirical observation is, and we can explore where it logically takes us.
You seem to have all your ducks in a row, we can stick with them.
Sure, because the way I understand the argument is this:
This structure is IC
There are no feasible evolutionary routes to it
Therefore evolution is falsified
I think Behe may have been trying to reason based on Darwinian. That is impossible. If you step in hypothetical goo, expect to sink in it. I.e., his hypothetical conversation with Darwin go:
Darwin: "If you could show me something which I cannot imagine coming about gradually then my theory absolutely breaks down."
Behe: "Well, take a look at this!"
Darwinists: "Say, we can imagine a way so that must mean that Darwin was right all along or somethin'."
And so on. I would say that the problem began when Darwin was allowed to cite his own imagination as if it was empirical evidence.
You just cannot draw that conclusion if there is a single evolutionary route imagined. I may be well off mark here. Perhaps you can go through the logic that leads you from IC to falsifying evolution.
Fortunately, I'm not trying to falsify hypothetical goo that was never specified in the first place so apparently this whole tangent can crawl back in the puddle it evolved from.
Or, if IC does not falsify evolution, explain why you think it is important.
It is an important aspect of reliably inferring design.
Because the IC argument (as I understand it) only requires an imaginary answser.
Darwin originally began to treat his own imagination as evidence, it seems to me that Behe did try to take him on his terms, apparently failing to recognize that more imaginary answers would be forthcoming shortly. For example, I remember reading his book where he cited a large "gap" in a sense because he showed that there was little literature dealing with biochemical pathways and so on. Critics of Darwinian reasoning have always done that, ironically they are soon thanked by those happy to have a reason to excrete more hypothetical goo. It seems to me that one has to get people to stop imagining things first, then look at the evidence.
Perhaps you could cite the empirical evidence for an IC structure.
We could go with the structure, species and form known as bird. I said originally that generally IC is what is observed and generally a duck needs most of its parts and so on. Categorically defining how far down a bird or a duck is IC should be an area for natural philosophers/scientists but there aren't many Aristotles around now, most scientists seem to have been trained to think that progress will end and civilization will collapse if they allow for telic thoughts.
Modern evolutionary theory makes a good, if incomplete, attempt to explain the history of all biological specification, form and species. What does ID do?
Good, if incomplete? I disagree given that much of modern evolutionary theory is based on arguments such as: "Only explanations which seem like they are natural to the majority are allowed. Say, there are now an overwhelming amount of natural explanations! Progress has been made so only those against progress disagree, naturally." I would argue that methodological naturalism came about for sociological reasons about the same time that the professionalization of science took place. I.e., "I'm a professional scientist, not some amateur natural theologian." Yet theological arguments survive to this day, e.g.: "God wouldn't make the pandas thumb this way, therefore natural selection must have made it. Given all the overwhelming evidence for natural selection theology is no longer allowed in science, except if you want to say how God wouldn't make thumbs and things." And so on. Is that good?
Is there an inevitable type of progress linked to science which makes incorrect reasoning "good" and merely an "incomplete" step along the way to progress in knowledge. Given the history of knowledge I'd say that man is perfectly capable of settling into pseudo-knowledge for thousands of years with no progress, especially if scientists or priests become charlatans who cannot admit what they do not know because they are more interested in their professional identities than the truth. The pursuit of the truth brings progress, not science when scientists aren't interested in elementary truths or its pursuit in general. (E.g. eugenics, etc.) . Many scientists have told me that they are not pursuing the truth so their knowledge isn't "incomplete" but still on a path to progress, it's just wrong from the beginning.
Comment by mynym — March 12, 2008 @ 10:30 pm
March 12th, 2008 at 10:45 pm
If you reject the very validity of the scientific process then there is no possible evidence that can be of any meaning to you.
You could try empirical evidence, which is generally what I have been contrasting with the Darwinian way of imagining things. Given that some charlatans have written that Darwinian theory is on a par with Newtonian theory (When a theory isn't just a theory and all that, don't you know.) evidence is clearly possible. So who has encoded the theory of natural selection in the language of mathematics and used its predictive powers of Darwin's "theory" to predict a trajectory of adaptation which was then verified empirically? Does empirical evidence have any meaning to you? Is vague hand waving towards similarities among organisms and imagining things about their past history all that you require of a scientific process?
Unfortunately it also means your believes are of little value to those who do accept the validity of the scientific process.
I don't accept the type of "scientific process" which led to the eugenics movement and the like. It always seems rather light on actual empirical evidence and ridiculous in what it allows to be imagined based on very little, don't you know. And those with the urge to merge that seems to motivate much of Darwinian reasoning usually have misanthropic attitudes based on their own hypothetical goo and so on.
Comment by mynym — March 12, 2008 @ 10:45 pm
March 12th, 2008 at 11:05 pm
Science attempts to start with the observable and explain it only by reference to that which is also observable and testable. Yes science makes assumptions but those assumptions can be evaluated to some degree. With the knowledge gained at a high level (large scale, generalized) it builds tools to examine the next lower level (smaller scale, specialized). It thus builds knowledge from the high level to the low level towards the unobservable. There is no assumption that everything can be explained, in fact since we are within the system we are studying the assumption is some things can never be known. ID takes the opposite route. ID starts with the unobservable, speculates about it, and then tries to move from this low level to explain the higher levels. ID has no tools to explain the unknown unless their assumptions about the unobservable happen to be correct. But since the assumptions concern the unobservable they cannot be evaluated. I make no claim that any one method can lead to absolute knowledge, the claim is that only one method adds to our knowledge and the other method can only add to our knowledge if they just happened to guess the correct assumptions.
So why does anything at all exist? I don't know and I don't think we can ever know, but that doesn't justify an appeal to magic or any other viewpoint. The goal is to learn what can be learned about this existence and that requires a top-down approach.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — March 12, 2008 @ 11:05 pm
March 12th, 2008 at 11:27 pm
So an imaginary designer is no problem, but the huge collection of empirical evidence for gradual change that supports evolution is meaningless "imagining" because the people collecting that evidence forgot to "imagine" that it was actually God all along? Huh?
I think you need to define "empirical evidence." It seems obvious from your post that you don't understand what it is or how science works. The American Heritage Dictionary says:
SYLLABICATION: em·pir·i·calPRONUNCIATION: m-pîr-kl
ADJECTIVE: 1a. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supported the hypothesis. b. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment: empirical laws. 2. Guided by practical experience and not theory, especially in medicine.
So from this definition you somehow infer that if there's no mathematical equation that can predict exactly how quickly a monkey will turn into a man when placed in an uncontrolled environment that the scientists must not be using empirical evidence? Wow, that's just, wow. You seem to be demanding a level of evidence far beyond what could ever reasonably be expected and far beyond what "empirical evidence" requires. Effectively, as I mentioned, it seems you simply reject the scientific process as inadequate.
And yet you appear to need no equivalent level of evidence to reach a design conclusion? Interesting.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — March 12, 2008 @ 11:27 pm
March 12th, 2008 at 11:36 pm
Hi Todd,
May I suggest in your arguments with Bradford, you mention the concept of science using modest assumptions.
Personally, I think you are wasting your time with mynym.
Comment by Thought Provoker — March 12, 2008 @ 11:36 pm
March 12th, 2008 at 11:47 pm
TP,
Well, after racking my brain trying to even understand whatever it is CJYman is talking about and why it's somehow applicable to the interconnected system of the universe just because its true in formalized systems its good to respond to an occasional mynym.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — March 12, 2008 @ 11:47 pm
March 12th, 2008 at 11:54 pm
This is your strawman. Beat it up good. Start with small minimally functional genomes and test them to observe whether or not error correction and repair and repair mechanisms evolve. They better because without them decay and death are inevitable. All observable stuff. So are the possible mechanisms suggested by Mike in his book. Observable. Available lab technology will do. There are currently groups studying and preparing the means by which top down and ID favorable causality can be tested. But stick with your imaginary ID straws. Makes you critics feel better.
Comment by Bradford — March 12, 2008 @ 11:54 pm
March 13th, 2008 at 8:40 am
Mynym
And therein lies the problem. In one sense yes, in another sense no. How can we hope to use he IC concept if we have examples of things that are IC "in a sense".
So is the heart part of the IC core or not? Or is it merely "in a sense" IC?
Really? So Behe has done experimental studies, gathering empirical evidence for ICness that relates to fitness and function?
If I neglect the empirical evidence perhaps it is because people like you are so reluctant to provide it when asked. One might almost imagine that there is none.
I see you were also unable to explain the logic that allows the IC concept to falsify evolution, despite my request.
More damning, you also failed to provide a definition of what you mean by IC. I know people around here get all worked up by demands for definitions, but unless we agree what IC is, you are free to shift definitions mid-argument. Admittedly you have yet to offer any argument.
This is how science works. You observe something, then imagine why it might be like that, use that hypothess to generate predictions and test the predictions. Einstein did just that when devising relativity; he imagined what the universe might be like if the speed of light was constant.
You seem to have a problem keeping your politicking out of your answers. A simple request for the evidence that IDists have for an ID concept should be straightforward enough. The empirical evidence you come up with: "generally a duck needs most of its parts". Is that really IC, or merely IC "in a sense"
You will pardon me if I am not convinced.
There was me thinking modern evolutionary theory is based on variation, selection and inheritance.
I am not sure how methodological naturalism (MN) came about, but it is still with us because of its great successes. You may not like it, but since science adopted MN, it has made a huge amount of progress.
I am confused. Do you object to theological arguments or not?
It is worth noting that the proposed evolutionary mechanism of the panda's thumb is based on rather more than that (see here for example. Scientists do not invoke natural selection merely for theological reasons, but for good scientific reasons too.
You seem to gloss over a particularly important point there. It is religion that encourages man to settle into thousands of years of "pseudo-knowledge" (how much have Christianity, Islam or Hinduism changed in the last thousand years). Science, on the other hand, has a track record of accepting change. Of all man's endeavors science is the least likely to result in "settling into pseudo-knowledge for thousands of years with no progress".
Hwever, I suspect you will be be sure Christianity is right and perfect, so not in need of change, while science is fundamentally flawed as it is based on MN, and has settled on the MN pseudo-knowledge.
Anyway, have a good think about the questions I asked last time around.
1. How is IC defined?
2. What is the logic that leads you from IC to falsifying evolution?
3. What empirical observations do we have for some IC structure?
Comment by The Pixie — March 13, 2008 @ 8:40 am
March 13th, 2008 at 10:11 am
I make no claim or assumption that neo-Darwinian evolution applies to anything prior to the rise of the cell or that its the only mechanism of variation even after the rise of the cell. So it seems you have your own straw man to pound on. As I've said many times, a lack of knowledge supports no theory. I consider it a valid point that all of your proposed Telic Magic happened so far back that we cannot expect to have any direct knowledge concerning the environment in which your proposed magic occurred.
Luckily as a skeptical thinker I'm always willing to consider myself wrong. So if these various groups actually produce any results, results that require their telic explanation to achieve, then I will reconsider my viewpoint.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — March 13, 2008 @ 10:11 am
March 13th, 2008 at 10:48 am
I have no need to pound on a strawman. I have consistently expressed over many years my view that ID is most strongly imputed at point of origins. Whether you and others have readily available answers arguing non-ID alternatives is inconsequential to the formulation of my own views. The generation of biological structures needed to store and transmit information required for life and a source for the information itself indicates a telic process in my view. When critics react to statements like this with hostility it only reinforces my belief that some very unscientific reasons motivate their behavior.
Comment by Bradford — March 13, 2008 @ 10:48 am
March 13th, 2008 at 11:04 am
Pixie:
The commonly used definition is that supplied by Behe himself. It has been so often quoted it is difficult to believe you are unfamiliar with it. If you think others are not familiar with it come out and say so.
The logic of IC has been used to argue many things. You and mynym are free to debate the second question you pose but I need to point out that Behe and for that matter, Mike Gene who popularized FLE, see IC's significance differently.
Empirical observations for IC are not difficult. Remove a component and negate function. That could be evidence for an unknown pathway or front loading besides the falsification you cite.
