Bird Teeth
by MikeGeneAbout 80 million years ago, birds lost their teeth. Yet 80 million years of mutations have not erased the bird's ability to form teeth, even though there has been no selective pressure to maintain teeth:
Indeed, Talpid's teeth are conical, much like an archosaur's and closely resembling the teeth of a baby alligator or crocodile, Fallon said. If the chick survived, the teeth would most likely reabsorb into the mouth.
The archosaurs had mouths similar in shape to a reptile's. It turns out that developing a beak caused birds to lose their teeth.
"The reason that birds lost their teeth is that in forming a beak, the two tissues that "˜talk' to each other to make a tooth become separated," Fallon said. "They can't have the conversation to make a tooth. In the mutant, these tissues are brought back together."
A possible front-loading mechanism is clear "“ two tissues, or pathways, or genes, can be "brought together" and this is a task that could be assigned to the blind watchmaker.
February 26th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
Front-Loaded Evolution…
The discussion on Front-Loaded Evolution was certainly the part of the Design Matrix which I had the biggest trouble with. This is an Intelligent Design theory that effectively states that even though we know evolution occurs life was originally des…
Trackback by Todd Berkebile's Blog — February 26, 2008 @ 7:54 pm
February 26th, 2008 at 11:29 pm
Even a blind watchmaker is intelligent.
Comment by Mung — February 26, 2008 @ 11:29 pm
March 1st, 2008 at 11:27 am
Hi Todd,
You wrote:
Not quite. The bird teeth example was discussed to illustrate the plausibility of endowing an organism with a latent trait, where the ability to form teeth has remained in birds after 80 million years of no selection for teeth. This case speaks to a possible mechanism of front-loading more so that an actual example of front-loading. The choanoflagellates could be cited as an example of front-loading, but again, the real lesson is in the strengthening the plausibility of front-loading. Here is a single-celled organism that contains multiple genes previously thought to be unique to animals and such animal-like genes have persisted in the choanoflagellate lineage for hundreds of millions of years even though they are clearly not essential for unicellular life.
There are all kinds of "classical evolutionary theories," but I'm afraid this complaint misses the big picture. You'll notice that I introduce the hypothesis of front-loading after I have introduced the book's central metaphor "“ the Duck/Rabbit. I am not trying to come up with something that is superior to non-teleological evolutionary views, for as I clearly write, I am not on a Duck Hunt. On the contrary, I'm simply noticing that what is painted as the Duck also looks a lot like a Rabbit. While I realize many people on both sides of the aisle think the next step should be to hunt the Duck to justify a "It's a Rabbit, not a Duck!" claim, I simply suggest that those who see the Rabbit should merely follow the Rabbit to see where he goes. You don't need to kill the Duck to see the Rabbit.
And as I explain in the book, evolution by cooption is what we would expect if evolution was facilitated/front-loaded by design. Duck. Rabbit. But there is a subtle difference, explained nicely by Krauze:
Look at it this way. The animal-like toolkit contained in these protists is so significant that some think these protists evolved from a metazoan. So what does "classical evolutionary theory" predict? If this view is established, the front-loading hypothesis takes a hit and we'd have to look elsewhere for evidence of facilitation. But "classical evolutionary theories" easy absorb either finding. Whether choanoflagellates represent ancestral or derived traits does not matter, as both views are just as comfortably absorbed.
That the blind watchmaker more easily shuffles pieces than makes up new pieces is again something that makes front-loading more plausible. After all, a blind watchmaker that would more readily make new pieces than shuffle old pieces would represent a surrogate that is more likely to generate noise than use what it was handed. So here is a second example where the perspective of front-loading seems more methodologically constrained. Front-loading depends on the blind watchmaker being more likely to shuffle than invent. But from the perspective of non-teleological evolution, either possibility is just as easily absorbed.
A neat question to think about is this: why is it easier for the blind watchmaker to shuffle pieces rather than make up new pieces?
Once again, it's not about elevating my theory "“ "Hey people, it's a Rabbit, not a Duck!" It's about noting that the Duck also looks like a Rabbit. If you want to assert that "it's a Duck, not a Rabbit!" you'll need to go on a Rabbit hunt rather than express you feel no need to follow the Rabbit.
Evidence of evolution is NOT evidence of non-teleological evolution just because both theories accept the idea of evolution.
Yet things become very interesting if the blind watchmaker, whose sole metric is fitness as measured by the immediate context, is credited for crafting so many uncanny preadaptations that would come into play millions of years later.
Let's stop here because I don't recognize this. Please cite the page where I argue an evolutionary mechanism "must have been intentional and therefore evidence of a purposeful designer."
Comment by MikeGene — March 1, 2008 @ 11:27 am
March 1st, 2008 at 6:54 pm
Mike:
As far as I know, it has not been shown that these genes are not essential for choanoflagellates. Have knock-out experiments been done?
You make it sound as if these genes have been sitting silently for millions of years, waiting for the right moment to "wake up" and kick-start multicellularity. I don't think there's any evidence for that.
Sure, front-loading is a possibility, but until there is positive evidence for a Front-loader doing its thing, I don't expect it will be taken too seriously.
Comment by Raevmo — March 1, 2008 @ 6:54 pm
March 1st, 2008 at 7:30 pm
A Front-loader doing its thing? So you need to spot the Front-Loader first and then catch the FLer in the act of front-loading? How can one take that critique seriously when we routinely come across statements stating it is unlikely we will ever know the pathways or causes that led to life? An intelligent Front-loader means find the film while an unidentified natural process means assume it.
Comment by Bradford — March 1, 2008 @ 7:30 pm
March 1st, 2008 at 8:09 pm
Bradford:
Any observation whatsoever is consistent with an intelligent Front-loader. Since we know absolutely nothing about teh Front-loader, there is no way to quantify how likely an observation is on the supposition of a Front-loader. Even if it's true, it's utterly useless as a guiding principle, unless we actually see the Front-loader doing its thing.
Comment by Raevmo — March 1, 2008 @ 8:09 pm
March 1st, 2008 at 8:56 pm
Raevmo:
Any observation is not consistent. Front-loading infers foresight and a non-FL alternative does not.
Comment by Bradford — March 1, 2008 @ 8:56 pm
March 1st, 2008 at 11:47 pm
Bradford:
Can we flesh this idea out for a moment? Suppose we found an adaptation in the UCA that made it highly adaptive to the low oxygen environment of 4 billion years ago but that at the same time would make life very difficult in an oxygen rich environment. Would this count as evidence against FL? I realize this is speculation but I'm just trying to flesh out a distinguishing prediction if possible.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — March 1, 2008 @ 11:47 pm
March 2nd, 2008 at 12:03 am
Hi Raevmo,
Are you under the impression these animal-like genes are essential for all unicellular life forms?
My views do not entail that these genes have been sitting silently for millions of years, waiting for the right moment to "wake up."
I am aware that many people express a need for the designer-centric approach. What would positive evidence for a Front-loader doing its thing look like?
