My thoughts on the Pigliucci vs Fodor Debate
by GutsFodor is a philosopher who is a strong critic of the modern synthesis emphasis on selection as the primary mechanism for evolution. Pigliucci is also a critic but thinks Fodor goes way too far. Here's my take on the clash of the titans.
The debate was postponed until mid-May so I have no take. Suckers!
Actually, this is a good thing, since it will give me a chance to read both of the recent books written/edited by these guys. There was instead, a conversation between InfidelGuy and Massimo that I found interesting. There's a lot I disagreed with, but I'm a big fan of Massimo mainly for his clear thinking skills. He started out trying to define science. He stated that science is very difficult to demarcate. Many times in debates between IDists and anti-IDists we see the first point to be made is that ID is not testable. Massimo seems to disagree that this is the right strategy. Even astrology and creationism make testable claims. Yet no mainstream scientist or philosopher of science would consider these two propositions science. On the other hand, string theory is considered science by many (not all) scientists. Yet it is at the moment, untestable. So it's complicated.
Seti is at best, "quasi-science". The reason why is that SETI has no predictive theory. The closest it came to one was the Drake equation, but it hasn't been worked on since the 1950's, this is unprecedented in science. Furthermore, SETI cannot fail. Even if they never find aliens, it doesn't mean that alien civilizations don't exist.
He targets some theistic arguments. Such as , that the existence of numbers is an existence proof for the possibility of non-material things. He seems to forget that that's all it is, when he says that God is not a number.
I agree with him though when he says that neither atheism nor theism are scientific propositions. So when Coyne or Myers pontificate on these subjects with a scientist's hat on, they are mistaken.
He then started talking about the Extended Synthesis but I received a phone call and missed that part. I hope the whole conversation goes on YouTube.
The chat room was pretty boring but I suspect that will change when a lively debate is going on. Anyway, I look forward to more from InfidelGuy and I appreciate his service.
April 30th, 2010 at 6:19 am
With regards to the demarkation of science…
Creationism makes testable claims, but they turn out to be wrong, so not science.
The predictions of astrology could be readily checked. The fact that astrology proponents do not do just that in a scientific manner shows that they know it would fail. It is not science.
I also would say that SETI is not science. It uses high technology, so seems scientific, but is not itself science (but that does not mean it is not worthwhile).
Comment by The Pixie Again — April 30, 2010 @ 6:19 am
April 30th, 2010 at 7:27 am
What testable claim(s) does(do) blind, undirected chemical processes make?
Comment by ID guy — April 30, 2010 @ 7:27 am
April 30th, 2010 at 8:45 am
The statement "It makes testable claims, but they turn out to be wrong, so it's not science" makes no sense. To do science, you don't have to always be right.
Comment by Guts — April 30, 2010 @ 8:45 am
April 30th, 2010 at 12:07 pm
"ID" is ambiguous. Only specific empirical claims are subject to scientific testing.
SETI tests the very weak hypothesis that there are nearby radio-emitting civilizations. It helps set limits to terms of the Drake Equation.
Comment by Zachriel — April 30, 2010 @ 12:07 pm
April 30th, 2010 at 12:40 pm
[...] My thoughts on the Pigliucci vs Fodor Debate He started out trying to define science. He stated that science is very difficult to demarcate. Many times in debates between IDists and anti-IDists we see the first point to be made is that ID is not testable. Massimo seems to disagree that this is the right strategy. Even astrology and creationism make testable claims. Yet no mainstream scientist or philosopher of science would consider these two propositions science. On the other hand, string theory is considered science by many (not all) scientists. Yet it is at the moment, untestable. So it's complicated. [...]
Pingback by Darwiniana » Natural selection is not testable — April 30, 2010 @ 12:40 pm
April 30th, 2010 at 1:36 pm
Perhaps to you.
So that is why your position is not subject to scientific testing.
Comment by ID guy — April 30, 2010 @ 1:36 pm
April 30th, 2010 at 7:35 pm
ID isn't ambiguous, reality is.
