More than Beauty Lies in the Eye of the Beholder
by BradfordDenyse O' Leary posted this blog entry at Uncommon Descent. She notes Mike Gene's book The Design Matrix in referencing the notion of design and Darwin's take on it. What is striking is the lack of evolution of objections to design. To Darwin imputing design signifies: prove that God exists. There can be no physical evidence for a process implicating design because that is ruled out a priori. A good indicator that standards of evidence are in the eye of the beholder.
June 17th, 2008 at 6:15 am
Hi Bradford
Is that because the arguments for design are still the same?
It is not quite as simple as that, though, is it? O'Leary quotes Darwin:
Darwin's point is that we are not made brass or iron, that there are strong connections to other organisms; all the evidence points towards evolution, and away from special creation. If the universe was quite different, then Darwin might well be convinced of a creator. But it is not. We live in this universe, and it is (in Darwin's opinion) childish to suppose what might be in another universe. Given all the evidence for evolution, Darwin would need a lot of convincing of creation, i.e., a visitation from an angel.
What would convince you that the moon is made of cheese? I would imagine you would need some extraordinary evidence, give all the evidence we already have to the contrary.
Really? Have you informed the archaeologists and forensic scientists about that?
I am sure we can all agree on that!
Comment by The Pixie — June 17, 2008 @ 6:15 am
June 17th, 2008 at 6:40 am
What is striking is the lack of evolution of objections to design.
But they are not. Paley did not advance notions like front loading and other ideas presented within the last 10-15 years. Noone in Darwin's day could have because they lacked the knowledge of genetics we have today. To contend the arguments are still the same is to ignore reality in favor of theistic stereotyping.
To Darwin imputing design signifies: prove that God exists.
99.99999% of the evidence for evolution was acquired after Darwin made his statements so that clearly was not his basis for reasoning. Besides that just pits the outdated conflict of evolution vs. ID which is a false dichotomy. It also ignores, once again, the great area of non-evidence- origins- where anti-ID evidence is far from the proverbial slam dunk. So we are left with man is not made of metal and I want God to be my personal genie arguments.
Show the cheese. We've been there. Except you don't have extraordinary evidence about origins or a strictly materialistic interpretation of the mind or an exclusion of cosmological ID arguments or the permanent exclusion of FLE. The cheese analogy fails.
There can be no physical evidence for a process implicating design because that is ruled out a priori.
They aren't required to prove that ET did not do it. Even as that remains a possibility. It's about manipulating evidentiary requirements.
A good indicator that standards of evidence are in the eye of the beholder.
I thought science was supposed to be about empirical results.
Comment by Bradford — June 17, 2008 @ 6:40 am
June 17th, 2008 at 7:18 am
Bradford
Besides front-loading (which is very atypical for ID) what ID argument requires an understanding of genetics?
Oh, what rubbish, Bradford. This really is pathetic. Darwin published OoS in 1859, and at that point he had a whole load of evidence – a whole book load of evidence – for evolution. The statement O'Leary quotes was made around 1860 (as it says on her blog page). To claim Darwin had no evidence at that point shows a remarkable disconnect with reality.
Blame O'Leary; she seems to have set it up like that.
Comment by The Pixie — June 17, 2008 @ 7:18 am
June 17th, 2008 at 8:09 am
Noone in Darwin's day could have because they lacked the knowledge of genetics we have today. To contend the arguments are still the same is to ignore reality in favor of theistic stereotyping.
Irreducible complexity, genetic entropy, information theories and almost anything relevant to change over time; a concept that is genetically based.
99.99999% of the evidence for evolution was acquired after Darwin made his statements so that clearly was not his basis for reasoning.
You wrote:
Almost all the evidence you reference was obtained after Darwin. So what is the evidence that an initial cell was not created? Why is a visit from an angel required to establish that the genetic storage and expression mechanisms, needed for cellular replication, were the result of a purposeful directed event?