Comment by Bradford — March 13, 2008 @ 11:04 am
March 13th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Hi Bradford
Behe has proposed more than one definition (see here)
Exactly why I would like Mynym to explain his position, and state for the record what definition he uses. I am aware Mike sees IC as a hurdle for evolution, rather than a barrier.
This follows Behe's original definition. It has the great advantage that it is easy to prove, as you note. The problem is; is this a barrier to evolution? Mechanisms like cooption suggest no. Just because a strucure is IC by this definition, I see no reason to suppose it could not evolve.
Comment by The Pixie — March 13, 2008 @ 12:18 pm
March 13th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Mynym has a recurring theme; evolution has no predictive power (and it's not even mathematical!).
"Natural selection is a trivial observation which is hardly a theory, it's not a theory from which predictions can be derived in the same sense as the theory of gravity. Apparently that's why so much progress can be imagined based on it without fear of falsification or hope of verification." [March 12th, 2008 at 8:55 pm]
"Again, natural selection is a trivial observation which is of little help in developing a theory explaining origins of life forms and the type of specification typically found in them" [March 12th, 2008 at 9:25 pm]
"So who has encoded the theory of natural selection in the language of mathematics and used its predictive powers of Darwin's "theory" to predict a trajectory of adaptation which was then verified empirically?" [March 12th, 2008 at 10:45 pm]
Mynym, it is truly difficult to judge a theory that you don't know anything about. Taking the last quote first, I recently ran across a short but general review of evolutionary mathematics; see "Unifying Evolutionary Dynamics," J. Theor. Biol. 219:93-98 (2002). From the abstract: "From these equations [replicator-mutator and Price] we obtain as special cases adaptive dynamics, evolutionary game dynamics, the Lotka-Volterra equation of ecology, and and the quasispeciaes equation of molecular evolution."
These equations have been used to predict, for instance, the failure of a government program to save endangered salmon by breeding them in captivity. Another article that caught my eye recently predicts that flowering bushes are evolutionarily prohibited from having certain branching patterns; see "Evolution and Development of Infloresence Architectures," Science, 316:1452-56. Other examples abound.
You seem to think that the only use of evolution is to predict what will evolve next. However, most of its usefulness lies in using it to find past "trajector[ies] of adaptation" that you say it does not do. A recent Science article showed evolutionary evidence that, contrary to current dogma, Columbus did not bring typhus to the new World. Evolutionary genetics has made great strides in tracing the migration of early humans from Africa to the rest of the world—and, more practically, tracing the evolution of HIV from simian SIV precursors, in order to develop better treatments. Evolutionary principles underlie the use of genetic evidence to determine paternity and other relationships. (If you don"t think there is any evidence for evolution, you should disqualify yourself from jury duty in any court trial using genetic evidence; the SINES/LINES technique used to prove paternity is exactly the same as that used to show the evolutionary relationships of mice and bats, whales and hippopotamuses, and, yes, annelid worms and humans.
Even the Discovery Institute has given up on their claim that natural selection is a "trivial observation" or a tautology. Darwin's theory has three parts, not just one: heritable variation, overfecundity, and natural selection. (I take the term "natural selection" here to include sexual, group, and other forms of selection as well.) Selection does not stand by itself; it is part of a mechanism that includes phenomena upon which selection acts. See, for example, http://www.talkorigins.org/faq....
Granted, science is not a popularity contest. But, of the people who are actually qualified to judge the evidence on evolution, should we believe 484,000 researchers in biology, geology, and paleontology, and 61 government and professional societies, or should we believe 15.4 biologists associated with one institution that requires its members to take a pledge to support intelligent design? Do we credit 1,570 peer-reviewed papers in the past year alone, or do we prefer 0.0 journal papers in the past 10 years? The evidence for evolution is overwhelming; the evidence for ID is nada, nichts, rien, a'ole, nichevo, walang, niet… did I mention nothing?
Comment by Olorin — March 13, 2008 @ 12:58 pm
March 13th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Bradford Says (March 12th, 2008 at 6:29 pm): "The Darwinian mechanism you allude to must be in place to support your argument that biological systems uniquely differ from human designs.
I never said that biological systems uniquely differ from human designs. I said that biological systems have certain key differences from human designs, differences which allow organisms to evolve even though human artifacts do not evolve.
Bradford further: "There is no Darwinian selection process that explains the origin of life. That matter is an open question to which options need not be excluded based on metaphysical perspectives."
True, but so what? Once more: Darwinian evolution tells how one species evolves into others; That's what Darwin meant by "origin of species." Abiogenesis is an open question, and Darwin did not propose a hypothesis to explain it. However, why should we rush to say that "god did it" just because we don't yet know what happened 4 billion years ago in an environment that is pretty much unknown? This is truly a science-stopper, a god-of-the-gaps hypothesis. What really is important, however, is that ID performs no research to show either evidence for ID, or any applicability to probl;ems that we wish to solve. Meanwhile, real scientists are proposing and critiquing abiogenesis mechanisms right and left. Current research posits either a metabolism-first or a replicator-first model, and is investigating, for example, self-sustaining chemical reactions for abiogenesis candidates; Scientific American has a recent article on this subject.
Also, intelligent design is not excluded on metaphysical grounds. It's excluded for the nonce because there is NO POSITIVE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE for it. The reason we don't spend much time investigating the characteristics of pink unicorns is that there is no evidence that they exist. What is so hard to understand about that? Come up with something beyond a "common sense" argument, or an "appearance" of design, or "gosh, I just don't understand it all," and scientists will start talking to you.
You and the mynym really should go read up on the science in this area, rather than walling yourselves off in dark corners of ignorance.
Comment by Olorin — March 13, 2008 @ 3:13 pm
March 13th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Pixie,
There's a naive view of science represented here, a black-and-white form of thinking: ID is completely falsified by one act of imagination. Amazing.
Remember the famous Michelson-Morley experiment that disproved the ether theory of light? Well, they didn't teach us the truth about that in school. It took a decade or two after that experiment before ether was completely disposed of.
Now, that experiment is often held up as the paradigm example of "one critical experiment" that proves or disproves a theory. The fact is, it didn't do that, and it's not a good example of such a thing. It's unclear that there even is such a thing, when issues of any complexity are under investigation.
That was an experiment. Now, Pixie, you want to tell us that all it takes to falsify ID is "one critical imagination."
Need I fill in the rest of my objection to your argument? (I'll let you work it out for yourself.)
Here's the question in a different form. Evolutionists frequently argue that evolution is not random. This is correct, for natural selection is definitely not random; it selects what is more fit. No controversy there.
The problem is that natural selection is not creative. Variations are where the creativity comes from, and variation seems to be just random. Natural selection isn't creative, it's very conservative. It can only keep what variation throws its way; it cannot imagine anything new; not in any real or metaphorical sense of the word. There are no creative acts of progress attributable to NS.
Todd:
And what new structures or functions has evolution observably produced? We're talking observation, not inference…
Who said imaginary? How about "hypothesized" instead? Photons were imaginary when Einstein first started working out the photoelectric problem. A cosmic singularity was imaginary once. Tectonic plates in motion were imaginary once. (Sheesh!)
Comment by TomG — March 13, 2008 @ 3:28 pm
March 13th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Pixie:
TomG
You must have mis-read something. Pixie said "IC", as in Irreducible Complexity. Irreducible Complexity is an anti-evolution argument that offers no proof to ID (Intelligent Design). Therefore, falsifying an example of IC, or the concept generally, has no bearing at all on ID.
However, as an anti-evolution argument, IC is indeed felled by any one counter-example. Since it is a claim that "A" is impossible, when you show "A" is possible, the claim is disproved.
Michelson-Morley (and the subsequent confirmaiton thereof) was the death-blow. That the body lived on for a little while afterwards doesn't change that.
There is no need for NS to be creative in and of itself, all that is needed is for the whole process of variation, overpopulation, and selection to be creative in concert.
One common example is the digestion of nylon by bacteria.
Comment by One Brow — March 13, 2008 @ 3:51 pm
March 13th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
God did it? Did you join the strawman brigade? Any more handy cliches?
That's nice Olorin but metabolism first or replicator first are not the only options. I know the gap argument is at the tip of the tongue but abiogenesis is a faith based belief.
What would constitute positive evidence in your opinion?
You've succeeded in writing an ignorant comment. It is knowledge of cellular biology that indicates how bankrupt abiogenesis is.
Comment by Bradford — March 13, 2008 @ 4:37 pm
March 13th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
Olorin,
you might want to take your One Brow tactics to another message board forum. We actually try to discuss topics here.
Which usually included not making exaggerated claims to invalidate a point someone was making.
This isn't grade school.
Comment by Doug — March 13, 2008 @ 4:46 pm
March 13th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
An anti-evolution argument? That would come as a surprise to some ID evolutionists like Behe for example.
Comment by Bradford — March 13, 2008 @ 4:54 pm
March 13th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
IC is claim that eludes explanation by undirected processes, lacking foresight, culled by selection, with the need of functionality at each step. Clear up your emotive notion of "anti-evolution argument" and you might be on to something.
But of course it has bearing on ID. Because an alternate explanation for system/mechanism/process appeals to foresight.
"anti-evolution", one brow… can you do this while keeping emotional reactions on hold?
Do those 'counter-examples' include thinking one's way to a possible undirected solution to the IC in question?
Comment by Doug — March 13, 2008 @ 4:58 pm
March 13th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
TomG
Please, if you are going to slag me off, have the decency to honestly represent what I said. One act of imagination completely falsifies IC, not ID.
The Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887 was a bit before my time. Did it really take until ca. 1900 until you wwere taught that at school? Not that that is surprising; any new science will take years to become accepted as mainstream science, and then taught in school.
It goes like this: Michelson and Morley were using a hypothesis, that light travels through ether. If the hypothesis is correct, then the speed of light will vary day and night, and season by season. They tested the hypothesis, and found the prediction failed. It was falsified.
Behe's hypothesis is that there is no possible evolutionary route to an IC structure. If the hypothesis is correct, then we will not be able to imagine a feasible evolutionary route. The hypothesis has been tested, and the prediction failed – feasible evolutionary route can be imagined. The hypothesis was falsified.
Please do fill it in. It will save time with the straw man accusations later in the thread.
Comment by The Pixie — March 13, 2008 @ 5:03 pm
March 13th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
Hi Bradford,
You wrote to Olorin…
Let me point out again something that is at the top of your blog, Intelligently Sequenced…
Then the Lord answered Job from the whirlwind: "Why are you using your ignorance to deny my providence?"- Job38:1-2
I find that to be a very interesting quote. People like Dr. Walt Brown (http://www.creationscience.com) proudly present arguments supporting hypotheses which correspond to their beliefs.
This thread is quickly devolving into having ID proponents embracing ignorance in order to, once again, play the victim and shield bash.
What are the positive ID hypothesis being presented here?
I have a positive ID hypothesis. I think Mike Gene has one. Behe had one until in his first book, but then he changed his definitions and opted for the shield bashing stance too.
Negative campaigning is so much easier, isn't it?
Comment by Thought Provoker — March 13, 2008 @ 5:10 pm
March 13th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
Hi Pixie,
I don't think we can state that with certainty that an act of imagination can completely falsify IC. An act of imagination could yield a car being constructed out of various car parts laying on the ground….assuming wind rain and other forces of nature.
Acts of imagination yield more information about our ability to imagine, not so much the likelihood that those imaginations provide insight into the reality of the matter.
Comment by Doug — March 13, 2008 @ 5:19 pm
March 13th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Hi TP,
There is a stated difference between general revelation and special revelation.
Embracing ignorance in order to play victim and shield bash? TP, that doesn't make sense. The words in the sentence don't make sense. Embracing ignorance helps one to play victim to prevent them from being bashed? I hope I'm just reading you wrong. Because it reads like propaganda.
If we say them, you'll probably say something like "IC offers no proof of ID".
Comment by Doug — March 13, 2008 @ 5:25 pm
March 13th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
Hi Doug,
You wrote…
It is propaganda, I have never been too shy about expressing my opinion.
Embracing ignorance helps one to play victim allowing one to bash supposed attackers.
In the old days, some shields had spikes.
