If ID is not Science then…
by BradfordSomething very significant is going on with Michael Behe's The Edge of Evolution, and it seems to be going largely unremarked.
So begins this brief commentary of Viewpoint. The author follows up with this observation:
Virtually all the critics of the book have been scientists. Why is that and why is it significant? If Intelligent Design isn't science why don't these scientific critics just pass the book on to philosophers or theologians? They don't, and they don't criticize the book on the basis of it not being science, either. They critique it, not very sucessfully in my opinion, on the basis of the merits of its scientific claims.
As the author then concludes, if ID is not science and if it is really religion, then why are scientists engaged in reviewing what lies outside their area of expertise?
August 9th, 2007 at 9:13 am
Bradford,
Do you view this as a compelling argument?
ID claims to be science, so it is perfectly reasonable for those scientists who deny that claim to speak out.
If ID claimed to be apologetics, then you'd have a point–then it would be silly for scientists to argue that ID isn't science.
Comment by David Heddle — August 9, 2007 @ 9:13 am
August 9th, 2007 at 10:18 am
"Science/Non-science" is a red herring. It matters only in the United States and only there because the American constitution, or the judges who interpret it, are mad. If Behe's work is compelling then whether it is invested with an arbitrary label by some authority like the NAS will be entirely irrelevant.
Comment by BenK — August 9, 2007 @ 10:18 am
August 9th, 2007 at 10:19 am
Hi Bradford,
Because Edge of Evolution isn't about IDism, its about evolution. See? Its right in the title. Evolution is within scientists' expertise, so its perfectly appropriate for them to review a book which claims to have identified the limits of evolutionary theory. IDism itself, as MikeGene has repeatedly pointed out, is not science and is most probably not going to result in actual detection of design.
Comment by Aagcobb — August 9, 2007 @ 10:19 am
August 9th, 2007 at 10:34 am
Why such strong descriptive terms?
Bradford is just pointing out a fact. Scientific critics claim things related to teology are not scientific in nature, they review the book, then critique it on its scientific merits.
It doesn't seem like Bradford is making an argument in favor of ID/teology being science such as, Considering A, with consquences B, so that C follows.
Comment by Doug — August 9, 2007 @ 10:34 am
August 9th, 2007 at 10:54 am
Doug,
Am I misreading? I interpreted this post as: If ID isn't science, then why are scientists arguing against it? as a way to say, in effect, that it must be science or scientists wouldn't be arguing against it. Or, somewhat weaker: If it isn't science, then scientists should shut up already.
I see no merit in either argument. But maybe I am missing the boat.
Comment by David Heddle — August 9, 2007 @ 10:54 am
August 9th, 2007 at 12:08 pm
As BenK says, Behe's work is compelling and is catching on in much the same way that Darwin's work was as far as the general public is concerned. Its the kind of idea that once confronted with, you either embrace it or are threatened or perhaps challenged by it. There may be some genuine interest in protecting the public from bad science but I think the motivation of the critics has more to do with fear that they have large investments in a falling Darwinian stock, if you ask me, and I know you weren't.
Comment by WedgeHead — August 9, 2007 @ 12:08 pm
August 9th, 2007 at 12:16 pm
David Heddle:
It is reasonable indeed. You do not have to take the position that ID has become science to see that the author has a point. Critics, including an influential federal judge, have taken a rather extreme polar opposite position. They cannot simply assert that ID is not science and leave it at that. They feel compelled to go that extra step and depict ID as something it is not. ID is not religious nor is it a stalking horse for anything but the truth.
You've pointed out that some prominent IDists have some unkosher motives. I do not have to refute that to know that that the effect of those motives on the matter of what generated life is nil. As long as there are legitimate scientific questions, that mainstream thinkers are determined to relegate to non-scientific forums, ID will be alive and kicking.
Comment by Bradford — August 9, 2007 @ 12:16 pm
August 9th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
Hi Wedgehead,
Frankly, what you think is nonsense. In the scientific realm, evolutionary theory is the central organizing theme of biology and the subject of thousands of research articles published every year, whereas IDism is a complete non-starter. Its only in the realm of politics and religion that IDism has any traction. In 100 years, noone is even going to remember EOE was ever published, except historians of early 21st century political movements, who might give it a footnote in their dissertations on the culture war.
Comment by Aagcobb — August 9, 2007 @ 12:28 pm
August 9th, 2007 at 12:36 pm
If there are legitimate scientific questions, then why do IDists appear to spend most of their energy on deconstructing the meaning of Richard Dawkins' t-shirt designs?
You are perfectly free to make this a scientific forum if you want. Do some science. Publish it yourself on the web if the mainstream journals won't accept it.
Comment by mtraven — August 9, 2007 @ 12:36 pm
August 9th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
Aagcobb:
I did notice that Behe's book focuses on evolution although I believe he also made references to life's origin. The point though is that Behe's approach to evolution is that of an IDist. How many times has Mike Gene discussed evolution? Are his posts about evolution or ID?
I also noticed that the scientists in question utilized scientific arguments to refute Behe. IOW, there was a recognition that this was not a theological treatise they were up against; standard criticism of ID notwithstanding.
Mike's view is contingent as best I can tell. It is not set in stone and could be revised based on future developments. I would phrase things a bit differently. Design is apparent in both the universe and that particular part of it known as earth where life dwells. Darwin recognized this. He and succesors have held that the design is explained by a natural selection dynamic which would render intelligent or teleological causes as scientifically irrelevant. That is the bone of contention for me. Natural selection never explained life's origin even for Darwin. I have to continually remind critics of this because they are so eager to forget it.