I did not claim he had no evidence for an evolutionary process but rather that his evidentiary requirement for design reflects his own personal incredulity- to borrow a phrase from Ken Miller.
Comment by Bradford — June 17, 2008 @ 8:09 am
June 17th, 2008 at 9:07 am
Except for the mind of man, with it's intellectual and creative abilities.
A "brass" artifact if there ever was one.
In my opinion.
Comment by kornbelt888 — June 17, 2008 @ 9:07 am
June 17th, 2008 at 9:20 am
Bradford
Not sure if you are aware of this or not, but evolution is itself about "change over time". Amazing that Darwin could develop a theory of evolution – in which thing "change over time" – before genetics was known.
Do not be so dense, Bradford. A moment's thought should have revealed to you that I was specifically talking about evidence that was available to Darwin.
As far as I can tell Darwin is talking about evolution vs special creation of kinds – hence he talks about how humans are connected to other species.
Remember that that "personal incredulity" is based on a whole book load of evidence, collected personally over numerous years, that was then published and acknowledged as a major scientific insight by his peers. How does Darwin's personal incredulity rate against yours?
Darwin's evidentiary requirement for special creation reflects the huge amount of evidence he had collected that argues against it.
Comment by The Pixie — June 17, 2008 @ 9:20 am
June 17th, 2008 at 9:30 am
kornbelt888
How different do you think the mind of a two-year old is compared to the mind of a chimp? The difference is not so great (and obviously there is a continuous line from the two-year old to an adult)…
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.c...
If you want to single out creative abilities, how do you handle people without creative abilities? The human race has a spectrum of creative ability; I suggest chimps would fall at the lower end of spectrum.
Comment by The Pixie — June 17, 2008 @ 9:30 am
June 17th, 2008 at 9:43 am
Two year old humans have human brains, which is why they develop into mature human adults. Do you think baby human brains are wired up the same as baby chimp brains with regards to a mature intellect and creative capacity?
Just curious, but how many children have you raised from baby-hood?
I'd rather focus on the ones who have them. Explaining a lack of an ability is a lot less interesting to me than explaining an ability.
Human intellectual and creative abilities are a huge quantum leap above a chimp's most mature efforts. When I encounter a chimp posting coherent prose on a blog, then I may change my mind.
A "brass" artifact if there ever was one.
In my opinion.
Comment by kornbelt888 — June 17, 2008 @ 9:43 am
June 17th, 2008 at 10:20 am
Irreducible complexity, genetic entropy, information theories and almost anything relevant to change over time; a concept that is genetically based.
Not sure if you're aware that mechanisms allowing for change over time need to be put on a 21st century footing.
Darwin's "insight" is restricted to stating that once you have a cell you have an evolutionary process that excludes both design and special creation. It does neither. My personal incredulity is more aligned with scientific facts. It was Darwin's metaphysical attachments to his evolutionary theory that led him to think he had a slam dunk against his opponents.
I asked this before. What is your evidence that excludes the possibility of special creation of a cell. Don't tell me about change over time until you can specify what took place to produce a cell. Don't tell me about no God beliefs without acknowleding they are based on metaphysics.
Comment by Bradford — June 17, 2008 @ 10:20 am
June 17th, 2008 at 10:25 am
kornbelt888
Ah, right. Humans are different from all other animals because, well, they are human and other animals are not.
I think there are several differences between baby humans and chimps, including the wiring of the brain. I do not think the difference are that great. How much creative ability do baby humans have? Have much muture intellect do babies have?
Three. How about you?
Sure, if we compare chimps to Da Vinci, Da Vinci is clear ay ahead. Should we then set out boundary accordingly? We will count an entity as intelligent if it is as creative as Da Vinci. Bother, that is you and me out.
Personally, I think we should define human-level intelligence to encompass all humans, not just the top fraction of a percent. I think if you do that you will find the creative ability of chimps is not so distant from the lower end of human creative ability.
