More Egg on Miller's Face
by MikeGeneAccording to Jonathan Witt's report, we read:
Also, in yesterday's testimony, Miller called attention to a factual error in Pandas. In today's questioning, he conceded that the "elephant" edition of his own high school biology textbook contained an error, describing evolution as a "random and undirected process." Miller said that that wasn't a scientific statement, and it was removed from subsequent editions.
I'm glad that Ken Miller has officially admitted that his science textbook was propagating non-scientific statements about reality. But Ken's explanation is not good enough. Here are more questions that naturally follow:
1. How did Miller find out about this error? Did he catch it himself? Or did someone else point it out to him? Who was the first to notice this error?
2. More importantly, how did this "error" get into his science text? Did it poof into existence? Was he looking away while typing and his fingers randomly typed in "random and undirected process?"
3. Why, of all the words in the English language, did this "error" happen to coincide nicely with what mainstream scientists tell us about evolution: "evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection."
4. Was it another error for Miller's textbook to teach "evolution works without either plan or purpose?" If so, how did this error occur?
5. If there was no ID movement, would Dr. Miller still be claiming there were "errors?"
September 27th, 2005 at 9:55 pm
At least Miller can admit to error. Can Dembski? Can Behe?
Comment by ericmurphy — September 27, 2005 @ 9:55 pm
September 27th, 2005 at 10:28 pm
You miss the point. I'd like to know how this error happened.
Comment by MikeGene — September 27, 2005 @ 10:28 pm
September 27th, 2005 at 10:46 pm
I was pretty sure your point was to imply that without ID watching over those crafty evolutionists, their mistakes would never come to light. Was I mistaken?
My point was to imply that science (whatever the foibles of individual scientists) is inherently self-correcting, in that errors are pointed out by other scientists, or become refuted by subsequent inquiry. I've seen precious little evidence that ID proponents like Mssrs. Dembski or Behe are capable of admitting error, which is a problem for their scientific credibility.
But I am curious as to what you're implying by wondering about the source of Mr. Miller's error. Are you implying that because he's made an error, all of his work then becomes suspect? Or are you implying that his statement was not an error at all, but a deliberate attempt to mislead? The former is a weak inference, but the latter is a serious charge, at least when leveled at a scientist.
In any event, since I can't tell from the quote what exactly the error was, it's difficult to decide what to make of this admission. Is the entire statement erroneous, i.e., evolution is a "non-random and intelligently directed process" Or is it possibly not entirely random, but still undirected? Possibly it's deterministic, but still undirected. All are possibilities, but without follow-up from the cross-examiner, we can't tell which Miller meant.
Comment by ericmurphy — September 27, 2005 @ 10:46 pm
September 27th, 2005 at 11:00 pm
You keep missing the point. I'd like to know how this error happened. Did it poof into existence? Was he looking away while typing and his fingers randomly typed in "random and undirected process?"
Comment by MikeGene — September 27, 2005 @ 11:00 pm
September 27th, 2005 at 11:30 pm
I have to say, I think I'm still missing the point. I guess if you really wanted to know, you'd have to ask Ken himself (assuming he even knows). But my point, or maybe it's more of a question, is why is the answer to this particular question so important? Isn't it more important to find out exactly what Mr. Miller thinks the error is? If Miller thinks the error is only that evolution isn't entirely random (most evolutionists would say that natural selection, for example, is non-random), I think your point will end up being less strong than you think it is. If, on the other hand, Miller means he was mistaken about evolution being undirected, I think we've got a much bigger issue here.
In any event, I'm pretty sure that neither of your guesses is close. My guess is either than he wasn't thinking clearly, or that he overstated his case and on thinking about it later realized he should probably rephrase himself. But all of this is speculation, and at the moment I'm wondering if it's pointless speculation. I'm pretty sure that your real question is not how the error occurred, but why.
Comment by ericmurphy — September 27, 2005 @ 11:30 pm
September 27th, 2005 at 11:46 pm
No, I would like to know how it happened. Errors have a cause, right?
Comment by MikeGene — September 27, 2005 @ 11:46 pm
September 28th, 2005 at 12:12 am
Mike,
I'm looking for the article that I just read. Miller says he overlooked what his co-author wrote. Unfortunately, I can't seem to find the article anymore! It may have been part of the court testimony.
I'm a little disappointed the defense isn't tearing into Miller more.
Salvador
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — September 28, 2005 @ 12:12 am
September 28th, 2005 at 12:56 am
I think we can probably both agree that the error had some cause. Why don't you send Ken an e-mail? Again, assuming he knows.
But aside from knowing what caused the error, wouldn't you also like to know the exact nature of the cause?
Comment by ericmurphy — September 28, 2005 @ 12:56 am
September 28th, 2005 at 12:57 am
Oops. I meant to say, the nature of the error.
(You shouldn't compose comments while talking on the phone…)
Comment by ericmurphy — September 28, 2005 @ 12:57 am
September 28th, 2005 at 2:07 am
Eric…the error is obvious to anybody who follows the controversy. Basically, Miller argues that "science" is silent regarding questions of purpose, and regarding the possibility that God might have any role in directing the universe in any way. So, when he wrote that evolution is "random and undirected," he overstepped the bounds of "science," and made a philosophical/religious assertion.
Now, with that understanding, how would you respond to Mike's question as to how that "error" came about?
Comment by ryan — September 28, 2005 @ 2:07 am
September 28th, 2005 at 2:55 am
Yes, I got that part. Miller finds himself contradicting himself, which is why I guessed that the "error" was in overstepping the bounds of what he believes he can reasonably attest to. My question is, why is the cause of the error important to Mike? The only thing I can think of is that Mike is implying that it isn't actually an "error," it was intentional, and Ken only retracted it when he got "caught" by the ID community.
Again, this is not a question about "how" the error happened, but "why." The "how" is a matter of mechanics.
And the "error" is only an "error" in certain contexts. Many evolutionary biologists would no doubt maintain that evolution is in fact undirected, that the evidence points that way, and would disagree with the second half of Miller's "correction." Miller may believe himself that it's an "error" to claim that evolution is undirected, but that doesn't mean it really is an error to so state, or that all (or even most) evolutionary biologists agree with him.
Comment by ericmurphy — September 28, 2005 @ 2:55 am
September 28th, 2005 at 4:08 am
Eric, the source of Miller's "error" is pretty clear - he listened to Eugenie Scott. The real question is, "What combination of pressure and bad logic made Eugenie Scott say that calling evolution a random and undirected process was unscientific?"
Since everything we know about mutations leads us to believe that they are random (with regard to fitness) and undirected and since there is NO evidence to the contrary, the real question is why did Eugenie make her mistake.
I tend to think that she was trying to assuage the fears of religionists by trying to convince them that their cause is not as hopeless as it really is.
Since many in the ID community think that evolution IS directed, I would ask them to list their evidence for this belief here. And "It looks designed to me" does not count as evidence. It looks undesigned to me, so our opinions cancel out. What evidence does ID have for unnatural direction in evolution?