There are sub-issues that have arisen as a consequence of our advancing knowledge. Neo-Darwinians were unaware of the intricacy and extent of genomic repair mechanisms or with their impact on random mutations. This has ramifications that impact our view as to whether or not intelligence and teleology are truly irrelevant.
Comment by Bradford — August 9, 2007 @ 12:37 pm
August 9th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
Hi Bradford,
As an IDist, I can understand the confusion that critics have about the connection between ID and religion because I share it. Intelligent Design means there is a designer and this designer is some designer. I mean, it screams God. Help me out with how it is not "religious".
Also, it was a little unclear to me what David Heddle thought were the unkosher motivations of some IDist.
Comment by WedgeHead — August 9, 2007 @ 12:42 pm
August 9th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
Aagcobb:
100 years from now EoE might not be remembered. But the larger question is how will accumulating data affect discussions about the scientific issues IDists are raising now?
Comment by Bradford — August 9, 2007 @ 12:43 pm
August 9th, 2007 at 12:58 pm
WedgeHead:
Biological genomes scream intelligent design and that in turn is a basis on which an argument for God could be fashioned. The logical construction of the related theological argument is critical to an assessment as to whether the philosophical argument (in contrast to a legal argument pegged to peculiar local circumstances) underpinning Judge Jones' decision is plausible. The philosophical overtones evident in the decision were flawed even as I acknowledge the need to rule against the board on legal grounds. But this is getting away from the bigger picture which asks can one exclude a causal explanation, reducible to purposeful intelligence, simply because a valid theological argument can be drawn from it? The answer- no.
Comment by Bradford — August 9, 2007 @ 12:58 pm
August 9th, 2007 at 1:19 pm
Hi Bradford,
You wrote…
How do you keep straight all the conflicting ideas in your head?
ID is both science and not science. ID motives are both important and not important. ID is about explanations yet doesn't need to explain.
Personally, I embrace NOMA. I think it is nonsensical to mix metaphysics with science. Not everyone agrees with me.
Your comments appear to suggest that you believe ID is primarily about searching for Truths (cap "T") as "legitimate scientific questions".
You are entitled to your opinion.
The fact that there are scientists that have trouble with NOMA issues is no surprise. Arguments around the Many World quantum interpretation have a flavor similar to those surrounding Behe's Edge of Evolution. Those arguments also involve scientists acting like they are discussing science.
We could take David Heddle's approach to analysis this and look for significance of a compelling nature or the lack thereof.
Alternatively, we could take Doug's approach and just note it and move on.
I am not hard over either way as long as I have an excuse to point out that science involves the formation of detailed explanations (i,e, "mechanisms" or "models") that can be used as tools in the formation of even more detailed explanations. The tools can be incomplete (inherently they are) and still be useful in gathering knowledge.
I looked at Behe's book searching for tools I could use. It provided some scientific observations that might of might not be useful for the Third Choice model, but I had difficulty understanding the specifics of the scientific model(s) Behe was suggesting. I thought he made attempts in that area, but others have disagreed with me.
Behe provided information on what he thought was true. Most of that was expected and largely philosophical in nature.
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 9, 2007 @ 1:19 pm
August 9th, 2007 at 1:37 pm
TP:
ID addresses scientific questions. To become a recognized scientific field requires an accumulation of research results related to hypotheses linked to an encompassing theory. By that standard ID has not attained scientific stature. That is less interesting to me than what the future holds with regard to answering questions like what generated a functional genome and more. From a long range perspective motives of Dembski, Behe, Johnson etc. are trivial.
The boundary lines between metaphysics and physically grounded theories may not be a clear as you think.
If it is true that functional nucleic acids have specific sequence patterns associated with their function and that the nature of chemical bonds or chemical reactions that would generate NAs does not account for this specificity, then an alternative explanation based on purposeful arrangement cannot be excluded from the mix based on one's perception of truth.
Comment by Bradford — August 9, 2007 @ 1:37 pm
August 9th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
Bradford,
For discussion, replace scream with proves above. Doesn't proving design prove a designer?
Comment by WedgeHead — August 9, 2007 @ 1:44 pm
August 9th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
WedgeHead:
Supporting evidence is a better term for what is required. Design and designer do go together. The question that flows from this is what is the nature of the designer? Darwin's designer made teleology superfluous- or so it was argued. The designer according to OOL enthusiasts is unknown although some suspect a self-replicator scenario. TP's designer appears to allow for multiple interpretations and therefore has a metaphysical edge on others. A designer having divine properties is, of course, another option.
Comment by Bradford — August 9, 2007 @ 3:01 pm
August 9th, 2007 at 6:54 pm
At least one publication did offer such a review. Ric Machuga, professor of philosophy at Butte College, writes:
Clearly, The Edge of Evolution contains both science and philosophy, and the competent reviewer ought to be conversant in both.
Comment by rachelrachel — August 9, 2007 @ 6:54 pm
August 9th, 2007 at 8:51 pm
Hi Bradford,
You wrote…
Look, if you are allowed to have moving goalposts for your "edge" surely I am allowed to have them for mine!
If the boundary line was at all "clear", we wouldn't be arguing about it.