Some human creative abilities are, some are not. Which leads me to think this is not a huge quantum leap, but a continuous spectrum.
Strange that there are no coherent blog postings by two-year olds either. Again and again the similarities seem to stack up.
Comment by The Pixie — June 17, 2008 @ 10:25 am
June 17th, 2008 at 10:25 am
Darwin's not made of metal point was fatuous.
Comment by Bradford — June 17, 2008 @ 10:25 am
June 17th, 2008 at 10:27 am
All of which is irrelevant to a no design argument.
Comment by Bradford — June 17, 2008 @ 10:27 am
June 17th, 2008 at 10:38 am
Bradford
Right. So the arguments of ID are the same as those for creationism, merely put on a 21st century footing.
An evolutionary process that excludes special creation, and does not require design. There is a difference. The theory of common descent contradicts special creation (which I take to mean creation of each "kind"), and is a part of Darwin's theory of evolution, and is very well supported by the evidence.
I would love to see you start a thread on the scientific facts that lead you to reject common descent.
No, it was the huge body of scientific evidence that made him think that, not his metaphysics.
I can think of no evidence that excludes the possibility that God created the universe last Thursday. Can you?
Comment by The Pixie — June 17, 2008 @ 10:38 am
June 17th, 2008 at 11:49 am
The difference is what they can do.
What is more impressive to me is what they can do when they mature.
Three.
When I compare adult chimps to most adult humans or even eight year old humans, humans seem to have a quantum advantage.
In the case of the Da Vinci's of the world, even most humans can appreciate his creative production (otherwise we wouldn't think him special). It doesn't appear that chimps appreciate this. Art just doesn't mean the same thing to them.
I think the boundry is rather obvious. Most adults far exceed adult chimps linguistically, intellectually, artistically, capacity for knowledge, foresight, creativity, etc.
The top adult chimp is far behind my eight year old's ability in intellect and creativity. I see "brass artifacts all over the place."
But there are coherent postings by five year old humans. The quantum leap in natures becomes quite drastic as the human matures.
In my opinion.
Comment by kornbelt888 — June 17, 2008 @ 11:49 am
June 17th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Hey Pixie,
I see where your going with the spectrum of intelligence, sounds reasonable to me. But in order for the lower end of the human spectrum and the upper end of lower primate intelligence to meet do we not need exceptional specimens on both fronts? On the side of human intelligence would you not need a partially disfunctional brain, even many autistic and down syndrome humans (at maturity) display a much larger capacity for the types of abilities we associate with human level intelligence, language, creativity, etc.
And on the side of the chimp and other "lower" primates wouldn't we need a very exceptional speciman to even reach remotly the level of intelligence displayed by even a down syndrome affected human brain or some such disability?
I'm not really disagreeing with you, it's just amazing to me that given our many similarities there is such a huge gap.
Does anyone know if they have tested immature chimps against immature humans and discussed the similarities and differences at that level?
It would be interesting to see the results and at which point during maturation that divergence occurs and at what rate.
Comment by Kuma — June 17, 2008 @ 12:47 pm
June 17th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
The arguments for ID are centered around such items as gene expression, mutation bias, genomic maintenance and much more. Where is that found in Genesis or are you now deciding to be dense?
Common descent begins with an unexplained unicellular organism(s). The cell is a basic unit of life forms. Special creation of life's basic unit is not logically excluded by common descent.
It was Darwin's metaphysical attachments to his evolutionary theory that led him to think he had a slam dunk against his opponents.
Common descent and special creation are not mutually exclusive even if you want that to be the case. Darwin aficionados are motivated by the urge to disprove God. Pure metaphysics.
I asked this before. What is your evidence that excludes the possibility of special creation of a cell. Don't tell me about change over time until you can specify what took place to produce a cell. Don't tell me about no God beliefs without acknowleding they are based on metaphysics.
So you're admitting that the common descent excludes creation nonsense is a canard.