Comment by DataDoc — September 28, 2005 @ 4:08 am
September 28th, 2005 at 8:13 am
That's some sophistry right there. Obviously, if Miller wrote it on purpose, the "how" it got there is different from if he wrote it on accident (however much sense that makes), or if his cowriter wrote it, and he just somehow missed it (however believable that is).
Yes, but we're only concerned with Miller's context here. He must regard it as an "error", because if it wasn't, then he was being duplicitious when responding to the Cardinal, and in other places where he has said that questions of purpose are outside the scope of science, an argument he uses to try and get Christians to accept Darwinism, and to keep ID out of science.
Comment by Deuce — September 28, 2005 @ 8:13 am
September 28th, 2005 at 8:57 am
You know boys it's possible Miller only had the philosophical nature of his textbook statement pointed out after it was made. He may have personally disagreed with it at the time but thought that that was *the* acceptable inference to draw from evolution. Of course it's also possible he knew from day 1 that it was a philosophical statement outside the bounds of scientific "testing" and put it anyway!
It's funny though — I think Miller is trying to please everyone. He believes in God and doesn't want to join the atheists, but he doesn't want to offend their comfortable naturalistic dominance of the biological sciences. To dare suggest that design is a real part of the cosmos and that certain features may not be reducible to purely mechanistic forces alone, in a universe he believes was 'built by God'? Never!!
Comment by Plump-DJ — September 28, 2005 @ 8:57 am
September 28th, 2005 at 9:09 am
Good question. Maybe we should all just be agnostic then. I think one indicator would be wether or not biological systems would have an increased appearence or connection to designed systems, the more we knew about them. Do we need greater amounts of teleological concepts and analogies to understand them?
There must come a point where the poor old ID-ists 'personal incredulity' get's overtaken by the poor old skeptics "personal credulity"! What is that point I don't know.
One thing I will say though — To suggest random mutations are random therefore Evolution is random is somewhat tautological. Who really knows the scope through which evolution wss allowed to drive? Did we watch it unfold? I don't think we did.
Comment by Plump-DJ — September 28, 2005 @ 9:09 am
September 28th, 2005 at 11:39 am
DD
I think the reason that Eugenie Scott make that statement is that to claim that "evolution was an undirected process" was a scientific claim would mean that detecting direction/non-direction in nature was a legitimate scientific endeavor. This sounds remarkably like one of the core claims of ID.
Comment by daveb — September 28, 2005 @ 11:39 am
September 28th, 2005 at 12:13 pm
Good point daveb. I think you've got it. I don't think Miller changed his mind about evolution being random and undirected, but he realized that to so state it goes beyond the bounds of science and into philosophy, and comes perilously close to being an outright assertion of atheism as fact, therefore it would violate the church/state clause in the case of education, which will rebound unpleasantly back on them.
I am in the mood to stick my neck all the way out. Since I'm no doubt the least educated or qualified person here, I can afford to be foolish. I think the idea that random mutations are largely responsible for the genomes of some 100 million life forms is surely the most absurd concoction that man has ever dreamed up with which to fool himself. Its silliness may never again be matched.
How did it happen? Man the storyteller likes to have a comfortable myth to live by. Not at all happy without one. Darwin proposed small changes in the generations. No knowledge of genetics. But once they adjusted to that idea, it wasn't long before the Aha! moment. Voila!
The problem is, as becomes increasingly clear, it is an inadequate explanation. Why not suppose that we are now in a situation similar to Darwinians before the advent of genetics? In other words, stop insisting on genetic mutations as the source of life forms and assume instead that there is at least one very major mechanism driving evolution, of whose existence we are not yet aware? Why pretend to more understanding than we have?
From my point of view, I don't think that when those mechanism(s) are discovered, that they will be random and undirected, but the evolutionists can certainly hold out the hope that it will be.
Comment by onething — September 28, 2005 @ 12:13 pm
September 28th, 2005 at 12:41 pm
I keep wondering why IDists insist that gradual change over time is an inadequate explanation for the diversity of life, and therefore that evolution is a theory in crisis.
Let's have a look at the two other great scientific theories, general relativity and quantum physics. How well do these two theories fare when we get back to the beginning of time? Not very well. Both theories break down at the extremes present at the beginning of time. Both theories (at least currently) appear to be incompatible with each other. Quantum theory mispredicts the cosmological constant by about 120 orders of magnitude, which surely must rank as one of the greatest theoretical failings of all time. The standard model of particle physics makes no predictions as to most of the physical constants; they have to be put into the model by hand.
And yet no one describes either general relativity or quantum physics as "theories in crisis," despite the fact that both theories are known to be incomplete descriptions of reality.
Could it be that neither theory strikes fear in the hearts of the religious the way evolution does? Just a thought.
Comment by ericmurphy — September 28, 2005 @ 12:41 pm
September 28th, 2005 at 1:55 pm
ericmurphy said:
Actually, the Standard Model of physics is currently suffering from "Unitary Crisis," in that it spews gibberish at currently achievable energy levels. Of course, the SM is also known as RQFT - Relativistic Quantum Field Theory - a combo of both GR and QM. RQFT is a "theory in crisis."
Comment by Joy — September 28, 2005 @ 1:55 pm
September 28th, 2005 at 4:52 pm
Hello Plump-DJ,
I think you've got things pretty well-marked, though I certainly don't think Ken Miller is trying to please everyone, heaven forbid! Naturalistic dominance is a figment of the provocationalists imaginations. Could you possibly believe that the percentage of non-'believers' and heathens (read: anti-spiritualists) in the academy is higher in the social sciences and humanities than in the natural sciences? Well, anyway, I appreciate your comments here.
'Design' is the highjacked (or rather borrowed, repatriated) concept of one particular 'movement' of thinkers in the USA who gathered in California in 1993 to express their disgust against naturalism, materialism, secularism, etc. name your ideological villain. Freud and Marx come to mind (npi), but have already been 'defeated' in the US. Darwin hasn't, if for no other reason than that 'struggle for existence' and 'survival of the fittest' are predominant in American culture and lifestyle/worldview. Phillip Johnson spells this out clearly, by example, as readers well know. Herbert Spencer was more popular in the US than in England, he being the coiner of the the term 'survival of the fittest.' Revd' T. Malthus being the originator of the phrase Darwin used in his long title which begins which 'Origin(s) of Species'. However, don't talk about Malthus or Wallace if you expect no yawning on ID channels; those who would want to go post-Darwinian. This may, however, have nothing to do with TT's here on this list, I don't know their preferences.
IDists make it out to be about evolution vs. design or design vs. chance or Darwin vs. Information Theory or Origins vs. origins or processes vs. Processes or Poof vs. mathematical/specificational/statistical proof. They scathe against, ridicule or ignore theistic evolutionists and evolutionary creationists (but not always, i.e. good to keep dialogue and old friends), since it is inconvenient to acknowledge them, brothers and sisters that they are, no matter how vacuumed ID theology has become. This is partly why/how a voice for Telic Thinkers who function outside the IDM's DI-ID type to promote their cause has come to exist.