You could count on it. Actually, Behe's original definition of IC did provide support for ID, in my opinion. In Mike Gene's Design Matrix it is called "discontinuity". That is one of the reasons I think Mike is making an honest attempt.
Comment by Thought Provoker — March 13, 2008 @ 5:36 pm
March 13th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
TP, you've mentioned this before and I have responded before in the same way I will now. The above quote is indicative of my belief in the OT and NT as well. That in turn points to my belief in the divinity of Christ. Never have I claimed that this belief is predicated on experimental results. OTOH, my views as to the plausibility of the belief that random chemical pathways produce cells is very much based on data resulting from many years of experiments. So are my views about information and its role in genomic expression.
While you may think my beliefs about God indicate my bias it is clear to me that the beliefs of critics about this matter indicate their bias. I'll repeat something I've mentioned before. A theist has more flexibility in reconciling theism to science than does an atheist. For an atheist must of necessity believe in non-telic abiogenesis. If life was not generated according to that paradigm athiesm is false.
Comment by Bradford — March 13, 2008 @ 7:47 pm
March 13th, 2008 at 8:40 pm
But I suspect atheists tend to be more flexible in changing their meta-physics as they have so much less invested in them.
There's this guy called Mike Gene who has proposed "front-loaded evolution" in which life (on this planet anyway) was seeded by an human-like intelligence.
Comment by The Pixie — March 13, 2008 @ 8:40 pm
March 13th, 2008 at 8:47 pm
I think you underestimate their devotion to their beliefs. I wish most theists had as much passion for their own views.
Comment by Bradford — March 13, 2008 @ 8:47 pm
March 13th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
Hi Bradford,
You wrote…
Which gets to the reason I continue to bring up your quote. I consider science to be the pursuit of knowledge. Hypothesizing and experimenting is how scientists overcome ignorance. I would expect someone who was actually interested in embracing God's providence to be actively engaged in formulating scientific hypotheses (similar to what Dr. Walt Brown does).
Any quote from the old testament would indicate belief. The quote you chose would normally demonstrate a desire to avoid ignorance. This is why I find it quite strange that you often appear to be using ignorance as a shield.
Don't you mean "implausibility" For all the fancy words, you are arguing ignorance. Are we all ignorant as to the source of information necessary for life? Or do you really have an answer but for strategic reason choose to deny its providence by feigning a lack of a hypothesis?
Let your light shine, Bradford.
Of course it is clear to you. Ignorance is your shield. Anyone daring to claim a lack of ignorance is bashed over the head with it.
Where is your sword, Bradford? Do you keep it carefully hidden to only be shown to those who see what you see?
First, you would have to find a true Atheist. Even Richard Dawkins is technically agnostic (he agrees that it is possible that God exists just as it is possible faries exist at the bottom of gardens).
Aren't you really suggesting that if life was not generated according to a non-telic paradigm then theism is true?
This makes ignorance both your shield and your sword.
This would suggest that if we can't explain how life was generated it would be possible to believe in God's existance by default without having to expend effort embracing God's providence.
Then the Lord answered Job from the whirlwind: "Why are you using your ignorance to deny my providence?"- Job38:1-2
Comment by Thought Provoker — March 13, 2008 @ 10:10 pm
March 13th, 2008 at 10:45 pm
We're not all ignorant as to the source of information.:wink: Dembski has claimed that the information we observe in systems with symbolic placeholders can be traced to intelligent sources and I agree. A codon that signifies stop has similar symbolic properties to the English word s-t-o-p but whereas we readily recognize the necessity for an intelligent source for stop most of you choose to believe UAG somehow came to acquire the effect of stopping an amino acid polymerization process through an extra-cellular chemical process. Why? Where do we observe the formation of systems with this kind of symbolism outside of human inventions and biology? The assumption that this (a non-telic process) occurred is strictly a philosophical preference. OTOH, increased knowledge can and will increasingly support an ID version of what occurred. This, for example, puts things into a different perspective:
http://arxiv.org/ftp/cond-mat/...
Comment by Bradford — March 13, 2008 @ 10:45 pm
March 14th, 2008 at 8:53 am
Bradford
Can you explain how this paper supports ID? My impression is that it uses informatin in a very diffferent way to how IDists use the term. If I understand it, then they are saying that in a hot cup of coffee you have more information about where the heat energy is than you do when the cup has cooled and the heat is spread through the room. Using this definition, the amount of information in DNA is independant of what it codes for, or even whether it codes for something at all. This snippet gives a taste:
I am doubtful this view of the second law will have any impact at all on biology; do you see any reason to suppose otherwise?
Comment by The Pixie — March 14, 2008 @ 8:53 am
March 14th, 2008 at 10:16 am
Hi TP,
If I understand you correctly you are not arguing against a designer you are arguing that "Intelligent Design" is not a valid way of answering that question. We, however, have a situation where the "scientists" of the world are not held to this same rigorous standard. In today's culture scientists are free to speculate about naturalistic origins, talk about those speculations and still be respected. On the other hand scientists who speculate about "Intelligent Design" are not allowed to talk about those speculations and still be respected. Are you suggesting that the IDist just shut up and allow those with the culturally accepted speculations speak to the question?
Comment by 0112358 — March 14, 2008 @ 10:16 am
March 14th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
There is no science of Intelligent Design, you're talking about apples and oranges. Science is respected because of its impressive track record of success at extending human knowledge, ID has no such favorable track record. When scientists speculate they do so in the hopes of forming a testable hypothesis to prove or disprove the claim, only if they can form a valid hypothesis do they get that respect you claim they all have.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — March 14, 2008 @ 12:01 pm
March 14th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Comment by Olorin "” I never said that biological systems uniquely differ from human designs. I said that biological systems have certain key differences from human designs, differences which allow organisms to evolve even though human artifacts do not evolve.
You shit on the sheepskins!
I went to college to study evolutionary design, the design of evolutionary processes. One of my inspirations was Fogel, Owens & Walsh's, "Artificial Intelligence Through Simulated Evolution," 1966. That's at least 40 years of evolutionary design science and theory you've remained unaware of, apparently.
Also to make the "No Evidence" argument consistent one should argue that biological systems are completely different from human designs; such that no real comparison can be made. The "analogy" to and from design is always incorrect. There is no comparison. So there are no "key differences." They are different in every way"”therefore "No evidence"!
(Any comparison is either trivial or just plain false.)
There may be no science of Intelligent Design, Todd Berkbile, but there is a science of intelligent design. But it has absolutely no bearing on these discussions.
Comment by Rock — March 14, 2008 @ 1:03 pm
March 14th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
Todd,
Yes, I know that science is respected because of its impressive track record. I was not, however, talking about science. You rightly point out that there is no science of Intelligent Design. There is also no science of Naturalism but that seems to be the only respected framework. Granted, science can only deal with the natural world. That science is restricted to the natural world does not mean that the natural world had a naturalistic origin. It is just as valid to speculate that the world was intelligently designed as it is to speculate that it had a naturalistic origin.
When approaching the question of origins both the IDist and the Naturalist need to realize that they are beyond the scope of science. Both should be allowed to speculate. Both can do science but neither can prove his point.
The real point of divergence between these two groups is where they draw the line. The IDists draw the line at life and say; "There is no way this could have happened by chance." The Naturalists want to keep pushing further into the past and insist that a set of natural laws and processes resulted in life. At some point, regardless of where you draw the line, the question of origins comes down to a designer. The designer is either God or an eternal set of natural laws and processes.
The IDist studies order and design in the universe and speculates that it was designed.
The Naturalist studies order and design in the universe and speculates that it is the result of an eternal set of natural laws and processes.
Can either speculation be answered by science? If not, how are we going to develop a more rational understanding of origins? ID is one, but not the only, method, of doing this. (Granted, ID is attempting to understand at the origin of life while a Naturalist might attempt to understand further into the past). We won't ultimately answer the question, but in my opinion there is one answer that seems more rational.
Comment by 0112358 — March 14, 2008 @ 1:45 pm
March 14th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
What is more flexible? Considering only (a)one set of possibilities, or (b)the full range of possibilities. Unless you can prove that the idea of transcendent designer is a logical impossibility then it remains metaphysically a logically possible option. It seems to me that the atheist cannot be very flexible because he has already committed himself to only one option"”option "a".
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — March 14, 2008 @ 2:06 pm
March 14th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
John
What a great way of spinning the question.
In reality most theists are commited to a very specific possibility. Muslims, for instance, are commited to Islam, and the vast majority would not consider any other possibility. And most of them are Muslims because they were raised as Muslims, not because they made a careful review of "the full range of possibilities", and tentatively decided that the evidence pointed to Islam. Same for Christians; most are commited to Christianity, and it is Christianity because of their culture, rather than any conscious choice of one religion over another (I appreciate exceptions exist, but look in your church and estimate how many of the congregation were not raised in a Christian culture).
It is my contention that the atheist is not commited to atheism to the same degree, perhaps even the same way, that an average Christian is commited to Christianity. A lot of atheists (I have no idea the proprtion) would consider themselves "weak atheists"; their atheism is only tentative (me for one). If sufficient evidence of a god was provided, a weak atheist would become a theist. This leads me to believe that the atheist is indeed more flexible than the theist.
Comment by The Pixie — March 14, 2008 @ 4:01 pm
March 14th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
You're right and I'm not certain that the paper will support ID but it serves a number of purposes. First, I was involved in an exchange with TP who has a well known interest in quantum effects. Second, TP and others have made the charge that my views about what took place at point of origins are based on ignorance. That's amusing from my point of view because I think that is exactly what protects mainstream theories of abiogenesis- vagueness made possible by our poor understanding of the subject matter. As the linked paper indicates we have much more to learn even about basic forces of nature let alone more specific biologically linked processes. I'm not at all apprehensive about future developments. With regard to future research results impacting this debate my attitude is bring it on. I'm as confident, or more so, than critics that greater knowledge will favor my views rather than theirs. Third, I think the paper is interesting. Look at this part:
Maybe some of you are more current about this type of research but I learned a few things.
Going back to my original point, it is not that I think atheists are more or less devoted to their own beliefs that is most significant. Rather atheism commits one to a belief in physical realities and in that sense is more restrictive than theism. For example, abiogenesis must be plausible for an atheist. The belief hinges on a non-telic approach to the origin of life. Theism on the other hand has flexibility. God could have ordered natural laws which in turn gave rise to life through a series of random chemical reactions. Or it could have alternately occurred in any number of different ways. Theists are not boxed in.
Comment by Bradford — March 14, 2008 @ 4:46 pm
March 14th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
What is more practical? Considering (a) only the minimum possibilities required to explain observation, or (b) equally weighing every conceivable possibility. Unless a possibility explains an observation (otw, can be formed into a hypothesis) then it is nothing more than metaphysics and philosophy and while it might be spiritually enlightening to consider that possibility it cannot extend human knowledge. So, for example, it belongs in a church, not a class room.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — March 14, 2008 @ 7:23 pm
March 14th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
You are correct in that nothing Theists believe can ever be disproved. Unfortunately this is exactly why theistic beliefs cannot extend human knowledge, no observation can speak against Theism so it simply becomes a circular game of "think-outside-the-box" to match their theory to any observation. But it is also why a Naturalist has just as much freedom of belief as a theist. The assumption that a Naturalist cannot believe in a higher power is just silly, nothing about Naturalism speaks against religion at all. Any Deist would naturally also be a Naturalist. It comes down to NOMA.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — March 14, 2008 @ 7:38 pm
March 14th, 2008 at 9:31 pm
Hi Bradford,
If you can manage to stay your habit of bashing atheists for a moment, I found something written by Penrose that you might find interesting…
link
Front Loading?
And he doesn't stop there. While it is somewhat difficult to follow Penrose seems to continue by arguing that life happening by random chance would have required a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics…
(emphasis Penrose's)
I am reading this as Penrose arguing against a "purely anthropic point of view", because he continues…
Bradford, I presume you are smiling about now.