Comment by Bradford — June 17, 2008 @ 12:51 pm
June 17th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
Bradford,
Of course there are a priori biases in science. Science has no civil rights or affirmative action. I am not required to have an open mind or take any untested theory seriously.
But the scientific process is capable of humbling those with biases.
The process is well known: a candidate theory announces an experiment by which it can be tested.
We all are still waiting for Behe and/or Dembski and/or Wells to tell us:
Do this (legitimately doable) experiment. ID predicts you'll get result A (contrary to competing theories.) And if you get result B, then we are wrong.
If this happens and ID is confirmed and modern day Darwinists still deny design theory a place at the table, then they will be subject to mocking and ridicule. But at the moment the ball is in ID's court, and it has steadfastly refused to "you-know-what or get off the pot." Until ID proposes an experiment, they are not owed one iota of respect or acknowledgment from the scientific community.
ID is not stymied because mean-old atheists refuse even to consider the possibility that it is correct. That may be true, but science can proceed even in the face of such opposition. But not through incessant whining on Uncommon Descent. ID must show us the experiment. In this regard, Behe, Dembski and Wells have failed, and failed miserably.
Comment by David Heddle — June 17, 2008 @ 1:47 pm
June 17th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Hi David,
Ever read up on Ralph Seelke?
Comment by Doug — June 17, 2008 @ 1:57 pm
June 17th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
David,
I've got to ask…..
Even granting for the sake of argument the ID community has failed, do you think the Darwinists have proven their case empirically and theoretically?
Would you, as a nuclear physicist from Carnigie Mellon, think the self-perpetuating industry of evolutioanry biology is on par with your own discipline in terms of integrity of experiment, theory, and inferences such that they should continue to receive grants from taxpayers and be presented in school as if they were a really a legitimate scientific discipline?
Sal
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — June 17, 2008 @ 2:15 pm
June 17th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Doug,
I have in the past. I am not aware that he has proposed a doable experiment that can test ID. If he has please point me to it. I don't want links to evidence of design in nature. I can and do find evidence for design in nature all over the place. I am personally more than convinced that the universe and life was designed. What I can not do is devise an experiment to prove (or refute) what I believe. If I could devise such an experiment I would seek funding immediately. If Seelke has come up with such a test, please provide a link.
Sal,
ID's strength as a science is not to be measured against any possible weakness in evolutionary theory. That is Behe's mistake"”he seems to believe that a challenge to theory A constitutes a test of rival theory B. It does not. You cannot say "I double dare evolution to explain this" and expect that that says anything positive about your theory. It may point out a weakness in evolution, but it says nothing about ID.
And yes I think biology should continue to receive funding. In fact, I hope OOL initiatives are fully funded.
Comment by David Heddle — June 17, 2008 @ 2:33 pm
June 17th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Hi David,
I think I'm understanding your point better now. I was going to link (and still will) what I was refering to with Seelke's work. But, it is more about showing what unguided evolution can't do… not so much directly testing ID.
Here's a blurb from his paper:
My work on trpA.
Now, this sort of study, where researchers fail to find evolution, are not easy to track down. People don't trumpet their failures. They were side-results from other studies. As I looked in the literature, I could find no indication that anyone had deliberately tried to find what the limits of evolution were. So, I decided to do it myself.
My approach was to take a well-studied gene- the α subunit of tryptophan synthase. This is the gene that performs one of five steps needed in making the amino acid tryptophan. This is a well-studied gene, and there were a number of point mutations that were known to inactivate the gene- single changes in the DNA sequence that resulted in single amino acid changes in the protein, resulting in an inactive tryptophan synthase. Now if a microbe does not have a working version of this gene, then it won't grow unless you provide it with tryptophan. But what happens if it evolves- regains a functional trpA gene? Then it will have an ENORMOUS advantage- it will keep growing, even after the medium has been depleted of tryptophan. Pretty soon, it will completely dominate the culture in which it is growing.