Comment by Guts — April 30, 2010 @ 7:35 pm
April 30th, 2010 at 8:20 pm
Why is Charles Darwin posting trackbacks in my thread. I thought he was dead, of course it's testable charlie.
Comment by Guts — April 30, 2010 @ 8:20 pm
May 1st, 2010 at 12:34 am
So ID might be worthwhile, even though it's "not science"?
Comment by Mung — May 1, 2010 @ 12:34 am
May 1st, 2010 at 12:37 am
Zachriel:
Could you give us an example of a "non-specific empirical claim" that is not subject to scientific testing?
Comment by Mung — May 1, 2010 @ 12:37 am
May 1st, 2010 at 12:45 am
So it's a specific empirical claim?
Or is it a non-specific empirical claim?
Or is it a specific non-empirical claim?
Or is it a non-specific non-empirical claim?
Or do you not know what you're talking about?
lol. (I don't believe you, and if I said of this assertion what I truly think of it I'd probably get banned.)
What LIMITS does SETI place on the terms of the Drake Equation?
And why does it matter?
Is it because the Drake Equation by itself is not science?
Comment by Mung — May 1, 2010 @ 12:45 am
May 1st, 2010 at 6:03 am
SETI is not a search for the supernatural. The search is for sources of electro-magnetic radiation that are anomalous. If an anomalous source is found, theories attempting to explain the new phenomenon can be advanced and tested. A researcher's hopes, beliefs and prejudices can inspire the topic and avenue pursued, but only the verifiable and reproducible evidence gleaned will form the basis of any scientific explanation.
I hope we find life elsewhere but I very much doubt we will in my lifetime at least. We are more likely to find something if we look, though what we find may not be what we expect; pulsars, for example.
Comment by zykander — May 1, 2010 @ 6:03 am
May 1st, 2010 at 8:06 am
It's usually stated that life was designed by an unnamed agent at an unknown time by an unidentified mechanism for inscrutible reasons. But if you want narrow that down somewhat…
A primary hypothesis assumes the existence intelligent organisms (defined in terms of technological capabilities) in the stellar neighborhood that are emitting narrow-band radio signals. It's specific enough for testing; a weak hypothesis, but it's fairly easy to do, and it may help narrow some of the values of the Drake Equation.
The galactic density of radio-capable civilizations. Other experiments are attempting to determine some of the other factors of the Equation, such as numbers of planets, and even those that might harbor life. It's considered a weak hypothesis, though.
Science is a process of investigation.
Comment by Zachriel — May 1, 2010 @ 8:06 am
May 1st, 2010 at 12:03 pm
This is like the 50th time I've narrowed it down for you but you still get it wrong.
No, an intelligent agent with advanced human-like intelligence. Or do you want his social security number?
No, the hypothesis is that the designer seeded the earth with different cell types , 3.8 billion years ago.
No, the mechanism was intelligent agency.
Inscrutable? It's actually rather simple to opine a reason that an intelligent agent might want to seed a planet with life. Even some of us want to do it.
Of course we don't know all the details, but this is enough to make testable hypotheses that can be supported by empirical evidence.
Comment by Guts — May 1, 2010 @ 12:03 pm
May 1st, 2010 at 2:38 pm
I was at a public lecture by Seth Shostak, recently. I don't have my notes with me, so I'm working off my disintegrating memory:
SETI has only searched 750 star systems. Its ability to search is growing at a geometric (or was it exponential?) rate. So depending upon how many radio-emitting life forms might be out there, we should have a good idea by 2028 if they are really there.
Speaking of non-falsifiable, is neo-Darwinism (the Modern Synthesis) falsifiable? Not common descent, mind you. I'm talking about the mechanism that achieved it. How would we go about falsifying neo-Darwinism as the mechanism? Behe offers IC systems, but the answer is always, "We don't know now how they evolved, but someday we might know. And if we never find out how, that doesn't mean they didn't evolve that way."
So how would we go about falsifying that?
Comment by Bilbo — May 1, 2010 @ 2:38 pm
May 1st, 2010 at 3:34 pm
Okay.
