Combinatorial Dependencies
by Steve PetermannSeveral years back I thought that the Darwinian theory was probably the best explanation for the emergence of biotic structures. That was before the stunning details of molecular machines were discovered. As the details of these remarkable machines rolled in, I became more and more skeptical that the random step-by-step process of mutations propounded by Darwinian theory could, in fact, account for what we see. It wasn't common descent (which I accept) or the increase of complexity over time that bothered me. It was the idea that the complex machines we see could come about with no planning or some sort of cognitive factor. Having been a machine designer for many years and designed many complex machines and systems, the probability that such remarkable machines could come about unplanned just seemed beyond rationality.
This is not to say that people haven't tried to construct gradualistic scenarios to account for these machines. The problem is that they seem to be totally oblivious to the combinatorial dependencies that are present in any complex machine. One predominant idea in these scenarios is exaptation. This idea suggests that something that offers some function can be utilized with other components to create a new function. So far so good. This happens all the time in design engineering. You take a gear box that is used for rotary motion, add a worm screw at its output and you've got a linear motion. What is ignored in these "just so" scenarios is that you can't just grab any ole gear box and any ole worm screw and get anything that works. The gear box has to be the right size, power factor, rpm, output size, materials, etc. The worm screw also has to have the right coupling design, pitch, power capacity, length, diameter, etc. And that's only one part of the design. The motor has to be the right type, size, torque, power, rpm, etc. Then there is whatever function is at the end of the worm screw. All these components are interdependent. In every complex function there are combinatorial dependencies.
An illustration of one such "just so" scenario can be found here. It's an animation to illustrate Nick Matzke's proposed Darwinian process to create bacterial flagellum. To the uninitiated this all looks pretty reasonable. From a combinatorial-dependency perspective it looks incredibly improbable.
Let's take a look at this in a little detail. First we have a passive pore that starts things off. Since this is the base of the eventual flagellum one has to ask is the pore the right size that the whip of the flagellum can provide the locomotion we see? If it is too small the resulting whip will not be able to handle the stresses from torsion and coupling. If it is too big the whip will be too bulky to be driven in any effective way by the motor. Then we add the secretion system. Is the pore the right size and of the right protein type for the existing secretion system? If not there will be no coupling of the two and no progress.
Ok now we have a selective pore and an secretion system but does it secrete proteins that will be right for the whip? The whip has to have the right protein shape. In engineering the components of a flexible whip have to be designed to mesh correctly such that there is just the right combination of coupling, flexibility, and rigidity. They also have to be the right material. If they are too soft there will be galling. If they are too hard fatigue cracks will set in and destroy the whip. The same goes for clearances between parts. This is a goldie-locks situation. Things have to be just right or it won't work.
Next we have to add the motor. Let's assume we're very lucky that a motor will fit and couple with what we have so far. However, the motor has to have the rpm and torque to drive the whip just right. If it doesn't have enough torque we won't get what we see. If the rpm is too fast the whip will destroy itself because of the hydrodynamic forces applied to it by the fluid. Then it and all the other components have to be sized just right to reverse or the torsional forces on the wip will rip it apart. Remember the diameter, materials, meshing of parts, etc. in this Darwinian scenario have no idea what will be required later.
I could go on and on but I hope you get the idea of combinatorial dependencies. And things are really worse when you consider the problem of "you just can't get there from here". If one component violates the needed dependencies that must be satisfied, you can't just mutate that one component because every component depends on the others. As any design engineer will attest from their mistakes, you just have to start over. In real design a computer program would probably be written to play what-if scenarios to match the torque required, the materials and configuration of whip components, the bearing size and thickness based on cell wall strength, hydrodynamic factors, torsional and coupling stresses, etc and etc. Also this doesn't even take into account the assembly processes that are required. They also have their own dependencies.
The point is that simplistic just-so stories based on random mutations just aren't adequate from an engineering perspective. There's entirely too much luck involved to be taken seriously. Darwinian proponents will have to do much better than this to convince anyone acquainted with real machines.
September 3rd, 2007 at 9:03 pm
I agree Steve. The supporting data is just not up to par. Focusing strictly on homologous genes and random mutations lacks too much detail and demands too much faith in a process. It's no accident that a large number of Darwinian skeptics have enginering backgrounds.
Comment by Bradford — September 3, 2007 @ 9:03 pm
September 3rd, 2007 at 10:32 pm
Hi Steve,
What is your alternative mechanistic model?
Throwing stones at other people's theories is easy until you have to come up with a detailed alternative of your own.
God could do it through quantum manipulations of DNA. If there is no such thing as randomness, God could manipulate the evolutionary process. All he needs to do is front load life with quantum effects.
EAM is another possibility.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 3, 2007 @ 10:32 pm
September 3rd, 2007 at 11:33 pm
TP:
TP, I need to point out some things. While there is nothing wrong with an alternative model the advocacy of one is not a prerequisite to fair and honest criticism. That is a way of advancing science. Also, different people may have different roles to play. My interest lies in detecting physical evidence that supports a general paradigm rather than a specific alternative. I can point in the general direction and let others give specific directions on where and when to turn. Your interest lies with fleshing out a specific alternative, Mike has his FLE and others will have more. Good. To each his own.