'Purely mechanistic forces' - Yes, this is getting to the juice of the matter. But remember, it is IDists who are claiming proof of 'design' exists (i.e. forget the Intelligence when politically incorrect) simply because biologists (who are mechanically inclined) claim to have (philosophically) proved or at least that they believe in 'molecular machines'. It may look like a machine, but it's still organic!! ORGA-MECHA - S. Kubrick, the director of Artifical Intelligence, is still laughing in his grave.
IDists will not tell you the difference between human-made design and non-human-made design. Please ask an IDists and see for yourself. And then they blame K. Miller and throw eggs at him with their voices trying to elevate themselves for a Cause. There are red faces in America in many places these days, not just in ID vs. Evolution (or neo-Darwinism) land.
'Random and undirected' - this certainly couldn't be describing some aspects of the apparently global war on terror, could it?
Wishing for peace in the battles over evolution, creation, ID and dignity rather than arrogance for those extremists who would seek further conflicts,
Arago
Comment by g arago — September 28, 2005 @ 4:52 pm
September 28th, 2005 at 5:11 pm
Because of the details.
Comment by onething — September 28, 2005 @ 5:11 pm
September 28th, 2005 at 5:43 pm
Joy:
Yes, but not in the same way. No one expects that either general relativity or quantum mechanics will be overturned completely with an entirely new paradigm, nor does anyone think that either theory is not supported by evidence. It seems to be the fond hope of the ID community that neodarwinian evolution will be completely overturned as a theory, and that it is not supported by evidence. Actually, the notion of common descent with modification, a central tenet of NDE, is better supported than, say, the current value for the universal gravitational constant.
Comment by ericmurphy — September 28, 2005 @ 5:43 pm
September 28th, 2005 at 6:33 pm
onething:
If there's one thing I've learned dealing with IDists or creationists, it's there is no level of detail that will ever be satisfactory. Given the utter lack of detail in the "theory" of ID, let's just say I'm a little surprised by that.
Comment by ericmurphy — September 28, 2005 @ 6:33 pm
September 28th, 2005 at 9:42 pm
We must be talking of a different kind of detail. From my point of view, Darwinists say things like "What's wrong with the notion of change over time?" There's nothing wrong with it and ID agrees with it, so far as it goes. But what happens when you get up close and personal with molecular biology, is that the details look designed.
Or, at the very least, there are other mechanisms which we do not yet know about, such as when Darwin did not know about genetics, that will greatly improve and expand the picture. RM + NS just doesn't cut it.
Comment by onething — September 28, 2005 @ 9:42 pm
September 28th, 2005 at 10:11 pm
Personally, I don't think it was any accident that Miller was the one on the stand. Besides wanting him to make the scientific case for evolution and against ID, I'd bet the farm that another goal was to showcase someone who was well-known as an evolutionist AND a faithful Christian Catholic. Unfortunately, Miller doesn't represent the teachings of the Church very well, and whenever he delves into theological arguments (the "God wouldn't have done it that way" arguments), he is in way over his head. Laid out as a syllogism, the arguments Miller uses look something like this:
P-1 We observe that many species have gone extinct over the eons
P-2 If God had created the species, none of them would have gone extinct.
Conclusion: Evolution as a blind, purposeless process and NOT God is responsible for the full diversity of life on planet earth.
What's a theological argument doing in what is supposed to be a scientific argument?
Comment by DonaldM — September 28, 2005 @ 10:11 pm
September 28th, 2005 at 11:04 pm
Eric:
How does one do this? Miller doesn't believe that "evolution works without either plan or purpose," yet he erroneously writes this. Miller doesn't believe is a "random and undirected process," yet he erroneously writes this. How does something like that happen?
Well, thousands of school children have probably been misled by this error. In order to learn from the error, we need to know how it happened so we can make sure it doesn't happen again.
Are you suggesting Miller did not intend these words to come into existence: "evolution works without either plan or purpose" and "random and undirected process"? Obviously, the words came into existence through intention. Yet they are now said to be errors. How did such errors occur?
BTW, are you going to reply to DataDoc, who addressed you as follows:
Comment by MikeGene — September 28, 2005 @ 11:04 pm
September 29th, 2005 at 1:26 am
onething:
Yep. That's why there are other mechanisms at work, such as genetic drift. But whether neodarwinian evolution's explanations for the diversity of species cuts it for you just isn't that important to the scientific community. Dawkins calls your argument an "argument from personal incredulity."
If ID has some additional mechanisms it would like to add to the mix to come up with a more complete and robust explanation for life on earth, that would be just great. The scientific community is waiting to hear what they are.
Comment by ericmurphy — September 29, 2005 @ 1:26 am
September 29th, 2005 at 1:39 am
MikeGene:
You're mistaking what Miller believes to what he thinks he can back up, or what he thinks is within the bounds of scientific inquiry. It's entirely possible, isn't it, that Miller believes the first, but doesn't think he can state it with sufficient authority from the evidence to put it in a high school biology textbook?
Have thousands of schoolchildren been "misled" by this "error" Doubtful. For one thing, you're saying it like it's definitely not true that evolution is random and undirected. You don't know that, so to say it's definitely an error is further than you can legitimately go, regardless of what Miller thinks. For another, if you think Miller's statement is even close to the magnitude of the thousands of errors that infest science textbooks in all areas of science, you're kidding yourself. Believe me, there are bigger things to worry about in high school textbooks than one statement by one scientist that for all we know is very likely true anyway.
I"m not suggesting Miller didn't intend these words to come into existence. And again, you're saying these words are "said to be errors," as if they definitely are erroneous. This hasn't even begun to be proven. Do you think this is the first time a scientist has made claims that go beyond the evidence? Do remember Einstein's comment on hearing of Eddington's confirmatory evidence for GTR? If Eddington hadn't come through with the goods, Einstein would have been sorry for god, because his theory was correct.
You're making a mountain range out of an anthill, Mike.
As for replying to DataDoc; I didn't see a need to, because I believe that by and large he is correct. The evidence that evolution is an undirected process, largely (but not entirely) driven by random phenomena has substantial evidence to support it, and none to directly contradict it.
Comment by ericmurphy — September 29, 2005 @ 1:39 am
September 29th, 2005 at 1:57 am
If this isn't a great example of ideological IDists flipping things around, I don't know what is.
Comment by g arago — September 29, 2005 @ 1:57 am
September 29th, 2005 at 2:08 am
Onething:
Really? Does the busted gene for ascorbic acid that humans and chimps have look "designed" to you? Do the thousands of other pseudogenes that used to be functional until a mutation took them out look "designed" to you?
Comment by ericmurphy — September 29, 2005 @ 2:08 am
September 29th, 2005 at 2:15 am
onething:
Or what about the glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase gene? Humans have one functional copy, and at least 20 busted copies. Does that sound "designed" Same thing with cytochrome c genes; there are more than 20 nonfunctional copies.