That assumption is not universal to "ID", but okay.
That's not a mechanism. A mechanism involves doing something.
Again, not universal to "ID". Opine? To terraform the planet for colonization, but no spacecraft, probes, domiciles or any sign of their existence?
Perhaps. But the evidence that a human-like organism visited Earth and seeded it with life seems to be lacking. Humans haven't attempted to terraform another planet, but they're already leaving junk floating about the Solar System.
Comment by Zachriel — May 1, 2010 @ 3:34 pm
May 1st, 2010 at 3:38 pm
Many specifics have already been falsified. That's why today's Theory of Evolution is not the same as your grandfather's.
No. The answer is that IC systems are easily evolvable, so Behe's claim that they are a problem for evolutionary theory is false.
Comment by Zachriel — May 1, 2010 @ 3:38 pm
May 1st, 2010 at 3:53 pm
Guts
There is a difference between "doing science" and "being science". Darwin did science, Darwin's theory of evolution is science. When you do science, you will often be wrong, sure. But for a theory to be science, it has to be right, or at least significantly more right than the other theories. Creationism is not science because its claims are signficantly [i]worse[/i] than that of evolution.
Mung
Hey, ID could be science if it was done properly (and the predictions turned out to be true).
Bilbo
Common descent is a big part of it, so a little disingenuous to just dismiss it like that. The mechanism relis on selection, variation and inheritence, all of which can be readily falsified.
Comment by The Pixie Again — May 1, 2010 @ 3:53 pm
May 1st, 2010 at 4:40 pm
Pixie:
I don't see the difference.
Pixie:
There are many problems with this. First, you have now changed your initial criteria. From making testable claims that are correct, to making many testable claims that are correct. We're looking for demarcation criteria, this one is too subjective. And that's why it gets complicated. How many is many? Second, it doesn't explain why String Theory is considered science by many scientists, since String Theory has not been shown to even be testable.
Comment by Guts — May 1, 2010 @ 4:40 pm
May 1st, 2010 at 4:43 pm
Zach:
Large IC systems are not easily evolvable.
Comment by Guts — May 1, 2010 @ 4:43 pm
May 1st, 2010 at 4:49 pm
Sure they are. We have a complex system A, add a helper B (which may be a duplicate of A). Optimize through polarization of function, and we now have an irreducible system AB. Now add a helper C.
This is how cascades are posited to have evolved.
Comment by Zachriel — May 1, 2010 @ 4:49 pm
May 1st, 2010 at 4:50 pm
zach:
Intelligent agency entails action. The exploitation of stochastic mechanisms to design lifeforms in order to achieve metazoan-like complexity.
Zach:
Not for colonization. You can't drop a cat on mars and expect it to survive.
Zach:
The evidence is found in life itself.
Zach:
There are many who want to.
Comment by Guts — May 1, 2010 @ 4:50 pm
May 1st, 2010 at 4:56 pm
zach:
That's not a large IC system. Besides, that type of structure building isn't really helpful:
Zach:
Which one?
Comment by Guts — May 1, 2010 @ 4:56 pm
May 1st, 2010 at 5:33 pm
It doesn't entail action. It may mean action, depending on the sense.
That's indistinguishable from plain-Jane evolution. Presumably, the "seeding" process is the mechanism.
What purpose then?
So you say.
Yes, to make it amenable for human habitation. Humans have already left debris on Mars (physical evidence of their presence), and will most certainly leave much more before attempting to terraform the planet.
Comment by Zachriel — May 1, 2010 @ 5:33 pm
May 1st, 2010 at 5:52 pm
Zach:
I've shown you many times that it isn't.
Zach:
For the evolution of metazoan-like complexity.
Zach:
No, it's been shown many times here and at the the the DM
Zach:
Not just for human habitation but for the expansion of biological knowledge.
Comment by Guts — May 1, 2010 @ 5:52 pm
May 1st, 2010 at 6:01 pm
You point to convergence which has been part of the Theory of Evolution since day one. You haven't distinguished the ID Claim, nor is it entailed.