Comment by Bradford — September 3, 2007 @ 11:33 pm
September 4th, 2007 at 12:42 am
Even if the theory of evolution is inadequate, how exactly would a designer make things better for us? Fine, let us say that some super-intelligence created all of it and put it in motion, but how did he do it anyway?
There is no alternative to the Darwinian theory of evolution and there had never been one, so unless someone comes up with an alternate theory, I'm afraid it's not convincing anyone.
Science makes it easy for ID advocates to poke holes in it, but scientists on the other hand can't poke holes at anything at all since they can't refute their main hypothesis (an invisible higher-power) and can't dispute the alternatives since there aren't any!
It's a really cozy place to be in - to criticize and to offer nothing in return.
Comment by dimasok — September 4, 2007 @ 12:42 am
September 4th, 2007 at 12:53 am
Gotta go with Dimasok
Just as well that Harvey didn't say "mmm god must have done it so there is no point in looking further," let's add Pasteur, Flemming and all the other scientists who made a difference to that list.
Not including a designer in the list of possible solutions leads to advancements. Doing the opposite leads to the status quo and no incentive to discover.
Give me the incentive to go for it every time. Until you can show me how saying "god done it" or "inshallah" is at all beneficial you have got some leg work to do.
In the 1400s and 1500s dissections of the human form were forbidden, just in case we learned too much. My view is that we cannot learn too much! What we do with it however is open to discussion and rightfully so.
Comment by DaveC — September 4, 2007 @ 12:53 am
September 4th, 2007 at 2:44 am
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i...
Nonsense.
Comment by nullasalus — September 4, 2007 @ 2:44 am
September 4th, 2007 at 2:48 am
Alas, it looks like that article may be subscriber-only.
It's a long article, but I'll quote a particularly pertinent part:
Comment by nullasalus — September 4, 2007 @ 2:48 am
September 4th, 2007 at 2:55 am
These numbskull "ID is a science-stopper" comments are ridiculous aren't they?
Oh yes, once we know that life was intelligently designed we'll all pack our bags and go home. No need to learn more about biology or medicine because, after all, life was intelligently designed and that's all we need to know.
[/sarcasm]
Comment by Lurker — September 4, 2007 @ 2:55 am
September 4th, 2007 at 4:07 am
Comment by stunney — September 4, 2007 @ 4:07 am
September 4th, 2007 at 4:14 am
dimasok wrote:
How does God do things?
Asked and, yaaaawwwwwn, answered.
Comment by stunney — September 4, 2007 @ 4:14 am
September 4th, 2007 at 6:39 am
There is an alternative known as FLE. Besides that evolution presupposes existing life forms. ID does not. Therein lies opportunities to advance alternative teleological causes.
Comment by Bradford — September 4, 2007 @ 6:39 am
September 4th, 2007 at 6:51 am
You're right Lurker. It's the ultimate in threatiness.
Comment by Bradford — September 4, 2007 @ 6:51 am
September 4th, 2007 at 7:29 am
Not realizing how old "Validating Expelled" was, it was there I posted my comment.
Comment by John A. Davison — September 4, 2007 @ 7:29 am
September 4th, 2007 at 8:48 am
My problem with God is that it seems to be terribly wasteful to have forced billions years of evolution from single-celled to multi-celled organisms and all that infinite space around us also seems to be too hostile and too wasteful if we are to play any part in his creation.
Your post is quite impressive, but it leaves no hope for any scientific experiment to validate it.. it is not science, notwithstanding the possibility that it might be true, because science simply doesn't work that way.
Perhaps, after the LHC is fired up in May and comes up with extra dimensions, we'll have a better idea what's happening.
Comment by dimasok — September 4, 2007 @ 8:48 am
September 4th, 2007 at 9:20 am
Hi TP,
Lots of new theories are borne from finding inadequacies in others, but I have to admit I'm pretty baffled how intelligence is used in these designs. However, there are several possibilites that, to me, seem to hold promise but I see no reason why they need to be mechanistic.
Forms of EAM seem the most promising but in my panentheistic theology this does not exclude God. The key to any that could do the job would include some sort of limited cognition. (Even James Shapiro, no IDist, uses the term "cognition" to characterize his "natural genetic engineerig") This cognition would have to have some sense of results before changes were made. There are several possibilities here.
In process thought God provides an initial aim that the entity may or may not follow. Since that aim is coming from God it is directed towards some goal even if limited. However, I'm not a fan of process thought.
Stuart Hameroff has proposed that the Cambrian explosion might have occured because at that time there were enough neurons or microtubules to create some level of consciousness.
Also in consciousness research by folks like Radin, Sheldrake, and others there seems to be a certain level of precognition. If this is true then perhaps organisms could "see" the future to a limited degree and make "decisions" before acting.
How susceptible to empirical verification any of these are, I don't know. However, while the Darwinians can go on about their merry way trying to justify their approach, I think those who see it as a dead end can look at new approaches.