Even if the 98% of the human genome that doesn't code for proteins serves some other function, it is a monumentally inefficient use of space, and certainly doesn't look "designed" at all.
Comment by ericmurphy — September 29, 2005 @ 2:15 am
September 29th, 2005 at 6:42 am
Eric M wrote..
How is it inefficent if they serve another required function? My understanding was that non-coding DNA actually does serve a useful function.
Ignoring the apologetics, the link below discusses (briefly) why "Junk DNA" is not so junky!
http://www.reasons.org/resourc...
Comment by Plump-DJ — September 29, 2005 @ 6:42 am
September 29th, 2005 at 6:48 am
Eric M wrote..
So you've got personal credulity and they've got personal incredulity. Thats' called "1 All!" Of course this highlights wonderfully the epistemic gaps with "darwinian explanations" and "reality"! (of course this applies equally to ID aswell)
Saying 'it cuts it' because it fits some 'personal explanatory criteria that Dawkins and Co have setup is fine but saying "Yep this is how reality actually is and I can 'demonstrate' this" is another! Remember that quote from Franklin Harold that was floating around the net not so long ago — "No detailed accounts, just wishful speculation!"
Comment by Plump-DJ — September 29, 2005 @ 6:48 am
September 29th, 2005 at 8:23 am
DataDoc:
Since everything we know about mutations leads us to believe that they are random (with regard to fitness) and undirected and since there is NO evidence to the contrary, the real question is why did Eugenie make her mistake.
Not really- Dr. Spetner discussing mutations:
Then we have Barry Hall's experiments as evidence for directed mutations. The experiments Miller uses to try to refute Behe's concept of IC.
Comment by Joe G — September 29, 2005 @ 8:23 am
September 29th, 2005 at 11:46 am
Joe G:
Argument from personal incredulity?
Comment by ericmurphy — September 29, 2005 @ 11:46 am
September 29th, 2005 at 11:51 am
Plump-DJ:
This is the part of the ID argument I've never understood. No evolutionary biologist out there thinks that science knows everything there is to know about how evolution happens. The theory is certainly not a "done deal," nor is any other theory. But neodarwinian evolution has progressed much further than ID has in developing a working description of how organisms evolve. So far, ID has absolutely nothing to say about how organisms evolve at all. Doesn't sound like "1-all" to me…
Comment by ericmurphy — September 29, 2005 @ 11:51 am
September 29th, 2005 at 2:03 pm
"I'm glad that Ken Miller has officially admitted that his science textbook was propagating non-scientific statements about reality.""”Mike Gene
I haven't seen Miller's textbook. But from what's being reported here it appears as if Miller simply "made believe" he hadn't committed an error and only admitted it when forced to do so in court. LOL Maybe Miller hazarded appearing in court w/o legal counsel. Not the "Bright" thing to do. The way our legal system works most people go to court with absolutely no intention or under advisement not to "admit" anything. Call me a starry-eyed idealist, but I don't think science should or is supposed to work that way.
(Also, Miller hasn't "officially admitted" anything. Admitting a factual or conceptual error in court testimony is not the same as scientifically correcting an error in print. Simply excising the statement from subsequent editions is not the way either. Like I said, Miller just "made believe" he hadn't committed an error.)
But since its been questioned that an error was made, what exactly is the error? We are treating this as if it were an isolable misstatement of fact or the inclusion of broad, questionable or disputable, conclusion. It's a lot more than that.
If its an error to include the comment as a statement of fact when it is a questionable conclusion it certainly is widely repeated even though people are certainly aware that it is disputed or questioned. But that doesn't stop them from repeating it. Why? Because the error is in the way we think. Not in how we relate facts and broader conclusions drawn from what we sincerely believe are facts.
Why would anyone believe that it is a positive theoretical statement to describe biological evolution as a "random and undirected process"? It appears as if a positive statement of theory has been misidentified with the natural null hypothesis! It's not such a simple category error however. There is some subtlety to the error"”there must be to an error so often repeated. The reason why Miller (et al) commits this error, misidentifying a positive theoretical statement with the natural null hypothesis, is because he's a priori identified the null hypothesis with the idea that "God did it"! Miller believes that the antithesis of evolutionary theory is not the statement that evolution is a random and undirected process (which it obviously isn't). The null, the antithesis of evolutionary theory, is the idea that "God did it"! In which case, evidence for the null hypothesis ("random and undirected") may actually be interpreted as confirming the (misidentified) theory and as grounds for rejecting the "null" that "God id it"! (LOL Did ya follow that?) But actually the null, "God did it," is unacceptable to science a priori, so there is never a scientific grounds for accepting the null and rejecting the alternative!
Isn't that preposterous?! Why would scientists, otherwise really smart and rational individuals all, put them themselves into such a ridiculous "theoretical" dilemma? My pet-theory is that whenever "theology" (such as it is in this case) enters substantively into scientific thought, the collective IQ immediately drops somewhere between 50-100%. That's my theory.
A theory has been floated that science is self-correcting. I believe. But I also recognize that my belief is a bit of wishful thinking. But the theory suffers from a logical conundrum–It's unfalsifiable. The first step in correcting error is recognizing its existence. The more subtle the error, obviously the more difficult that is.
Isolable factual errors are relatively easy to identify and correct. Science has a real problem in identifying and correcting the doozies. Its more likely that these kinds of errors will be perpetuated, as "textbook orhtodoxy," for generations before they are corrected
Comment by Rock — September 29, 2005 @ 2:03 pm
September 29th, 2005 at 5:32 pm
I find it hard to believe that a process as precise and well controlled as the transposition of genetic elements happens only by chance.
ericmurphy:
Argument from personal incredulity?
Yeah, opposing the argument from credulity- that being the scientists who believe those gentic movements are random because they just don't know any better or just want them to be.
How organisms "evolve" in the ID scheme:
"built-in responses to environmental cues"; genetic algorithms designed to take the available resources and achieve a pre-programmed goal (similar to Dawkins' "weasle" and "Evolving Inventions")
also as Dr Behe states:
Comment by Joe G — September 29, 2005 @ 5:32 pm
September 29th, 2005 at 6:22 pm
Joe G:
Scientists think genetic movements are undirected (which is not the same thing as "random") because they don't see any evidence of design. What they do see is evidence of inadvertant copies, botched copies, obvious transcription errors, and the like. The genotype of most organisms is much too much of a mess to indicate design. If ID adherents want scientists to believe that there's design in the genes, they're going to have to show evidence of it. So far, they've been unable to do so.
What the hell are "built-in responses to environmental cues" How about cosmic rays smashing into genetic material, causing a codon that used to code for one amino acid to now code for a different amino acid (or maybe no amino acid at all)? Sounds like a "built-in response to environmental cues" to me. All I've done is leave out the unnecessary ingredient — a designer who aimed the cosmic ray.
Why do you need a clever genetic algorithm and a pre-programmed goal, when genetic drift and/or natural selection and no goal at all work just as well, and leave out an untestable and undetectable designer?