Comment by MikeGene — March 2, 2008 @ 12:03 am
March 2nd, 2008 at 12:40 am
fmm:
Since an oxygen rich environment (ORE) followed the adaptation, reproductive fitness would decline at the advent of the ORE. Organisms affected by such adaptations could still find niche environments but foresight would not be indicated. I would view this as neutral though. Counter evidence would be better represented IMO by genes which could grease the adaptive skids to a future environmental challenge but when the challenge presents itself either adaptation fails or it takes place without an assist from the FL genes.
Comment by Bradford — March 2, 2008 @ 12:40 am
March 2nd, 2008 at 1:18 am
Hi MikeGene,
Great post and comments from you.
Very enlightening.
Comment by Pez — March 2, 2008 @ 1:18 am
March 2nd, 2008 at 7:15 am
Hi Mike,
I asked:
You answered:
No, because not all unicellular life forms have them. Among the ones that do, are there any where those genes do not perform some important function?
You tell me. You postulate front-loading, you probably have some idea what front-loaders are like.
Comment by Raevmo — March 2, 2008 @ 7:15 am
March 2nd, 2008 at 9:08 am
Bradford
So if we found fossil evidence of a fully terrestrial descendent of the mud skipper with out wrist bones would this be evidence against front loading?
Comment by fifth monarchy man — March 2, 2008 @ 9:08 am
March 2nd, 2008 at 11:12 am
Hi Raevmo,
Exactly, So I was correct in noting "they are clearly not essential for unicellular life."
An important function in a particular lineage is not the same as being essential for unicellular life.
Since I clearly assume the front-loaders are agents with a human-like intelligence, I suppose what you need is for someone to travel back in time to videotape and interview "a Front-loader doing its thing." In fact, you wrote, "until there is positive evidence for a Front-loader doing its thing, I don't expect it will be taken too seriously." That's fine with me. If this is true, I just don't take too seriously people who need me to travel back in time to videotape and interview "a Front-loader doing its thing." I'm not interested in coming up with some form of epistemological evidence that caters to those who demand adherence to the traditional template and designer-centric perspective.
Comment by MikeGene — March 2, 2008 @ 11:12 am
March 2nd, 2008 at 1:48 pm
Fifth monarchy man, go here for an answer to your last question.
Comment by Bradford — March 2, 2008 @ 1:48 pm
March 2nd, 2008 at 3:08 pm
I guess the problem I have is that in the case of Front-Loaded Evolution even your version doesn't look much like a rabbit to me. At best it looks like a Duck wearing fake bunny ears. Effectively all you are saying is, "embrace confirmation bias."
Evolution by definition is a non-teleological theory, but I agree it does not speak against teleology. Science is intentionally reductionist. Perhaps this is a flaw of science, but its an approach I agree with. Science has offered a theory where no designer is required, but this is not a claim that there is no designer, only that if there is one he's not strictly required. Almost anything is possible, including designer theories like Front-Loading. If all you want to say is "this is possible" then no one can disagree so why bother arguing about it. In this case however the simpler, more reductionist non-teleological theory seems to describe everything adequately. Science suggests that it is more rational to believe in the simpler theory. In other words I recognize the possibility of front-loaded evolution but see no reason why a rational person would believe in it. If someone chooses to believe in it as an article of faith then that's perfectly good, but if that's the case don't try to present it as reason.
Perhaps I'm confused, but isn't the whole claim of Front-Loading that a designer expressed intention during the creation of life? That the designer wanted a certain outcome to be more likely? It seems to me that this intention is the only difference between Front-Loaded Evolution and plain-old non-teleological evolution. The point I was trying to make (although poorly worded) is that it seems like circular reasoning to create a theory that only differs from accepted theory by the addition of "intention" and then claiming the results we see might be intentional as evidence. The conclusion only follows from accepting the theory itself. Our first common ancestor obviously became the humans we are today (or multi-cellular organisms or whatever part you claim was front-loaded), the implication of Front-Loading is that this was desired by a designer to occur. As others have mentioned, no amount of after-the-fact evidence can prove this intention was present and thus Front-Loading is not provable.
No, but what he is suggesting is that they might be essential for choanoflagellates. Evolution suggests these features would be important to choanoflagellates or else they wouldn't have formed. Front-Loading does not require these features to be important to choanoflagellates, it only requires that they persist long enough to be used for their "true purpose" in later multi-cellular life.
That's all fine, we all know epistemological evidence is unlikely to be found for either side of the origin-of-life debate. But all I'm looking for is evidence that helps me choose one theory over another. I cannot choose to believe in two conflicting things, so belief in one theory entails disbelief in another. I realize that almost anything is possible, I just don't think its rational to go around believing that every possibility is a reality (that's what conspiracy theorists do, and we call them crazy
). So I guess what I would need is to understand what's truly different between the Front-Loaded theory and the non-front-loaded theory. I mean different in terms of the results we see. For example, I would love to know what sort of evidence you would consider as evidence that Front-Loaded Evolution is false? What evidence would prove FLE wrong?
Comment by Todd Berkebile — March 2, 2008 @ 3:08 pm
March 2nd, 2008 at 4:13 pm
Todd:
That's pretty funny, Todd. Did you mean to highlight your confirmation bias *as* confirmation bias?
Again, I suspect you're being facetious. How can exclusion by definition not speak against inclusion? Given the sheer number of Neodarwinian die-hards who claim the theory of evolution (non-teleologic by definition) *means* there can be no teleology should inform even the most casual of observers that your "yeah, but…" is bull.
Most actual scientists would insist that "belief-in" is not a job prerequisite. Given that all science's theories are provisional until new knowledge is available. Belief-in *is* an article of faith, therefore if you believe-in non-telic evolution you cannot claim to be without invested faith in provisional theory. Your position is no more reasonable than any other faith-based position.
Au, contraire, mon ami. Standard Neodarwinian Synthesis has all genes arising via random mutation and natural selection. It never considered the pre-existence of the tool-box genes, thus had no classification under either RM or NS to account for this reality. Every time we see a press report of new findings in this area we are told the researchers were "surprised" or that the findings "challenge classical theory" or put the lie to the "central dogma" or overturn some "tenet" or other. There's a reason they call 'em "dogma" and "tenets," you know. Can you guess what it might be, or does your invested faith in "orthodoxy" prevent you from seeing what you don't wish to see?
It's looking less and less likely all the time that there ever was a single "first common ancestor." Very different common ancestors may account for the separate kingdoms of life, and perhaps for phyla as well. Depends on when the "HGT Field" was superseded by the vertical inheritance trigger (and genomes developed the means to protect themselves from promiscuous horizontal transfer).
However, I fail to see that non-telic evolution has ever been "proved," so it still seems to me a point of view (NOT a "belief-in"). You say front-loading isn't provable. Isn't the presence of genes necessary to complex multicellular life before that life existed as much "proof" as anyone could ask for? Of course I know that won't dent faith-based belief-in, but it is perfectly reasonable.