See, I told you that you were the elite know-it-all and I am just the son of a pipefitter.
How am I supposed to suggest an alternative explanation for the specific sequence patterns of the nucleotide parts of functional nucleic acids when the concept of the susceptibly of purines or pyrimidines to quantum level effects would surely exceed the comprehension of someone with my background and training? Further more, even if the susceptibility could be fortuitously arrive at by chance, the complexities of performing quantum database searches with Deoxyribonucleic acid functioning as a parallel processing unit would probably allude me. Besides, the bombastic nature of this conversation would likely render the elucidation moot since it is extremely doubtful anyone (other than Joy) will know what the hell we just said.
In another comment, you wrote…
Good, I have a chance of understanding this comment.
Was that a supportive observation of the hypothesis I have been presenting?!?
Maybe I don't understand it after all.
But, just in case,…
thank you Bradford.
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 9, 2007 @ 8:51 pm
August 9th, 2007 at 9:11 pm
Hi TP. You wrote:
The support is tentative although I would like to be able to fully endorse a theory that had causal meat to it. OOL theories, including the RNA world, are as solid as jello. A theory that can be traced back to basic forces of nature is more appealing to me.
You're welcome TP.
Comment by Bradford — August 9, 2007 @ 9:11 pm
August 9th, 2007 at 9:19 pm
Hi rachelrachel. Origins does entail a philosophical component does it not? When I was younger I held the belief that given a large enough universe and enough time life is inevitable somewhere. Then I became interested in the microscopic world and abandoned that thinking. It now seems to me that having to invoke eons, many worlds and chance is an indicator of just how weak a theory is.
Comment by Bradford — August 9, 2007 @ 9:19 pm
August 10th, 2007 at 3:08 am
Aagcobb wrote:
Do you think that there will be a science of design-detection in 100 years, providing clear criteria for differentiating designed objects from Dawkins' 'designoids'?
Comment by stunney — August 10, 2007 @ 3:08 am
August 10th, 2007 at 9:53 am
Bradford,
I don't understand how a "self-replicator" or an alien seed counts as an intelligent designer. I don't know what TP thinks but I'm guessing its not a widely held concept of an intelligent designer. That leaves us with godlike aliens or God it would seem. It still sounds like ID = God to me and I think it safe to say most people see it the same way.
Good point, btw. I guess I still don't get why some IDist complain so much about critics who think ID = God. If they hear God and don't like God and therefore can't hear ID then that is their problem, it would seem.
I enjoy your posts and thanks for answering my questions.
Comment by WedgeHead — August 10, 2007 @ 9:53 am
August 10th, 2007 at 10:15 am
Comment by Zachriel — August 10, 2007 @ 10:15 am
August 10th, 2007 at 10:33 am
Hi stunney,
If you are talking about detecting organisms genetically engineered by humans, there already is such a science and it will undoubtably still exist in 100 years (presuming civilization still exists). If you are talking about something else, I am not familiar with Dawkins' "designoids".
Comment by Aagcobb — August 10, 2007 @ 10:33 am
August 10th, 2007 at 10:56 am
Zachriel quotes:
The problem with this view has been pointed out before. To get to the point where one is able to observe variation and adaptation one must assume the pre-existence of functional elements enabling genomic and cellular function. I have a refrigerator in my kitchen. It is functioning as I type this. There is no intelligence guiding the operation of it yet it was intelligently designed. That's the analogy appropriate to a cell. A cell does not need a guiding hand to enable it to function because the intelligence that preprogrammed function into the genome was already previously accomplished. ID is imputed for the refrigerator at the factory. It is there that the assembly process, according to intelligently devised blueprints, was realized.
The DNA blueprint was fixed at the origins level. It enabled subsequent genomic dynamics and the self-deception that evolution explains everything. Like the refrigerator functioning in accordance with its design, evolution merely refers to the process a cell was designed for.
Comment by Bradford — August 10, 2007 @ 10:56 am
August 10th, 2007 at 11:03 am
WedgeHead:
In the United States the fixation of an equivalency has legal implications that impact how and under what circumstances it is appropriate to discuss intelligent design.
Thanks. I enjoy your comments as well as those of some individuals with whom I disagree. It is really the participation of TT members that makes TT a vibrant forum.
Comment by Bradford — August 10, 2007 @ 11:03 am
August 10th, 2007 at 11:18 am
You said "Biological genomes scream intelligent design."
They do not. "everything, thus far, says "evolution" in big flaming letters", meaning the scientific evidence, including substantial evidence concerning the nature of the genetic code, which is almost but not quite universal, with the differences predictably distributed across major taxa.
Comment by Zachriel — August 10, 2007 @ 11:18 am
August 10th, 2007 at 11:47 am
Zachriel:
Zachriel, the ploy of attempting to pit ID against evolution will not fly at TT. How many times have Mike and others presented a case for ID within an evolutionary framework and how many times have I imputed ID at point of origins? Too many to count.
Comment by Bradford — August 10, 2007 @ 11:47 am
August 10th, 2007 at 12:24 pm
"We find no funky "uber design" to the genome, just a mish-mash of elements that are clearly jumbled together out of necessity."
If the genome is just a mish-mash of elements that are clearly jumbled together out of necessity then out of necessity some funky uber designer would necessarily design do it that way. IOW this argument screams unintelligent design (i.e., the argument evolved, it was not designed). LOL
Comment by Rock — August 10, 2007 @ 12:24 pm
August 10th, 2007 at 12:25 pm
I didn't see the need to reprint the entire quote, the term "evolution" being provided extensive context, but again, this time with emphasis.