I then proceeded to introduce a series of changes- mutations- into the trpA gene. If multiple steps are the problem that other experimental evolutionists have shown it to be, then my mutant trpA genes with only one mutation should evolve just fine. However, those with TWO, THREE, or FOUR mutations should have trouble evolving- a lot of trouble evolving.
But again, I see the distinction you are making.
Comment by Doug — June 17, 2008 @ 2:54 pm
June 17th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
Of course, by "evolution" I assume you mean a-telic evolution. ID does not stand in contradistinction to evolution.
At any rate, if somebody runs an experiment on a particular conjecture regarding a-telic variation and selection (RV+NS) leading to a novel feature, if results of that experiment are consistent with RV+NS then you would say that, for that conjecture, ID in this case is falsified. So the evidence is not neutral with respect to ID. On the other hand, if the results are not consistent with RV+NS, it may be true that ID is not demonstrated, but the door is still open, which says something with regards to ID.
Either way the results certainly do say something about ID:
1. Not necessary, OR
2. Maybe necessary
And for some of us, the more #2 results that are racked up, the more it feeds our suspicion that leads to further investigation.
Comment by kornbelt888 — June 17, 2008 @ 3:36 pm
June 17th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
David Heddle:
The first time I commented on an ID related topic on the internet (in the pre-Wedge era) I made some observations that were scientifically tenable but because they betrayed sympathy toward design the reaction to it was very harsh to very much understate the case. It caught me by surprise because although I was accustomed to disagreement when discussing like matters in person I had never encountered that degree of hostility. Had the reaction been something reasonable I may have lost interest in discussing the topic in public forums. The intense emotions led me to believe there was more to this than speculation about the origin of cells. I thought then as I do now that opposition to ID has little to do with safeguarding science and much to do with opposition to values they associate with design.
The scientific community has no obligation to endorse what is not empirically demonstrable as you point out. I too frequently refuse to endorse what is not empirically demonstrable which explains my hostility to origin of life concepts.
Point well taken particularly with regard to those three. A paper came out recently which I intend to post on. It does not put ID on the empirical map but does suggest possibilites.
Resources are not unlimited and I believe there are better bangs for the buck than a study indicating under what conditions a particular biochemical can form in extra-cellular environments. OOL theories are conceptually weak.
Comment by Bradford — June 17, 2008 @ 3:41 pm
June 17th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
ID proponents should pay attention to Dr Heddle.
Neatly put, Sir.
Comment by Alan Fox — June 17, 2008 @ 3:54 pm
June 17th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
The probability of uncorrelated mutations is not anything new. Indeed, Seelke quotes standard statistics in his paper, What Can Evolution Really Do? (doc).
So, Seelke's results are not surprising or interesting. Much of evolution is due to incremental changes, but even with his examples, an ocean of bacteria may evolve more rapidly than what is possible with single, selectable steps.
Seelke also mentions Lenski's work, noting that the bacteria evolved increased fitness for the environment, evolved larger in physical size, and most of these gains were due to mutations in five different genes. Five.
Lenski also recently chronicled the evolution of a new metabolic pathway in E. coli, showing the effects of contingency on traits that require multiple uncorrelated mutations.
Comment by Zachriel — June 17, 2008 @ 4:04 pm
June 17th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Kuma
I would have guessed not (bearing in mind I picked out two-year olds to compare to chimps), but to be honest I do not know. Bradford picked out creativity, and I think chimps might have a better chance there than something language based, where humans do have a more particular specialisation.
Agreed.
Bradford
Depends how you define "special creation". I take it to mean each "kind" created in separation (and I made that clear too). It is that that Darwin is arguing against, I believe. Are you now wanting to shift the goalposts?
I have no idea now you can twist common descent to be compatible with each "kind" created in separation.
Not at all! All the evidence points to common descent. However, that does not prove common descent, it is still a possibility that God created each "kind" in isolation, say, last Thursday.