Comment by Steve Petermann — September 4, 2007 @ 9:20 am
September 4th, 2007 at 12:51 pm
Good post, Steve. As a non-engineer, non-scientist, I only have an intuitive sense of these things, which you, as an engineer have a more experienced grasp of. What would stengthen the case would be working out the mathematical probabilities, as Dembski has attempted to do.
Comment by Bilbo — September 4, 2007 @ 12:51 pm
September 4th, 2007 at 1:33 pm
Hi Bradford,
You wrote…
I disagree.
It is neither fair nor honest to criticize someone without offering an alternative. It's like complaining about how sausages are made.
And your positive suggestion for a "general paradigm" is…. ?
Be honest.
Do you like MikeGene's FLE because he appears to be supportive of a designer with human-like intelligence? My vision of a front loading hypothesis makes no presumptions of a metaphysical agency or agencies with an ability to learn or adapt. It doesn't say one way or the other.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 4, 2007 @ 1:33 pm
September 4th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
dimasok wrote:
Calm yourself. Relax. There's nothing to worry about. If scientists told us tomorrow they had made some mistakes, and that the universe was actually only 1 light-year in diameter and only 100,000 years old, I doubt it would spark wild global street parties outside of the Bible Belt.
Heck, if you were a mere photon, you could fly across the universe in no time at all, because the distance between your starting point and your destination would be measured as zero in your frame of reference.
And remember: God is Light. In him there's no darkness, so in God's frame of reference, there are no spacelike or timelike separations, as it were. So in his frame of reference, maybe the universe is really, really tiny and no older than it was at the Big Bang.
Why do you always have to insist on making your frame of reference the measure of space and time? You are so darn anthropocentric! Where's the Copernican spirit? Here's leading string physicist Brian Greene, in The Elegant Universe, (p. 51):
[emphasis added]
See?
You go on:
Nor does poetry, or music, or tennis, or kissing work that way. They're not science either.
I doubt it. But let's suppose it confirms 10-dimensional string theory. We'd still want to know how strings manage to cause poetry, music, tennis, and kissing.
Actually, most of us wouldn't. Most of us would be unable to follow the mathematics involved even if we were interested, which most people on the planet wouldn't be. We'd say, "Whatever", and go back to kissing. At which point our ex-SO might start singing that ol' country and western classic, Take Your Tongue Out of My Mouth 'Cos I Don't Love You Anymore. And the scientific successes of the Large Hadron Collider would then seem not much of a consolation, if any.
On the other hand, she might just say, "Wow, I've forgotten how good a kisser you are. Let's get back together." In which case you might perform your very own Large Hardon Collider experiment.:smile:
Comment by stunney — September 4, 2007 @ 1:50 pm
September 4th, 2007 at 2:03 pm
I don't view critiques of OOL (which are frequent on my part and lead to an ID inference) as personal. They rarely entail criticism of individuals advocating OOL.
Biological organisms show evidence of having been purposefully designed.
I see overwhelming evidence for ID in cells and particularly within DNA. I thought this before I heard of Mike Gene and believe, not only that DNA itself is evidence for front loading but, that specific properties of DNA supply evidence of FL as well.
Comment by Bradford — September 4, 2007 @ 2:03 pm
September 4th, 2007 at 2:23 pm
Where exactly did I insist on making my frame of reference hte measure of space and time? Never said that.
LMAO I enjoyed reading this
So, how does God explain kissing, poetry, music, etc?
Comment by dimasok — September 4, 2007 @ 2:23 pm
September 4th, 2007 at 3:43 pm
TP wrote:
I disagree. The Michelson-Morley [sp?] experiment was a devastating critique of the theory of ether, though they didn't have theory to replace it.
Comment by Bilbo — September 4, 2007 @ 3:43 pm
September 4th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
Hi Steve,
You wrote…
Please see my response to Bradford concerning offering alternatives. I have been presenting Hameroff's views as a realistic ID alternative. I was also aware of the other hypotheses you mentioned. These are the types of candidates I am talking about.
In other words, I think your open mindedness is laudable.
That being said, let me pick at your engineering analysis. In the opening post you wrote"¦
As a design engineer I can attest to the multiple times it is more cost effective to start over IF THE OPTION IS AVAILABLE.
In situations where an existing design exists and there is no obvious upgrade path, it is generally easier to start over. But it is not always possible or permitted. In these cases, the design evolves the best that it can.
One example of where starting over is easier is in the face of a lack of scalability. This was the situation with Rickenbacker's nuclear power plants. The small power plant (for a submarine) wasn't designed to be scalable up to the size needed to deal with commercial power generation. I understand Rickenbacker indicated a redesign was needed, but his advice went unheeded. Commercial nuclear power generation suffered, but the evolution of the design was able to continue anyway.
Another example of where it is usually easier to start over as opposed to evolving an existing design is for standardization purposes. Cargo containers are an example of this. Cargo containers can travel by air, sea and land. However, it wasn't practical to start over with all new planes, ships and trucks. Therefore, global shipping limped along the best it could while slowly evolving the design over time.
Finally, designs of complex machinery are hardly ever designed from scratch. Conservative (i.e. successful) designers create "new" designs by modifying previous solid known designs. New designs are riskier. More changes add more risks. It would be nearly impossible to design a modern automobile totally from scratch. Henry Ford designed the Model T mostly from scratch. Year by year, model by model, the design evolved into today's complex machine.