Then prove it. Raevmo's all about going into the lab and testing, I presume you agree. So go into the lab and test it. Do the knock-outs, tell us what you find. Given that as ubiquitous a plant as arabidopsis displays such renown adaptability that every 10th gene serves no function, I'd sure be interested in whether choanoflagellates need those higher-organism genes. Y'all have the labs and funding, we (as in me and those like me, who are not biologists) do not. Don't just hand down opinionated edicts from on high. That's terribly unpersuasive. All this is new knowledge. Take it to the next level, there is funding if you apply for it. I know because I pay for it every year even for research I think is terminally dumb.
I might even hazard a prediction from this point of view that the genes are not vital to choanoflagellates. Lots of not-vital genes are absolutely conserved through hundreds of millions of years of evolution. A recent study of mice missing whole sections of genome that is absolutely conserved "proves" this.
You're as curious to know the answer as I am, aren't you?
The difference would be whether "orthodoxy" makes the predictions at all, or is "surprised" by results that challenge its "dogma" and "tenets," while the other theory DID predict the findings. At least, that's how it usually works in physics. Biology may be less a science than a metaphysical belief system.
Comment by Joy — March 2, 2008 @ 4:13 pm
March 2nd, 2008 at 5:15 pm
Mike:
Sure. But what's the point? Does the argument go as follows?
(1) Some unicellulars have genes X and Y that are not shared by other unicellulars. (Therefore X and Y are not necessary for unicellularity.)
(2) Derived versions of genes X and Y are essential for multicellular life.
(3) Therefore, it is plausible that X and Y were front-loaded.
Is that the gist?
That assumption wasn't so clear to me. Does God have human-like intelligence in your opinion?
I guess you're kidding about the time-traveling. But apparently, the front-loader must have done some clever analysis to conclude that by front-loading certain genes X and Y, multicellularity was very likely to evolve. If the front-loader had human-like intelligence, we must be able to do a similar analysis ourselves. So, what are the calculations that predict that X and Y will mutate into forms that will facilitate the evolution of multicellularity? In essence you are claiming, I think, that when the earliest ancestors of X and Y were front-loaded, it could be predicted with great certainty that they would become coopted to facilitate multicellularity. I think Stephen J. Gould would disagree (if the tape were played twice…)
Comment by Raevmo — March 2, 2008 @ 5:15 pm
March 2nd, 2008 at 5:18 pm
Joy, your repetitive rants full of falsehoods, revisionism and insults are becoming a bit tiring. Why not give it a rest and hope readers will forget about it?
Comment by Raevmo — March 2, 2008 @ 5:18 pm
March 2nd, 2008 at 6:09 pm
This is the fallacy of Biased Sample. Just because some "neo-Darwinian die-hards" falsely believe that proving evolution somehow disproves teleology doesn't mean I believe that. In fact I have directly stated otherwise. As I mentioned, teleology is a possibility whereas science deals only with minimum requirements.
I have not denied that acceptance of scientific methodology requires a modicum of faith. I have stated as an axiom that I agree with those methodologies. I have pointed out many times that the reductionist nature of science can legitimately be seen as a weakness from certain perspectives. In this case the great success science has demonstrated in increasing human understanding is why I choose to have faith in it. Its a weak version of faith that requires such a strong proven track record of success, but I'm willing to call it faith none the less. I wasn't trying to start a philosophical debate about the nature of belief, however. Such a debate feels like a smoke screen to divert attention from the point being made.
Absolutely not! As has been stated over and over by multiple people on multiple threads, cooption and adaptation are important mechanisms of evolution. If those genes only played a role in multi-cellular life and had NO FUNCTION in a single celled organism then evolution theories would have a hard time explaining them. But we just don't see that.
I would love to see this experiment done, but its unlikely to be performed. This experiment at best disproves an ID theory. Scientists don't care one hoot about disproving ID theories, its not their objective at all. Of course I am by no means a biologist so I'm not qualified to judge the value of this research, I only know I'd likely find the results interesting.
As to your fervent hatred of "orthodoxy," you seem to assume science clings tightly to preconceived ideas even while reading scientific articles talking about surprising new discoveries. If the cult-of-orthodoxy was so powerful then why are these surprising ideas being so eagerly discussed in prominent scientific journals? Scientists love surprising new finds, those are what test the limits of existing theories and give us reason to create new theories. Yes all scientists are supposed to be skeptical, which means the first reaction to any surprising new discovery should be to try and fit it into existing frameworks. But this very act of searching for surprising results is, in effect, the effort of science to break its own frameworks. Only by failing to disprove their theories do scientists develop "faith" in their correctness. All of your ranting about "if its the most commonly beleived theory it must be wrong" just makes you look paranoid.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — March 2, 2008 @ 6:09 pm
March 2nd, 2008 at 6:36 pm
Raevmo:
For those looking for a divergence in thinking (and predictions based on that) between FLE and the mainstream version, whether the tape would essentially repeat or run with repeately different outcomes offers that opportunity.
Comment by Bradford — March 2, 2008 @ 6:36 pm
March 2nd, 2008 at 6:49 pm
That's funny coming from you. Is Joy a blight on society too?:mrgreen:
Comment by Bradford — March 2, 2008 @ 6:49 pm
March 2nd, 2008 at 7:01 pm
Bradford:
I'm glad I amused you. But you are implying that I am guilty of telling falsehoods and revisionism (insults guilty as charged). Care to substantiate?
Comment by Raevmo — March 2, 2008 @ 7:01 pm
March 2nd, 2008 at 7:27 pm
I'm not implying a thing. It's very straightforward. You allow your temperment to get the better of you and that negates some otherwise fine comments you make from time to time.
Comment by Bradford — March 2, 2008 @ 7:27 pm
March 2nd, 2008 at 7:45 pm
Todd:
That's nice. Why then did you say, "Science suggests that it is more rational to believe in the simpler theory. In other words I recognize the possibility of front-loaded evolution but see no reason why a rational person would believe in it"?
Notice the "believe in" twice emphasized. Then you say people who don't "believe in" Neodarwinian pablum must be irrational. Or at least less rational than NDS Believers-In are. Since I see the possibility of front-loaded evolution, I don't see it as irrational at all. In fact, I think it might prove very useful to view processes in a telic manner (as if they have purpose for the organism), since they obviously do have purpose for the organism. Sure seems simple enough to me. That you don't see it that way doesn't make me think you're irrational.
No, you've said nothing about methodologies. You've defended a priori philosophical assumptions about the phenomena under investigation. Things you bring to the table under theory, not by methodology. Nobody's been faulting the good ol' Scientific Method. The issues per possible telic mechanisms and processes is at root a metaphysical exclusion from your century and a half old theory (and all its later add-ons, trimmed to fit). I do not believe metaphysics is the same thing as science or the Scientific Method. YMMV.
Again with your affirmations of faith. We get it, Todd. You've already gotten all the brownie points you're going to get from the skeptics here. Sorry. I have pointed out many times that science has done all the reduction it can do and still be within the realm of extant valid physical theoretics. From there things get very, very weird indeed, and I sure haven't seen much desire among biologists in general (or NDS die-hards in particular) to go looking into where that might lead.
