Fisking the Journalist
by MikeGeneA couple of us thought we would comment on Sharon Begley's report about the recent evidence that further strengthens the plausibility of front-loading. But we must come out from behind the shields and be as we are.
The intelligent design camp also argues that some biological structures are just too darn sophisticated to have evolved through random mutation and natural selection.
Y'sum. Some of dose biologicker structures are darn tootin' tooo sophistercated to have mutated by evilution!
They must therefore have been designed by an intelligent agent.
Shazam! They damn well MUSTA been and yer goin' burn in hell if you sez different!
In particular, since complex structures have lots of components, how could the components have been just hanging around for eons waiting for the final component to emerge?"
She's tryin' to confuse us with all that there componentery. That high falootin' city reporter ain't goin' trick us with that fancy talk!
Think of it this way: if you don't already have all the other components of a mousetrap, why would you keep a spring around? A spring is only useful if you also have the base, the bar and the rest. This is the argument called "irreducible complexity," and it has proved very persuasive to the public.
Hah! We's don't need no cottin pickin' mousetrap when ol' Clevis gots his shotgun. Ain't that right Clevis? Clevis?
June 12th, 2007 at 2:35 am
It's interesting to see Sharon Begley torpedoing IC. I had suspected she might be sympathetic to ID, given her collaboration with ID proponent Jeffrey Schwartz on the anti-materialist book The Mind and the Brain: Neuroplasticity and the Power of Mental Force.
Comment by keiths — June 12, 2007 @ 2:35 am
June 12th, 2007 at 12:00 pm
The interesting question no one is asking is: What is it that takes all these mostly common molecular components and organizes them into sponges (on the one hand) and scientists (on the other)?
The real blind spot is the belief that genes which code for proteins somehow control and organize everything that happens in organisms.
Comment by mcromer — June 12, 2007 @ 12:00 pm
June 12th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
Hi Mike,
LOL
I like it. I even agree this Newsweek report was worthy of "fisking".
However, I would think you would have wanted to highlight the obvious motive for the article namely this report on finding a gene for synaptic scaffolding in Sea Sponges.
"Published: June 6, 2007"
Both Newsweek and Ed Brayton seem to be attacking a Front Loading argument before it was made. Maybe I missing it, but a Google search didn't show any anti-evolution sites making any claims about Sea Sponges.
Krauze's is the closest by announcing Ed Brayton's post as containing "good news" along with the bad.
Let's do Science!
Let's make scientific arguments. The Sea Sponge gene is very supportive of both your Designer-induced Front Loading hypothesis and my Quantum Mechanical retrocausality hypothesis.
How many coincidences will it take to convince a neutral observer there is something there?
As for Sharon Begley opinion, I take it as good news that this concerns her (and Ed Brayton) enough to preemptively offer a very weak strawman counter-argument before we even said anything.
Even the critics know this is strong supportive evidence.
Provoking Thought
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 12, 2007 @ 12:17 pm
June 12th, 2007 at 12:39 pm
I always know'd them sponges were smart critters!
Comment by chunkdz — June 12, 2007 @ 12:39 pm
June 12th, 2007 at 1:26 pm
Sea Sponges before Brayton and Begely.
http://creationsafaris.com/cre...
Comment by Pez — June 12, 2007 @ 1:26 pm
June 12th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
Hi Pez,
Thank you for the link. But Begely's article is timestamped…
"Wednesday, June 06, 2007 7:49 AM".
The creationist link you provided basically quotes from the article and makes only the following argument…
"Yet this is not the way classical Darwinism works."
It says nothing about Front Loading or Irreducible Complexity. It isn't even an ID site.
If Begely was responding to it, she attacked the wrong target.
Regards,
TP
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 12, 2007 @ 1:54 pm
June 12th, 2007 at 2:50 pm
Hi TP,
Sorry, I didn't get the gist of what you were looking for when you said:
The link I provided does just this.
As I see now you wanted not an anti-evolution site but a pro-ID site (got your terms mixed up, huh?) making explicit a frontloading or IC claim to which Brayton or Begely were responding directly.
Correct, my link doesn't do that.
I guess Brayton and Begely heard of these concepts somewhere else along the line.
Comment by Pez — June 12, 2007 @ 2:50 pm
June 12th, 2007 at 2:54 pm
Shazam!
Who's who in the picture? I'm guessing that's Mike Gene on the right because the guy on the left is wearing a wristwatch.
Comment by Rock — June 12, 2007 @ 2:54 pm
June 12th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
Hi Pez,
You wrote…
And I said "Thank You". Did you want me to admit I am made a mistake too?!?!?
Yes, I misspoke and I do appreciate the link. I need to be kept on my toes. It keeps me humble.