Now, you may want to posit the Ultimate Engineer with metaphysical knowledge that can design totally from scratch, but that more than strongly suggests a presumption of God.
At best, an unbiased presumption of Intelligent Design would be that life on earth came from multiple designers who sometimes worked at cross purposes, i.e. a design-by-committee project. It wouldn't be unrealistic to presume they were using their intelligence to learn via on-the-job training.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 4, 2007 @ 4:10 pm
September 4th, 2007 at 4:49 pm
Hi Bradford and Bilbo,
Excuse me for combining my response, but your two comments compliment each other.
Bradford wrote…
Bilbo wrote…
This all started with Bradford's suggestion that "While there is nothing wrong with an alternative model the advocacy of one is not a prerequisite to fair and honest criticism."
Time to pull out the dictionary…
crit"¢i"¢cismn.
1. The act of criticizing, especially adversely.
2. A critical comment or judgment.
But once challenged, a quick word substitution occurs…
cri"¢tiquen.
1. A critical review or commentary, especially one dealing with works of art or literature.
2. A critical discussion of a specified topic.
The Michelson-Morley experiment was ran in an attempt to SUPPORT the theory of ether. They didn't have an alternative because they thought this theory was correct. There is a difference between critical analysis and "criticism".
Bradford's righteous use of the adjectives "fair and honest" only aggravated the situation. Michelson-Morley did a fair and honest critique of a scientific model they endorsed. Judging and adversely criticizing a model without an alternative is neither fair nor honest, IMO.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 4, 2007 @ 4:49 pm
September 4th, 2007 at 5:02 pm
dimasok wrote:
Here's what you said, and I quote:
My problem with God is that it seems to be terribly wasteful to have forced billions years of evolution from single-celled to multi-celled organisms and all that infinite space around us
And from a photon's point of view, it would be billions of no time whatsoever, and all that infintesimally tiny distance. So how dare you privilege anthropocentric frames of reference over those of humble photons! Shame on you, you anti-photonist you!
Yeah, 'twas not bad, even if I say so myself.
I thought we'd been through this before.
See also here and here and here.
God explains things by being their First Cause.
What, indeed, is it for one material something to cause another material something? Have you solved that problem yet?
If the right answer about causation is along the general lines of, 'There's a lawlike observed correlation between A things happening and their soon being followed by B things happening', how would that account of causation rule out God's mental state causing physical states? And if instead the right answer is along the lines of 'A things have an intrinsic causal power, ICP, to make B things happen', how would that account of causation rule out God's mental state having an intrinsic causal power, ICP, to make certain physical states happen?
I don't see how it would in either case. And, the causal relations we are paradigmatically familar with are those obtaining between our own mind and our own body. To see this for yourself, just type a response, and then try to explain how you did so without mentioning your mind or any of your mental states. But if it's okay to explain your typed response by reference to your mental states, why is it not okay to explain how God does things by reference to his mental states?
You might answer by saying that you have a body, and God doesn't. But what about the laws of gravity and electromagnetism, dimasock—do they have bodies? Aren't photons massless?
You'll end up by positing 'the fundamental energy of the universe'. Where does energy come from? What supplied energy to the big bang? Where does the energy for string vibrations come from, if every boson is itself a certain type of string vibration?
Maybe you need to think a bit more about it, dimasock.
Comment by stunney — September 4, 2007 @ 5:02 pm
September 4th, 2007 at 5:20 pm
TP,
This is true but as you no doubt know limping along modifying existing designs instead of starting from scratch to meet some new function takes great skill and intelligence. Trying to imagine limping along and "evolving the best that it can" with only random changes must stretch one's credulity. And as I pointed out sometimes "you just can get there from here". Nature having to start over constantly with the same chance factor to get to what we actually see must violate one's engineering sensibilities. This would be like me just walking out in the warehouse blindfolded picking components at random and hoping they would work together. Surely you as an engineer must see the folly in this sort of approach.
This is not necessary. All the proposed processes I suggested need not presume God, but that may be the best inference. Erwin Schrodinger, William James and many others recognized the "combination problem" that points to some sort of unity that is embedded in all plurality.
This has nothing contrary to a my panentheistic view. All the major religious traditions have the concept of "kenosis" (self limitation) relating to God's presence in the world. I affirm that each organism does its own design within its own context but also within the context of the whole. I think there is a lot of scientific confirmation of this as seen in ecological research.
I don't know about your background, but what I have found is that many critics of teleology have no sophistication in regard to the most profound theology and metaphysical thought. They just presume some theistic model they learned in sunday school.
Irnonically I agree with most of the criticisms of religion (like those of Dawkins, Russell, Harris and others) lodged against the religious formulations founded during the axial age. But things have progressed so much from then in the best religious thinkers. In fact, the very same criticisms have already been lodged by theologians themselves over the last 100 or so years.
Teleology need not be framed within a paradigm of some grey old man in the sky. I personally think it is vastly more subtle and deep than that. It may very well be that most ID proponents maintain prespectives based on the traditions of the past but that should not invalidate the teleological perspective based on what we actually see in evolution.