If you're unwilling to seriously consider the substrate and its connection to consciousness (which organisms arguably are), all you've done is reduce things 'enough' to confirm your preconceived theoretical bias, choosing to ignore everything else. They're all the way to adding whole other dimensions to the equations, things don't look so simple or so minimal anymore.
Yet you admit the experiments haven't been done that would confirm what you haven't seen (because you're not looking for it). You also admit that research which challenges orthodoxy's dogma and tenets is "eagerly discussed" and all the rage. I wouldn't characterize most of the nay-sayers around here who battle so vociferously against all ideas of telic design as being "eager to discuss" findings that challenge their preconceived biases. I'd characterize it as "adamant to dismiss." Even if that requires acting like an overgrown juvenile delinquent (thank Raevmo for the fine example).
Comment by Joy — March 2, 2008 @ 7:45 pm
March 2nd, 2008 at 8:59 pm
As I stated, I also recognize that possibility, I just don't think a reasonable person would believe something is true simply because it is possible. I think it is, in fact, irrational to believe in something simply because it's possible. There is huge difference between believing something is possible and believing it is the gospel truth. Unless a possibility also explains observed phenomena there's little reason to believe in it.
That's good. Do we agree that the reductionist nature of science is part of the Scientific Method? The reductionist nature of science is the only method I have mentioned.
So it sounds like you think science is broken because its reductionist. As I've mentioned, this is a valid complaint. But once you forgo this restriction of science then you're in the realm of philosophy and anything goes.
I cannot say whether the functionality of these multi-cellular components have been examined in their single-celled incarnations. I have no reason to believe they haven't, but maybe no one has gotten around to it yet. However, generally it is the responsibility of those proposing a theory to perform the experiments that would either confirm or deny that theory. Teleology has been the default answer to the unknown since the dawn of human history, many times older than the entrenched NDS theories you rant about. I say its about the teleology supporters follow Mike's advice and do some research of their own. I'm sure the Discovery Institute would gladly provide some funding.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — March 2, 2008 @ 8:59 pm
March 2nd, 2008 at 9:21 pm
Raevmo
This is Denton's Hypothesis he provides a lot of evidence for it in his book Nature's Destiny. He makes a pretty strong case IMHO.
Disagreement is what makes science fun. Don't you agree? I've read Gould's Wonderful Life and his argument is not as strong as Denton's. He seems to extrapolate the fact that there were lots of different body plans in the Cambrian explosion to anything is possible with evolution. It all seems weak to me.
By the way If Gould's hypothesis is science then so is Denton's ID.
It would be nice if Gould offered a prediction to show us which idea is correct but Gould was better at writing books than doing science.
sound familiar
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — March 2, 2008 @ 9:21 pm
March 2nd, 2008 at 9:38 pm
Todd:
What a strange thing to say. I am not the one who claims "belief-in" any of the possibilities enumerated here. You are, all the way to affirmations in defense of your "faith." I said that would NOT make me think you're irrational – or, come to think of it, unreasonable. It would simply inform me that you come to the table with a faith-based belief-in atelic evolution, because ateleology is the theoretical a priori assumption. Something not in evidence, and against which other possibilities admittedly exist.
Reductionism has its uses, most definitely. So does intuition, and sometimes even leaps of "if-then" contemplation of an empirical observation. Things that lead to the next step on the ladder of knowledge. Which, last time I looked, still has some steps ahead before we can rest on our know-it-all laurels.
And, as I mentioned, you can only reduce things so far before you encounter the ever-weird substrate hardly anyone wants to think too much about. Yet reducing physical constructs to pieces-parts, and physical systems to chemical analysis doesn't empirically answer the open question of teleology or ateleology. You know this, as do I. And the scientific method doesn't require atelic assumptions – it can work on telic systems as well.
Nope. Systems science is doing fine in a number of fields, thanks. And again as I said previously, reductionism has gone as far physically as it can go before it suddenly takes off again in expansive directions. That's just reality in the scientific arena. I don't know (other than faith-defense) why you're so unwilling to admit that. It's okay to have faith. Most people do. It's not okay to pretend your faith is 'Science', so as to assert the authority of science as if the two were identical. They are not.
Said by an admitted non-biologist to an admitted non-biologist. How disposable.
Comment by Joy — March 2, 2008 @ 9:38 pm
March 2nd, 2008 at 10:51 pm
Denton's conjecture that "the cosmos is a specially designed whole with life and mankind as its fundamental goal and purpose" is without foundation. The universe was obviously designed by someone with an inordinate fondness for beetles.
There is a valid question as to the relative contributions of chance (e.g. mutation) and necessity (e.g. environmental selection) in the history of evolution. Modern mathematical models have shed some light on this interplay. When a new environment opens up, we often see rapid adaptation and experimentation as life invades the nooks and crannies of the niche. Sometimes, the first to inhabit a niche can become sufficiently optimized as to preclude other invaders. We also see parallel evolution as different organisms evolve to meet similiar challenges. As with many complex systems, we may see long periods of stasis, or many small changes, a few big changes, and very rare revolutions, or even oscillations around a norm.
There are a variety of techniques used to distinguish between the roles of change and necessity in evolution, and a lot of work has been done in this regard. Modern understandings of complex systems have also unveiled some of the mystery. But there are many unanswered questions, especially with regard to the most ancient transitions.
Gould did empirical work with snails, as well as important theoretical work. He is highly cited in the literature, a valid measure of scientific influence.
Comment by Zachriel — March 2, 2008 @ 10:51 pm
March 2nd, 2008 at 11:18 pm
To be clear, it is not evolution that I have "faith" in, but rather the scientific process as I understand it. Evolution is simply one of the results generated by the scientific process. Evolution is an admittedly limited but gradually increasing body of understanding. You seem to think Evolution was carved into stone hundreds of years ago when Darwin published Origin of the Species, but that's just not so. Like any other theory it has undergone constant revision as new knowledge is incorporated. That process is part of why I accept the results.
Yes, this I agree with. Science is only trying to find the minimum requirements to explain the phenomenon we observe.
Sure science doesn't exclude teleology, but when the only different between the teleological theory and the non-teleological theory is the intent, purpose, or planning then I really don't seen how a reductionist scientific methodology could even conclude the teleologic explanation is the correct one. The reductionist nature of science would always choose the non-teleological explanation unless presented with evidence that simply cannot be explained without teleology. I realize this is biased, science is biased towards supporting the simplest explanation and so far all teleological theories simply seem more complicated than their non-teleological equivalents. I also admit that nothing guarantees that the simplest explanation is always what really happened, but a skeptic should only believe in the minimal amount needed to account for observations. The rest is merely interesting possibilities.
