Built in Capacity for Change is Called What?
by BradfordA NY Times science article titled
In their recently published book, "The Plausibility of Life," Dr. Kirschner and Dr. John C. Gerhart of the University of California, Berkeley, offer a fresh look at the origins of novelty. They argue that many of the basic components and systems of the body possess the quality of what they call "evolvability" Â that is, the components can be altered without wreaking havoc on the parts and systems that connect to them, and can even produce a reasonably functional organ or body part in their modified configuration. For example, if a genetic mutation ends up lengthening a limb bone, said Dr. Kirschner, the other parts that attach to and interact with that bone needn't also be genetically altered in order to yield a perfectly serviceable limb. The nerves, muscles, blood vessels, ligaments and skin are all inherently plastic and adaptable enough to stretch and accommodate the longer bone during embryogenesis and thus, as a team, develop into a notably, even globally, transformed limb with just a single mutation at its base. And if, with that lengthened leg, the lucky recipient gets a jump on its competitors, well, g'day to you, baby kangaroo.
Dr. Kirschner also observes that cells and bodies are extremely modular, and parts can be moved around with ease. A relatively simple molecular switch that in one setting allows a cell to respond to sugar can, in a different context, help guide the maturation of a nerve cell. In each case, the activation of the switch initiates a tumbling cascade of complex events with a very distinctive outcome, yet the switch itself is just your basic on-off protein device. By all appearances, evolution has flipped and shuffled and retrofitted and duct-taped together a comparatively small set of starter parts to build a dazzling variety of botanic and bestial bodies.
The combined modularity and bounciness of body parts suggest that life is spring-loaded for change, for outrageous commixtures, the wildest fusion cuisine. And who knows whether our organismic suppleness, our deep evolvability, isn't related to our mental thirst for the new, and our hope that behind the door lies the best surprise yet?
Sound familiar? The authors suggest that "life is spring loaded for change." At what point did this occur and what clues point to the answer?
March 13th, 2007 at 11:07 am
failing to see the point, many critics will suggest that this undermines ID in virtue of undermining the rigidity of IC systems.
Comment by bipod — March 13, 2007 @ 11:07 am
March 13th, 2007 at 11:43 am
Let's suppose evolvability evolved. If so, didn't something primitive have to possess the property of evolvability for any evolving to take place? If there was no such initial property attributable to anything—if nothing possessed the property of evolvability—then it's hard to see how anything could evolve. Which contradicts the notion we supposed at the start.
On the other hand, if we assume that evolvability is a primitive property of matter, then we can presumably say that's just a brute fact about the world, requiring no intelligent designer. Either there's only one logically possible way for matter to be, or there's lots and we just happen to live in a universe whose matter has this property (as well as all its other interesting properties).
Not sure how either of these alternatives could be scientifically verified or falsified from within our universe, however.
Comment by stunney — March 13, 2007 @ 11:43 am
March 13th, 2007 at 12:24 pm
Hi Bipod,
Isn't Bradford's post in-line with Krauze's and Mike Gene's notion of frontloading (opposed to that conceived over at UD by DaveScot)?
The idea that the spring (front) loading comes down to the flexibility of the organism…. that certain evolutionary pathways will be more likely (not necessarily definite) than others.
Comment by Doug — March 13, 2007 @ 12:24 pm
March 13th, 2007 at 12:25 pm
I suspect we are only beginning to understand the complexity and depth of these matters. It will be fascinating to see this unfold.
Comment by bj — March 13, 2007 @ 12:25 pm
March 13th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
doug, that's my point. i was just suggesting that critics will fail to see the MG/K version of ID here and instead see it as problem for the UD crowd
Comment by bipod — March 13, 2007 @ 12:48 pm
March 13th, 2007 at 12:52 pm
Hi bipod. You wrote:
That they may well do. However, the plausibility of their claims should be determined by what we learn in the future and not by the predictable knee jerk reaction critics will have. In any case truth should be valued above all else and if Behe's IC is debunked then so be it. It is important that questions remain open and answers not be predeterimed in the absence of solid evidence.
I was hoping you or others would take a shot at answering the last question. In my view the answer to it will in large part determine the fate of ID. What I'd like to know is how flexible or rigid are the IC systems needed to form a minimally functional cell? As a follow up how would such IC systems have evolved? Critics like to impose a black box around these issues and contend that even though we do not know the answers to these questions you should not draw any conclusions based on our present lack of knowledge. I'll await any further comments before exploring this some more.