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Intelligent design does not explain anything that neodarwinian evolution doesn't explain. You can leave out the designer and not lose any explanatory power. Until ID can demonstrate otherwise, it won't get anywhere, the same way it hasn't gotten anywhere so far.
Comment by ericmurphy — September 29, 2005 @ 6:22 pm
September 29th, 2005 at 7:42 pm
And speaking of Mr. Behe (and "Why Is a Fly Not a Horse?") I came across this quote from Behe's review of Sermonti's book:
Hmm. I thought. If the thing about the leaf insects were true, that would be really problematic for NDE. But since I hadn't heard anything about this particular issue, I thought I'd do a little research.
It took me 30 seconds of Internet research ("sermonti leaf insect phasmid") to come across an article that demolishes Sermonti's claim (and, incidentally, Behe's approval of it). Is it any wonder I have doubts about Behe's credibility when it comes to actual biology?
Comment by ericmurphy — September 29, 2005 @ 7:42 pm
September 29th, 2005 at 10:01 pm
Mr M,
Your misrepresent my objection. I never stated that scientists reckon they know everything about Evolution. I also feel this misrepresents even mainstream ID, which to my mind has never claimed that scientsits think they know everything about Evolution. That is the whole point, they don't. So what bits did I object to?
What I did object to is the idea that possible "darwinian explanations" are to be considered reality or even "likely" to be true merely by their existence *and* that there is no good reason to tihnk real design is expressed (at whatever level) in biological systems. People like Dawkins and Co consider undirected Evolution and neo-Darwinism a done deal — *This* is how Evolution proceeded and there is no good evidenece for 'real' design in nature. If there is 'it's all just illusory' because Natural Selection made it happen!" End of discussion.
So i'm not here to tell anyone how it happened, unlike Dawkins and Co. I'm quite happy to remain agnostic until more information becomes available. I'm open to the idea that "real design" is expressed in biology and that there reasons to consider this. I don't doubt Evolution proceeded , i'm merely uncertain the epistemic dots have been connected between so called darwinian scenarios and reality.
Comment by Plump-DJ — September 29, 2005 @ 10:01 pm
September 30th, 2005 at 12:36 am
Yep. That's why there are other mechanisms at work, such as genetic drift.
An irrelevant remark that is probably meant to be cutting. Do I imagine my personal opinions are shaking the scientific community? No. On the other hand, one must be careful about pushing this idea too far. If an interested and reasonably intelligent layperson cannot be justified in having any opinion on this matter, then it should not be taught to them at all. What is odd is that qualified scientists are asking hard and pointed questions of the scientific community, and the answers are quite vague, in those rare instances when they stop calling names long enough to answer at all. Ninety percent of this whole debate is wasted emotional energy in the form of resistance.
Yes, I've read that bit from Dawkins and it is yet another vapid statement from him. He just really is overrated as a thinker. There is not a thing wrong with being incredulous. We should be skeptical and not gullible. If something appears highly unlikely and suspect, and we are unable to convince ourselves of its veracity, is this supposed to be a red flag, not about the theory, but about our thinking process?
I wonder how Dawkins views incredulity about, say, paranormal phenomena?
Comment by onething — September 30, 2005 @ 12:36 am
September 30th, 2005 at 12:48 am
LOL. I'd bet eric found out about the Behe quote from PT.
Comment by MikeGene — September 30, 2005 @ 12:48 am
September 30th, 2005 at 1:48 am
MikeGene:
No, actually I found out the Behe quote from an evolutionnews.org, which I don't think anyone would think was an evolution-friendly site. The quote was actually in an ad for the Sermonti book (I think it's on the jacket of the book), which presumably was Sermonti-friendly as well.
Comment by ericmurphy — September 30, 2005 @ 1:48 am
September 30th, 2005 at 2:05 am
I have not heard the term, busted gene. If mutations take out previously functional genes, I would call that entropy, or Things Fall Apart.
Where did you get that 10>93 number? Isn't that more than all the particles in the universe?
Comment by onething — September 30, 2005 @ 2:05 am
September 30th, 2005 at 11:54 am
Onething:
Sorry about my comment earlier; I try to keep ad hominem statements to a minimum. I think my patience was getting a little frayed.
Anway, obviously "busted" gene isn't a technical term. But "pseudogene" is, and most eukaryotic genotypes are full of them. However, often the same type of mutation that causes a pseudogene actually generates biological novelty. Sometimes the novelty is harmful, most of the time it's neutral, but sometimes it's beneficial (and sometimes it can be both harmful and beneficial, depending on circumstance). My point is, a lot of the time it's just contingent, and shows no sign whatsoever of planning or forethought, which argues against design.
I got the 10^93^ number here. And yes, it is a larger number than all of the particles in the universe. So think about it: what are the chances that humans and chimps would have exactly the same cytochrome c protein? There's no particular reason, not even design, for them to have remotely similar cytochrome c. And, the further you get away from humans in the phylogenetic tree, the more differences you see in cytochrome c. Of course, ID can account for this, but ID could also account for completely dissimilar cytochrome c, which is kind of the problem.
Comment by ericmurphy — September 30, 2005 @ 11:54 am
September 30th, 2005 at 2:02 pm
Originally the topic seemed to be about perpetuating and correcting errors. I think things are far worse than we are imagining.
Eric murphy reminds us that, ""Scientists"¦ don't see any evidence of design." And its good to be reminded because this obvious and pernicious error seems to be spreading and I'm not sure just how hopeful we can be at this point of ever correcting it. Scientists seem to be picking up on this error and repeating it with ever-increasing, and somewhat alarming frequency.
One of the earliest (and apparently more influential)examples of this error I could think of is George C. Williams (1966) "Adaptation and Natural Selection," which I recently reread. I didn't recall just how many nonsensical things he says about "design." What is really amazing is that the book is widely cited as one of the most important works of 20th century evolutionary thought. A formidable defense of Neo-Darwinism! He makes outlandishly plain right from the beginning that he will invoke design arguments, analogies, and terminology, because they are intuitive, clarifying, conventional, appropriate, and authoritatively supported by such theoretical heavyweights as Muller, Simpson, Pittendrigh, and Sommerhoff!
If you've ever met Williams you'd think it was a case of Hollywood typecasting"”he looks and talks just like a Mad Scientist should. But I really have to wonder! Is he mad?! Just a little bit tiched in the head there, aren't ya, George?
Worse, in a later book (1992. Natural Selection.) he compounds the error by further developing this "design" thesis, saying that we know a biological adaptation because it conforms to an a priori expectation for an engineering design specification, then spinning off into biological information as some sort of immaterial Platonic essence, and recommends students of biology study the works of Galen and Paley for insights, even including excerpts of their writings in an appendix!
Yeeow! Something has seriously gone wrong here!
Then there are biologists like Hartwell, Hopfield, Leibler, and Murray (in the widely cited, "From molecular to modular biology," Nature 402: C47-C-52, Dec. 2, 1999.) who make outrageous statements like, "A number of the design principles of biological systems are familiar to engineers," and "Designs such as these are common in biology."