There are certainly advocates for a more holistic approach to many fields, but I don't think the scientific community is quite ready to abandon reductionism. However I don't claim to be an expert on the zeitgeist of the entire scientific community, I just haven't observed a major shift in any of the articles I've read. I think, however, the fact that I frequently point out that the reductionist nature of science can be seen as a weakness shows that I am open to progress being made from more holistic approaches. I'm just being skeptical and waiting for the proven results before jumping behind a holistic approach.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — March 2, 2008 @ 11:18 pm
March 3rd, 2008 at 12:36 am
Hi Todd,
And that's you. Are you under the impression that everyone sees as you see? If you see only the Duck, then stick with your duck. It makes no difference to me.
Look, I asked, "Let's stop here because I don't recognize this. Please cite the page where I argue an evolutionary mechanism "must have been intentional and therefore evidence of a purposeful designer."
You failed to provide the page. Try again.
Comment by MikeGene — March 3, 2008 @ 12:36 am
March 3rd, 2008 at 12:55 am
Hi Raevmo,
Really? So I am kidding when I describe what you demand? What was it that you asserted? Oh yes, here it is:
Sure, front-loading is a possibility, but until there is positive evidence for a Front-loader doing its thing, I don't expect it will be taken too seriously. – Raevmo
Then I ask you, "What would positive evidence for a Front-loader doing its thing look like?" You were stumped and had no answer.
So let's get this straight. You demand positive evidence for a front-loader doing its thing just to take front-loading seriously, yet refuse to say what such positive evidence might look like.
So you admit that you don't take front-loading too seriously, which means your questions and feigned interest are rooted in game-playing and trouble-making. Your inability to provide helpful advice to satisfy your demands helps to confirm this.
Dime-a-dozen.
Comment by MikeGene — March 3, 2008 @ 12:55 am
March 3rd, 2008 at 1:39 am
Hi Joy,
Indeed. And I think this is another point of confusion on Todd's part. Perhaps when he is looking for the place where I supposedly argue that an evolutionary mechanism "must have been intentional and therefore evidence of a purposeful designer," he can also cite the page where I argue that I "believe in" front-loading.
Comment by MikeGene — March 3, 2008 @ 1:39 am
March 3rd, 2008 at 1:54 am
Mike:
Um, I didn't "demand" anything. I assumed you were kidding to avoid the conclusion that you were losing it.
No, you were obviously stumped because you could only come up with a ridiculous time-traveling scenario. As if that's the only possible means of obtaining positive evidence for front-loading. Discovery of ancient lab-journals with descriptions of the front-loading procedures would be another. Or a message in the DNA saying "[insert favorite front-loader] was here and planted this gene". And so forth.
As usual, you are an amazing mind-reader. Could that be your day-job?
Comment by Raevmo — March 3, 2008 @ 1:54 am
March 3rd, 2008 at 2:11 am
Remember that, folks. According to Raevmo, in order to take front-loading seriously, we need either a taped interview made possible by ttme travel, a copy of a 3 billion year old lab journal, or a secret message in the DNA. Nothing else counts.
Not if you want to be taken seriously by such a serious investigator, that is. LOL.
Comment by MikeGene — March 3, 2008 @ 2:11 am
March 3rd, 2008 at 2:15 am
Wrong. It's called reading your words.
Sure, front-loading is a possibility, but until there is positive evidence for a Front-loader doing its thing, I don't expect it will be taken too seriously. – Raevmo
Do you have any positive evidence of a Front-loader doing its thing? Nope. Thus, with your words, you've told us you don't take FLE seriously. Am I supposed to ignore your words? Or not take you seriously?
Comment by MikeGene — March 3, 2008 @ 2:15 am
March 3rd, 2008 at 2:29 am
Mike:
Instead of answering questions about your method of inferring front-loading, sadly you seem to prefer avoiding them and putting words in my mouth instead. Painful to see you reduced to using such desperate tactics.
Comment by Raevmo — March 3, 2008 @ 2:29 am
March 3rd, 2008 at 5:38 am
Raevmo:
Tell me Raevmo,
Do we have positive evidence of the Big Bang doing its thing? Of course we do. What is it?
How do scientists infer that the big bang happened or that a past evolution happened? Isn't it from a back in time extrapolation based on an inference of how things are observed happening today?
How do scientists infer that front loading by intelligent design happened? Isn't it from a back in time extrapolation based on an inference of how intelligent designers act today and how certain systems are observed being formed today?
1. Intelligent designers routinely front load compressed information into programs for the goal of future unfolding function based on future environmental factors. AI is an excellent example. Can you give any examples or even theoretical underpinnings of a random set of laws and variables doing the same?
2. We observe that *every* instance of front loaded programming or the generation of an information processing system in which we know the cause is the result of intelligent creativity. Do you have any counter examples?
3. Evolutionary algorithms result from the input of target characteristics into the behavior of the search algorithm thus front loading problem specific information into the search procedure and guiding it to the solution. (Read the original NFLT if you doubt me) Can you provide any examples of evolutionary algorithms self-generating from a set of random laws and variables?
The above 3 points are positive evidence of a designer doing his thing.
Look at that … observation (point 2), a strong theoretical foundation — NFL and COI Theorems and CSI — (point 3), and experimentation with the type of system in question (point 1 and 3) … the front loading hypothesis has it all. What does your hypothesis have? Oh wait … what is your hypothesis anyway? Just attacking the ID front loading position doesn't make your position true (whatever it may be).
Comment by CJYman — March 3, 2008 @ 5:38 am
March 3rd, 2008 at 8:34 am
Extrapolation was considered supportive, but not conclusive. Strong evidence in science requires making specific and distinguishing predictions. Such as maps of the cosmic background radiation, which show features predicted from Inflation Theory.
Comment by Zachriel — March 3, 2008 @ 8:34 am
March 3rd, 2008 at 10:08 am
CJYman:
I don't need to give any examples or underpinnings, because I am claiming there is no front-loaded information in genomes. You say there is, so please show me where the front-loaded information in genomes resides. If you are correct, then you should be able to predict future environmental factors based on current genome content. DNA sequences are freely available for you to make those predictions. I am eagerly awaiting the results.
Place a chicken egg into an incubator and lo and behold, a few weeks later an information processing system hatches.
I will give it a try if you tell what you mean by evolutionary algorithms and sets of random laws and variables.
Comment by Raevmo — March 3, 2008 @ 10:08 am
March 3rd, 2008 at 10:20 am
But there would still be the initial genomic information to account for.
In those coopted genes existing before future events and in genetic codes enabling the commencement of processes leading to the variation that followed.
Comment by Bradford — March 3, 2008 @ 10:20 am
March 3rd, 2008 at 4:24 pm
Zachriel:
"Extrapolation was considered supportive, but not conclusive. Strong evidence in science requires making specific and distinguishing predictions. Such as maps of the cosmic background radiation, which show features predicted from Inflation Theory."
When is science ever conclusive?
Exactly, which is why Intelligent Design is strongly supported. As for distinguishing predictions … convergent evolution, CSI, co-option, etc. will not generate from a program devoid of intelligent programming. This prediction is similar to the prediction against perpetual motion machines based on our understand of physical law. The ID prediction is potentially falsifiable by experimenting with information processing systems.