Comment by Bradford — March 13, 2007 @ 12:52 pm
March 13th, 2007 at 1:06 pm
bipod, the article states:
Long before evolution could arrive at the point where there are nerves, muscles etc. and the modular systems that enable adaptive changes, there must first have evolved some basic systems that do not appear to be all that modular. I'm willing to debate that point with any takers but in light of bipod's remark would also like to know why IDers often allow critics to dictate the terms of the debate? How is modularity of some current systems a problem if their existence required some very non-modular innovations at the outset?
Comment by Bradford — March 13, 2007 @ 1:06 pm
March 13th, 2007 at 1:07 pm
With papers like Shapiro's Bacteria are small but not stupid, I'm beginning to wonder if intelligence and matter might be indistinguishable. When the molecules inside a microorganism are seen to be acting intelligently, i.e. moving to accomplish purposeful actions, then can we not also say that the atoms which bond together to form the molecules are also acting intelligently? Can we not say that the subatomic and subnucleonic parts are acting intelligently to form the atoms? At the subataomic level, our thinking shifts to the idea of forces rather than matter. So naturally an inquisitive mind would wonder just what the heck is matter anyway?
I'm now leaning toward the idea that the universe was ordered into existance, and "it" was given the properties necessary to keep existing. I have no idea how or by what this could have happened, but this is where my reasoning and logic is taking me. It would explain much, and at least get rid of the pesky problem of what is making matter constantly move and change, if such motion and change was built in from the ditgo.
Such an idea also explains the diversity of organisms. As matter began to separate and form into different elements, which mixed and combined into different substances, it was inevitable, I think, that differing levels of intelligence would result. Little changes in structure account for tremendous differences. To wit, compare the 02 molecules that we breathe to the 03 ozone that is toxic, a difference due to only one additional oxygen atom in the ozone vice the oxygen molecules in the air we breathe. H20, we drink, yet compare that to H202, hydrogen peroxide, again a difference resulting from only one additional atom in the hydrogen peroxide molecule.
With this view in mind, it's easy to imagine that when life sprang up on the early earth, the first microorganisms separated as a process of motion and change. Maybe they had to, otherwise they would simply die and revert back to "inanimate" matter. Assuming that microorganisms were the first forms of what we call life, and given their differing levels of intelligence in accordance with their different elemental compositions, it is reasonable to think that they evolved differently, that they chose different ways to adapt and survive. I think that all the life that now exists on the planet came from a single source, a first microorganism or a first colony of microorganisms that sprang up. How else to account for the universal mechanism of DNA and the cell?
I don't know if that makes me a creationist or not, but if science will not investigate the principle of a moving cause, or simply disavows it, then I have no choice but to resort to my own philosophical musings about this, and the only thing I can come up with that makes sense is the idea that matter, motion, and intelligence are indistinguishable. The idea that a rock is intelligent is an alien concept, that's for sure, and it sounds a little crazy, but those infinitesimal forces that keep a rock being a rock are also showing an intelligence, an organization, even if its only the case of them continuing to adhere and bond properly to form the correct molecules that identify the rock.
One thing is for sure. Life and its origin has become politicized to a degree that I no longer trust what the "experts" tell us, on all sides of the debate. I bugged out about six months ago, and decided to just figure this out for myself. I bought a Chemistry and a Biology textbook, and am self teaching myself. The biology text is Reece's 7th edition, and everything presented is within the theme of traditional Darwinism. It is transparent how the text constantly steers the reader toward the idea of Emergent Properties, as a way of explaining all the dizzying complexity that exists. It's quite laughable, and leaves a very noticable empty taste.
Anyway, just my two cents.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — March 13, 2007 @ 1:07 pm
March 13th, 2007 at 1:11 pm
stunney writes;
You're driving toward the thought I had in mind. From whence came evolvibility? How is that explained? From what point is the causal trail traced? The birth of the universe and laws of physics determined at that time? Is it an inevitable consequence of the properties of particular organic chemicals and conditions on prebiotic earth or are there more plausible explanations?
Comment by Bradford — March 13, 2007 @ 1:11 pm
March 13th, 2007 at 2:27 pm
AnaxagorasRules:
Hi, AR (easier on the fingers)! This is a very pertinent point, because things biological have become so polarized at the current time. One side is blathering about [tyrannical] authority, the other is asking legitimate questions and getting slapped around by scientists posing as politicians trying to protect their exclusive century-and-a-half turf by law. As if human laws define what is or is not physically real. Ridiculous!
There have been serious turf wars in science, so it's not like we don't have referents to human beings acting like human beings and pretending to way more actual knowledge than they've got. The authoritarian structure of science (and science in academia) runs counter to the intelligently-designed job description OF science. But that doesn't cure scientists of being human.