… random, peppering, chunks, willy-nilly, mutation, drift, selection, no funky "uber-design", mish-mash, jumbled, necessity …
I hope that is enough context to define how Taylor is using the term "evolution".
Comment by Zachriel — August 10, 2007 @ 12:25 pm
August 10th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
Zachriel, if by evolution you mean begining with the first putative self-replicator then specify this. But if that's what you mean then you need a lot more than the above quote to make a case.
Comment by Bradford — August 10, 2007 @ 12:29 pm
August 10th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
Bradford, you made a claim that "Biological genomes scream intelligent design".
But that is not what we see. When we look at genomes, we see a mish-mash of elements cobbled together as a result of historical processes.
You are assuming your conclusion, probably by conflating the varying defintions of "necessity".
Comment by Zachriel — August 10, 2007 @ 12:41 pm
August 10th, 2007 at 12:54 pm
Zachriel:
We see more than mish mash. We see that in order for a mish mash process to have any effect on a genome there must be genomic features already in place. A genetic code must exist as well as the means to translate the code and synthesize encoded end products. Mechanisms that allow for metabolic processes, DNA repair, replication and cellular energy requirements need be in place. There are no identified no mish mash processes generating constituent biochemicals unless these mechanisms already exist. That's the problem with the mish mash paradigm.
Comment by Bradford — August 10, 2007 @ 12:54 pm
August 10th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
Thank you for the clarification as these mechanisms go beyond the genome. Nevertheless, though the evidence is less definitive, there is still evidence that these processes are also the result of historical non-telic evolutionary processes. And they certainly don't scream of intelligent design any more than tits on a boar hog scream of intelligent design.
Just because we observe a complex pattern doesn't mean that the complex pattern has a telic origin. At best, you have an intuition. But consider the more likely cause of the scream you here is how the human mind anthropomorphizes and seeks to ascribe personality to aspects of the natural world.
Comment by Zachriel — August 10, 2007 @ 1:15 pm
August 10th, 2007 at 1:24 pm
It is not complexity that leads me to an inference of ID. If that were the case I would ascribe ID to all sorts of systems and I don't do that. As Yogi Berra would say this is deja vu all over again. Polymers whose sequences are part of an encoding system do not infer a non-telic process. At best they require a selection dynamic which is not evidenced in extra-cellular environments. BTW, codes are not evidence of personalities. They signify intelligence.
Comment by Bradford — August 10, 2007 @ 1:24 pm
August 10th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
There is no a priori barrier to a natural origin of the genetic code. And there is some faint signature of that process. Regardless, the history of life since then has been one of ad hoc evolutionary processes.
"Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool." — R P Feynman
Comment by Zachriel — August 10, 2007 @ 1:38 pm
August 10th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
If by this you mean there are no forces of nature that make it impossible then we are in agreement. There are no natural barriers to the composition of this message either. No laws of physics are violated.
The point at which we are able to make intelligible statements about the history of life begins with the existence of a cell.
Comment by Bradford — August 10, 2007 @ 1:57 pm
August 10th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
Natural as opposed to artificial. I have often used the phrasing to indicate spontaneous, non-telic processes.
That is an overstatement. Though there is much uncertainty about primordial events"”having left scant evidence"”there are many valid statements that can be made. For instance, here is a decades-old prediction made within the evolutionary (non-telic) paradigm:
And both predictions were borne out. The entire fabric of biology exhibits scale invariance, a strong signal of a stochastic network.
Comment by Zachriel — August 10, 2007 @ 2:58 pm
August 10th, 2007 at 4:24 pm
Ya know, Z, I knew it was going to be somewhat like that.
I.e., nonsense.
I had to be assflating this or conuming the other.
Speaking of The Dictionary Argument (a common variant of the "Orwellian Argument"), according to my dictionary (literally, my dictionary) life forms are designs. Who could imagine that every other dictionary writer and editor agrees with me! Look it up! Let me spell it for you: design.
There you are IDers, the dictionary decides the scientific issue in your favor!
(I'm not sure I'm comfortable with that. I may have to revise my dictionary
)
Comment by Rock — August 10, 2007 @ 4:24 pm
August 10th, 2007 at 4:35 pm
That's a prediction based on common descent. It does nothing to shed light on a non-telic causal mechanism for the genetic code which would preceed evolution.
Comment by Bradford — August 10, 2007 @ 4:35 pm
August 10th, 2007 at 6:01 pm
Zachriel says: The entire fabric of biology exhibits scale invariance, a strong signal of a stochastic network.
With the description of Deanne Taylor (above).
Interesting how the scale invariance of genomes, an argument I made many years ago as suggesting the design of genomes, is now an argument against their design. How ironic is that?!
Where did I ever learn that highly optimized and adaptively robust complex networks are "scale-invariant"?
Not from any biologist. I learned it from the designers of such networks (whom I worked with for 25 years).
Biologists discovered the same thing was true of genomes about the same time as the network designers did. (The network designers had always assumed that what they were designing was closely approximated by random network models. Ironic too, huh?)
Interesting how evolution and design converge upon the same network topologies. Wonder what explains that?