Now, what distinguishing predictions does the non-teleological account of evolution provide against the simulated and observed teleological version? But, of course, you'd have to show that a non-teleological evolution is even possible in the first place in order to arrive at any predictions.
Comment by CJYman — March 3, 2008 @ 4:24 pm
March 3rd, 2008 at 4:25 pm
Hello Raevmo:
Please join me on my blog. I clarify my position there. My blog is linked to my handle.
Comment by CJYman — March 3, 2008 @ 4:25 pm
March 3rd, 2008 at 4:27 pm
Furthermore Raevmo:
I was merely providing the evidences of a designer doing his thing. If those 3 points find correlates in evolution, we have evidence of a designer doing his thing.
Comment by CJYman — March 3, 2008 @ 4:27 pm
March 3rd, 2008 at 5:57 pm
Raevmo:
I'm not a scientist but I've thought about this before. I will make a prediction that mankind will on the whole will benefit from any climate change caused by the release of carbon dioxide that was inevitable with the advent of the industrialization revolution
How's that for a frontloading prediction
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — March 3, 2008 @ 5:57 pm
March 3rd, 2008 at 6:20 pm
fmm:
Awesome. Now if you'd just define benefit for mankind we might have something to talk about.
Comment by Raevmo — March 3, 2008 @ 6:20 pm
March 3rd, 2008 at 6:45 pm
Eppur si muove.
It can't be distinguishing if convergence has been a component of the Theory of Evolution since, well, since Darwin.
CSI is an ill-formed mathematical concept, the calculation of which seems to change whenever we try to pin it down.
Nylonase was coopted as the result of evolutionary processes (Ohno, 1984).
Comment by Zachriel — March 3, 2008 @ 6:45 pm
March 3rd, 2008 at 7:05 pm
Predictions from the Second Law of Thermodynamics can be very specific. 1) In an isolated system not in equilibrium, the amount of energy to do work will tend to decrease over time. 2) It is impossible to extract heat from a hot reservoir and use it all to do work. 3) It requires work for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body. These predictions can be verified any of a number of ways.
Comment by Zachriel — March 3, 2008 @ 7:05 pm
March 3rd, 2008 at 8:00 pm
Hey Zachriel:
I stated:
"Exactly, which is why Intelligent Design is strongly supported. As for distinguishing predictions "¦ convergent evolution, CSI, co-option, etc. will not generate from a program devoid of intelligent programming. This prediction is similar to the prediction against perpetual motion machines based on our understand of physical law. The ID prediction is potentially falsifiable by experimenting with information processing systems."
"This prediction is similar to the prediction against perpetual motion machines based on our understand of physical law."
Zachriel:
"Predictions from the Second Law of Thermodynamics can be very specific. 1) In an isolated system not in equilibrium, the amount of energy to do work will tend to decrease over time. 2) It is impossible to extract heat from a hot reservoir and use it all to do work. 3) It requires work for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body. These predictions can be verified any of a number of ways."
Predictions from ID Theory can be very specific, as I've already explained to you:
1. An EA must be guided by problem specific information as per NFLT.
2. Problem specific information can only come from previous problem specific information as per COI.
3. Unintelligent processes will not create CSI as per "Specifications: …"
4. We observe intelligence creating EAs by using problem specific information; we observe intelligence creating CSI.
5. We have not ever observed a random (not guided by previous laws, information, or intelligence) set of laws and variables causing an information processing system and evolutionary algorithm or CSI.
6. According to NFL, COI, and argument from CSI, it is impossible for a random set of laws and variables (absent intelligence) to generate CSI or an EA.
7. Al this can be tested any number of ways using information processing systems.
Furthermore, because of observation of the cause of these types of system, ID theory is, as already stated, strongly supported.
Zachriel:
"CSI is an ill-formed mathematical concept, the calculation of which seems to change whenever we try to pin it down."
So, I see you are still peddling incorrect assertions based on your ignorance of the subject at hand. I have already explained the relevant concepts on my blog as you well know.
Care to back up your assertion? How about showing where and why the calculation would ever change? If someone is continually changing the calculation then they probably don't understand the concept.
Zachriel:
"It can't be distinguishing if convergence has been a component of the Theory of Evolution since, well, since Darwin."
Actually, since Darwin "convergence" has only been a proof of separate evolution of the same forms and functions happening more than once.
You missed what I actually said:
"As for distinguishing predictions "¦ convergent evolution "¦ will not generate from a program devoid of intelligent programming."
Did Darwin ever predict that?
Zachriel:
"Nylonase was coopted as the result of evolutionary processes (Ohno, 1984)."
Uhuh, and did you read what I stated:
" co-option, etc. will not generate from a program devoid of intelligent programming. "
Now I will repost the point that you have not yet responded to:
"Now, what distinguishing predictions does the non-teleological account of evolution provide against the simulated and observed teleological version? But, of course, you'd have to show that a non-teleological evolution is even possible in the first place in order to arrive at any predictions."
Comment by CJYman — March 3, 2008 @ 8:00 pm
March 3rd, 2008 at 8:11 pm
Hey Zachriel,
Speaking of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, you may find this article interesting.
With an understanding of this, you will see how the impossibility of perpetual motion machines as per the law of thermodynamics is intricately linked to the impossibility of the self generation of an information producing (better than chance performance) system. Of course the foundation of the Conservation of Information was laid long before it was discovered by ID Theorists.
A "learner… that achieves at least mildly than better-than-chance performance, on average, … is like a perpetual motion machine – conservation of generalization performance precludes it."
–Cullen Schaffer on the Law of Conservation of Generalization Performance. Cullen Schaffer, "A conservation law for generalization performance," in Proc. Eleventh International Conference on Machine Learning, H. Willian and W. Cohen. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann, 1994, pp.295-265.
Comment by CJYman — March 3, 2008 @ 8:11 pm
March 3rd, 2008 at 9:01 pm
It only takes one example to falsify.
Yet, nylonase evolved by duplication followed by a random frame-shift. This novel structure clearly represents complex (hundreds of base pairs), specified (by function) and functional (turns plastic into food) information.
In addition, a frame-shift is definitely not the sort of expectation of a front-loaded mechanism. It actually scrambles the reading of the genetic code. Nothing lines up and the result is complete happenstance.
Comment by Zachriel — March 3, 2008 @ 9:01 pm
March 3rd, 2008 at 9:13 pm
Odd how the vast majority of scientists think otherwise.
I would love to see a couple of examples worked out with something besides playing cards. But you have to be willing to try different examples so that we can see exactly how it works. I mean we want to apply this to real world examples, right?
I've read Dembski's Specification: The Pattern That Signifies Intelligence. Reading that paper, it seems we can infer design from the pattern alone. Indeed, that's the very title of the paper. Is that correct?
Yes, similar solutions to similar problems, something we would expect of natural selection.
You are having troubles with the concept of an empirical prediction. The observed phenomena is convergence. Natural selection predicts convergence. We might find further confirmation of this by looking for a fit between the adaptation and constraint, especially in a changing environment. If by 'intelligent programming', you are simply restating your conclusion, then your conjecture doesn't make any positive predictions. It's just tacked on. I have no way to know what observation to make to distinguish your claim.