Meanwhile, out in the world of actual scientific endeavor (as opposed to blatherings on political matters), the rats are abandoning ship. The NDS is well past the first peals of its death-knell, as exciting new technologies bring ever more exciting new knowledge. Something new is indeed in the works.
They'll never call it "Intelligent Design" for obvious political reasons, but it will look a whole lot like it. In the end, that will be enough to open whole new avenues of approach, and these will include teleological functions of life and nature itself.
Comment by Joy — March 13, 2007 @ 2:27 pm
March 13th, 2007 at 4:01 pm
AnaxagorasRules wrote:
I would agree that a single source fits explanations for DNA and more but do not believe that "different elemental compositions" account for the properties of DNA or the proteins coded for by DNA.
There is order and predictability to the universe that ought not be taken for granted and a need for a working definition of intelligence which transcends order in my view. When we consider complex objects, known to be products of intelligent design, we are able to assert this about them: Natural forces alone are an inadaquate means of generating them. Erosion may, on occasion, fashion a shape having the appearance of an animal or a technological device. But it would not shape a detailed visage of George Washington, Lincoln, Jefferson and T. Roosevelt.
This suggests a standard for determining intelligent causality. An outcome, not determined to be the consequence of blind forces of nature, would be the result of a guiding intelligence.
Comment by Bradford — March 13, 2007 @ 4:01 pm
March 13th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
From whence came evolvibility? How is that explained? From what point is the causal trail traced?
I've had that question for a long time. It's the ID version of "Who designed the designer?" Next time you hear "Who designed the designer?", just ask "Who/what caused evolution to evolve?" or "Who/what caused natural selection to select?".
The fact that you can't have an infinite regress in the causal chain is the sole reason why people made up the stupid infinite-universes hypothesis.
Comment by Lurker — March 13, 2007 @ 4:04 pm
March 13th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
and
I remember endless meetings at work in a state government agency where we would complain about how others weren't doing and acting the way we knew they needed to make progress in our directed tasks. It went on and on, and was tiresome, until I learned an important truth. We humans tend to act like humans. We have a downside and it's not going away.
Yet, somehow, this quest for knowledge which ends up being useful just won't go away either. There is a new day coming, and it won't all be to our liking either, but it will contain more of the truth than we presently have. That's all we can really expect, but that is something.
Comment by bj — March 13, 2007 @ 4:04 pm
March 13th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
Hello, Bradford, you write:
I would like to play devil's advocate for a moment and ask a question of you. I already have an answer that I would give, but I would like to see your and other's answer to this question:
If 'information' is seen to always be the result of intelligent action and we infer that information is necessarily produced by intelligence (the basic ID position) and if intelligence is always seen to result from an informational structure and thus we infer that intelligence necessarily arises from information are we not stuck in a loop between information and intelligence and shouldn't we then attempt to explain one of these phenomenon, preferably the less complex of the two in terms of either chance or natural law — ie: unplanned abiogenesis?
Comment by CJYman — March 13, 2007 @ 4:26 pm
March 13th, 2007 at 5:05 pm
If an IDist made this point, the very point would be considered evidence that the IDist was a creationist.
Comment by MikeGene — March 13, 2007 @ 5:05 pm
March 13th, 2007 at 6:04 pm
CJYman wrote:
It does look like a circular causal chain does it not? Of course there is an explanation for such loops that satisfies the logical conundrum. If a pre-existing source of either information or intelligence existed the chain would not be truely circular.
Comment by Bradford — March 13, 2007 @ 6:04 pm
March 13th, 2007 at 6:13 pm
Lurker wrote:
Glad you pointed out the infinite regress causal chain. The infinite universe concept seems driven by something other than scientific objectivity but a comment from a physicist would serve us well. (Where is Heddle?)
Comment by Bradford — March 13, 2007 @ 6:13 pm
March 13th, 2007 at 6:17 pm
bj writes:
One thing we should all agree on is the need to maintain open roads to truth. Anything that stifles human inquisitiveness runs counter to human nature.
Comment by Bradford — March 13, 2007 @ 6:17 pm
March 13th, 2007 at 9:52 pm
I am moving away from an anthropomorphic view of the universe and away from an anthropomorphic view of intelligence. As a result of realizing that everything that we see and think as "real" is in actuality a pattern formed by infinitesimally small particles…and to kick it off, we can't even see them except through non-optical detecting devices such as the scanning tunneling microscope. It's as if we are composed of infinitesimally small, qualitatively different lego particles, and it is the macro patterns that they form that we perceive as reality. When we look in the mirror, what do we see? Eyes, skin, hair, is what we have see…but we are a heterogenous mixture, macro patterns made up of a conglomeration of living cells that individually look nothing like what we normally think we look like.