Comment by Rock — August 10, 2007 @ 6:01 pm
August 10th, 2007 at 6:01 pm
Sorry:
If it is even humanly possible to do, Zachriel, I want you to reconcile two different statements about the genome:
Zachriel says: The entire fabric of biology exhibits scale invariance, a strong signal of a stochastic network.
With the description of Deanne Taylor (above).
Comment by Rock — August 10, 2007 @ 6:01 pm
August 10th, 2007 at 6:45 pm
Zach, quoting Deanne Taylor:
Necessity? Necessary in what way, and to whom? Or, more importantly, why?
Obviously, life isn't the least bit "necessary" to the universe, or at least not to our region of it, as we've explored lots of worlds and moons and chunks of floating debris and not encountered life. And unless you're a UFO enthusiast, you haven't met any life from outside the neighborhood either.
So please do explain to me how DNA or any of its form and functions (of which we know very little), or cells, or cytoplasm, or membrane proteins, or state-switchers, or B-E condensate states within the cytoplasm, etc., etc., etc. could possibly be considered both "random" and "necessary." I just can't for the life of me figure that one out. You quote like you understand it, so go right ahead and break it down for a dummy like me. Thanks.
Comment by Joy — August 10, 2007 @ 6:45 pm
August 10th, 2007 at 7:23 pm
The label 'Science' for the most part is about power. The rhetoric that surrounds 'Science' is often demonstrably false (compare 'science is always questioning it's own assumptions' with the history of the thing; scientists frequently hold onto pet theories in the teeth of evidence and are often vindicated - consider the superiority of Tycho Brahe's model to Copernicus') and is employed to protect a position of privilege in society.
Moreover the argument that 'ID is not science' is an implicit admission on the part of those advancing the argument that at least some aspects of ID have them flummoxed for now. If it really was as easy to refute Behe as we are endlessly told that it is then no one would be trying to stigmatize him through the use of labels like 'non-science'; they would simply refute him.
And in the long run it's a waste of time anyway. 'Yeah but what you say doesn't count because it's not science' might work in the insanity of the American legal system but it's hardly going to actually convince anyone who's interested in the truth.
Comment by BenK — August 10, 2007 @ 7:23 pm
August 10th, 2007 at 7:51 pm
BenK
This is an oversimplification but still Ben is onto something. ID critics have a scorched earth attitude towards ID in the sense that they are loathe to concede anything with respect to ID being in any way scientific. The adjective scientific has become synonymous with truth for many. Science has engendered respect and even a certain degree of awe among the populace and cashing in on this assures a deference to ideas that would fare less well based solely on their merit.
Comment by Bradford — August 10, 2007 @ 7:51 pm
August 10th, 2007 at 10:32 pm
This use of the word "design" implies a designer.
This use of the word "design" does not imply a designer.
It's not the dictionary that is causing you to equivocate.
Comment by Zachriel — August 10, 2007 @ 10:32 pm
August 11th, 2007 at 8:30 am
Not merely Common Descent, but incremental evolution. And a Common Descent that *includes* the origin of the genetic code.
More importantly, scale invariance implies that the network is being built piecewise through innovation, co-option and co-evolution at the *local* level, with any claim of an overriding design *superfluous* to the development of an irreducibly complex network.
Sure. People can make scale invariant networks, just as they can make nested hierarchies. But even the scale invariant networks we know that people make, were not designed. They were grown"”one piece at a time. Such as air traffic patterns, cities, or the Internet. Each piece is added by individual players for their own purpose without regard to the final structure. Yet, an overall structure emerges. When people do try to impose an overriding design, it leaves a distinct signature (such as when much of the original structure is torn out and replaced).
I quoted Taylor because when Bradford said "Biological genomes scream intelligent design", it reminded me of her phrase, "everything, thus far, says 'evolution' in big flaming letters". And as she is an expert in bioinformatics, that made the cite informative, as well.
Individual step-by-step decisions in response to strictly local conditions, whether by people building a website connected to the Internet, cellular automata, or by protein affinity, can build large, irreducibly complex structures. Scale invariance is found throughout nature and in human systems that are created by that localized process. There is a great deal of scholarship on the subject you could study"”if you really want to learn how it works.
I mentioned this above. "Necessary" has several related definitions, in this case meaning of an inevitable nature… produced by the previous condition of things.
The structure of DNA, cells, et cetera, are not random.
Comment by Zachriel — August 11, 2007 @ 8:30 am
August 11th, 2007 at 10:47 am
One would expect an evolutionary process to maintain a genetic code that existed at the outset. That however does not explain the origin of the genetic code itself.
Design is not superfluous. It is essential to the setup that allowed for subsequent piecemeal innovations.
Comment by Bradford — August 11, 2007 @ 10:47 am
August 11th, 2007 at 12:11 pm
There's not *one* genetic code, but several. And they descended from a common ancestor!
Well, that's your claim. But there is no supporting evidence for that assertion, nor is there anything known that would preclude a spontaneous origin.
Comment by Zachriel — August 11, 2007 @ 12:11 pm
August 11th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
Zach:
The genetic code didn't originate by common descent, Zach. It predated common descent, which of necessity relies upon reliable particulate inheritance and all the machinery required to construct a life form.
Yeah, that would be 1:c. But it simply doesn't apply to what you want so badly to assign it to. There are no laws of physics which necessitate the existence of a genetic code. In fact, there are no laws of physics which necessitate the existence of life or its ability to reproduce and evolve. Thus life and evolution are NOT NECESSARY or inevitable. It's just not impossible. The evidence on this is abundantly clear.