And speaking of "design principles," there is Dr. Michael Savageau (UCDavis), who has asserted for more than thirty years now (virtually unchallenged) that he can abstract predictive design principles from investigations of molecular biological structures and processes. He pointedly (and obviously, erroneously) contrasts these "design principles" with historical contingency and chance ("random and undirected"?).
I thought we should cut-off this sort of nonsense before it goes much further because I've noticed that some researchers are taking Savageau's descriptive and predictive "design principles" seriously as prescriptive and actually attempting to design and redesign life forms using them.
Has the world gone mad?! What could possibly have gone wrong for biologists to veer off so wildly into pseudoscientific and supernaturalistic nonsense like this?!
Something has to be done to stop the spread of this absurd error and I think we are on the right course. We have to go to the source, which is plainly the failure of public education. If we have to go to court to make sure that these errors are not repeated then so be it. Something's gotta be done.
Comment by Rock — September 30, 2005 @ 2:02 pm
September 30th, 2005 at 2:24 pm
Rock:
I've read your post a few times through, and I have to say, I'm mystified as to what position you're taking. Are you saying it's an error to say that there's no evidence for design, or are you saying it's an error to say there is evidence for it? You seem to be criticizing Williams for defending neodarwinian evolution, but at the same time you seem to be criticizing him for positing design.
Everyone keeps saying that a "design" implies a "designer," but I think you can, in fact, talk about one without the other. When a scientist talks about, say, the design of a shark's dorsal fin, I don't think it necessarily means that someone designed the fin. Something could have designed it as well, and by "something" I'm obviously referring to something like selection pressure.
I guess what I'm saying is, what exactly are you saying?
Miller may look a little weird, but he seems to get a lot of respect in the scientific community. Einstein looked a little weird, too.
Comment by ericmurphy — September 30, 2005 @ 2:24 pm
September 30th, 2005 at 5:47 pm
Sorry, eric murphy, would it help clear up the mystification if I said I was being sarcastic? I am a sarcastic SOB, and it gets worse, either as a consequence of the natural ageing process, or possibly from familiarity with the dreary repetitiveness of errors like this: "Scientists think genetic movements are undirected (which is not the same thing as "random") because they don't see any evidence of design."
The language, the logic, the concepts, and theories, the science of design is now, always has been, and always will be an integral and significant element of evolutionary thought and theorizing. And it is true, of course, because scientists do see "evidence of design," which is exactly their object to understand and explain.
People indoctrinated in the bowdlerized version of "Darwinism" taught in the public education system (even all the way through college), or whose sole knowledge of evolutionary theory consists of stock arguments culled from Internet Infidels and Institute of Creation Research websites probably are mystified–and my sarcasm doesn't help much. Sorry about that.
The sarcasm is really a self-defense mechanism. I think some of the questions and problems are particularly intriguing, scientifically. But the discussions, ostensibly "scientific," are almost exclusively about politics and religion, the "politics at God's funeral" (Swinburne?). Being apolitical and irreligious, I feel left out. I respond sarcastically. Sorry.
Comment by Rock — September 30, 2005 @ 5:47 pm
September 30th, 2005 at 6:57 pm
Rock:
No apology necessary. But I don't feel very enlightened (yet) about your position, I guess. So let's see (I'm thinking hard here, and not being sarcastic at all):
Do you believe that neodarwinian evolution (as it is currently constituted, not as it is misperceived by those who simply aren't that familiar with the theory) is adequately supported by the evidence to be a legitimate theory describing the evolution of living organisms? I'm not asking whether or not there are places where the evidence could use some work; clearly there are.
Or do you agree with the the ID position, which seems to be (to the extent IDists can be pinned down to any particular position) that the mechanisms advanced by NDE for the evolution of life are fundamentally inadequate to the task and need to be replaced, presumably by some sort of intelligent design?
Comment by ericmurphy — September 30, 2005 @ 6:57 pm
October 1st, 2005 at 12:34 am
Using a ubiquitous gene such as cytochrome c, there is no reason to assume that two different organisms should have the same protein sequence or even similar protein sequences, unless the two organisms are genealogically related. Dr. Theobald
So if my Escort and my Grand National both use spark plugs does that mean they are related? Or is it due to a common design?
If I were designing (different) organisms would I re-design every protein or DNA sequence? Absolutely not. I would use and re-use at will.
Also the NDE could account for very dis-similar cyto c sequences, and it can also account for them being very similar. Is this kind of a problem for the NDE also?
Comment by Joe G — October 1, 2005 @ 12:34 am
October 1st, 2005 at 3:04 am
Does ID have a hypothesis as to why the more distantly related an organism is from H. sapiens,, the more differences there are in its cytochrome c? Convergent evolution, perhaps? On a target that bears the same relationship to the range of possibilities as an individual electron bears to the universe at large?
No correlation between phylogenetic distance and similarity of cytochrome c (or other proteins) would be a problem for NDE in a way it would not for ID, which is why ID is on shaky ground as an explanation for life on earth. Common descent with modification is of critical importance to NDE. But ID works just as well with common descent with modification as it does with each organism created individually — custom-made, if you will.
Comment by ericmurphy — October 1, 2005 @ 3:04 am
October 1st, 2005 at 8:05 am
There isn't anything in the premise of "common descent with modifictaion" that says that genetic sequences will remain virtually intact so we can follow the lineage.
IF the NDE were indicative of reality we should see all the alleged "pseudo-genes" get removed from a population as they provide no function and come at a reproductive cost.
And yes, ID does say it will follow the evidence where it leads (common descent, special creation or alien colonization). Which to any objective person is more "scientific" than forcing the evidence to fit only one PoV.
BTW did you know that the Dr. Theobald article you linked to has NOT passed peer-review? There is a reason for that…
Comment by Joe G — October 1, 2005 @ 8:05 am
October 1st, 2005 at 12:36 pm
ericmurphy says
You appear either to be assuming Common Descent, not demonstrating it, or you are asking why similar organisms are more similar than dissimilar ones.
What do you see as problematic for ID vis a vis differences in cytochrome c?
Because this issue is one that Miller et al have raised repeatedly against ID, claiming that makes it non-science. It isn't that he was wrong intitially, or later, or what the answer really is. The inconsistency about the issue that many claim drives them, is rather troubling. That Miller, and the gang of 38, and the NABT, all seem to stumble into this "error" on what is supposedly a most crucial point of ID critics, is revealing.
I'm not as concerned as much about what the "real" answer is, is that folks arguing for that position are consistent.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — October 1, 2005 @ 12:36 pm
October 1st, 2005 at 4:15 pm
Since ericmurphy was more than gracious to overlook my snotty attitude, I thought I should respond to his request that I clarify my "position." All I can say, ericmurphy, is that you'll have to trust me that it is not within the realm of material possibility that I ever clarify my position on anything!
After I had typed my way to the end of four pages, in the attempt to meet your request, I thought I should just say something like, There is no convenient label for my position on any of these matters.