Such a system can be quite large, because you can continue to add components. Again, what happens is that the original complex structure A becomes dependent on B. A simple example is the mammalian middle ear, which coopted bones from the reptilian jaw. This requires individual components that can be modified. With more rigid structures, we can have the same basic process followed by the elimination of redundancy, such as in the blood clotting cascade.
There's some ambiguity in what is meant by Irreducibly Complex. That's because components may not always be distinct, and the system may work at reduced capacity without some components.
That's the posited result, not the purpose. Why would they want metazoan-like complexity?
Humans won't terraform Mars randomly, but for human habitation. In addition, they will leave ample evidence of their existence. Maybe it's Cosmic Johnny Appleseed.
Comment by Zachriel — May 1, 2010 @ 6:01 pm
May 1st, 2010 at 6:11 pm
Zach:
Now I know why many people point to your dishonesty, I already addressed these claims. I didn't just point to convergence, but convergence by intrinsic factors. That makes it distinguished.
Also, evidence for convergence existed since day one. So of course Darwin incorporated it into his thinking (after much revision).
Zach:
I already refuted your thinking on this subject here . Besides, that's evolution through co-option, not evolution through the helper pathway.
zach:
It's the result they want, so yes, it's the purpose. Who knows why, perhaps to expand their biological knowledge. It's not important. The importance is the possibility and the evidence for the possibility.
Zach:
And to expand biological knowledge. Some think that it will simply highlight how far humans have come.
Comment by Guts — May 1, 2010 @ 6:11 pm
May 1st, 2010 at 6:34 pm
Usually, it's best practice to ignore such taunts, but perhaps an exception is in order. We could point out that your position is simply silly and rejected by the vast majority of the scientific community, but that wouldn't lead to a very interesting discussion. We are more than willing to accept your position on its face and argue it on the merits. You might consider giving the same consideration.
Intrinsic factors are inherited. Many of the structures are found at the root of metazoa and before. There's a long process of forming symmetries, anterior, posterior, bilateral, appendages, mouths, nerves, brains, vertebrae, so that by the time of mammals, the two mammalian lineages, marsupial and placental, are playing around with much the same toolkit.
We have a complex system A, add a helper B … B may be coopted.
Pointing to how developmental genes evolve doesn't undermine evolutionary theory.
Of course it's important. Maybe it's To Serve Man. But whatever the purpose, of course, it's important. However, not everything can be known. The more specific your claim, the more likely to find some sort of testable entailment.
If and when humans terraform a planet, there will be a purpose, almost certainly to make it more habitable for humans. In any case, you keep ignoring this point: Humans will leave ample evidence of their existence.
Comment by Zachriel — May 1, 2010 @ 6:34 pm
May 1st, 2010 at 6:58 pm
Zach:
I would except, you insist on regurgitating your claims and misrepresenting my arguments, that's not honest, that is deceptive.
Zach:
Yes, this revolutionized evolutionary thinking. I've pointed this out here as well.
Zachriel:
That makes no sense. Co-option is change of function, not improvement of function.
Zachriel:
lmao
Zach:
I'm doing just fine finding testable entailments. If some sort of designer designed life with a message, thats the best place to look (HT: Paul Davies).
Zach:
We don't need independent evidence of designers , thats why SETI is a reasonable proposition, although not science.
Comment by Guts — May 1, 2010 @ 6:58 pm
May 1st, 2010 at 7:14 pm
Zach,
Did you just refer to yourself as "we"?
Are you communing with the designers?
Comment by Guts — May 1, 2010 @ 7:14 pm
May 2nd, 2010 at 9:48 am
The SETI project are looking for anomalous radio sources. This is indeed scientific research. If ID researchers looked for real evidence of a designing agent, that would also be scientific research.
Comment by zykander — May 2, 2010 @ 9:48 am
May 2nd, 2010 at 10:04 am
Zykander,
You don't just proclaim things by fiat, you have to use reason and logic.
Comment by Guts — May 2, 2010 @ 10:04 am
May 2nd, 2010 at 10:32 am
lol Zykander = Alan Fox. The dishonesty just overflows from the anti-ID side.