There exist right here in our own cosmic neighborhood a good many rocks, moons, planets and even a sun that display zero signs of life. And here where there is life, it is NEVER observed to spontaneously generate anywhere at any time under any conditions from inert matter. Not even from matter that was once alive (thus contains all the pieces-parts in the right arrangement, including DNA and its genetic code).
A genetic code, life and reproduction (thus evolution) are not "inevitable" to matter/energy or their natural interactions and are not produced by the previous condition of things like matter/energy naturally interacting. Life comes from pre-existing, intricately complex, reproductively capable, fully functional life forms of the same variety.
I've just gotta say I think Taylor's "funky uber-design" is right there under her microscope every day. It's called DNA.
Comment by Joy — August 11, 2007 @ 1:01 pm
August 11th, 2007 at 2:28 pm
Had this same conversation with Deanne Taylor nearly five years ago. Her argument was pure ignorance of design. She is nonetheless an expert on ID.
http://www.iscid.org/boards/ub...
(OTers may recall that I am the "Janitor@MIT".)
Comment by Rock — August 11, 2007 @ 2:28 pm
August 11th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
Though endosymbiosis clearly had a role in the early evolution of life, nonetheless, the prediction (Hinegardner and Engelberg 1963) was that the genetic code would be nearly universal, and that any variation "should be associated with major taxonomic groups such as phyla or kingdoms that have their roots far in the past""”which they do.
Evolution is the necessary consequence of imperfect replicators replicating imperfectly. Whether the origin of life is inevitable given the primordial conditions on the Earth is an open question, but there is evidence that life has a history in those primordial times.
No, she's an expert in biophysics, bioinformatics, and the evolution of biological networks.
Comment by Zachriel — August 11, 2007 @ 3:12 pm
August 11th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
On the subject of "experts of ID", and as that is close to the thread's topic:
Nearly all scientific fields overlap with many other fields. The study of biological evolution includes everything from geology to paleontology to biology to systematics to informatics to biochemistry to genomics to embryology. Each of these fields have their own peers, methods and hierarchies, and this overlap allows for crosschecking of results.
One historical example from the 19th century, biologists and geologists claimed the Earth had to be hundreds of millions of years old. The physicists thought it could only be a few millions of years old while still having a hot interior. The physicists were proven wrong with the discovery of radioactivity in the rocks (Skłodowska-Curie 1898).
It is worth pointing out that Intelligent Design is largely isolated from all these communities. The mathematical arguments have no resonance within the mathematical community. The claims concerning evolving networks and information have no traction in informatics or computer science. The biological assertions are considered so much handwaving by biologists. Geologists consider evolution an important unifying observation. Geneticists publish hundreds of cutting-edge papers every year without so much as mentioning Intelligent Design. And so on. Most scientists barely even notice Intelligent Design.
Comment by Zachriel — August 11, 2007 @ 3:32 pm
August 11th, 2007 at 5:20 pm
Posted by Deanne M. Taylor (Member # 274) on 29. September 2002, 11:11: "You're arguing that "Life is Design". Nobody is questioning that."
LOL Yes you are!
"But by re-stating that "life shows design" you're implicitly arguing semantics, here.
I am asking if life has a special creation kind of design."
IOW you aren't, DT, arguing about design at all! About which you know nothng, demonstrating again the resolute resistance to, ignorance of, design. All my statements were based upon observations and evaluations of designers–which was my job. For nearly 25 years.
Zachriel Says: "Evolution is the necessary consequence of imperfect replicators replicating imperfectly."
It gets even better! Not only arguments from the ignorance of design but also arguments from the ignorance of evolution! Extinction (as Darwin noted) is the only necessary consequence of imperfect replication and biological evolution is not the necessary consequence of anything. Ronald Fisher was quite right when he stated the Neo-Darwinian Axiom of Independence: Biological evolution is not the necessary, inevitable, required, etc. consequence of any known physical law or condition.
Fuck "experts"!
Comment by Rock — August 11, 2007 @ 5:20 pm
August 11th, 2007 at 6:07 pm
I was reviewing my own comments on ISCID and on that basis I have to revise my theory about scientists arguing over the existence of God (that their IQ's drop immediately by 50%). I think I was a lot smarter then, and my revised hypothesis is that any long term exposure to this "debate" results in a marked drop in IQ. Regardless of any specific content. But certainly (presumably) due to the general nature of the "debate." The whole "ID vs. Evolution" debate makes you stupider! If you weren't stupid to begin with. (A sort of "infinite regress" problem. LOL)
Comment by Rock — August 11, 2007 @ 6:07 pm
August 11th, 2007 at 7:53 pm
You are clearly conflating different meanings of the word "design". Taylor explained the difference and specified her meaning in context. There is no doubt there are structures in biology, the question is their origin.
What statement by Darwin concerning extinction are you referring to? You have a problem throughout this thread of not providing clear information or cites.
I don't believe you have a firm understanding of Darwin's original theory, much less the modern Theory of Evolution.
Comment by Zachriel — August 11, 2007 @ 7:53 pm
August 11th, 2007 at 11:17 pm
This leaves begging the question of how a common ancestor would have acquired a genetic code in the first place.