But to answer your questions as directly as possible for me, No, I am not "Neo-Darwinist." And, No, I am not an "Intelligent Designer," either.
Mostly, because I don't even know what those labels mean. No one has ever been able to explain to my own satisfaction, and believe me, I've asked, what I have to believe to be a Neo-Darwinist or Intelligent Designer.
That partly explains my feelings of "alienation." I have the strong suspicion that people are arguing, somethimes quite vociferously, over things they feel intensely about, but cannot rationalize.
E.g., if I am required to believe in "gradualism" to be a good Neo-Darwinist. Then I am not any kind of Neo-Darwinist.
You wrote (above) that gradualism is an important explanatory principle, not to be rejected. But I don't think "gradualism" explains anything, and indeed, confuses to quite differnt things–so its the opposite of an explanation. Its a confusion. (Maybe I could be a good Neo-Darwinist and admit I'm confused about gradualism. LOL)
It seems to me a trivial exercise to find exceptions to gradual evolution. Its perfectly conceivable to me that significant evolutionary change can occur over frames characteristic of biochemical reactions, say in milliseconds. I am supposing that wouldn't count as "gradual," but virtually instantaneous by anyone's clock.
A molecular biologist may appreciate the point I'm making, but a population geneticist may dispute that any kind of significant evolutionary change can occur so rapidly. He may define time in terms of rate to fixation, deriving a simple formula for the rate (ratio) as a dimension, a degree of freedom, over the product of the effective population size and the selection coefficient of the numerator. But this allows evolution to occur at any rate, from infinitley fast to infinitely slow, depending upon the values of the terms. (Realistically rapid evolution can occur depending only upon the first two numbers being "small" and the last number, the selection coefficient, being "large.")
I think you can see that theoretically and empirically there is really nothing we can say about the rate of evolution. It may be rapid. It may be gradual.
I think what has happened is that a true statement about the limits of observation has been confused with a (false)positive statement about a process rate. Two differnt things have been confused here.
The classical Darwinian and Neo-Darwinian apology was that we are compelled to assume that the directly observed process, and associated rates, holds for all life and over all time. They understood that this is an example of an observational limit, a sampling or selection effect. Biologists, having evolved themselves so recently, only observe the outcomes of billions of years of evolution. Even on their own theory they should not expect to observe what is characteristic (of the evolutionary process) of all life and over all time! As we just saw, the assumption is not dictated by either theory or observations!
So what explains the assumption they made?
Interesting topic to explore and I've already belabored it, in this context, but it should be further explored.
But it also explains another reason why I'm not a Neo-Darwinists, and it is a fundamental difference in the "philosophy" of science.
I very strongly believe that there are only two assumptions that scientists ever need make: 1) I assume the world exists and 2) I assume I can know a little bit more about it than just that it exists. Seemingly simple, innocous and safe assumptions, but as the philsophers have pointed out ad nauseam these are actually some pretty gigantic assumptions to make. If from the very beginning in science we are going to make such gigantic assumptions, we should do everything we can to eliminate or minimize any further assumptions we make. My rules for making assumptions are that I only make assumptions compelled by the requirement of necessity to proceed. Assumptions that seem necessary to make if I am to go any further in my investigations. And to only make assumptions I have a realistic prosepct of testing. The former rule is difficult. The latter absolutely required.
I am not a Neo-Darwinist because I'm not as willing to assume so much as Neo-Darwinists seem comfortable with. So I really do have a fundamental difference with the Neo-Darwinsits in that respect–and I think its an irreconcilable difference.
So much for my "position." LOL
Comment by Rock — October 1, 2005 @ 4:15 pm
October 1st, 2005 at 6:17 pm
Joe G:
No, but there's definitely something in the premise of "common descent with modification" that more closely related organisms have more similar genotypes, morphologies, anatomical structures, than more distantly-related organisms. Which is why we see, in addition to all the obvious morphological similarities, that chimpanzees are more similar genetically to humans than, say, yeast. And what, again, is ID's explanation? The designer was lazy?
Why does NDE predict that pseudogenes will be removed from the population (BTW, they generally do get removed from bacterial DNA)? There's plenty of suboptimal crap lying around in the DNA of all eukaryotes. Are you saying it's more likely that a designer would leave pseudogenes in the DNA than undirected processes? Would you care to explain why that would be?
Nice try, Joe. It's pretty clear to any objective observer that ID follows its own determination to find design, regardless of where the evidence leads. I've told you a million times why science is skeptical of "design" theories: because a "designer" could have designed any particular structure, and assuming design doesn't explain anything.
Interesting that an ID supporter would start getting all serious about the peer-review process. Are you sure you want to go there, Joe? I don't think anyone's ever claimed that talk.origins is a peer-reviewed journal, but if you look at Theobald's references, I think you'll notice that the vast majority of his sources are, in fact, from peer-reviewed journals.
(Also, not that this proves anything, but I ran the Theobald article past a friend of mine who works for a biotech firm, and a friend of his who is a biologist at Stanford, and they seemed satisfied as to its credibility. Just my own little dude diligence, if you will.)
But since you brought it up, I'd be curious to hear what your interpretation of why Theobald's article is not peer-reviewed. Are you going to claim it's because it doesn't represent the consensus opinion of the scientific community?
Comment by ericmurphy — October 1, 2005 @ 6:17 pm
October 1st, 2005 at 7:17 pm
I'm curious - what is the "reproductive cost" of a pseudogene in a eukaryote? Is this a quantitative concept? If so, what is the range of estimates for this cost?
Comment by Art — October 1, 2005 @ 7:17 pm
October 1st, 2005 at 7:26 pm
Roger Rabbit:
I'm not trying to demonstrate it, but the evidence for it is so utterly overwhelming that I don't think it's necessary for me to do so. My question is, what is ID's hypothesis for the similarity between closely-related organisms.
I'm not asking why similar organisms are more similar than dissimilar ones. I've already stated that the best explanation for the consensus phylogenetic trees based on half a dozen or more lines evidence all converging on the same tree, out of ~10^38^ possbilities, and the even more compelling evidence for nested hierarchies (which phylogenetic trees share with genealogical tables, and for exactly the same reason) is common descent with modification. ID can, of course, accommodate common descent with modification. However, it can just as easily accommodate no relationships at all among taxa, and that's the problem with ID in a nutshell. It can accommodate any set of facts, and thus explains nothing.
Specifically with respect to cytochrome c, there's the same problem. Obviously ID can accommodate the fact that in general more closely related organisms have more similar genetic sequences coding for cytochrome c, but of course ID can also accommodate absolutely no resemblance in cytochrome c proteins from one species to another at all. Hence, the problem.
Comment by ericmurphy — October 1, 2005 @ 7:26 pm
October 1st, 2005 at 7:34 pm
Rock:
Thanks for the gracious reply. I think you make a lot of good points, at least from an epistemological point of view, and I think you made one comment (without, perhaps, meaning it in quite the way I'm going to take it) which goes right to the heart of the issue here:
By that standard, it's surely unnecessary to assume design. The biological sciences have made breathtaking strides, especially in the past few decades, without making any kinds of assumptions about design, one way or another. While it's true that in principle, most biologists probably do assume that life was not designed, it's not clear that that assumption has affected their ability to advance the field of inquiry at all.