There is no evidence of teleology in disease and substantial evidence that diseases are caused by parasitic microorganisms. That doesn't mean that some diseases with unknown causes aren't caused by evil spirits. But there is no evidence of this.
There is no evidence of teleology in planetary formation and substantial evidence that the planets were formed by gravitational collapse of a nebula. That doesn't mean that some deity didn't intervene in some unknown way at some unknown time for some unknown reason. But there is no evidence of this.
The scientific method requires that we eliminate extraneous entities or assumptions. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem. That doesn't mean these entities don't exist. They just have no scientific justification. As far as biology goes, we have robust mechanisms that seem ample to explain the evidence.
Comment by Zachriel — March 3, 2008 @ 9:13 pm
March 4th, 2008 at 3:16 am
Zachriel:
"Yet, nylonase evolved by duplication followed by a random frame-shift. This novel structure clearly represents complex (hundreds of base pairs), specified (by function) and functional (turns plastic into food) information.
In addition, a frame-shift is definitely not the sort of expectation of a front-loaded mechanism. It actually scrambles the reading of the genetic code. Nothing lines up and the result is complete happenstance."
It seems that you are still missing the point.
That is definitely relevant to the attempt to discover which solutions are targets and which are not.
However, CSI will not form absent intelligence. Will even the haphazard effect of nylonase form absent an evolutionary process? Will an evolutionary process occur absent an information processing system programmed to reach targets at better than chance performance? Will any of the above occur absent intelligence?
In accordance with the NFLT and COI, the best explanation is that, if nylonase is a random effect, then it is near an actual target. IOW, once the target is discovered, other slight variations and cyclical changes can be discovered in any randomly discovered sequence space immediately surrounding the target.
Zachriel:
"Odd how the vast majority of scientists think otherwise."
Odd how the vast majority of scientists won't even allow themselves to consider the arguments that have been presented.
Odd how once Dembski filled out his work mathematically no one wants to respond anymore.
Odd how the vast majority of biologists *probably* don't know the first thing about information theory even though the system that they study is founded upon it.
Zachriel:
"I would love to see a couple of examples worked out with something besides playing cards. But you have to be willing to try different examples so that we can see exactly how it works. I mean we want to apply this to real world examples, right?"
Excellent!
First, you will notice that given a system of x number of bits that you will never be able to generate CSI if you randomly flip the bits, no matter how long you do so. This is the best example as we can break everything down fundamentally into bits and then attempt to achieve specified patterns by evolutionary algorithms or random means, so this example provides a good encompassing simulation and is used in evolutionary simulations.
Secondly, we can look at a book and calculate exceedingly vast amount of CSI. I'm sure you at least understand CSI enough by now to know this.
Third, we can look at biological systems and begin to calculate the sequence constraints upon the system. Then begin to test a specific pattern for functional specificity and then calculate probabilities and measure against all probabilistic resources that the observable universe has to offer.
Sequence constraints have begun to be calculated.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/s...
Hubert Yockey has provided measurements of information of biological systems.
Now, we only need for the research to continue.
Zachriel:
"I've read Dembski's Specification: The Pattern That Signifies Intelligence. Reading that paper, it seems we can infer design from the pattern alone. Indeed, that's the very title of the paper. Is that correct?
Yes, from the pattern, not a representation of the pattern (unless it is both algorithmically complex and specified). But I've already explained this to you before.
ie: can you tell me the information content of "GATTACA"
Zachriel:
"Yes, similar solutions to similar problems, something we would expect of natural selection."
Natural selection unfolding a randomly generated template or an intelligently generates template? Please provide evidence from experiments with evolutionary algorithms.
Zachrirel:
"You are having troubles with the concept of an empirical prediction. The observed phenomena is convergence. Natural selection predicts convergence. We might find further confirmation of this by looking for a fit between the adaptation and constraint, especially in a changing environment. If by 'intelligent programming', you are simply restating your conclusion, then your conjecture doesn't make any positive predictions. It's just tacked on. I have no way to know what observation to make to distinguish your claim.
Natural selection only unfolds whatever is available. It is not synonymous with either evolution or any un-intelligent version of evolution.
Now it is time for you to abide by your own rules.
And what empirical prediction does "non-intelligently caused evolution" provide us with. How does this prediction empirically differ from the already observed intelligently designed evolution in simulation. In fact, is non-intelligently caused evolution even possible? Please back up your assertions.
Explain how natural selection from an un-intelligently generated set of laws will produce convergent evolution (separate instances of better than chance performance of arriving at the same targets).
Now, I will re-state. Convergent evolution itself is evidence that the evolutionary process is programmed by intelligence, since this is an example of consistently better than chance performance which the COI precludes, unless, according to the NFLT, previously applied problem specific information guides the search procedure to these multiple solutions and the information is thus conserved.
The prediction is a negative one. We will never observe an instance of convergent evolution apart from an intelligently programmed EA. This is based on our knowledge of NFL and COI. Just like how we will never observe an instance of a perpetual motion free energy machine because of our understanding of thermodynamics.
Zachriel:
"The scientific method requires that we eliminate extraneous entities or assumptions."
The key word is extraneous. We don't eliminate what is necessary. We are at a time like no other in history in which we are dealing with a system founded upon functional information which is not defined by any laws of physics or chemistry. Furthermore, this information is coaxing out the hidden potential of forms and functions hidden with the laws of our universe which would never have shown themselves were it not for the non-lawful foundation of information. Is this all a fortuitous accident? What other options do we have? Furthermore, there is a definite correlation between intelligence and information as intelligence is founded upon information and one major defining aspect of intelligence is the production of information.
Please feel free to contribute to our understanding of the cause of these systems without waiving your hands in the air and resorting to "chance of the gaps" arguments.
The rest of your post has nothing to do with anything I've said. You are blowing smoke in an attempt to guard yourself from having to validate your assertions.
Comment by CJYman — March 4, 2008 @ 3:16 am
March 4th, 2008 at 8:10 am
That's your claim.
Nylonase doesn't just *poof* into existence. It evolved by known evolutionary mechanisms.
Evolution is a natural consequent of imperfect replicators replicating imperfectly. There is no complete theory of abiogenesis, but most scientists in the field believe that life arose through natural processes. Let's watch you working your way around to assuming your claim.
That's nonsense math. Just provide the specific and distinguishing empirical predictions entailed in your hypothesis.
Yes, we know. The mathematicians are in league with the biologists, geologists, paleontologists, microbiologists and geneticists. It's truly is a vast conspiracy.
I'm not sure what this "Theory of Non-Intelligent Caused Evolution" consists of. However, there is a Theory of Evolution that makes a number of important and verifiable claims.
Yes. All your predictions are negative ones. We have to search the universe to observe the phenomean from all directions for all time. Those are not valid scientific predictions.
Comment by Zachriel — March 4, 2008 @ 8:10 am
March 4th, 2008 at 8:32 am
Perhaps one of the moderators would post my next comment as a separate thread.