Comment by Bradford — August 11, 2007 @ 11:17 pm
August 12th, 2007 at 9:29 am
I think you mean "leaves the question""”which it does. However, we have some evidence that the current genetic codes have a history. And there is other evidence which is helping us discern those very early events. But there is still much unknown.
Comment by Zachriel — August 12, 2007 @ 9:29 am
August 12th, 2007 at 11:19 am
Zach responded:
As of this past week, conclusive evidence puts life at 3.5 b.y. But this is a distraction, since I've never claimed life isn't ancient on this planet. I've said it isn't NECESSARY, which was your assertion.
You also claimed the genetic code originated by common descent, and that is simply not true in anybody's evolutionary paradigm. Evolution does not occur until the genetic code already exists, in a life form that reproduces that code in offspring. Reproduction was never necessary to life either (lots of living beings never reproduce, but they DO live). It's only necessary to evolution.
Worse, you keep pluralizing the genetic code. There are NOT multiple genetic codes, there is only one and it's common to ALL life forms on this planet. There are multiple genomes constructed using that single code - programs written in that code. The programs are theorized to have arisen via imperfect replication of previous genomes over deep time. Evolution.
It simply isn't valid to confuse the concepts so hopelessly. Life is not the same thing as evolution, and a genome is not the same thing as a genetic code.
Let's at least try to keep our concepts straight, okay?
Comment by Joy — August 12, 2007 @ 11:19 am
August 12th, 2007 at 11:39 am
Hi Joy,
You wrote…
Is this what you are talking about?
Geologists have discovered 1.43 billion-year-old fossils of deep-sea microbes, providing more evidence that life may have originated on the bottom of the ocean.
The ancient black smoker chimneys, which scientists unearthed in a Chinese mine, are 1 billion years older than similar fossils previously identified and are nearly identical to the archaea- and bacteria-harboring structures found today on sea beds.
…
Although the fossils may be old, they aren't the oldest evidence of life on Earth. The most ancient specimens are 3.5 billion-year-old, dome-shaped clumps of bacteria called stromatolites, which were found in western Australia and suggest that shallow seas were the birthplace of life.
Ed Mathez, a geologist and curator at the American Museum of Natural History in New York who is not connected to the discovery, said even with stromatolites the verdict on life's origin is out.
"They tell us life existed that long ago, but as to where it originated remains an open question," Mathez said.
Mathez pointed out that black smoker fossils are just as inconclusive about the origin of life , but added that the new finding significantly pushes back the known reign of deep-sea microbes.
"Personally, a deep-sea origin of life strikes me as a very good possibility," he said.
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 12, 2007 @ 11:39 am
August 12th, 2007 at 12:04 pm
No. You just quoted me as saying it was an open question.
There is evidence that the *current* genetic codes share a common ancestor. That means they have an evolutionary history, of some sort.
Any reasonable definition of life requires some sort of reproduction. Worker ants don't reproduce, but their genes"”which they share with their sister queen"”do.
When we talk about *the genetic code*, we are referring to the nuclear code shared by eukaryotic organisms. Though most life shares a single genetic code which originated deep in evolutionary history, it is not universal to all taxa.
You are correct on that point.
Comment by Zachriel — August 12, 2007 @ 12:04 pm
August 12th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
Zach:
No, I was referring to your previous assertion. That life was NECESSARY. Are you now claiming you didn't assert that?
Again with the sleight-of-mind. THERE ARE NOT MULTIPLE GENETIC 'CODES' - there is only one. There are multiple programs written in that code. As for common descent, it has enough evidence to be accepted provisionally. Allowing for HGT, which would also explain common coding, and may be more significant to evolution than strict linear descent. At least, early on [Woese].
I've known lots of people and critters who lived fine lives without ever reproducing. The capability to reproduce explains the continued existence of life (since it does NOT spontaneously generate, despite OOL beliefs prevalent in your camp), but not life itself. It is necessary to evolution - descent with modification.
Now to further illustrate the issue, let me just highlight the ACTUAL disagreement between the NDS and ID. Which should help those who are confused by Zach's run-around and insulting assertions that we who support ID (and believe it can be scientific) do not understand Darwin's original theory of NS, the later Neodarwinian synthesis [NDS], or "modern evolutionary theory."
None of these theories explains the origin of the genetic code. All of them assert that the myriad different genomes (programs) evolved through the process of natural selection acting on random 'errors' generated by "imperfect replication" of genomes during reproduction. Piece by piece, only the 'fittest' survive, eventually becoming something else entirely from what their ancestors were.
A theory of Intelligent Design (or Telic Design, or EAM, or whatever a more purposeful theoretic might be called) challenges the whole random 'errors' assumption as the primary mechanism for genomic change that is pertinent to the evolution of complex, multicellular life forms and species over deep time.
No one I've ever encountered in these debates denies that random errors in replication happen, by any and all the causes identified by biologists. Less-than random errors also occur in development due to several causes as well, primarily environmental. The EAM theoretic postulates that such errors are primarily detrimental to the organism, contributing to premature death and disease states that so weaken the organism that its genome is very unlikely to contribute anything to the long-term process of evolution. Rare "happy accidents" may eventually prove useful if the organism's offspring carry the mutation (and THEY reproduce true), but there's not enough time for life on this planet to have so dramatically diversified by these means.