Comment by The Pixie — June 17, 2008 @ 4:29 pm
June 17th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
E.coli already had the ability to utilize citrate. Just under oxic conditions it was not able to pass through the membrane, Lenski notes this himself (as read from Behe's blog):
The only known barrier to aerobic growth on citrate is its inability to transport citrate under oxic conditions
The metabolic pathway existed, since it already had an enzyme to breakdown citrate…. bringing it in under those conditions was simply a matter of overexpressing a protein (Citrate permease) under oxic conditions.
Comment by Doug — June 17, 2008 @ 5:24 pm
June 17th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
I didn't argue for ID as science. I merely asked if you thought evolutionary biology had the same level of integrity as your own discipline.
If you do, as a physics student, I'd like to know why you think evolutionary biology has the same level of scientific integrity as physics.
Let us say for the sake of argument that ID and the concept of special creation is theology, Darwin neverhteless tried to prove this "theological idea" was wrong by appeals to his so called "science".
It seems here that science is in the eyes of the beholder, because I've seen nothing in evolutionary biology (with the exception of population genetics) that would put it on par with physics and chemistry. By comparison, Darwinism and OOL looks closer to phrenology and the search for perpetual motion machines than physics….
I see Darwin's ideas elevated in the media and Darwinist blogsphere as if it were on par with electrodynamics or quantum mechanics. I just don't see it. Perhaps it is in the eyes of the beholder that some see such a circularly reasoned, empirically and theoretically falsified theory like Darwinism as science. My eyes behold something in Darwinism other than science….
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — June 17, 2008 @ 5:27 pm
June 17th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
This is a good point.
I think I agree with you.
Seelke states that:
To potentially obtain 4 concurrent mutations.
According to this link:
http://www.sdearthtimes.com/et...
The group, led by microbiologist William B. Whitman, estimates the number to be five million trillion trillion that's a five with 30 zeroes after it.
So, unless if I'm reading Seelke wrong or if William Whitman is overstating the amount of bacteria. It appears that 4 mutations could occur… at least if we are equating this to a lottery, which appears to make sense.
Comment by Doug — June 17, 2008 @ 5:28 pm
June 17th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Right, I'm not a fan of ol' Calvin, philosophically or theologically.
Comment by kornbelt888 — June 17, 2008 @ 5:41 pm
June 17th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
Hi Kornbelt888….
Looks like you put this on the wrong thread.
Comment by Doug — June 17, 2008 @ 5:49 pm
June 17th, 2008 at 7:35 pm
Yes. (Lenski also says, "The inability to use citrate as an energy source under oxic conditions has long been a defining characteristic of E. coli as a species.") But that's immaterial to the point. The conclusion was that the phenotypic expression was due to an ordinary mutation and was contingent on prior mutations in the population.
Though very rare events may occur very rarely, most of evolution occurs by incremental changes. And Seelke even notes that Lenski's bacteria evolved changes in five different genes.
Comment by Zachriel — June 17, 2008 @ 7:35 pm
June 17th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
Doug:
Thanks for that, Doug. I was a little confused by the hype on this research, as it was presented in the press and on the blogs as somehow "proving" evolution is all about RANDOM mutations. And I couldn't see that from what was reported, given that they haven't even done the sequencing yet to see where the original and subsequent mutations came in, where they're located or what type they represent (though they do have cultures all the way back so they can do that sequencing). Why are they touting "random" for that? All I see is unique to the cultured population, nothing about causation other than assumptions. One big, gigantic DUH.
Comment by Joy — June 17, 2008 @ 8:36 pm
June 17th, 2008 at 8:43 pm
But this recent example that you linked of Lenski wouldn't be an example of incremental changes. Because if it was that simple (incremental changes) there wouldn't have been the obstacle preventing the frozen line to obtain the mutation to allow citrate through the membrane in the presence of oxygen.
The miniscule frequency in which this state is obtained is indicative to it not being incremental.