It sure looks like a physicist who was knighted for his extraordinary accomplishments (include correctly predicting the existence of black holes) is saying essentially the same thing you have been concerning life and the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
However, I will be curious to see your reaction to the rest of this paper. You see in 2005 Penrose introduced the "outrageous" proposal of a "conformal cyclic cosmology" (i.e. a pulsating universe with the Big Bang being just the start of one cycle). One of the scientific observations he is using in support of his hypothesis is the existence of the Second Law.
(emphasis Penrose's)
Note, reference "4" is this presentation.
Like I said, I will be interested to see your (and other's) reaction to this.
Comment by Thought Provoker — March 14, 2008 @ 9:31 pm
March 14th, 2008 at 11:19 pm
Comment by Mung — March 14, 2008 @ 11:19 pm
March 14th, 2008 at 11:33 pm
Todd:
I don't go to church, Todd. So where am I to find exploration of what I perceive to be true about life and death on planet earth? I look to science for it. They keep telling me I'm a moron or an idiot, how dare I ask. That doesn't make the questions go away, though. It just makes me leery of scientists, distrustful of whether they'll tell me the truth, and if there's a truth out there for them to tell.
Are you telling me to "shut up, don't ask" ?
Comment by Joy — March 14, 2008 @ 11:33 pm
March 14th, 2008 at 11:38 pm
The Oxford Dictionary defines naturalism as follows: a theory of the world that excludes the supernatural or spiritual.
What is your definition of Naturalism?
Comment by 0112358 — March 14, 2008 @ 11:38 pm
March 15th, 2008 at 12:57 am
If you are asking scientists questions about Ultimate Meaning then they should rightfully tell you to go away as such questions are meaningless in science. Such questions can only be answered by Philosophy or Theology. Church was explicitly given as a single example, if you don't like church and wish to discuss such questions then try philosophy forums on the Internet, like Telic Thoughts, for example.
The American Heritage dictionary offers these two definitions, one as philosophy and the other as theology:
Philosophy The system of thought holding that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws.Theology The doctrine that all religious truths are derived from nature and natural causes and not from revelation.
The first version actually means the same thing as your version but is more precise and offers the correct connotation.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — March 15, 2008 @ 12:57 am
March 15th, 2008 at 9:02 am
Pixie,
You missed my point completely. I must not have written it clearly enough.
I was addressing the misconception that one critical experiment immediately and by itself turns science upside down. M-M was taught to me in school as an example of how that happens. But it didn't do that. It set a series of discussions in motion. Some scientists proposed adjustments in the ether theory to help it fit the data. It was some time before ether as regarded as having been disproved. It took more than one critical experiment to accomplish that; it also took several years of work, and a brilliant insight be Einstein on the speed of light, before ether was set aside.
So if that one actual experiment didn't disprove a theory, I don't think your thought experiment does either. In an absolute, black-and-white sense it might. You're right that if one evolutionary route can be imagined then Behe is technically wrong in regard to the statement you quoted. But read Behe a bit more and you'll note that he speaks probabilistically, not in black-white terms. He says if effect that even if evolutionary pathways can be imagined, they are fantastically improbable. Your thought experiment alone cannot prove him wrong, because it doesn't accurately assess the probabilities of the thing actually happening.
Comment by TomG — March 15, 2008 @ 9:02 am
March 15th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Todd:
No, Todd. My questions have nothing to do with 'Ultimate Meaning', which I can figure out for myself, thanks. I am asking about the nature of life and evolution in these universal environs, and why science ignores so much evidence of design – some of it glaringly present in anomalies they reject with emotional commitments betraying serious philosophical flaws in their reasoning faculties.
I see that you are posting to the Telic Thoughts "philosophy forum" insisting that you represent Almighty Science to tell peons like me to stop asking questions that make you philosophically uncomfortable. Thus it would appear that I am in the right place to examine issues concerning the questions I have about the nature of life and evolution in these universal environs. You, apparently, are in the wrong place to dismiss such questions or attempt to quash discussion of them.
Comment by Joy — March 15, 2008 @ 12:30 pm
March 15th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
Pixie wrote:
How interesting you start by accusing me of spinning then you make an argument based on no interviews, no opinion polls or any other kind of empirical research; in other words, an opinion based only on your own personal beliefs and biases. That, if anything, sounds like spin to me .
Todd wrote:
Certain questions that are currently of interest to science like: the origin of the universe, the origin of life, the origin of mind and consciousness presently have no conceivable naturalisitic explanation. IOW we have no clue how these things came to be by the brute physical forces of nature. In such cases, IMO, I'm certainly within my epistemic rights to consider other possibilities.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — March 15, 2008 @ 2:46 pm
March 15th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
What the "scientific voices of reason" have not yet realized is that, though we are not dealing on a strictly scientific level in this forum, we have found an approach to these questions that in the end will actually save science from itself. When science tries to deal with origins under a naturalistic framework it becomes irrational. I say let the true voices of reason continue to speak on Telic Thoughts!!
Comment by 0112358 — March 15, 2008 @ 3:40 pm
March 15th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
0112358:
The metaphysical corruption of science is concentrated in the fields of evolutionary biology (and outliers such as humanities being subsumed by evo-psych's sociobiology regurgitation). It will inevitably fall to the ridiculous notion that it can impose its metaphysics by force or authority as if it were science. But I don't see legitimate science doing anything to stop it, so I must presume they don't care. Que sera, sera.
Comment by Joy — March 15, 2008 @ 5:04 pm
March 15th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
TomG
It will take a lot to overturn mainstream science, sure. I think that is because to become mainstream science it must already have a lot of support. The concept of the ether (I assume) made a lot of sense given the state of physics at that time. The IC concept is not mainstream science, is not well supported. Any new hypothesis will be fragile to refuting by minimal experiments.
Does Behe do the calculations? How did he assess the probability of a cooption route for the bacterial flagellum? The only calculation I am aware of (Dembski in No Free Lunch I think) assumes the components all assemble in a single step, ignoring the evolutionary process altogether! How does that probability compare to the probability of an ID scenario (I have never read Behe, I admit, but I feel confident he has never estimated the probability of any ID scenarios)?
John
You consider stating an opinion to be spin? I think it is spin when you set up a question specifically to engineeer the answer you want (front-loading in action?). Saying "I have no idea the proprtion" is honestly stating how familiar I am with the subject, making it quite clear that it is opinion (if failing on the spelling front).
Here is an opinion based only on my own personal beliefs and biases: Most Christians are commited to Christianity. Do you want to dispute that opinion? I did not support it with any opinion polls because I thought it was pretty obvious. Another one: Most theists adopt the predominant religion of their locality, in particular of their family. Want to dispute that? If you can point to where you disagree with my opinion based only on my own personal beliefs and biases we can have a discussion.
Comment by The Pixie — March 15, 2008 @ 8:00 pm
March 17th, 2008 at 11:44 am
I was unaware that a careful examinaiton of definitions and attempts to apply them uniformly constituted "tactics". The nature of the discussions here indicates otherwise to me. If such discussions are unwlecome here, you may want to tell the the person who came to my blog, posted as "iron mike tyson", and invited me here.
Of course, sometimes the claims are to unintended consequences, not exaggerations. Still, when the sords themselves are ill-defined, it can be hard to avoid exaggerating claims, because you're certain what people really mean.
Comment by One Brow — March 17, 2008 @ 11:44 am
March 17th, 2008 at 11:46 am
Behe accepts common descent. He does not, according to his popular works, accept that evolutionary processes are responsible for all the features of common descent, rather he argues against it. So, I am confident my statement would not be surprising to him, rather I think he would agree.
Comment by One Brow — March 17, 2008 @ 11:46 am
March 17th, 2008 at 11:54 am
I am not aware that "anti-evolution" has any emotive component? It certainly has none for me. What is *your* emotive component to "anti-evolution"
In any case, IC is an argument that "evoution can't do X", when mainstream evolutionary theory says that "evolution did X". So, it certainly does not seem that IC is evolution-neutral or pro-evolution? What's your preferred adjective on the disposiiton of IC toward evolution?
That is an appeal to a false dichotomy. There are alternatives besides foresight and variation/overpopulation/selection.
I am not aware of any emotional reactions being expressed.
Yes. If it is possible, it's not impossible. So, if it is possible, IC is wrong about it being impossible.
Comment by One Brow — March 17, 2008 @ 11:54 am
March 17th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Pixie wrote:
How do you measure commitment, Pixie? Is church attendance a measure of commitment? If it is then the following polling done by Gallup indicate the commitment among Christians is on the decline:
RNS Christian Century, Jan 13, 2004
This poll then from a reputable source seems to contradict your claim: "Most Christians are commited to Christianity." On the contrary most people who call themselves Christian are only nominal in their beliefs.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — March 17, 2008 @ 12:42 pm
March 17th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
And therein lies the problem. In one sense yes, in another sense no. How can we hope to use he IC concept if we have examples of things that are IC "in a sense".
You asked something like: Take the heart out of a duck and it dies "so"/therefore the duck is irreducibly complex? I wouldn't say that the natural category that we call "duck" as the result of our use of language is irreducible, rather the language by which we and the duck operate is in some sense irreducible. You have to have sense to make sense, don't you know?
So is the heart part of the IC core or not? Or is it merely "in a sense" IC?
The heart is part of a whole which is the core of the matter. At any rate, irreducible complexity can be tested empirically at present and falsified or verified based on function. How can imaginary notions about the way a heart evolves from some other organ be tested at present?
Really? So Behe has done experimental studies, gathering empirical evidence for ICness that relates to fitness and function?
It's generally not necessary to go about removing the heart from a duck to verify that it relates to fitness and function but yes, irreducible complexity is open to experimental study. Now again, how have all the ignorant and stupid ideas on the imaginary powers of natural selection to guide a trajectory of adaptation been tested? Is Darwinian reasoning really open to empirical verification in the same sense that say, Newtonian reasoning is? After all, charlatans have made the comparison as if the two are equivalent.
Perhaps you could state (or link to) exactly what that empirical observation is, and we can explore where it logically takes us.
You mentioned that things seem capable of "evolving"/unfolding from embryos. In fact, given this we can observe millions of organisms unfolding and evolving in form right before our eyes instead of imagining things based on charlatanism, equating vague storytelling with basic facts like the earth revolving around the sun, pretending that there is an inevitable progress to knowledge/"science" which will naturally come to fill all gaps and therefore it's fine treat the imagination itself is evidence, etc.
You can put all that aside when it comes to an unfolding of events that can be observed:
(The Hidden Face of God: Science
Reveals the Ultimate Truth
By Gerald L. Schroeder :77-78)
It seems to me that at the root of much of this is language.
If I neglect the empirical evidence perhaps it is because people like you are so reluctant to provide it when asked. One might almost imagine that there is none.
You can imagine whatever you like as long as you don't try to treat your own imagination as the epistemic equivalent of objective observation, verification and falsification.
I see you were also unable to explain the logic that allows the IC concept to falsify evolution, despite my request.
IC doesn't falsify "evolution" or any other form of hypothetical goo that those with the urge to merge might imagine. It falsifies the ignorant and stupid notion that highly specified forms of complexity that fit function can come about "blindly," without the symbols and signs typical to design.
More damning, you also failed to provide a definition of what you mean by IC.
What I mean….well, it seems to me that IC is a highly specified form of complexity which can generally be empirically observed by intelligence based on fitness and function to logically lead to intelligent agency, in theory. What do you mean by "evolution" and how has the Darwinian reasoning which you've already mentioned (natural selection filtering variation, etc.) been tested? How is it open to being tested? Can reasoning that is ultimately unintelligible be tested based on fitness and function? What trajectory of adaptation has been predicted based on the theory of natural selection?
This is how science works. You observe something, then imagine why it might be like that, use that hypothess to generate predictions and test the predictions.
Very well, what trajectory of adaptation has been predicted using the theory of natural selection and verified or falsified based on a trajectory of adaptation observed in a group of organisms?
Einstein did just that when devising relativity; he imagined what the universe might be like if the speed of light was constant.
So what empirical evidence is there for what you imagine of natural selection?
Is that really IC, or merely IC "in a sense"
You will pardon me if I am not convinced.
Of course I will, after all it's likely just natural selection operating on ancient worms which governs your words and the brain events which happen to cause them. To answer your question, in a sense a duck is generally about as IC as language itself. Some forms of language are more reducible than others.