Then please delete this and that comment. You may have to fix some of the formatting for the equation.
Comment by Zachriel — March 4, 2008 @ 8:32 am
March 4th, 2008 at 8:32 am
Dembski: "Can objects, even if nothing is known about how they arose, exhibit features that reliably signal the action of an intelligent cause?"
Dembski wrote a paper, Specification: The Pattern That Signifies Intelligence. In this paper, he claims that we can detect design from a pattern that meets his definition of specified complexity.
Dembski provides his mathematical definition of specificity.
σ = "“log2 [Ï•S(T)·P(T|H)]If the specificity exceeds a certain level (the Universal Probability Bound), he considers it specified complexity, and therefore, intelligent beyond doubt. I would like to follow through on Dembski's calculation of specificity with a few examples.
This was originally published on CJYman's blog, Reality Cheque.
For our first calculation. Let's assume the pattern is 01010101010101 …
Using Dembski's Inference, what can we infer about the pattern without risking a venture about the house? Assume the pattern is regular for now. Be sure to show your math (e.g. Chance Hypothesis). And remember! No peeking from underneath the covers!
"”
Specified Complexity
χ = "“log2 [10^120·ϕS(T)·P(T|H)]Comment by Zachriel — March 4, 2008 @ 8:32 am
March 5th, 2008 at 12:44 am
Zachriel:
"Yes. All your predictions are negative ones. We have to search the universe to observe the phenomean from all directions for all time. Those are not valid scientific predictions."
Call them what you will, it is a negative prediction based on an understanding of information theory and it thus fits in the same category as a prediction that perpetual motion free energy machines will not form based on an understanding of thermodynamics. Even the negative prediction is a result of scientific understanding and it aids in helping us further understand what nature will and will not do under certain conditions. So, call it what you will, it gives an explanation of cause and effect in nature.
Second, the hypothesis is that intelligence is necessary.
Third, it is falsifiable by showing, by experimenting with info. processing systems and EAs, that intelligence is not necessary.
Fourth, it is grounded in information theorems (NFL and COI).
Last, it is based on observation and an interrelation between the two systems in question and it is the best explanation as I have explained before.
Call it what you will, It tells us, from an observational, experimental, theoretical, and falsifiable foundation, what nature will and will not do under certain circumstances. Maybe it only fits in the same category as the scientifically founded claim that perpetual motion free energy machines are a physical impossibility. Thus, every claim to the contrary is to be greeted with the highest of skepticism.
*BUT*, if you actually think about it, ID is really only a filter to detect intelligence, so its positive prediction is that every time certain patterns are detected, a previous intelligence will be the cause. This is obviously falsifiable and to date the filter is still up and running with no other un-intelligent contenders capable of creating said patterns.
And no, that is not begging the question or arguing in a circle or providing a merely negative prediction, since the patterns which qualify as the result of intelligence are arrived at by observation, experimentation, theoretical work, and the ruling out of alternatives. That's like positively predicting that entropy tends to increase in a closed system, yet even in an open system, information is necessary to cause organization (not mere complexity — in terms of information, there is a significant difference). But, according to Zachriel, this is really a negative prediction and isn't scientific since we'd have to check out every corner of space to see if it is really true.
However, there definitely is a negative prediction which results from the above positive prediction. The negative prediction which results is the one about the impossibility of perpetual motion and the self generation of information processing systems.
Now again, what predictions does the non-teleological model make? Oh, wait, you haven't even shown that a non-teleological model is even possible or founded upon anything — observation, theorems or experiment.
As to your last comment re: "William's Design Inference and the slamming door," are you blind? It seems that you're blowing so much smoke in the air that *you* can't even see anything.
I've already explained why the pattern you give can't be put into the equation. There's a difference between calculating the probability of a pattern and a representation of the pattern. If you can not calculate the probability of the pattern then you can't use the equation, simple as that. The equation needs the probability to work.
Case in point: tell me the information content of "GATTACA"
You're blowing smoke Zachriel … blowing smoke …
Comment by CJYman — March 5, 2008 @ 12:44 am
March 5th, 2008 at 8:17 am
Hi Raevmo,
I'm not sure what questions you are talking about, but where did I ever claim to have a "method for inferring front-loading?" I have consistently claimed that FLE amounts to a perspective. This perspective arises when one, who accepts evolution, begins to seriously contemplate that life was designed (as explained in the book). And this perspective has been increasingly supported by recent findings in science. Either you see it or you don't. You clearly don't because in order to see it, you need either a taped interview made possible by time travel, a copy of a 3 billion year old lab journal, or a secret message in the DNA. Nothing else counts.
More evidence of game-playing on your part.
Comment by MikeGene — March 5, 2008 @ 8:17 am
March 5th, 2008 at 8:52 am
Please quit ignoring the argument. The valid scientific predictions from Thermodynamics are specific and distinguishing. That's what is required to be entailed in a scientific hypothesis.
You say, Information is necessary to cause organization. Yet, we know that systems can self-organize with just the addition of free energy. Weather is such a system. Complete with snowflakes. And giant water pumps called the Monsoon. And mighty rivers carving out the land. The flooding of the Nile. Hence, the statement is false.
Comment by Zachriel — March 5, 2008 @ 8:52 am
March 5th, 2008 at 11:04 am
I still want to know why the type of information CJYman is talking about requires an intelligent source. He mentions information this and information that and then concludes intelligence but I still don't understand the connection between those two. If a jar of marbles falls off the counter and scatters across the floor this creates a complex environment containing a lot of information about marble location, but clearly no intelligence was involved. There is no specificity in the information and thus no reason to conclude intelligence. The atoms in a crystalline lattice seem to be highly organized but don't require intelligence to arrange themselves so mere organization doesn't seem to imply intelligence either. There's a missing piece here that's preventing me from understanding. It all seems to be based on the axiom that CSI requires intelligence but I don't understand why that axiom would be true. Why can't the "noise" information from my scattered marbles be condensed by a gradual incremental information-neutral process into a small amount of CSI while still adhering to COI?
Comment by Todd Berkebile — March 5, 2008 @ 11:04 am
March 5th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Hi Mike,
You said:
You are consistently claiming that certain recent scientific discoveries make FLE "more plausible". To me that sounds a lot like you are using some systematic method to decide that those scientific findings have increased – rather than decreased, or left unaffected – FLE's plausibility. Indeed, your approach has a somewhat Bayesian methodological ring to it – weighing new evidence to update previously assigned degrees of plausibility to competing hypotheses. But for some reason, you prefer to call it a "perspective" rather than a method. My guess is – but I might be wrong – that you prefer this less "scientific" sounding terminology in order to preemptively silence any critique based on scientific methodological grounds.
Again you are putting words in my mouth. I have never said that nothing else counts, yet you keep repeating this lie. I'd much rather see you honestly substantiate your claim that "animal genes" (a slightly misleading choice of words) with unknown (if any) function in choanoflagellates makes FLE "more plausible".
Comment by Raevmo — March 5, 2008 @ 3:44 pm