Comment by Guts — May 2, 2010 @ 10:32 am
May 2nd, 2010 at 10:37 am
The SETI radio hypothesis is based on the theory that evolution of biology and technology might occur on other planets suitable for carbon-based life, much as it did on Earth. Narrow-band signals are a solution based in the physics of transmission energy and communications, something humans are known to use. Radio signals pass easily through interstellar space. The test will set a bound on the frequency of such an occurrence by sampling the local galactic sector. Other tests are determining the number of planets, and the number of planets with suitable environments. Future tests may be able to detect the presence of life (such as free oxygen in the atmosphere).
Presumably, non-technological life is much more common than technological life. If someone were to have sampled Earth at various points in its history, there is only a very small likelihood, about 0.0000025%, of having detected narrow-band radio signals. SETI would not detect the world of Thales, Confucius or Descartes.
Comment by Zachriel — May 2, 2010 @ 10:37 am
May 2nd, 2010 at 2:29 pm
I must have missed all those detailed evolutionary explanations of IC systems. Could you direct me to them?
Since common descent is logically independent of neo-Darwinism, I don't think I'm being disingenuous.
Yes, how exactly could we falsify the belief that the bacterial flagellum arose through selection, variation and inheritance?
Comment by Bilbo — May 2, 2010 @ 2:29 pm
May 2nd, 2010 at 3:43 pm
Zachriel:
That's not their hypothesis. They're just looking for a signal. It doesn't matter whether they're carbon-based.
Comment by Guts — May 2, 2010 @ 3:43 pm
May 2nd, 2010 at 4:07 pm
The evolution of the mammalian middle ear is a good case, because the structure is comprised of bones and left fossils. It involves cooption, scaffolding, and optimization of the individual components. Each step represents a selectable improvement in function. The final result is very sensitive to perturbation. Here's some of the latest finds, but you might also try Wikipedia for a rundown.
Qiang Ji, et al., Evolutionary Development of the Middle Ear in Mesozoic Therian Mammals, Science 2009.
Wikipedia, Evolution of mammalian auditory ossicles.
Comment by Zachriel — May 2, 2010 @ 4:07 pm
May 2nd, 2010 at 4:12 pm
Guts
Really… Well consider this. Scientists do science, but are not science themselves. The theory of relativity is science, but does not do science.
Sciencists, doing sciece, do not have to be right all the time, or indeed ever really. On the other hand, science is expected to be broadly right, and definitely more right than the alternatives.
Explaining changing the criteria, I was clarifying. Science has its own survival of the fittest, and to survive a theory must prove ts worth by offering more and better testable claims. A theory that makes a single testable claim is just not going to cut it whn it is up against a theory that makes dozens.
It is about being better than the existing theories. More claims and/or more precision than the existing theories.
Think of this from a practical perspective. If you are designing a rocket or a chip, what theories do you base your design on? Theries that have been shown to be the best model for nature.
As far as I m aware it is considered a possibility. A strong and popular possibilty, certainly, but no more than that. Who considers it to be science? Can you quote anyone here?
Personally, I would say it was not science, exactly because it does not make testable predictions.
You said "many problems". Does two count as "many" for you?
Comment by The Pixie Again — May 2, 2010 @ 4:12 pm
May 2nd, 2010 at 4:34 pm
Pixie:
That's not what I meant by doing science. You do science by using the scientific method, by employing peer review, etc. There's no way to do science and yet have what you have done not be science.
Pixie:
I agree that there is a "track record" that needs to be established if there are competing theories. But it's a lot more complex, it involves sociological aspects, among other things.
Pixie:
Comment by Guts — May 2, 2010 @ 4:34 pm
May 2nd, 2010 at 4:44 pm
Zachriel:
I'm still waiting for you to respond to my discussion, where I show why this isn't a good example, here .