There was me thinking modern evolutionary theory is based on variation, selection and inheritance.
Or were you imagining it? Many things might be imagined about variation, selection and inheritance. Feel free to imagine things, the only thing I would point out is the difference between imagining things and empirical evidence. Those with the Darwinian urge to merge have long blurred epistemic distinctions together, over a century of examples could be cited having to do with blurring Newtonian reasoning and Darwinian "reasoning"/imagining alone, yet such distinctions remain.
I am not sure how methodological naturalism (MN) came about, but it is still with us because of its great successes. You may not like it, but since science adopted MN, it has made a huge amount of progress.
Science as a methodology which makes use of empirical facts, logic and rationality probably has more to do with the Reformation than with naturalism. Have you read actual history or are you merely citing your own imagination about past progress and so on, as is typical to those taken in by Darwinian "reasoning" If all you're doing is imagining things instead of dealing with empirical or historical facts then my answer to the notion that science and progress derive from philosophical or methodological naturalism is only this: I'd imagine not.
I am confused. Do you object to theological arguments or not?
I would only object to the hypocrisy of those who engage in negative theology: "God wouldn't make a thumb like this, therefore natural selection did." while excluding positive theology: "God would make a thumb like this."
Scientists do not invoke natural selection merely for theological reasons, but for good scientific reasons too.
It seems to me that if you never allow any contradictory reasoning as a "rule" then you cannot also claim to have defeated it, not to mention the hypocrisy of those engaging in what you forbid and "separate" when it suits them. The pattern of "separation" seems to be this, if you have an argument then allow it but if you don't then forbid it.
You seem to gloss over a particularly important point there. It is religion that encourages man to settle into thousands of years of "pseudo-knowledge" (how much have Christianity, Islam or Hinduism changed in the last thousand years).
If they did change, then wouldn't you cite that in arguing against their veracity? Perhaps there is much that is good and venerable in many religions, so why would it need to change?
Science, on the other hand, has a track record of accepting change.
Apparently you imagine that all change leads to progress and don't bother with historical or empirical evidence demonstrating that it actually does. Given Darwinian "reasoning" it is often enough to point out that change takes place, therefore progress can be imagined. Note that religion has had to do with what any reasonable person would call progress. Notice the name of many hospitals? That's because history shows that they generally emerged based more on a pattern of Christian hospitality seeking to comfort the "unfit" than a Nature based paganism in which survival of the fittest is more the rule. And so on. Or take technology, those who tend to engineer it are engineers acquainted with the concept of design who know that intelligence be encoded in things for them to fit a specified purpose. Engineers cannot rely on simply imagining things about the past based on Darwinian reasoning yet as Darwinists have pointed out as if it's a matter of prejudice engineers tend towards ID and creationism.
Apparently you need to stop imagining progress and begin observing it. Are we making progress yet?
….while science is fundamentally flawed as it is based on MN, and has settled on the MN pseudo-knowledge.
I don't agree with you that scientia/knowledge has been or is based on MN. I will agree only in your case, in which case I'd imagine that the illusion of symbols and signs of your own design has to do with natural selection operating on the reproductive organs of ancient ape-like creatures. After all, what do you make of your own words and where can their origin be traced to?
In contrast to you, I think I'll let words do my talking for me.
What is the logic that leads you from IC to falsifying evolution?
I already said that IC doesn't falsify an undefined term like "evolution." You demand definition based on language that you don't even ultimately believe in, yet your own terms are little more than hypothetical goo.
Comment by mynym — March 17, 2008 @ 4:30 pm
March 17th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
Mynym has a recurring theme; evolution has no predictive power (and it's not even mathematical!).
I didn't say that Darwinian reasoning couldn't be encoded in the language of mathematics, only that for what it is imagined to explain it would have vast predictive powers which it doesn't seem to have. If it is truly knowledge of a fundamental force of Nature then a trajectory of adaptation could always be predicted based on it "just like gravity," not guessed at or surmised after the fact.
These equations have been used to predict, for instance, the failure of a government program to save endangered salmon by breeding them in captivity.
If a pattern of adaptation was predicted and verified what type of implication does it have for past events and progress towards higher/complex forms of life?
However, most of its usefulness lies in using it to find past "trajector[ies] of adaptation" that you say it does not do.
I didn't say that a knowledge of natural selection could not be encoded in the language of mathematics, especially when it comes to what is already known about past events. Sometimes it seems that biologists believe that physicists sit around after an object has come to rest and imagine that they had knowledge of what governed its trajectory before events were set in motion. Although many seem to imagine that the theory of natural selection is the equivalent of the theory of gravity, it doesn't seem to predict much. What can typically be observed of it, a process of filtration and culling and so on, doesn't seem to match the creative powers and progress imagined based on it.
Evolutionary genetics has made great strides in tracing the migration of early humans from Africa to the rest of the world"”and, more practically, tracing the evolution of HIV from simian SIV precursors, in order to develop better treatments. Evolutionary principles underlie….
Proponents of evolution claim to know the origins of all forms of life yet when it comes to empirical evidence they seem to deal with a change in form between very similar forms, sometimes so similar that they're not even a different species. Yet because the reasoning is….exactly the same as that used to show the evolutionary relationships of mice and bats, whales and hippopotamuses, and, yes, annelid worms and humans. progress can be imagined. (This is all assuming that organisms are incapable of intelligent selections made against what natural selection would predict. Yet why should one assume that?)
What can be observed is lines of descent among humans based on a process of fairly limited variation and culling, yet what is imagined is that worms and humans have a common ancestor. Despite focusing on natural selection the creative force which generates the variation said to explain progress as we know it has not been observed to generate much. Given that so many with an urge to merge worm form with human form have argued that the theory of natural selection is the equivalent of the the theory of gravity and that's clearly not the case, maybe it's also not "exactly the same" to extend knowledge of small variations indefinitely as the only explanation for the origin of all specification and complexity.
Darwin's theory has three parts, not just one: heritable variation, overfecundity, and natural selection.
Are organisms capable of intelligent selection? Does Darwin's theory apply to man? If it does then why doesn't man tend to reproduce towards the limit of the food supply? What of celibate priests, abortion and so on? If Darwinian theory does not apply to man now, when did man escape natural selection? Somehow you've gone from explaining lines of descent within humanity to claiming to know the origins of humanity itself as if it's "exactly the same" and the same principles are elastic enough to explain it all. Once again it seems that given Darwinian reasoning if any variation can be pointed to then vast amounts of creative progression in variation can be imagined for natural selection to filter.
Sometimes it seems that those who engage in Darwinian reasoning often imagine that they need very little actual empirical or historical evidence with respect to things like heritable variation, overfecundity, and natural selection:
(Darwinian Fairytales: Selfish Genes, Errors of Heredity, and Other Fables of Evolution
by David Stove :7-9)
Comment by mynym — March 17, 2008 @ 6:24 pm
March 17th, 2008 at 9:39 pm
You have a very colloquial view of gravity. Complex gravitational systems are not always so easy to predict. The trajectory of many asteroids can only be predicted with large margins of error. Others, such as the billions of objects in the Oort cloud, can only be modeled statistically. Even the generalized three-body system can only be predicted in the 'near term'.
The relationship between natural selection and its effects on populations can be directly observed and measured.
There is no reasonable scientific controversy concerning the common descent of humans and other bilateria, including segmented worms.
Sexual selection, sometimes including elaborate courtship rituals.
Of course. (Until the advent of artificial evolution.)
They do. However, when an organism is provided sufficient resources, then rapid reproduction is the norm.
What about worker ants?
Quite the contrary, humans have been subject to rapid evolution over the last several thousand years, mostly due to new diets and diseases from cultural adaptations (farming, cities).
Comment by Zachriel — March 17, 2008 @ 9:39 pm
March 17th, 2008 at 10:11 pm
Hi Bradford,
Earlier in this thread Todd asked you:
"If intelligence created us then its the origin of that intelligence that is interesting. Where does ID stop the regression? Some magical deity?"
The issue of infinite regress comes up all the time in ID debates. I would appreciate hearing in more detail how you respond to this.
Thanks,
Jack
Comment by Jack — March 17, 2008 @ 10:11 pm
March 17th, 2008 at 10:23 pm
Reality is "magical" at some level, utterly beyond reason. Whatever is "there" may as well be intelligent as unintelligent. Are you biased in favor of the unintelligent? If so, why?
Comment by kornbelt888 — March 17, 2008 @ 10:23 pm
March 17th, 2008 at 10:40 pm
I'd agree with kornbelt888, to a point. Or at least recognize that one answer can be that a big-d Designer may well be a brute fact of existence, and fundamental. Magical deity or magical chance – or better yet, MWI, the ultimate magician nowadays.
That said, these questions can get ridiculously complicated – and I think many of the scenarios that are typically rallied to argue against the need for a Designer (an infinite past, or MWI) can make the possibility of design all the stronger on their own. After all, the typical response to questions of cosmological fine tuning is to increase the opportunities for extremely low odds to come into play. Too bad you can't do that without increasing the opportunities for other strange situations of design too.
Comment by nullasalus — March 17, 2008 @ 10:40 pm
March 17th, 2008 at 11:46 pm
Hi Nullasalus,
I liked the comment you put up at Uncommon Descent.
I didn't notice who the author was at first. The comment caught my attention. I smiled when I saw it was you.
Picking at a minor nit on your comment here, at Telic Thoughts….
The Many World Interpretation (MWI) is the metaphysical rationalization for holding on to materialistic view of Quantum Mechanics. MULTIVERSE is the metaphysical rationalization and magical explanation for why our universe is so lucky.
By the way, did you see Penrose's recent hypothesis about how he sees increasing entropy and evaporating Black Holes as pointing to a cyclical universe where the end of the universe causes the Big Bang?
He calls it his "outrageous" Conformal Cyclic Cosmology
In the paper, Penrose references a lecture where he introduced the concept. Here is that lecture.
Comment by Thought Provoker — March 17, 2008 @ 11:46 pm
March 18th, 2008 at 5:30 am
Mynym
It would be nice if that paragraph made sense. I think we all know what a duck is. I think we all know a duck will die if you remove the heart. The two questions here are: How is IC defined? Is a duck therefore IC? So far I see no definite answer to either. But let us see how your post progresses, perhaps you will answer these basic questions soon…
So is it IC or not? Why is it so difficult for you to answer this simple question with a yes or no answer? Why do you feel the need to be so elusive?
How can we test it if we do not know what it is? Yes, we can remove the heart from a duck, and see if it still functions as a duck. But you are unable to decide if that would make it IC. Can you not see that that is a problem?
Ooh, you are so close to saying the duck is IC, but cannot quite do it, can you?
So has Behe done this experimental study on the systems that he talks about? What experimental work has he done on the immune system or the bacterial flagellum?
Why do you find it necessary to throw around insults to make your point?
Perhaps we should review who is claiming what. I am claiming that the claims of IC fail if a feasible evolutionary route is imagined. So far you have been unable to define IC, or to explain the logic that leads you from IC to refuting evlution, so I admit I have hit a brick wall.
You, in your previous post, accused me; "Look at yourself for example, you neglect empirical observation…", and so I asked what that empirical observation is. I know I am not claiming those two things are equivalent, so I am not the charlatan. Are you?
Ah, so it is your belief that we should discard any historical knowledge. If we cannot observed it today, then we cannot know it happened, right? Throw out the legal system then, it is not like you can see the murder "right before our eyes", is it? Throw out those sacred texts; unless you can see Jesus' resuurection "right before our eyes", it is just "vague storytelling". World War 2? We cannot see it "right before our eyes", so just more "vague storytelling". Personally, I think that is nonsense.
Then explain the logic that gets you from IC to falsifying "the ignorant and stupid notion that highly specified forms of complexity that fit function can come about "blindly," without the symbols and signs typical to design".
Given the way your posts are so studiously avoid answering questions, I feel it is a safe bet you never will, but the challenge is there on the table for you.
This definition thing is so tricky, isn't it? I mean, you are not really offering that as a definition are you, given that it misses altogether the bit about parts.