Comment by ericmurphy — October 1, 2005 @ 7:34 pm
October 1st, 2005 at 8:09 pm
ericmurphy Says:
And my question, which I apparently was not explicit enough in articulating, is what do you mean by "closely-related organisms"(CRO)? Until that is clarified, one cannot address your question.
If by CRO, you mean to assume common descent, and that is how they are CR, then that assumption colors what explanation we are likely to choose under that assumption. If instead, we are gonna, for the sake of argument, set aside the assumption of CD, then we are back to needing a definition of CRO.
You claim that it isn't just an issue of similarity, so I'm confused about what CRO really means.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — October 1, 2005 @ 8:09 pm
October 1st, 2005 at 8:51 pm
Some people may assume design. I do not. It's not an assumption. It's an inference. And it's not an inference shared only by IDers or creationists. It is shared by biologists (and others). Evolutionary biologists. I think I said that didn't I? (See above.) I said that the object of evolutionary biologists is to explain their shared inference of design. That is to explain what they do not assume. (Since people don't feel it necessary to explain, at least to each other, the assumptions they share.)
Not an assumption… Inference… Good or bad inference… One that requires some 'splainin'.
Comment by Rock — October 1, 2005 @ 8:51 pm
October 1st, 2005 at 9:25 pm
My quote for the day.
Comment by onething — October 1, 2005 @ 9:25 pm
October 1st, 2005 at 10:06 pm
RogerRabbitt:
Here's what I mean by closely-related: all life on earth is organized into "nested hierarchies." In other words, there is no ape that is more closely related to fish than it is to other primates. There is no dog that is more closely related to birds than it is to other mammals. There is no tree that is more closely related to starfish than it is to other plants. But closely related in what sense, you ask? In multiple senses: related by physical structure, related by similar proteins, related by similar chromosomal structure, related by similar pseudogenes, related by similar mutations to functional genes. And the fascinating thing is that no matter which particular criterion you use for establishing relatedness, you get the same nested hierarchies.
This differs from designed objects, like e.g. cars. You can group cars by make, by number of cylinders, by type of fuel used, by color, by presence or absence of power windows/doors/locks, by country of origin, etc. Depending on the criterion, you will get a different hierarchy.
This is not true of life on earth. No matter whether you look at anatomical similarity, genotypical similarity, protein similarity, you always get the same phylogenetic tree. In fact, there is only one true tree. This particular page of the link I sent you earlier will explain in further detail what I mean.
Now, it's not true that biological science has in fact determined the "one true tree." There are many organisms for which where they fit into the phylogenetic tree is controversial. But that doesn't change the fact that, somewhere out there, there really is one true tree. Think of it this way: trace all your ancestors back a thousand generations, in a genealogical tree. There is only "one true tree" of such genealogical relationships. I.e., someone cannot simultaneously be a great grandfather and a third cousin thrice removed to you.
As I said, there is no consensus phylogenetic tree for all the tens of millions of organisms on the planet. For one thing, because the number of possible trees goes up exponentially for the number of organisms, it would be computationally impossible to construct such a tree. But for the 30 major taxa for which there is a consensus phylogenetic tree, the number of possible trees is on the order of 10^38^. Even if science could only get the number down to, say, one of several million trees, that would still have reduced the number of likely trees by, well, 10^38^ trees.
What's important for this debate is that, over the past 145 years, no one has been able to come up with any explanation for the nested hierarchy of life on earth other than common descent with modification. Which brings up another interesting point. In the context of arguing that common descent with modification is "only a conjecture," Defendant's attorney in the Dover trial inadvertently demonstrated that ID is, in fact, unfalsifiable.
Comment by ericmurphy — October 1, 2005 @ 10:06 pm
October 2nd, 2005 at 8:33 am
ericmurphy:
I've told you a million times why science is skeptical of "design" theories
Science isn't. Some or even many scientists are, but that is another story. THose scientists still don't have any evidence that what we observe can come about via unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes. IOW their position seems to be that they will not allow ID because they just can't allow a designer- regardless of the data.
ericmurphy:
because a "designer" could have designed any particular structure, and assuming design doesn't explain anything.
Again reality demonstrates that "assuming" a designer shifts the investigation process. Also if assuming design didn't offer anything then we should be able to rid ourselves of archaeology, SETI and all forensic sciences that detect design.
eric murphy:
It's pretty clear to any objective observer that ID follows its own determination to find design, regardless of where the evidence leads.
Actually the evidence is pretty obvious. That is why most great scientists throughout history were either design theorists or Creationists.
As for Dr. Theobald's article- the original was torn apart by a Creatioist lawyer such that it was re-written.
Comment by Joe G — October 2, 2005 @ 8:33 am
October 2nd, 2005 at 8:39 am
IF the NDE were indicative of reality we should see all the alleged "pseudo-genes" get removed from a population as they provide no function and come at a reproductive cost.
Art:
I'm curious "“ what is the "reproductive cost" of a pseudogene in a eukaryote? Is this a quantitative concept? If so, what is the range of estimates for this cost?
Manufacturing DNA (by the cell) requires energy. The more DNA to be manufactured the more energy required. Therefore it would stand to reason that NS would rid the organism of energy draining waste.
Or perhaps NS is the issue as it only exists when evolutionists want it to- or even does not do what evolutionists want us to believe it does.
We also know of a mechanism that removes "neutral" DNA.
The bottom line here is that "pseudogenes" really aren't and junk DNA really isn't.
Comment by Joe G — October 2, 2005 @ 8:39 am
October 2nd, 2005 at 10:05 am
I asked about the cost of maintaining pseudogenes (or something to that effect - I'm clumsy at the xhtml mark-up and am using a machine that won't preview, so I am not going to try nesting quotes, etc.). JoeG replied:
This is a common misperception - I see if in the students (undergrad and grad) all the time. The fact is that the energy that a eukaryotic cell devotes to DNA replication is a tiny fraction of the overall energy budget of a cell. This means that it is not correct to assume that there is an energetic "selection" to pare unnecessary DNA from a genome.
There is another underlying assumption here that needs to be dispelled - namely, that eukaryotic cells are operating at or near some sort of energetic balance. The truth is that eukaryotic cells are rather energy-rich. This is another reason why genome sizes to not impact the overall energy budget of a cell, at least from a selective standpoint.
Pesudogenes exist - there is no question about that. And "junk DNA" also does. Why do you think the cell devotes so many resources to garbage disposals, JoeG?
Comment by Art — October 2, 2005 @ 10:05 am
October 2nd, 2005 at 10:56 am
Pseudogenes- How do we know they are pseudogenes? Because they look like non-coding representations of genes? Isn't that the same as saying something is designed because it looks designed?
Everyday science is finding that junk DNA really isn't junk. ie it does somet