Moreover, the significant evolutionary developments now appear to have arisen through differential expression of ancient genes that were present in the most primitive life forms and have been highly conserved throughout the course of evolution. "Front-loaded" into the first life forms' genomes. Further non-random mechanisms of duplication, frame-shifting, gene-jumping, HGT, etc. have enabled life forms to adapt to life challenges (selection pressures) as well.
The real "trick" of all this is expression, not the mere existence of this sequence of DNA or that sequence of DNA. There are only so many amino acids used in life, and so many proteins constructed with them. Damage is not the same thing as adaptation, and creative expression suites coordinating genes from all over the genome - which are currently being discovered with new microarray technology - tell us that epigenetics may well be more important in evolution than any random accidents in code replication.
An ID theoretic does not assume that evolutionary developments are the result of random accidents ruthlessly selected by the exterior environment (or just the necessary parameters of life). Accidents happen and reproduction is differential, but what survives and adapts over deep time didn't originate by 'error'.
Science itself is encountering evidence that suggests the NDS wall around origins (labeled "random") needs to come down. We've new technologies and new approaches - including bioinformatics and genomics dealing with the code as if it really were a programming language with levels of instructions - that are rapidly increasing our useful knowledge. Desperate clinging to antiquated and multi-falsified theories for ideological reasons is harming our quest for useful knowledge. Thus harming science itself in the eyes of the public science serves and upon whom science depends.
Comment by Joy — August 12, 2007 @ 12:41 pm
August 12th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
Hi Zachriel,
You wrote…
And you provided this link to back up your claim.
Fascinating stuff, thank you.
I was able to wrap my engineering mind around some of it.
Let me see if I did by repeating it back to you…
The link shows 21 genetic translation tables (7 and 8 were missing), that show how the set of three bases are decoded in different types of cells.
As you noted, the "Standard Code" (1st table) is for Eukaryotes which would be applicable to multicelled organisms thus what most people would think of as the "DNA code".
Table 11 is for "…Bacteria, Archaea, prokaryotic viruses and chloroplast proteins" which is for just about everything else the average person in the street would think of as a living cell. Unlike the other tables, they didn't list any direct translation differences from the Standard Table. Pending an explaination of how Table 11 differs from Table 1, I will presume they are, for all practicle purposes, that same code.
Which brings us to the exceptions. For example, Vertebrate Mitochondrial Code (table 2).
If I understand correctly, table 2 indicates that two standard translations are invalid in Vertebrate Mitochondrial Code and how one translation that is invalid in the Stadard Code is valid in the Vertebrate Mitochondrial Code. I see this a just a super-set and/or sub-set distinction.
However, one set of three bases, AUA (ATA?) is decoded differently in Vertebrate Mitochondrial than in the Standard Code.
It looks like a minor difference for a very special situation (Mitochondria) but it is a difference.
Thank you again for pointing it out. If you could confirm/deny my understanding I would appreciate it.
Let's do Science!
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 12, 2007 @ 1:01 pm
August 12th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
Joy wrote:
Joy,
TYPING IN ALL CAPS WILL NOT TRANSFORM A FALSEHOOD INTO A TRUTH.
There are multiple genetic codes, as Zachriel patiently explained to you. He even provided a link which you apparently ignored.
Here is another one. How about reading it before embarrassing yourself further?
Comment by keiths — August 12, 2007 @ 1:17 pm
August 12th, 2007 at 1:37 pm
Hi TP,
The alternative codes involve minor tweaking of the universal code and are independently derived from the universal code. It is also worth pondering why so many of the alternative codes turn up in organelles.
Comment by MikeGene — August 12, 2007 @ 1:37 pm
August 12th, 2007 at 1:37 pm
Hi Joy, Zachriel and others,
The good thing about intellectual conflicts is how it often it exposes root issues (at least I think it is good thing).
Let me put my spin on this…
Unless I am totally misunderstanding things, it looks like there was life on Earth within a billion years of the formation of Earth. Just as things cooled off enough for water to be in a liquid state, life "showed up".
I happened to be of the mindset that, in this universe, if it can happen, it does.
Necessity is a non-issue as far as I am concerned. Propagation of light isn't a necessity, it just happens. But is it random?
Unless I am misunderstanding things, the standard genetic code was complete in its present form 3.5 billion years ago.
We are only arguing about whether life, like light, was externally created "let there be light", was a product of random trial and error or, the Third Choice, a teleological universe being consistent with itself.
P.S. to MikeGene. We did it again (identical time stamps).
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 12, 2007 @ 1:37 pm
August 12th, 2007 at 1:52 pm
Keiths:
As Mike points out:
I would emphasize that the existence of a genetic code(s) is a prerequisite to the capacity of a genome to evolve in response to environmental conditions. Since natural selection entails adaptation the causal factor for the code(s) is a critical point in an assessment of ID.
Comment by Bradford — August 12, 2007 @ 1:52 pm
August 12th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
Somehow it just seems fitting a proper for scientists to speak out against such attacks on science. Call it a learned response — speak out now, before there is no one left to speak up for you.
Comment by edarrell — August 12, 2007 @ 2:58 pm
August 12th, 2007 at 3:20 pm
According to edarrell Behe's book has now become a threat to science. Not only that but if you don't speak up now there may be no one left to speak for you later. This isn't too threaty is it?
Comment by Bradford — August 12, 2007 @ 3:20 pm
August 12th, 2007 at 3:20 pm
That's a better site as it shows the phylogenetic relationships. Thanks!