You are talking about quite different things here. Yes, the Reformation was arguable the start of science (as it released man's thinking from the shackles of religion). Naturalism was a methodology that scientists then developed.
What happened to if it did not happen "right before our eyes", then it is just "vague storytelling" Oh, wait, I see. If it did not happen "right before our eyes" and you do not like the implications, then it is just "vague storytelling", otherwise, it is historical fact.
So you feel "Look at how wonderful the eye is, surely it proclaims God's handwork" is reasonable, but "Look at how shoddy the panda's thumb is, surely it denies God's handwork" is objectionable. Perhaps that is because your faith leads to accept the former and reject the later? Or maybe you thinkl atheists should just be banned from discussing theology?
I agree entirely. Which is why I find it so odd that you compain about atheists discussing theology. How is that different?
Of course I would. But it was not me who said "Given the history of knowledge I'd say that man is perfectly capable of settling into pseudo-knowledge for thousands of years with no progress."
So why did you say: "Given the history of knowledge I'd say that man is perfectly capable of settling into pseudo-knowledge for thousands of years with no progress." Can you see the inconsistency of your position?
Where did I say that?
I have no idea what you imagine the relevance of that is.
Oh? Can you point to any science that has invoked a supernatural entity in its explananation? I know, for example, that Newton was inspired by his beliefs in God, but none of his scientific claims involve any supernatural entities.
What a wonderful cop-out to end on, Mynym. In fact, you spent a lot of your post avoiding saying exactly what IC is, why is that? How can you imagine you are at all convincing if you cannot define this fundamental property?
Of course, in your world, I am one of God's creations, designed in his own image, so if you can just bend your mind around that idea, perhaps you could try to explain it within that framework. Or find some other cop-out, if you are worried the logic will be torn apart. The choice is yours.
Comment by The Pixie — March 18, 2008 @ 5:30 am
March 18th, 2008 at 10:51 am
TP,
Ha.
Between the problems of string theory, Hawking flexiverse, and other oddness I've read about, I don't follow cosmological developments with baited breath. Even cyclic models are kind of funny, since "cyclic" doesn't necessarily translate to "eternal". And a cyclic universe with a fine-tuned origin strikes me as, at least in discussions like this, downright funny.
There's another problem-in-principle I have with the topic of universe origin/ends: It does not, and cannot, account for intelligent manipulation of the situation. And this problem remains even if you place the concept of theism aside; the question of what (if any) limit there is to an evolved/developed intelligence and purposeful manipulation in any given model is tremendous.
So as for what I think of Penrose's views – interesting, but a dead end in these discussions. If his model is cyclic but not past-eternal, we're back to having initial conditions, and those uncomfortable questions we have with the "big bang as the start of everything" view remain. If the model is cyclic and past-eternal, then the question of the potentialities and models of intelligence are more important than ever before. Though I'd agree with Penrose's general Platonic approach to math and ideas.
Comment by nullasalus — March 18, 2008 @ 10:51 am
March 18th, 2008 at 11:44 am
That reminded me we were discussing "scale-free" network designs in another topic recently. Because scale-free models so closely resemble real world computer networks, the models are tested and optimized for efficiency and reliability, fault tolerance and immunity to attack.
On the basis of simulations it is found that deleting a single node (link) at random may break the network in two. Is the network "irreducibly complex"
In this case (the models) we know exactly how the network grows (evolves, develops, is designed).
Biologists certainly understand the same basic principle from genetic "knock-out" experiments. Genomes are also "scale-free" networks.
And speaking of computing networks, every life form is irreducibly complex in the sense of being computationally irreducible. If biologists could compute (predict) the map G p then the complexity would be reduced.
Comment by Rock — March 18, 2008 @ 11:44 am
March 18th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Interesting question, Jack (Bradford), if you'll allow:
Formally, the question of whether the universe is infinite or finite is whether it is an unbounded or bounded metric space. An infinite universe (unbounded metric space) means that there are points arbitrarily far apart"¦ [Only in design can any point be said to be arbitrarily or infinitely removed from any other point. This is forbidden on conventional theories of evolution. I will show from protein design (evolution) theory and results.]
A finite universe is a bounded metric space, where there is some distance d such that all points are within distance d of each other. The smallest such d is called the diameter of the universe, and the universe will have a definable "volume" or "scale""¦ A compact space is a stronger condition: in the context of Riemannian manifolds, it is equivalent to bounded and geodesically complete"¦ If the spatial geometry is spherical, the topology is compact. For a flat or a hyperbolic spatial geometry, the topology can be either compact or infinite: for example, Euclidean space is flat and infinite"¦ Compact geometries can be visualized by means of closed geodesics: on a sphere, a straight line, when extended far enough in the same direction, will reach the starting point.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
Highlighting that the geodesics always "reach the strating point," closing the infinite circle!
Sounds mystical, doesn't it?
Comment by Rock — March 18, 2008 @ 2:19 pm
March 18th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
No, not at all.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — March 18, 2008 @ 3:24 pm
March 18th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
What a sciency response Todd! After all Rock, who has forgotten more science data than the average Joe ever learns, did not say it was mystical, only that it sounds mystical or if you prefer counterintuitive like some of the space/time concepts associated with Relativity. Why not just chide Rock for misusage of the word mystical. Rock needs to be sensitized to the requirement that words like mystical and magic are to be used as terms of ridicule when an ID target is handy. Don't run for public office Rock. You need a better handle on speaking PC.
Comment by Bradford — March 18, 2008 @ 4:56 pm
March 18th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
So when asked for an opinion I'm supposed to give a "sciency response" instead of simply stating my opinion? Or perhaps because I support the methods and results generated by science I'm not allowed to have opinions? I'm not trying to deny that Rock thinks it sounds mystical, but opinions are opinions and not points of debate. My opinion, as stated, is that this in no way sounds mystical.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — March 18, 2008 @ 5:43 pm
March 18th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
Absolutely. Well-known examples include the discovery of the naked mole rat and Tiktallik rosae.
Of course, part of the problem is finding a unique solution. Even in simple mathematics, you can get multiple answers. For example, the intersection of two parabolas in a plane can be anywhere from 0-4 points. The interactions of evolutionary mechanisms happen a much more complex space with many more equations. Sometimes exact answers are not to be had.
Comment by One Brow — March 18, 2008 @ 6:17 pm
March 18th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
First 'Rule' of Evolution Suggests Life is Destined to Become More Complex
Gotta love the "some mechanism" hypothesis for directional evolution from mainstream science. Sort of makes one wonder why so many who pretend to speak for mainstream science are so adamantly opposed to anyone seeking "some mechanism" for directional evolution.
Comment by Joy — March 18, 2008 @ 6:22 pm
March 19th, 2008 at 3:03 am
Hi Bradford,
Any thoughts on infinite regress?
Regards,
Jack
Comment by Jack — March 19, 2008 @ 3:03 am
March 19th, 2008 at 7:17 am
Hi Jack,
Infinite regress is a causality conundrum. If everything that exists has a causal history connected to it then our ability to reconstruct events becomes problematic at some point in the causal chain. There are two basic approaches to the problem. One entails posing an actual infinite chain about which finite minds like ours are incapable of fully comprehending. The other is to insert an assumption of eternity into an analysis and claim that some causal factor simply always existed without need of a prior generating cause.
The amusing part of debates, around which ID is a focal point, is the belief by some critics that infinite regress is a problem only for theists. Who then created God is the old refrain. Lurking behind the question is the unspoken assumption that if God is discredited so too is the concept of teleology.
Of course with or without God in the analytical mix the problem of infinite regress persists and a faith based approach is inevitable for any party dealing with it. However, atheists in particular are loathe to acknowledge the true nature of the riddle. We must make an unprovable assumption around which our metaphysics is based. There is no way around this. There is likewise no means of a decisive empirical resolution of the infinite regress issue.
Comment by Bradford — March 19, 2008 @ 7:17 am
March 19th, 2008 at 10:37 am
Am I required to love it as much as the overlooking of statements like:
So, we see a beginning hypothesis on the mechanism already.
I don't know of anyone who opposes a search for a mechanism. It's the notion of a mechanism-free directional approach to which people object.
Comment by One Brow — March 19, 2008 @ 10:37 am
March 19th, 2008 at 10:38 am
Well said, except for the "atheists in particular".
Comment by One Brow — March 19, 2008 @ 10:38 am
March 19th, 2008 at 11:08 am
One Brow:
Since when is "competition" a mechanism of anything on the causality end of biological evolution? How does that work? If it were a 50-yard dash, how does crossing the finish line first cause mutations in genes? How does it cause a change in gene expression? How does it get from the parent to the as-yet unused egg, or into all those gazillions of wasteful sperm?
If 'mainstream science' is going to start appealing to Lamarckism at this point in the game I guess we can all go home. If it's simply a matter of the one who wins the race gets all the girls, that doesn't cause any mutations or expression changes in future generations either.
Honestly, I sometimes get the feeling in these debates that the DDs tend to forget that individual life forms DO NOT EVOLVE, and that individual developments (like being really fast to the finish line) are not supposed to be heritable. Are you leaning towards inheritance of acquired traits now?
Remember, the topic is causation, not selection. A mechanism, not a result.
Comment by Joy — March 19, 2008 @ 11:08 am
March 19th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
You seem to be indicating that only variation is a mechanism. This is not how biologists use the term. Increased competition acts to increase the selection pressures, and selection is also a mechanism.
Also, I think we both know the competition being described has very little resemblance ot a 50-yard dash.
Aren't endoretroviral insertions a Lamarckian process? Theeir are even bacteria that increase their mutation rate in response to stress, another Lamarckian process. They're just not a telic processes.
That depends on why they win the race.
I don't recall saying anything that remotely implied that.
Going with the metaphor, you don't think there is any genetic component in being the fastest runner? That recombination, happening only among breeding between fast runners, doesn't have an increased chance of producing novel combinations of even faster runners?
Selection is a mechanism.
Comment by One Brow — March 19, 2008 @ 2:00 pm
March 19th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
I agree almost completely with everything Bradford said in that post. All I would add is that acknowledgement that at some point the infinite regress must be broken by a matter of faith does not imply that all answers to the infinite regress problem are effectively equivalent. What most scientists (or "atheists" as you seem to label them all) are looking for is a reductionist answer by which only the smallest and simplest set of initial assumptions is required. Some singular highly special state from which some small set of laws could generate all that we see.
The desire to find such a reductionist solution and the belief that such a solution is the "right answer" do come down to faith, faith that the structured nature of the universe that we observe all around us somehow still applies to the birth the the universe itself even though we have no direct evidence to support that. The need for a highly special initial state doesn't in itself justify an anthropomorphic solution to the regression or suggest that the normal methods of science are completely inapplicable. Scientists have little choice but to continue using their normal methods in attempting to speculate about this infinite regression/initial condition problem. In effect they are looking for the simplest highly special initial state (yes I'm aware of the inherent contradiction in that statement).
PS: For the record, I do not think that a scientist pondering the initial state of the universe is actually doing "science." Unless they can form a testable and falsifiable hypothesis then they are doing philosophy.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — March 19, 2008 @ 2:20 pm
March 19th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
One Brow:
Then biologists have perverted the meaning of the term…
Mechanism, noun
1. an assembly of moving parts performing a complete functional motion, often being part of a large machine; linkage.
2. the agency or means by which an effect is produced or a purpose is accomplished.
3. machinery or mechanical appliances in general.
4. the structure or arrangement of parts of a machine or similar device, or of anything analogous.
5. the mechanical part of something; any mechanical device: the mechanism of a clock.
6. routine methods or procedures; mechanics: the mechanism of government.
7. mechanical execution, as in painting or music; technique.
8. the theory that everything in the universe is produced by matter in motion; materialism.
9. Philosophy a. the view that all natural processes are exlicable in terms of Newtonian mechanics. b. the view that all biological processes may be described in physiochemical terms.
10. Psychoanalysis the habitual operation and interaction of psychological forces within an individual that assist in interpreting or dealing with the physical or psychological environment.
Now, you may appeal to definition #2, but since that definition requires both agency and purpose, it would come out sounding telic, wouldn't it? Perhaps you'd go with definition #8, but then you'd only be describing your metaphysical beliefs. Perhaps #9 a. or b. might work, but then you'd still have to explain the mechanics of the mechanism.