My personal view is that there is a limited (kenotic and God based) intelligence embedded in all organisms. This intelligence has some sense of goal and purpose that guides its evolution. I don't know of any other way to account for what I see in molecular machines without resorting to supernaturalism (which is a complicated issue but not amenable to me).
Think of your own designs. How likely is it that an unguided combination of components could create something of the complexity and elegance like what we see in molecular machines even given millions of years of trying, getting tested, failing, starting over, or limping along. This is, of course, an intuitive judgement but as an engineer you, of all people, must have some sense of it.
Comment by Steve Petermann — September 4, 2007 @ 5:20 pm
September 4th, 2007 at 5:35 pm
TP:
So if we found out that Michelson and Morley secretely detested the ether theory, then we could discount the results of their experiment?
BTW, I agree that if life on Earth was intelligently designed, it often looks like it was designed by committee, or by designers who were learning on the job.
Comment by Bilbo — September 4, 2007 @ 5:35 pm
September 4th, 2007 at 5:53 pm
I do admit you gave me some food for thought.. haven't thought of that before. I'll get back to you after thinking more thoroughly through this… keeping myself open-minded
Comment by dimasok — September 4, 2007 @ 5:53 pm
September 4th, 2007 at 7:03 pm
TP:
Just a technical note. That was Hyman Rickover. And the design didn't progress much in the super-sized variety. All our plants are basic '60s design BWRs and PWRs.
Why? The good ol' Standard Model of physics has been known to be erroneous and/or incomplete for decades. Whole generations of physicists have been criticizing it regularly, all their working lives. There's really nothing on the horizon to take its place. Strings and branes are interesting diversions, but entirely un-empirical at this point. The 'Next Big Thing' might be something totally different. Nobody knows… §;o)
Comment by Joy — September 4, 2007 @ 7:03 pm
September 4th, 2007 at 7:46 pm
Hi Joy,
You wrote…
Thank you for the correction.
As I was typing my previous comment I was tempted to add "ask Joy, this is her area of expertice".
Even if I got the name wrong, did I remember correctly that Rickover cautioned against simply supersizing his design?
I think this comes down to the word "criticism". Saying a theory is incomplete when it is, isn't criticism. Saying scientists are guessing when scientists are guessing, isn't criticism. Accusing scientists of being wrong for pursuing a path they have found fruitful, is criticism. IMO, it is unfair and dishonest criticism when done without offering alternative paths.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 4, 2007 @ 7:46 pm
September 4th, 2007 at 7:56 pm
Hi Bilbo,
You wrote…
If the results of the experiments are repeatable, then the motivations of the experimenters aren't important. If ID proponents offered repeatable experimental results, such an argument could be offered.
That being said, keeping secret motivations and agenda isn't honest. Trying to sabotage support for a competing hypothesis while protecting a favored hypothesis by keeping it hidden or unstated is also dishonest.
Thank you for the acknowledgement.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 4, 2007 @ 7:56 pm
September 4th, 2007 at 9:44 pm
TP:
Rickover was a notorious perfectionist who insisted on being on board for every sub's initial sea trials during his long rein of terror, and for some he rode with both blue and gold crews. Every sailor on a nuclear sub was qualified to deal with reactor shutdown (including emergency SCRAM dives) and a leak of a few drops had to be attended immediately.
Don't know what he thought about the civilian reactors, but those have long been operated by ex-Navy nukes who generally aren't crazy about how the upsizing turned out. He advised Jimmy Carter strongly to dilute the Kemeny Commission report on the accident at TMI for fear the truth would kill the industry for good. His daughter said he expressed regret about that before he died, but I don't automatically believe that. They like to say (per the 'Rickover Legend') that the Silent Service never had a reactor accident too, but I haven't forgotten either the Thresher or the Scorpion. Always take nuclear hype with a large grain of salt.
And what is it when a scientist is prevented from pursuing a path s/he thinks could prove useful, for fear that such 'unorthodox' approach might turn out to *be* useful?
Comment by Joy — September 4, 2007 @ 9:44 pm
September 4th, 2007 at 10:13 pm
Hi Joy,
Thank you for the history lesson. It sounds more realistic than the idealistic picture I had painted.
I could easily be convinced that "Stu" Hameroff is getting more resistance than is warranted for his ideas. But there are peer reviewed experiments and studies being performed. I get the feeling scientific acceptance is inevitable.
If you are talking about prejudice ala Guillermo Gonzalez and Expelled, you would have to make a case for that.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 4, 2007 @ 10:13 pm
September 5th, 2007 at 3:36 am
So you state here that if there is a God, He wouldn't have done it this way? Then you state:
Well, excuse me, Dimasok, but your first inferrence is not exactly scientific either. You make a metaphysical argument against God's existence simply by stating that any God (in your view) wouldn't have created the universe as it is. Then you turn around and accuse someone else of not having a reasonably scientific explanation.
If God did in fact create the universe as it is, with billions of years of evolution, who then are we to second guess his means of creating? But you don't believe in God. Fine. But don't go arguing God out of existence metaphysically when you mean to have a scientific explanation for why you don't believe in Him.