Regards,
TP
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 12, 2007 @ 4:04 pm
June 12th, 2007 at 5:16 pm
Sharon Begley's argument seems to be 'If you walk into a garage, and there are car parts laying around with no mechanic in sight, it is reasonable to conclude that a car assembled itself'
Comment by jhudson — June 12, 2007 @ 5:16 pm
June 12th, 2007 at 9:23 pm
Surely you're not suggesting that the car was created (gasp).
Comment by Bradford — June 12, 2007 @ 9:23 pm
June 13th, 2007 at 3:09 pm
"The intelligent design camp also argues that some biological structures are just too darn sophisticated to have evolved through random mutation and natural selection. They must therefore have been designed by an intelligent agent."
Incorrect. Rather it is that design hypothesis better fits some evidence.
"This is where the irreducible-complexity crowd makes a fatal error: they assume that whatever the function of a biological component (gene, protein, biochemical pathway . . . ) today must have been its function in the past."
No, the ID crowd makes no such error. Irreducible complexity does not assert that the parts of a feature were not around associated with other feature. Springs on mousetraps can be used for other things obviously. IC asserts that the mousetrap itself was not something that slowly came together as a mousetrap from various other pieces. Rather the functional mousetrap requires all the parts, expressed in just the right order, to be functional.
"All got together and formed."
Amazing. I consider the temporal expression and sequencing of 42 genes to be perhaps more complicated then the genes themselves. But this idea doesn't seem to entered into her universe.
"We found this mysterious unknown structure in the sponge, and it is clear that evolution was able to take this entire structure and, with small modifications, direct its use toward a new function," said Kosik. "Evolution can take these "˜off the shelf' components and put them together in new and interesting ways."
Maybe it can. Can he demonstrate that it did? Can he tell us precisely how the components formed in the first place, and what their antecents where? Can he map out the precise steps that it took to get these gene expressions just right for the BF with transitional evidence to fill all the gaps?
Of course not. They "all got together and formed."
Ah, there's nothing quite like a magic incantation when you need one.
Comment by kornbelt888 — June 13, 2007 @ 3:09 pm
June 13th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
Hi kornbelt888,
You wrote…
I happen to have a hypothesis that provides a mechanism (non-deterministic, non-algorithmic processes of quantum mechanics).
What is your hypothesis?
(other than uttering the magical incantation "GodDidIt")
Provoking
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 13, 2007 @ 3:17 pm
June 13th, 2007 at 3:37 pm
Thought Provoker: "What is your hypothesis? (other than uttering the magical incantation "GodDidIt"
I'm very much open to ID and the BWH. So far nothing conclusive either way, although intuitively I think DNA and cellular machinery points to intelligent input. At any rate, this article was worthy of a good fisking. Thus, my 2 pesos.
I don't mind people throwing their ideology around if they want to, as long as they play fair. Please don't offer it up as science while lampooning those who are not ideologically commited to non-intelligent forces.
Comment by kornbelt888 — June 13, 2007 @ 3:37 pm
June 13th, 2007 at 11:26 pm
So they say. But it's my understanding, and just from a layperson's reading around on blogs and ID books, that you need both the components and the instructions for putting them together. This is the part of the cooption argument that I never get. Sure, the parts may be lying around, maybe there's some gene duplication, but what about all those complex instructions that tell how to put the parts together and do something novel?
Comment by onething — June 13, 2007 @ 11:26 pm
June 13th, 2007 at 11:31 pm
Hi Onething,
I have two reactions…
1. What is your alternative mechanism?
2. Would you like to hear mine?
(retrocausality powered by quantum mechanics)
Provoking Thought
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 13, 2007 @ 11:31 pm
June 13th, 2007 at 11:42 pm
Hello TP,
Look, I don't have to have an alternative mechanism. I think that asking for a solution to a perceived problem is often used to intimidate. Seeing an illogic versus coming up with a good solution are two very different steps. Philosophically, I see that reluctance to admit ignorance is a pretty serious emotional flaw that encourages lousy explanations rather than spending time in the terrifying void of "I don't know."
But yeah, I have been meaning to read up on your new improved version. Link it again.
Comment by onething — June 13, 2007 @ 11:42 pm
June 13th, 2007 at 11:55 pm
TP:
TP, this sounds like the punchline of a commerical. Retrocausality, (powered and maintained by quantum mechanics) is available at a low, low price while supplies last.:smile:
onething
Good answer onething. Hang onto your billfold though if TP tells you Retrocausality stock split.:wink:
Comment by Bradford — June 13, 2007 @ 11:55 pm
June 15th, 2007 at 11:22 pm
MIKEGENE - PLEASE POST THIS…
Hi Mike - If your offer to post my retrocausality idea is still available, could you please post the following….