And yet even the cells are patterns, composed up of molecules, which are composed of even smaller atoms, which are composed of even smaller subatomic parts adn subnucleonic parts. Those parts themselves are exhibiting evidence of intelligence, of organizaton, of collaboration, embodied quite nicely and concisely by the periodic table of elements.
I suppose that I am implicitly defining intelligence to be something quite different from the normal anthropomorphic definition as we normally apply it. I suppose what I'm saying is that an atom itself is intelligent, because it must move purposely in the performance of its task, whether it is part of an enzyme which is catalyzing a chemical reaction, whether it is part of the molecule being catalyzed, whether it is part of a DNA strand, wherever it is or whatever it is part of, it must exhibit structure and maintain that structure. Even the atoms that make up an inanimate solid are maintaining a structure, and even though they are united in tight molecular bonds, they are not completely immobile. If an atom is acting purposefully and predictably, then on what basis can it be denied intelligence?
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — March 13, 2007 @ 9:52 pm
March 13th, 2007 at 10:19 pm
AnaxagorasRules, I think one factor being overlooked is choice. Options and evidence of intelligence go hand in hand. If only one outcome is possible for a specified condition then how can one attribute intelligence as a cause?
Comment by Bradford — March 13, 2007 @ 10:19 pm
March 13th, 2007 at 11:42 pm
Bradford, I'm just keeping my options open. I see a type of choice occuring even at the atomic level. Why did some subatomic particles bond to form gold, others to form carbon, others to form oxygen, magnesium, mercury, etc? When the subatomic parts formed different atoms, which in turn paired off to form different molecules, is it correct to assume that these formations did not involve a choice, albeit a choice far removed from our experience?
Wouldn't it be logical to think that the descending levels of organization would have different levels of intelligence? In other words, we are intelligent in a different way than our cells are, and our cells' molecular components are intelligent in a different way still, and so on down through the organizational levels of matter. We are learning that our cells are intelligent. And a close reading of Shapiro's paper, which I linked to in my first comment, discloses that it was the microorganisms' molecules that are acting intelligently, because in the description of the cellular activity taking place, it was the bacteria's internal components that was performing the activity, making decisions based on existing exigencies. When molecules (proteins) are shown to be acting intelligently, then it is a short walk indeed to wonder if the molecules' atoms themselves have an intelligence.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — March 13, 2007 @ 11:42 pm
March 14th, 2007 at 3:49 pm
Bradford:
Bradford, do you have any ideas as to scientifically weeding out this "mystery source" that would satisfy the logical conundrum?
AnaxagorasRules:
If there was any choice involved, I think it would be at the quantum level. However, at the "macro-quantum" level as far as I know it just seems to be a long chain of necessary cause and effect.
AR:
I completely agree, since my simple definition of intelligence = the ability to process information. As to differing levels of intelligence — deffinitely! I think that the same can be said of consciousness as well.
AR:
Here's where I slightly disagree. If we define intelligence as the ability to process information, then the fundamental particles you refer to would not be intelligent. They would merely be following a chain of cause and effect that results from a deeper program. However, to create that chain of cause and effect, from what I understand, the program in question would need to have the ability to process information. Thus the program itself would be intelligent.
IOW: intelligence wouldn't be a function of the individual molecules, but would be a function of the total informational arrangement of the molecules.
I would say that it's a short walk to wonder if atoms themselves and the laws they obey result from intelligence (deeper information processing). It just so happens that cosmologists and physicists view the universe as a whole as an information processor.
Comment by CJYman — March 14, 2007 @ 3:49 pm
March 14th, 2007 at 6:47 pm
It does look like a circular causal chain does it not? Of course there is an explanation for such loops that satisfies the logical conundrum. If a pre-existing source of either information or intelligence existed the chain would not be truely circular.
We know that intelligence can generate information. It happens on TT all the time right? Mainstream biology would have us believe the reverse occured too. Some time in the distant past, out of a prebiotic soup, without any intelligent input, came that initial encoding genome which eventually led to intelligent life forms or so the story goes. My own view is that intelligence does not arise from a series of prebiotic chemical reactions but rather preceeds and generates information found in DNA. Arguments favoring this POV are drawn from the nature of life itself. But what do life forms indicate about an intelligent source? A high degree of intelligence? Surely. Beyond that there is not much more to say that is not purely speculative. If ID is said to run interference for religious concepts it does so very poorly for there is simply nothing to say for such concepts based on biological data.
Comment by Bradford — March 14, 2007 @ 6:47 pm