Comment by Randy — September 5, 2007 @ 3:36 am
September 5th, 2007 at 8:23 am
That was merely a way of demonstrating why, among other things, I find it difficult to believe in God. Now I might believe in a higher cosmic power, but to call it a God of any monotheistic & polytheistic religions would be an overstretch.
You're right though, point taken.
Comment by dimasok — September 5, 2007 @ 8:23 am
September 5th, 2007 at 1:55 pm
Hi Steve,
Please excuse the belated reply.
You wrote…
"This would be like me just walking out in the warehouse blindfolded picking components at random and hoping they would work together. Surely you as an engineer must see the folly in this sort of approach."
I see the ineffiencies in such an approach. Are you familiar with the Monte Carlo Method of analysis?
I have used it. It works. It isn't always to most efficient way to solve problems, but sometimes it is.
I wrote…
"At best, an unbiased presumption of Intelligent Design would be that life on earth came from multiple designers who sometimes worked at cross purposes, i.e. a design-by-committee project. It wouldn't be unrealistic to presume they were using their intelligence to learn via on-the-job training."
You responded with…
This sounds more and more like EAM. When I asked about that earlier you responded with…
"Forms of EAM seem the most promising but in my panentheistic theology this does not exclude God."
A lot of things don't exclude God. Ken Miller's brand of Theistic Evolution certainly doesn't. My suggestions concerning the quantum effects don't either.
Promoting scientific hypotheses that don't exclude God is one thing (what I call ID Science). Attempting to use science to promote a belief in God is what I feel the ID Movement is about. I am a critic of the ID Movement.
The fact that the ID Movement leaders only embrace things like EAM when they need political cover ("ID isn't religious") stongly suggests their true interest and agenda.
You wrote…
Since you appeal to my engineering sense…
First of all it is BILLIONS of years, not millions. As an engineer, I tend to look for the key foundations of a situation I am trying to understand. What are the basics? In the case of life on Earth, I look to pre-Cambrian. To me, life already had the key attributes by this time. Photosynthisis, reproduction and sytems of organs. After that, everything else was details.
Here is a copy and paste from a previous comment of mine concerning Vernanimalcula guizhouena (a pre-Cambrian organism)…
Here is a link I found"¦
Here is the Pharyngula link that has some nice pictures.
We now know these little critters had a hormonal signaling system.
How do we know this? From the link in MikeGene's previous post"¦"It is likely that [two types of hormone-secreting nerve cells] existed already in Urbilateria, the last common ancestors of vertebrates, insects and worms"
The Vernanimalcula guizhouena descended from the Urbilateria.
I don't know about you guys, but this kind of complexity is older than I had expected. 50 million years prior to the Cambrian we have a critter with a pair of "external pits" that were sensitive to light (can you say "eyes") a digestive system and a hormonal system.
It looks like this little critter could SEE!
Do you think I exaggerate?
Also from the same link"¦
Hormones ""¦secreted in response to certain chemicals." Could it SMELL and TASTE too?
Since even single celled organisms have a sense of TOUCH, I think it is safe to say our little critter probably had that too.
Alright, I will admit the Vernanimalcula guizhouena probably had to hand out "I am deaf" cards to any verbalizing organisms running around, but all and all, for it's time the Vernanimalcula guizhouena were intellectual giants. That time was 600 MILLION YEARS AGO!
As a champion of a Third Choice I will point out the challenge of this for the other two choices. First of all, what evolutionary pressures would there be to cause such a complex creature to evolve? How much complexity is needed to eat microbes? How complicated do early organisms have to get before it is admitted they just might be more complicated than expected?
To the Intelligent Designer advocates. Other than an appeal to "mysterious ways", how did this all come about? How did God the Intelligent Designer implement the plan? Some ID proponents point to the Cambrian Explosion as something significant. To these proponents the complexity shown by the Vernanimalcula guizhouena may be "older than expected" for ID, not "Darwinists".
A hypothesis that suggests consciousness at a fundamental level of living organisms would expect organisms with interacting sub-systems earlier than simple evolutionary pressures would dictate.
I wonder how many microtubules were in a Vernanimalcula guizhouena.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 5, 2007 @ 1:55 pm
September 5th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
TP,
I'm a little familiar with it because our CFO uses it. However, I fail to see how this invalidates my claim that combinatorial dependencies are a terrible problem for unguided evolution. Monte Carlo uses computational algorithms. So have I in some much simpler engineering analysis. These intelligently design algorithms vastly decrease the time needed to get a solution even if the variables are changed randomly. The "algorithm" of Darwinian theory is natural selection(an acceptance test by death or less procreation in the less fit). Surely this is a very inefficent algorithm at least for creating molecular machines. This is especially acute since in many cases "you just couldn't get there from here" because blind changes know nothing of dependencies.
You seem to be trivializing the details. That's what the just-so stories do. In most engineering systems the details are paramount. That's what my post is about. Sure early forms of life had important components that might be used later. In fact I strongly believe that the genetic "tool kit" that evolved was essential for the increase in complexity and the molecular machines. But if you just rumage around in a tool kit, and randomly try to build something that will work, you're going to have to be incredibly lucky to get something that looks anywhere near the elegance we see in biological systems in a feasible time frame. Too lucky in my view.