An Atheist's view of ID, Front Loading and Retrocausality
MikeGene has kindly allowed me this post to provoke some thinking on both sides of the ID/Darwin debate. His action provides some tangible evidence an IDist and an Atheist (me) can cooperate. While I am very critical of the methods and motives of the leaders of the ID movement, I can appreciate the earnest efforts of ID Scientists like MikeGene even if I disagree with their common goal of finding an unnamed "designer". Christopher Columbus had a wrong-headed goal too. However, instead of finding a quicker route to India, he managed to discover something far more significant. The same may hold true for the intrepid ID explorers.
Front Loading is a popular hypothesis among the earnest ID scientists. Whether these scientists refer to it by name or just in general concepts, they look for the answer to ID's "innocuous question" by searching for biological solutions that presume later biological needs. In other words, a reversal of cause and effect or "retrocausality". In general, a retrocausal example can be trivial, like the action of someone taking an umbrella out of the closet and carrying it before it rains. In this case an identifiable "intelligent designer" is known. Some of the more industrious ID scientists are building databases of possible examples of retrocausality in living organisms.
To an Atheist, it doesn't matter how many interesting examples of retrocausalty are presented of how improbably improbable the non-retocausal explanation is, an explanation that includes a mechanism trumps no mechanism every time. The idea that "God works in mysterious ways", isn't an even slightly compelling argument for an Atheist. An understandable model needs to be found and presented. With the help of my friends at Telic Thoughts and Sir Rodger Penrose, I have a candidate that I am presenting here.
Quantum mechanics is the foundation of all matter, living or not. It has been understood since the 1930s that quantum mechanics expresses "quantum weirdness" more formally known as the Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) paradox. No matter which physicist's interpretation you use to resolve the paradox, it is obvious quantum effects are not random. Equally obvious is that these effects are also not deterministic. If all matter is fundamentally tied to a non-random, non-deterministic process than there is no such thing as "natural" randomness.
Dr. Dembski's mathematical treatment of Specified Complexity and Darwinian evolution is tied around analyzing and rejecting chance hypotheses in favor of the "Best" explanation, design. Ironically, my proposed mechanistic model would have the effect of automatically rejecting all "chance hypotheses" by virtue of the fact there is no such thing as "chance."
The other feature of this model is that it draws a clear demarcation boundary between the two magisteria (ala Gould's NOMA). "Non-deterministic" means the metaphysical will stay metaphysical. While design might be detectable, the design process or agent behind the design is not.
The Atheist and the IDist can shake hands and agree to a stalemate.
But even with this stalemate, there is plenty to talk and argue about. I will be presenting a lot more backup material, including Penrose's Orch OR model and the Penrose/Hameroff consciousness hypothesis in the comment section. Whether you are Atheist or IDist, I invite you to contribute to the discussion. You might even find the "other side" agreeing with you in your arguments of why I deserve the designation of Quantum Quack (received in a recent visit to Pharyngula).
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 15, 2007 @ 11:22 pm
June 15th, 2007 at 11:54 pm
NO MIKE, THIS ONE!
(There are times I get frustrated with my I R A EENGNEAR tendencies.)
An Atheist's view of ID, Front Loading and Retrocausality
MikeGene has kindly allowed me this post to provoke some thinking on both sides of the ID/Darwin debate. His action provides some tangible evidence an IDist and an Atheist (me) can cooperate. While I am very critical of the methods and motives of the leaders of the ID movement, I can appreciate the earnest efforts of ID scientists like MikeGene even if I disagree with their common goal of trying to find an unnamed "designer". Christopher Columbus had a wrong-headed goal too. However, instead of finding a quicker route to India, he managed to discover something far more significant. The same may hold true for the intrepid ID explorers.
Front Loading is a popular hypothesis among the earnest ID scientists. Whether these scientists refer to it by name or just in general concepts, they are looking for the answer to ID's "innocuous question" by searching for biological solutions that presume later biological needs. In other words, a reversal of cause and effect or "retrocausality". In general, a retrocausal example can be trivial, like the action of someone taking an umbrella out of the closet and carrying it before it rains. In this case an identifiable "intelligent designer" is known. Some of the more industrious ID scientists are building databases of possible examples of retrocausality in living organisms.
To an Atheist, it doesn't matter how many interesting examples of retrocausalty are presented or how improbably improbable the non-retocausal explanation is, an explanation that includes a mechanism trumps no mechanism every time. The idea that "God works in mysterious ways", isn't an even slightly compelling argument for an Atheist. An understandable model needs to be found and presented. With the help of my friends at Telic Thoughts and Sir Rodger Penrose, I have a candidate that I am presenting here.