Selection explains after-the-fact why we see X instead of Y. In other words, if we presume the fastest runner gets the girls, we can further presume that whatever makes him the fastest runner gets passed to his offspring – and further than he'll have more offspring than slow runners, eventually making the entire species faster some dozens of generations after he's dead.
Unfortunately, if we do not know whether he's a fast runner because he has a "fast gene" or because he's practiced a lot and developed superior muscles, we still have no particular reason to make any distinction at all between Lamarckism or Neodarwinism. Other than the fact that Neodarwinism claims to completely refute Lamarckian inheritance.
No, last I checked endoviral insertions are a fully NDS mechanism, a form of HGT. And nobody cares about the mutation rates of bacteria here, since the subject of the article I linked isn't bacteria – it's crustaceans. And FYI, a "process" is not a "mechanism." Note the word "process" appears nowhere in the definitions.
All that matters to evolution is how many offspring any individual life form produces, and how many of them produce offspring (and so on and so forth). Which is as random a factor as "random mutation" per the NDS paradigm. Entirely fit offspring get eaten, have rocks fall on them, catch some disease and die, etc., just as pitifully inept offspring occasionally get a fertile mate and out-produce all their siblings.
There are many mechanisms of selection, but selection itself is NOT a mechanism. It is a standard NDS Anazi Tale to explain what we see, long after all the mechanisms have done their work. Selection – as a process – can only act upon that which already exists. What does not exist cannot be selected, and what exists to be selected need not be genetically any different from what came before. If what is selected IS genetically different from what came before, there is no reason it should be more complex than what came before, since it could as easily be less complex.
The article is about directional evolution – from less complex to more complex. Selection is not a mechanism for this, since the more complex must already exist in order to compete with the less complex. Luck of the draw does not favor either one.
This honestly isn't difficult to understand.
Comment by Joy — March 19, 2008 @ 3:43 pm
March 19th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
Merriam-Webster
mechanism, the fundamental processes involved in or responsible for an action, reaction, or other natural phenomenon.
Comment by Zachriel — March 19, 2008 @ 4:23 pm
March 19th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
Ecclesiastes 9:11: I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.
If reproductive success is not due to heritable variations, then it's not considered natural selection.
As a rule, variations will be distributed across a mean. When competing for scarce resources, increasing specialization may be advantageous. Some feeding in the water, some in the mud, for instance.
A sieve is a mechanism, specifically, a device which selects or separates from among that which already exists.
Natural selection is *not* luck of the draw. We can *observe* that certain traits lead to differential reproduction.
Comment by Zachriel — March 19, 2008 @ 4:59 pm
March 19th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Zach:
You were around for the Cambrian? Wow. That's gotta be some kinda record.
So, Mr. Cambrian, in exactly what way does an extra segment cause more offspring? And are you really sure that all this direction in the evolution of crustacean complexity is mutational and not developmental (given that segmentation is an expression of "tool-kit" genes)?
Comment by Joy — March 19, 2008 @ 5:17 pm
March 19th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
You made a blanket statement, your point concerning the evolution of complexity generally.
Those are not exclusive categories. Indeed, they are highly interrelated.
Comment by Zachriel — March 19, 2008 @ 6:22 pm
March 19th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
Actually to be nit-picky definition #2 requires ((agency or means) and (effect or purpose)) but does not require agency and purpose. Just means and effect would suffice. You got your Boolean logic wrong there. I know English is tricky like that.
If his behavioral inclination to practice a lot and his muscle response to that practice are also genetically controlled then he still might be passing on superior genes for "fast" even if he is not directly passing on a direct "fast gene." To say something is "behavioral" does not remove genetics from the picture.
So "natural processes" and "biological processes" mentioned in definition #9 do not count as the use of the word "process"
Comment by Todd Berkebile — March 19, 2008 @ 6:26 pm
March 19th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
Hi Bradford,
I'm having a hard time wrapping my mind around this infinite regress thing. Please baby talk me through it. You said:
"The amusing part of debates, around which ID is a focal point, is the belief by some critics that infinite regress is a problem only for theists. Who then created God is the old refrain. "
What is the regress problem for those who claim the origin of life was a lucky accident? I'm missing this point.
You said:
"Lurking behind the question is the unspoken assumption that if God is discredited so too is the concept of teleology."
Substitute "intelligent designer" for God in the above statement. Is it still valid? If so, I must not understand the difference between the concept of intelligent design and the concept of teleology. Please explain.
Regards,
Jack
Comment by Jack — March 19, 2008 @ 6:55 pm
March 19th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
Jack,
It's a problem because both require appealing either to eternity and/or a brute fact. "If God designed everything, who designed God?" gets a (typical, though non-exhaustive I'm sure) theist reply of 'God just is'. "If there's no God, where did all this come from?" gets an atheist reply of "It just is".
I think the confusion you're having is from focusing specifically on the design of life (chance v God), when the objection to design isn't hinged on the proposed act (God designed life/the universe) but God specifically.
Comment by nullasalus — March 19, 2008 @ 8:12 pm
March 19th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
Todd B:
Ah, so. I suppose you could choose the particulars on that, though it still seems odd to me that effect can be mechanism of effect. To each his/her own.
Don't get me wrong. I am a big fan of 'Neo-Lamarckism' in the context of EAM. If you want to join the club there's plenty of room for you. But you will find yourself summarily booted O-U-T of the DD club if you do that, since no actual scientist or sciency-acolyte is allowed to belong to both per this debate about telic design in life. Just a friendly warning.
If you're sure, then welcome!
Um… did you fail to note that definition #9 is specific to philosophy? IOW, it's not science, it's metaphysics.
Comment by Joy — March 19, 2008 @ 9:16 pm
March 19th, 2008 at 9:37 pm
"The amusing part of debates, around which ID is a focal point, is the belief by some critics that infinite regress is a problem only for theists. Who then created God is the old refrain. "
Indeed you are. Claiming the origin of life is a lucky accident is an unscientific opinion that anyone is entitled to. Lucky accidents are not falsifiable. Lucky accidents are not assessed in view of infinite regress paradigms either.
"Lurking behind the question is the unspoken assumption that if God is discredited so too is the concept of teleology."
Evidence of teleology is not constricted to inclusion of God within a cause and effect scenario. Purpose can be understood within a context of natural laws and the issue of how natural laws came to be left aside as a philosophical matter. In addition one cannot debunk the possibility of God existing by citing infinite regress arguments.
Comment by Bradford — March 19, 2008 @ 9:37 pm
March 20th, 2008 at 1:51 am
I agree with nullasalus (over there): "If this accurately reflects Heller's view, then his position gets very interesting – he may be criticizing ID, but I think it's important to note the way that he's doing it."
I don't mind his approach and thought that both his scientific and theological objections were fair and honest and not contrived and/or as pompous and annoying as I've come to expect. Besides, he makes some good points, imo.
Someone remind of the difference between ID and id?
Talk about Assessing Causality. If that's an ID critic things are looking better.
Comment by Rob R. — March 20, 2008 @ 1:51 am
March 20th, 2008 at 10:03 am
Because when people in a specific field use a term in a specific way the may not be common in the general populace, that's a perversion?
Well, it does say "agency or means". "Agency" might be telic, but "means" is not. It also says "effect is produced or a purpose is accomplished", and while "purpose" would be telic, "effect" is not. So, if you are using it to describe a means by which an effect is produced, that seems to both fit the definition and be non-telic. I guess there wasn't much perversion after all.
As a lone mechanism, OK.
I'm fairly sure that even Neodarwinism (whatever version of evolutionary theory you mean by that) probably includes a few sources of variation and the principle of overpopulation, at the very least.
NDS = "Neodarwinian ???" At any rate, HGT is a mechanism for passing changes to offspring that arise for interactions with your environment. That sounds fairly close to Lamarckianism (if you take out the teleology).
If a process is a means that produces an effect, it meets the definition of mechanism you provided.
By chaning the allele mix, selection also changes the types of recombination that possible, so it does interact with variation in at least that manner.
When being simpler makes it more likely to reproduce (many example occur in parasites), simpler is selected. When more complex makes it more likely to reproduce, complexity is selected.
If selection regularly chooses the more complex, than of course it has an effect on the final level of complexity.
I agree. I'll stick with it until understanding has been achieved.
Comment by One Brow — March 20, 2008 @ 10:03 am
March 20th, 2008 at 11:02 am
I don't get it! I can be "mystical"! It's not only the TelicThinkers who get to be mystical.
I was thinking of kharma. I believe in kharma. (And dharma.)
What goes around comes around, pay it forward, do unto others,"¦ The Circle of Life, the Great Chain of Being, I believe in all that mystical stuff.
I also believe that an infinite number series of causes and effects can exist in a finite, closed system of causation.
I believe ya gotta "Delinearize Your Thimking!"
And science isn't only demystify this or demystify that. Where's the fun in that?!
You'd have to be a heartless-wonder of a scientist not to have become a scientist because of the Mystique. Or maybe you became a scientist because of the lavish and decadent rock star lifestyle?
Science is about mysteries and enigmas, magic and full all sorts of weird and wonderful stuff, and even spooks that go bump in the night like IDers and their critics.
Nothing any scientists could say could ever possibly rob the Universe of its Mystery, its deep, dark Secret. (Sorry, didn't mean to scare anyone. Science is scary too!)
(It's thrilling to me! I admit it. I became a scientists because I'm an adrenalin junkie! Trashing luxury hotel suites is only part of being a scientist! Its really all about the blast of endorphins!)
Comment by Rock — March 20, 2008 @ 11:02 am
March 20th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
One Brow:
Oh, they can use in-group jargon all they like. They just shouldn't get all bent out of shape if the public fails to know automatically that when they sling jargon it only means what they want it to mean. I don't know about others, but I get darned sick of being told I'm stupid because I find the misleading jargon to be misleading.
What I was taught – and what every public high school student in America is taught (and expected to regurgitate on demand) is RM-NS. Variation is random (though not necessarily acausal), selection 'filters' the results with no goal whatsoever. What was NOT emphasized is the whole Malthusian political position. Because it's been found not to govern the process.
If science no longer adheres to RM-NS as the whole dumbed-down version of evolution, it's got no business imposing it on other people's children under color of law and expecting those children to believe-in it as some sort of Absolute Truth. Scientists write the textbooks. If the public is being taught garbage, it's not that the public is stupid, it's that the scientists are peddling garbage.
No, HGT is a mechanism for altering genomes in already-living organisms. If your genome is altered during your life (say, you get sun cancer, or catch a 'bug' that inserts DNA into your genes) it is not supposed to be heritable – individual organisms do not evolve. Now we know that acquired gene changes can be and are heritable, Lamarckism is starting not to look so silly anymore. Lamarckism is not NDS [Neodarwinian Synthesis].
A process involves a number of mechanisms contributing to the overall effect. Therefore it's imprecise to call a process a mechanism. Unless you're being sloppy on purpose. Are you?
Recombination is a basic gene-shuffle upon fertilization, the normal process of variation-production in sexually reproducing life forms. It is an origin of variation, not an environmental selection of variation.
I'll ask again – exactly how does an extra segment make reproduction "more likely?" Why do crustaceans not now look like giant crusty millipedes if extras are so sexy?
Selection doesn't "choose" anything unless it's artificial and applied at the intent of an agent. It's merely a sieve, remember? How does the sieve work backwards?
Comment by Joy — March 20, 2008 @ 1:16 pm
March 20th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
As an aside, I think it is fair to say that pretty much every topic taught in High School and below, from chemistry to physics to math to biology and even things like history and literature, are "dumbed-down" versions of the topic in question. I don't think its reasonable to expect a beginning student to learn every full detail of the absolute latest theories and I don't think its practical to expect that curriculum to keep completely up-to-date with the pace of scientific advancement. Even college level curriculum include a lot of dumbed-down simplifications for a lot of topics. There is simply too much information for any one person to process it all. Even someone in a specialized research field is unlikely to have enough hours in a day to read all of the literature produced by all of the research in their own field. This does not mean that the dumbed-down versions of what we are taught are necessarily false, but rather that its less precise than reality and often fails to capture important details and recent advancements. Am I lying if I say the speed of light is 3×10^8 m/s? No, but the real value is closer to 299,792,458 m/s. Even that value is an approximation. The thing to realize is that the inability of education to keep up-to-date with the vast body of scientific discovery is not a valid argument against the validity of the scientific process.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — March 20, 2008 @ 1:58 pm
March 20th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
As an example, I took 100 level Calculus, then covered the same material more formally and generally a 400 level Real Analysis class, and once more in a graduate level Real Analysis and Measurement Theory. Most Physics majors did the same with their core material.