Just look at the flagellum again. First you've got to be very lucky that the passive pore is the right size to be a precusor for the coupling and the whip. Then you've got to get lucky that the secretion system will fit and excrete the right kind of protein that will work in the highly specific and stressful function of the whip. Then motor has to fit the whole system and produce the right rpm and power so that it works but doesn't destroy itself. This doesn't even cover the complex process of assembly.
The rest of your discussion on the Vernanimalcula guizhouena is irrelevant to my post because it just talks about the forest and not the trees. Also I'm perfectly Ok with some kind of extrinsic cognition being around before the Cambrian. In fact, that would be my guess.
Comment by Steve Petermann — September 5, 2007 @ 2:41 pm
September 5th, 2007 at 4:44 pm
Hi Steve,
You wrote…
WHY? And more importantly HOW?
Why would cognition exist Precambrian? How smart do you have to be to eat microbes? I will let the defenders of the status quo speak for themselves on this.
To ID advocates, I challenge to explain how it occurred.
This gets back to EAM, Hameroff's Orch OR and other hypotheses. I am not only talking about the trees in the forest, I am talking about the DNA, Microtubules and photosynthesis process in the leaves of the trees of the forest.
Interconnected quantum effects means life is one giant quantum computer running a Monte Carlo analysis. Are there purposeful deities behind the scenes manipulating things? That isn't a scientist's concern. Scientists should leave that for philosophers and religious scholars to argue over. That is not a scientific question.
Per Gould's NOMA, science does not provide the proper toolset for determining philosophical Truths. That doesn't keep people from trying anyway. Whether it comes in the form of the Many World interpretation or a metaphysical Intelligent Designer, it is a dishonest abuse of science IMO.
I have presented a scientific mechanistic model called the Third Choice (based on Penrose-Hameroff Orch OR).
Do you have a scientific model?
Science is useful because one can make definitive proposals. One of the basic tenets of philosophy is that, via Socrates, a wise man knows he doesn't know the Truth.
I don't know the Truth, do you?
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 5, 2007 @ 4:44 pm
September 5th, 2007 at 5:33 pm
Thanks for this blog post, Steve.
I really enjoyed it.
Since we are on this topic I thought I would link one of Mike's papers from Teleologic. This is one of the more considerate and balanced treatments of the issues at hand. That…. and one of the papers that really got me interested in the larger issue of teleology in biology.
Comment by Doug — September 5, 2007 @ 5:33 pm
September 5th, 2007 at 5:47 pm
TP, I think you're missing my point about Michelson-Morley. One can criticize a theory without having another theory to replace it. This can be done from a number of motivations. But as you say, if the experiment is repeatable, that's all that matters. Thus, Steve can criticize Darwinian evolution, without having another theory to replace it. There's really nothing wrong with that. It's part of critical thinking.
Comment by Bilbo — September 5, 2007 @ 5:47 pm
September 5th, 2007 at 5:53 pm
Hi Bilbo,
You wrote…
And I think you're missing my point about "fair and honest criticism".
Providing alternative hypotheses is constructive.
Testing hypotheses is constructive.
Sitting back and complaining isn't constructive. It isn't fair. It isn't honest.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 5, 2007 @ 5:53 pm
September 5th, 2007 at 6:01 pm
TP:
Are you suggesting that is what Steve has done here?
Comment by Bilbo — September 5, 2007 @ 6:01 pm
September 5th, 2007 at 6:16 pm
TP,
But the Monte Carlo computational algorithms are intelligently designed. Are you suggesting then that evolution has an underlying purpose of some sort? If so that would seem to be pretty close to stepping over the NOMA boundary.
Not everything here is about science. You certainly have the right to limit your discussion but that doesn't mean others must ablige.
Comment by Steve Petermann — September 5, 2007 @ 6:16 pm
September 5th, 2007 at 6:28 pm
TP,
I'd hate to think what science would be like today if scientists couldn't criticize a theory before they came up with an alternative. Why do you think scientists start looking for new theories in the first place?
Comment by Steve Petermann — September 5, 2007 @ 6:28 pm
September 5th, 2007 at 6:40 pm
Dimasok:
It IS difficult to believe in God. Nobody ever said that belief in God is easy - especially not if one is a thinking person. You want to know all the particulars about this God before belief. It is the simple person who has little difficulty believing in God; yet more simple minded people also believe that Elvis is still on tour in China. Belief in God is difficult, but not unreasonable.
Comment by Randy — September 5, 2007 @ 6:40 pm
September 5th, 2007 at 7:24 pm
Hi Bilbo,
You asked…
I was responding to Bradford's "fair and honest criticism" remark. It practically reeked of righteousness. Steve has not made any claims along this line. In fact, he just pointed out that "Not everything here is about science". I take this as an honest admission on his part.
You brought Steve into this specific discussion in a way that I now have to possibly defend a misunderstanding that wasn't a problem until you created it.
Do you consider that "fair and honest" of you?