Quantum mechanics is the foundation of all matter, living or not. It has been understood since the 1930s that quantum mechanics expresses "quantum weirdness" which is more formally known as the Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) paradox. No matter which physicist's interpretation you use to resolve the paradox, it is obvious quantum effects are not random. Equally obvious is that these effects are also not deterministic. If all matter is fundamentally tied to a non-random, non-deterministic process than there is no such thing as "natural" randomness. It just appears to be random because an algorithm can't be determined.
Dr. Dembski's mathematical treatment of Specified Complexity and Darwinian evolution is tied around analyzing and rejecting chance hypotheses in favor of the "best" explanation, design. Ironically, my proposed mechanistic model would have the effect of automatically rejecting all "chance hypotheses" by virtue of the fact there is no such thing as "chance."
The other feature of this model is that it draws a clear demarcation boundary between the two magisteria (ala Gould's NOMA). "Non-deterministic" means the metaphysical will stay metaphysical. While design might be detectable, the design process or agent behind the design is not.
The Atheist and the IDist can shake hands and agree to a stalemate.
But even with this stalemate, there is plenty to talk and argue about. I will be presenting a lot more backup material, including Penrose's Orch OR model and the Penrose/Hameroff consciousness hypothesis in the comment section. Whether you are Atheist or IDist, I invite you to contribute to the discussion. You might even find the "other side" agreeing with you in your arguments of why I deserve the designation of Quantum Quack (received in a recent visit to Pharyngula).
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 15, 2007 @ 11:54 pm
June 16th, 2007 at 6:23 pm
JOY, USE THIS ONE IF YOU WISH….
An Atheist's view of ID, Front Loading and Retrocausality
The moderators at Telic Thoughts have kindly allowed me this post to provoke some thinking on both sides of the ID/Darwin debate. This action provides some tangible evidence IDists and an Atheists, like me, can cooperate in the name of science. While I am very critical of the methods and motives of the leaders of the ID movement, I can appreciate the earnest efforts of ID scientists like MikeGene even if I disagree with their common goal of trying to find an unnamed "designer". Christopher Columbus had a wrong-headed goal too. However, instead of finding a quicker route to India, he managed to discover something far more significant. The same may hold true for the intrepid ID explorers.
Front Loading is a popular hypothesis among the earnest ID scientists. Whether these scientists refer to it by name or just in general concepts, they are looking for the answer to ID's "innocuous question" by searching for biological solutions that presume later biological needs. In other words, a reversal of cause and effect or "retrocausality". In general, a retrocausal example can be trivial, like the action of someone taking an umbrella out of the closet and carrying it before it rains. In this case an identifiable "intelligent designer" is known. Some of the more industrious ID scientists are building databases of possible examples of retrocausality in living organisms.
To an Atheist, it doesn't matter how many interesting examples of retrocausalty are presented or how improbably improbable the non-retocausal explanation is, an explanation that includes a mechanism trumps no mechanism every time. The idea that "God works in mysterious ways", isn't an even slightly compelling argument for an Atheist. An understandable model needs to be found and presented. With the help of my friends at Telic Thoughts and Sir Rodger Penrose, I have a candidate that I am presenting here.
Quantum mechanics is the foundation of all matter, living or not. It has been understood since the 1930s that quantum mechanics expresses "quantum weirdness" which is more formally known as the Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) paradox. No matter which physicist's interpretation you use to resolve the paradox, it is obvious quantum effects are not random. Equally obvious is that these effects are also not deterministic. If all matter is fundamentally tied to a non-random, non-deterministic process then there is no such thing as "natural" randomness. It just appears to be random because an algorithm can't be determined.
Dr. Dembski's mathematical treatment of Specified Complexity and Darwinian evolution is tied around analyzing and rejecting chance hypotheses in favor of the "best" explanation, design. Ironically, my proposed mechanistic model would have the effect of automatically rejecting all "chance hypotheses" by virtue of the fact there is no such thing as "chance."
The other feature of this model is that it draws a clear demarcation boundary between the two magisteria (ala Gould's NOMA). "Non-deterministic" means the metaphysical will stay metaphysical. While design might be detectable, the design process or agent behind the design is not.
The Atheist and the IDist can shake hands and agree to a stalemate.
But even with this stalemate, there is plenty to talk and argue about. I will be presenting a lot more backup material, including Penrose's Orch OR model and the Penrose/Hameroff consciousness hypothesis in the comment section. Whether you are Atheist or IDist, I invite you to contribute to the discussion. You might even find the "other side" agreeing with you in your arguments of why I deserve the designation of Quantum Quack (received in a recent visit to Pharyngula).
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 16, 2007 @ 6:23 pm