Comment by One Brow — March 20, 2008 @ 2:31 pm
March 20th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
There is no goal, but there is an effect: better survival in the short term.
If there were no overpopulation, there would be very little natural selection (at least in terms of resources, predation would still be an issue), as every organism would have sufficient food, room, etc.
I'm not sure there is sufficient time or resources to discuss 17+ evolutionary mechanisms, and the various triggers that they share.
That depends on where the individual altered gene is, does it not? If it happens in a manner that my reproductive cells receive the changes, it is very laikely to be passed on.
Science has a tendency to add mechanisms as time goes by.
The definition of mechanism you provided did not imply any level of singularity, so several mechanisms that overall act as a means to an effect are still a mechanism. A process can have only one mechanism.
However, if you prefer, I will try to use mechanism for smaller means and process for larger grups of means.
Recombination can only work on the alleles that remain after selection. Should selection (or some other mechanism) increase the percentage of a particular allele, the percentqage of ways that allele appears in combinations with other alleles of other genes is also increased, cause variations that may not have existed before the selection of the allele.
The answer would vary from environment to environment. For example, when faced with a food shortage, increasing the length of the disgestive tract allows you to pull a slightly higher percentage of nutrients from your food. Additonal feet might let you run faster or fight better. You can't really supply a pat answer without details of the surroundings.
One way is by affecting allele proportions.
Comment by One Brow — March 20, 2008 @ 2:51 pm
March 20th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Todd B:
I didn't say anything about "the validity of the scientific process" per the intelligently-designed dumbing of America that we call "Science Education." I said it was completely invalid for scientists and ideological groupies to complain about how 'stupid' people are for not knowing more, or for not automatically buying the heavy-handed attempts to assert authority over belief systems that are important to people in real life, after having been subjected to so many years of intensive indoctrination in bullshit.
The self-defeating dichotomy is that science is taught as an absolute, and scientists so often attempt to assert their authority as absolute. That'll never fly in the real world. It's not that hard to figure out that scientific knowledge is provisional and progressive – what's 'known' today is quite likely to be entirely wrong tomorrow. Even though what we are taught is taught as if it were Absolute Truth.
Thus we're not at all likely to believe people who demand we submit to their scientific authority later in life, about things as important to broader sociological meaning as origins. Telling us at this point that we were taught pablum isn't news, you know. We figured out it was bullshit years ago.
Science has no one to blame but themselves for this situation. All that really needs to be taught and reinforced is scientific method and the FAPP value of what we learn by applying it. The details of this theory or that one are superfluous, interesting tidbits of frozen-in-time snapshots knowledge entirely likely to change tomorrow.
It's okay that science is an FAPP methodology and a progressive accumulation of FAPP knowledge. That's what makes it exciting and useful and powerful. To try and make it more than that is stupid, because it's not more than that. Insulting people won't turn them into True Believers, and the pretense that science is just a tool for imposing metaphysical ideology (and "eradicating religion") is a corruption none of us should be expected to pay for with our hard-earned tax dollars.
WE are smarter than that. Maybe scientists will gain some smarts someday too, but it won't be at the barrel of an ideological gun. You don't know where life came from. You don't know how it got to where we are today. And you surely don't know where it'll be tomorrow. Admitting that allows us all to become interested and look critically at the evidence. Calling us stupid will just get you cut off from the public teat.
Comment by Joy — March 20, 2008 @ 3:22 pm
March 20th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
One Brow:
Try to run that by any extant life form on the planet – that survival isn't their goal. Only a few of us (at the most complex and conscious end of the evolutionary spectrum) understand that it's a losing proposition from the git-go. Still, that's never stopped us from struggling to survive.
If you wish to detach evolution from the 'Prime Directive' of individual life forms, you've got the effect wrong. All evolution needs is reproduction. It cares nothing about survival. No individual life form needs to reproduce in order to qualify as alive and struggling to survive. That struggle makes use of all available tools for the purpose. Reproduction isn't one of them.
Now it's you who is stuck with the pablum you were taught in high school. Selection needs no overpopulation, it needs only variation among life forms struggling to survive and thrive in their given environments. Environments change, life forms adapt or die. Those who survive and reproduce their adaptations are "positively selected," those who don't survive are "negatively selected." Selection is just the name we apply to the observed differentials.
…which, btw, happen regardless of whether or not there are enough resources. Starvation and dehydration are not the leading causes of death in this world.
Don't worry. We've an ample archive, I'm confident they've all been discussed before.
Sure, men generate sub-optimal sperm all the time, and they're definitely subject to genetic damage from all sources. In eggs it's very different. Aside from ionization damage (like radiation) to genes in those eggs, the genes in them when I was born are the genes that get shuffled with sub-optimal sperm should they be lucky enough to be the one that gets fertilized. They are not supposed to inherit gene changes I acquire during my lifetime that may develop into cancer or some other deadly disease. And I'll never grow any extra arms no matter how much skin cell gene damage I get sunbathing. Neither will my children.
I used to work in radioactive environments, as a specialist in… radiation! (and its effects on biological tissues). So I've a little knowledge on the subject. I don't think it has a thing to do with evolution.
Let us know when they add Lamarckian mechanisms. At which point EAM becomes quite competitive.
Excuse me? You do know this is completely backwards, don't you? Endogenous processes producing germline cells (eggs, sperm) are endogenous, not environmental. Recombination shuffles the half-genomes on germline cells during meiosis (endogenous process) and the initial shuffling of fertilization (sometimes producing chimeric alleles, also endogenous process). Imprinting and other epigenetic – and endogenous – factors determine expression. Selection only happens after the fact, when the resulting life form meets its selective environment.
You're answering a question I didn't ask. If reproductive viability (and basic survival) varies by environment there is NO impetus toward increasing complexity. What came before was fit enough to reproduce or the question would be moot. The question is about the direction of evolution.
Comment by Joy — March 20, 2008 @ 4:16 pm
March 20th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
There seems to be a lack of consistency in flow from paragraph to paragraph, so I'll try to restore some context.
Well, I was referring to selection, as the context should make clear. However, considering the number of species whose members quite literally die in order to mate, I would say that for many species I would need to offer no persuasion at all.
For many species, survival after reproduction helps to insure additional generations, and of course you need to survive until reproduction. Outside of that, evolutionarily survival is not important and many species act that way.
The primary struggles are for resources and to avoid predation.
Scarcity of resources can have less dire effects, such as an inability to reproduce or provide offspring with sufficient resources to mature.
I was referring the "what every public high school student in America is taught".
HGT does not necessarily result in sup-optimal sperm.
Eggs are immune to being infected by viruses/bacteria?
Again, why is HGT into sperm/eggs not a Lamarckian process (outside of it lacking a purpose)? It is outside of the what people usually mean by the NDS.
Yes, selection follows reproduction, but reproduction also follows selection. When selection alters the allele frequencies, new possibilities for recombination may become commonplace that were once rare or non-existent.
Without taking the environment into account, there is no tendency for complexity or simplicity. The reason that some lineages exhibit greater complexity, and others less complexity, over time is environmental.
Comment by One Brow — March 20, 2008 @ 6:11 pm
March 20th, 2008 at 11:00 pm
One Brow:
No lack of consistency, OB. Merely different contexts – what we were all taught in science class versus what we observe in the world. This is the very inconsistency that perpetuates this never-ending debate.
This would seem a better 'proof' that all evolution needs is reproduction – not survival. Which is what I pointed out.
Again, just what I pointed out. Glad you agree.
Predation is a natural part of a well-balanced ecosystem. No matter how abundant or scarce it may be. Without the predators, the prey might overpopulate themselves to starvation. At which point there won't be too few resources anymore.
Most life doesn't die of starvation or predation.
An inability to reproduce does help balance an overpopulated system. Nature offers ready means of birth control by diet or supplement, animals make use of it in lean times. It's not simply starvation or chronic malnutrition. Offspring who don't make it to reproduction are indeed selected out by the environment. Their means of death can vary widely. Even fat and fit offspring get "selected out" by the environment. Sometimes entire populations or good portions thereof.
My reference was to the pablum being taught, and how often it gets twisted into insult in these debates by representatives of WHAT everyone was taught. I don't think biologists should be complaining so loudly about how "stupid" Americans are when they've held exclusive indoctrination rights for at least 40 years that I know of. If about half the people don't buy the pablum, tough titty. Maybe what's being taught is not very convincing.
??? Where the heck did you get that? I didn't claim HGT results in sub-optimal sperm! I alluded to the fact that the continual production of sperm subjects the process to a host of possible mutagenic environmental influences. That's not true so much for eggs, thus it's been established that most of the mutational complement in offspring genomes comes from Dad, not Mom.
If they're still unripe inside an ovary they are shielded from most maternal ailments (though they may get the antibody info via the system). An egg cell doesn't get measles or polio. A developing fetus, on the other hand, is at-risk of or from maternal infections (and drug treatments and mutagenic chemicals and…).
Mom will go sterile or consistently miscarry if her eggs are compromised. That which is never born doesn't count in evolution on either side of the equation.
It would be a Lamarckian process if the acquired genes were considered beneficial to the system, or force-expressed. For instance, rat testing of gene therapy for an engineered deficiency demonstrated that the functional gene was uptaken by the germline cells, so that offspring at least two generations down the line expressed that functional gene. Which means they got past the "Weissman Barrier."
When human gene therapy researchers didn't bother to get the proper signed consents regarding prohibitions on donation of blood, organs, tissues and EGGS/SPERM forever after, FDA shut 'em down flat. The entire program. Of course, the other little problem with the viral insertion promoter being human leukemia virus (that lo and behold caused leukemia!) didn't help.
We do not usually pick up viral insertions from catching the flu or measles. And it never gets passed to offspring unless it's incorporated in germline cells. What happened in gene therapy trials was a theoretical mistake and they've paid for it. Too bad they didn't question the same operation going on in agriculture. Would'a saved us a lot of grief once the toll becomes too obvious to ignore…
Again, how is an extra segment (or vertebrae, or a brain – all metabolically expensive) environmentally caused? Answer: it's NOT. Why is the metabolically expensive consistently and uniformly favored by selection? …you tell me. I've asked several times now.
Comment by Joy — March 20, 2008 @ 11:00 pm
March 24th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
It shopuld have been obvious that I was referring to a different sort of context-shifting.
I am glad we agree that point was not being disputed. Your other point, that all individuals try to survive, was being disputed, and apparently has been abandoned.
So, we agree after all. I'm not sure why you referred to this as "the pablum you were taught in high school" previously, though.
Unfortunately, there is so much material that a thorough investigation of all 17+ mechanisms and their various interactions is simply not possible.
I got it from you, as the context shows. We were discussing HGT, you said it would not be passed to descendents, I said it would if the new sequences got into sperm and eggs, and you started talking about sub-optimal sprem.
Then, I guess only ripe eggs would be vunerable to HGT.
So, if a process the provides a benefit can be Lamarckian, but ifthe same process offers no benefit in another situation, it is not Lamarckian?
Not "caused", "advantageous". I already mentioned a couple of possibilities, suych as an increase in disgestive tract lengh or extra legs.
Comment by One Brow — March 24, 2008 @ 2:50 pm
December 11th, 2008 at 12:23 am
Yeah….
it's One Brow………….again.
Read over some of the earlier interactions with him when he first came to this blog. Better yet, read his post where he "deals" with Bill Vallicella post regarding Russell's Teapot.
It's like he's going out of the way to misunderstand what people are saying.
Comment by GringoRoyale — December 11, 2008 @ 12:23 am