Comment by Doug — June 17, 2008 @ 8:43 pm
June 18th, 2008 at 4:13 am
David Heddle wrote:
"Until ID proposes an experiment, they are not owed one iota of respect or acknowledgment from the scientific community."
ID doesn't have to be proven or needed, just capable of guiding research. Isn't that all that's expected from the non-teleological approach? I don't see any demands that the non-teleologists propose experiments that will verify non-design.
Comment by Jack — June 18, 2008 @ 4:13 am
June 18th, 2008 at 5:21 am
Jack,
If all ID has to do is guide research then there is no debate. ID guides all my research, since I think the universe is orderly and I think God created the universe.
I don't think the ID community agrees with you. I think they mean that design is scientifically detectable. There is no need for an "explanatory filter" if ID merely guides your research. There is a need for an explanatory filter (a so-far undiscovered one, one that actually works, one with some mathematical teeth) if the idea is to demonstrate design.
As for proving non-design, that's just silly. I don't propose a physics experiment on the basis that nuclear physics was not designed, but on the basis of what the laws of nuclear physics predict. I am free to believe those laws were designed or not–I'll propose the same experiment regardless. The ID people are making an explicit statement–therefore the onus is on them to demonstrate design.
Comment by David Heddle — June 18, 2008 @ 5:21 am
June 18th, 2008 at 7:46 am
You're having a problem with scale. We see a multiple mutation in a laboratory situation (small populations, simplistic environment) over a matter of a few years. Compare this to oceans of bacteria over millions of years.
Single mutations become fixed through selection. Or single mutations may become fixed through drift, that are then followed by additional mutations. It doesn't matter if you consider this incremental or not. We *observe* single mutations that result in adaptation. We *observe* neutral fixation followed by selectable mutations resulting in a single stepwise and novel adaptation.
Mutations are always occurring, and neutral changes are always being fixed. We can't know which neutral changes will be fixed in a given population, but we know that some will be. If these then lead to selectable changes, then this results in divergence. And that is what was demonstrated. The experiment strengthens the theoretical underpinnings of contingency.
Comment by Zachriel — June 18, 2008 @ 7:46 am
June 18th, 2008 at 8:03 am
Sal.
Well I don't think anything is on a par with physics, which is why I'm a physicist. Clearly biology cannot be expected to match physics for numerical precision. But it seems to me, as a non-expert, that evolution has made some impressive predictions. Human chromosome fusing comes to mind.
So, to simplify the point, a prediction of a 10^-8 effect in some physical process is very impressive. But a prediction: "if we, fairly recently, descended from great apes then there ought to be vestigial evidence that we also had, in the past, 24 pairs of chromosomes" is nothing to sneeze at. I don't really know how to compare them. But it is easy to compare either to the absence of predictions, which is what we find in ID.
Comment by David Heddle — June 18, 2008 @ 8:03 am
June 18th, 2008 at 8:40 am
David Heddle:
We base experiments on what laws predict. We can predict chemical outcomes based on laws. We can predict how biological systems interact based on function. Biological function is not predicted from basic laws. It is observed. In a factory we can observe a complex machine churning out widgets. Other types of machines turn out different types of widgets and the different types are put together with still other types of machinery. That's roughly the state of cellular biology. Cellular machinery is molecular in scale.
It's important to note what we are able to predict and that which we are not. We are able to predict how an already existing cellular construct functions. We are not able to predict how such constructs would arise from laws of chemistry and physics. It is not simply IDists who are confounded by an ability to make predictions at the basic level where biology meets physics.
Comment by Bradford — June 18, 2008 @ 8:40 am
June 18th, 2008 at 9:48 am
David,
Thank you sincerely for your response.
Up until this day I did not know where you stood…..
As far as science goes, I have an intense disdain for Darwinian evolution….