If Steve feels I have insulted him, he can let me know and I will quickly apologize since that was not my intent.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 5, 2007 @ 7:24 pm
September 5th, 2007 at 7:39 pm
Hi Steve,
You wrote…
I think the Third Choice allows for a telic universe "of some sort". That is why I think it qualifies as an ID Hypothesis. At a base level, the purpose of the telic universe is to exist and be consistent with itself. I am also open to an EAM-like consciousness.
As far as the NOMA boundary is concerned, the Penrose-Hameroff Orch OR model provides a pretty clear indication of the limit of scientific investigation. The limit is the non-deterministic, non-random nature of the interconnected quantum effects. We will probably never know what is behind the quantum effects. I say "probably" because I don't know the Truth of metaphysical things like that.
As I had indicated in my previous comment to Bilbo, I consider this an honest admission. I too don't limit my discussions only to science. However, I try to make it clear which I am talking about, philosophy or science. I doubt that I am always successful in that endeavor.
So they can fairly and honestly criticize their peers, of course!
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 5, 2007 @ 7:39 pm
September 5th, 2007 at 9:23 pm
You're projecting. A fair critique of a scientific position entails addressing the scientific data supporting that position. Readers know what honesty and dishonesty are. Fair and honest criticism is essential to good science and sound thinking.
Comment by Bradford — September 5, 2007 @ 9:23 pm
September 5th, 2007 at 9:58 pm
Hi Bradford,
I suspect and hope the readers understand the connotative differences between the words "critique" and "criticism". You chose to employ the latter.
I disagree…
CRITICAL THINKING is essential to good science and sound thinking.
"Fair" has absolutely nothing to do with it.
"Honest" in this case would be honesty to yourself, there no reason to advertise it.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 5, 2007 @ 9:58 pm
September 5th, 2007 at 10:14 pm
Fair and honest criticism is essential to good science and sound thinking.
For reasons that are unclear you're being pedantic. Fair was defined in a manner consistent with good science.
Comment by Bradford — September 5, 2007 @ 10:14 pm
September 5th, 2007 at 10:24 pm
Hi Bradford,
You wrote…
For reasons that are all too clear you are being as stubborn as I am.
So "fair" is a scientific term now is it?
I'm willing to let this go to the jury as is.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 5, 2007 @ 10:24 pm
September 5th, 2007 at 10:32 pm
I linked fair to the addressing of supporting scientific data. Since science is empirical in nature this is more precise than critical thinking which can apply to non-empirical matters as well.
Comment by Bradford — September 5, 2007 @ 10:32 pm
September 5th, 2007 at 10:45 pm
TP,
I think this is fair. Epistemologically science can take us only so far then for many religious people another epistemological and existential source can be applied as well (i.e. religious sensibility, mysticism, religious experience, Calvin's "sensus divinitatus", Tillich's "mystical a priori", etc). This may not be the same type of epistemology as that of science but for many it is equally or even more compelling.
Comment by Steve Petermann — September 5, 2007 @ 10:45 pm
September 5th, 2007 at 11:13 pm
Hi Steve,
Thank you for the acknowledgement.
Also thank you for the post.
I enjoyed see Nick Matzke's film clip again.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 5, 2007 @ 11:13 pm
September 6th, 2007 at 8:43 pm
Hi TP,
if you enjoyed Nick's video you should really read Mike Gene's series of papers on the topic as well.
I linked one above…. but from there you can find the rest.
Comment by Doug — September 6, 2007 @ 8:43 pm
September 6th, 2007 at 9:05 pm
Hi Doug,
Thank you for the head's up.
I looked through it when you first posted it. It is impressive.
I am continually fascinated by the energy and earnestness of the ID proponents around the time Behe's Black Box was published. I really mean it when I say I believe Behe was honestly trying to do science when he wrote that. EAM advocates including Joy had a mechanistic model. MikeGene was pushing the ID movement to do the science before trying to introduce it into schools.
Too bad the ID Movement leaders didn't listen.
EAM has been relegated to something "way down on the totem pole" that is only brought out when the ID Movement needs to hide its religious agenda.
Behe succumbed to political pressures and watered down his hypothesis to the point it is practically non-existent.
It really makes me wonder why MikeGene isn't more disgusted with the ID Movement than I am.
Maybe he is.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 6, 2007 @ 9:05 pm
September 6th, 2007 at 11:38 pm
Steve, earlier you wrote:
The concept of kenosis is usually applied to the incarnation of Christ. In fact, it is a biblical term (Philippians 2:7). However, in his book, God after Darwin, John Haught extends the idea of kenosis to God as Creator. I find this to be something of an interesting idea that does not necessarily conflict with a more classical form of theism. It does, in fact, in my opinion, solve a number of problems. For example, it allows an omniscient and omnipotent being to step aside and passively observe rather than micromanage his creation.
Personally I do believe that God does intervene in his creation, but He does so only occasionally and episodically. How does this concept relate overall to the idea of evolution? From an interventionist point of view there are really a number of possibilities; every thing from special creation of distinct species to the FLE ideas that many at Telic Thoughts adhere to. Personally I lean towards more towards a middle position though that is nothing that I am dogmatic about.
I'd be interested in hearing more of your thinking about this. I think it is not only an interesting, but also an important line of inquiry.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — September 6, 2007 @ 11:38 pm