As far as theology, (unlike most YECs) I actually think Darwinists can have a place in the reformed faith. As an FYI, I'm a member of Potomac Presbytery in the PCA, and I side with a letter they wrote here: Letter from Potomac Presbytery to Westminster Presbytery. I'm deeply disturbed by the behavior of Westminster Presbytery and their militant YECism, and regrettably militant YECism is spreading to various other presbyteries in the PCA and EPC. I find this far more worrisome than anything I've seen in the ID movment…..
God bless you,
Salvador
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — June 18, 2008 @ 9:48 am
June 18th, 2008 at 10:04 am
Bradford:
If that were true we would be incapable of discovering new laws.
Comment by mitschlag — June 18, 2008 @ 10:04 am
June 18th, 2008 at 10:12 am
We base experiments on what laws predict.
Why is that when anomalies based on what is known would be the indicator that something not yet known could be the causal source?
Comment by Bradford — June 18, 2008 @ 10:12 am
June 18th, 2008 at 10:23 am
Experiments are based on hypothetical predictions. The hypothesis might derive from a scientific law as an attempt to falsify the law under certain conditions, but they are often based in theory or even conjecture.
There's no valid and complete theory of abiogenesis, if that is what you mean. But there is a great deal of evidence concerning how life has diversified from primitive beginnings.
Comment by Zachriel — June 18, 2008 @ 10:23 am
June 18th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Dr. Heddle said:
Do you happen to have a source(s) for this? I'd be interested in taking a closer look at this prediction.
Comment by JJS P.Eng. — June 18, 2008 @ 12:44 pm
June 18th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
JJS P.Eng,
Yes, you can start here.
This prediction can be appreciated, in my opinion, whether or not you believe in evolution. Regardless of whether, long term, it withstands scrutiny is mostly irrelevant. That's the way science should be done. That the way ID is not being done.
Comment by David Heddle — June 18, 2008 @ 12:56 pm
June 18th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Thank you for the sources, Dr. Heddle.
A couple of questions immediately came to mind, but I propose that the discussion take place here.
This is an open invitation and anyone may comment, as long as you leave the insults at home.
Comment by JJS P.Eng. — June 18, 2008 @ 2:26 pm
June 18th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
David Heddle wrote:
"As for proving non-design, that's just silly."
My point is that biologists are trying to better understand biotic reality, not prove non-design. Likewise, many design theorists are trying to better understand biotic reality, not prove design. I don't claim that anything had to be designed. Design is an inference. ID is about making design inferences and using them to guide scientific research.
Mike Gene says:
"The utility of ID is not tied up with a logical proof of design, it is tied to an ability to generate understanding about the world. And in this regard, I have found ID to be quite useful for formulating and weighing hypotheses about the origin and nature of the biotic world. For example, one can indeed tentatively interpret function as an expression of original intent/purpose rather than a coincidence that just happens to increase fitness. This line of thinking can be used to guide hypotheses and suggest future directions in research."
ID doesn't have to prove intent/purpose. Rather the inference of intent/purpose is used as a guide in formulating hypotheses and as a guide for future research. The hypotheses thus formulated don't need to say anything about design. Testing hypotheses generated via a teleological perspective is the same as testing any biological hypothesis. ID is just regular science minus an a priori assumption of ateleology.
Comment by Jack — June 18, 2008 @ 10:58 pm
June 18th, 2008 at 11:48 pm
Jack wrote:
For example?
Comment by olegt — June 18, 2008 @ 11:48 pm
June 19th, 2008 at 10:09 am
Attn: Mike Gene
Speaking of "beautiful" book reviews, Amazon just deleted seven of my newest, and best book reviews.
My review of Mike Gene's "Design Matrix" was deleted.
At least the seven reviews are gone right now, but may be they will return. One review had 36 favorable votes out of 36; I guess Amazon could not tolerate that level of success given that 36 x 2 eyes were pleased. My newest book review on Wallace's "Embracing Mind" was taken down, and it had already two favorable out of two. I will try to reinstall the reviews, if the old ones don't reapear. I don't know why they have been deleted, they were all done professionally.
Comment by Stephen — June 19, 2008 @ 10:09 am