Comment by Guts — May 2, 2010 @ 4:44 pm
May 2nd, 2010 at 5:41 pm
Guts
You do science by investgating something using the scientific method, i.e., observing, hypothesising, predicting and testing (probably not in a formal sense, but nevertheless, that is what happens). Now the sad fact is that many hypotheses turn out to be wrong. The predictions fail the testing, the hypothesis is rejected. The hypothesis is not science, and never is. Determining that is still doing science.
Successful hypotheses become science. Investigating whether a hypothesis is successful or not is doing science.
Can you elaborate on what you mean here? i appreciate that it can take years for a revolutionary theory to become accepted; well-established theories require move evidence to displace them. That does slow science down, bu is better than the alternative – science naively accepting every new theory tht shows any promise at all. The strength of the system stems from the vriety of scientists, from young to old, across the world and spanning numerous religions. New theories are examined from numerous viewpoints, and taken up quickly by some, and slow by others.
Really? Are you sure? i read the article and found nothing to confirm that. Here are three paragraphs I found relevant.
"Our current theory of gravity—Einstein’s general theory of relativity—and our current theory of the behavior of atoms and subatomic particles—quantum mechanics—both work fantastically well in their respective domains: general relativity for big things, quantum mechanics for small things. But when you try to meld the two, there is an incompatibility, a hostility. It’s uncomfortable to have two laws of physics, each claiming that the other somehow doesn’t work. In reality, both sets of laws are meant to work everywhere."
The important point in this paragraph is that relativity and QM are the current theories in science, implying tat string theory is not.
"Falsifiability for a theory is great, but a theory can still be respectable even if it is not falsifiable, as long as it is verifiable. There are aspects of a theory that you can go out and look for and confirm, and that’s another way to gain confidence in it. For instance, it’s really hard to falsify the statement that there is life on another planet, but you can verify it by finding one example. We’re hoping that certain features of string theory are confirmable."
This is the closest Greene comes to saying what you claim. Only he say "respectable" instead of "scientific". Perhaps more importantly, he is saying that sting theory could be that one day, implying that currently it is not.
"One time I was listening to a radio program and I was described as a believer in string theory. I almost hit the roof because I don’t “believe” in string theory. I don’t believe in anything until it’s experimentally proven."
So not only does he not think it is science, he does not believe in it!
Comment by The Pixie Again — May 2, 2010 @ 5:41 pm
May 3rd, 2010 at 7:40 am
Too bad thnere isn't any evidence that IC systems can evolve via blind, undirected chemical processes.
That is Dr Behe's claim- that blind, undirected chemical processes cannot produce IC systems.
Design is a mechanism as design is a way of doing something.
What is the data that shows it evolved via blind, undirected processes?
What is the experiement that shows a reptilan embryo can be altered so that these changes occur?
The point being is you don't have any such evidence, meaning it isn't science.
Comment by ID guy — May 3, 2010 @ 7:40 am
May 3rd, 2010 at 7:46 am
Then ID is science as IDists are looking for real evidence of design, which implies a designing agent.
ID is not about the agent, it is about the design.
And with all the negative attacks on ID there still isn't any positive evidence for the anti-ID position.
Comment by ID guy — May 3, 2010 @ 7:46 am
May 3rd, 2010 at 7:48 am
Your position doesn't have any testable claims.
It is all accidents- didn't you hear what Hawking said?
Comment by ID guy — May 3, 2010 @ 7:48 am
May 3rd, 2010 at 8:12 am
Not just a possibility, but an actuality.
Yes, that is what the evidence suggests. It means that small mutational changes can bring about the sorts of changes that are posited to occur.
So we agree that Irreducible Complexity does occur on the macroscopic level where individual components can change their configuration. Is that correct?
-
What happened to zykander? He should have responded to those clarifications about SETI.
Comment by Zachriel — May 3, 2010 @ 8:12 am
May 3rd, 2010 at 8:21 am
There isn't any evidence tjat changes to the genome can cause such a change.
No way to even test it.
There isn't any evidence that small mutational changes brought about that inner ear transformation.
IOW all Zach can do is keep repeating the same ole unscientific company line…
Comment by ID guy — May 3, 2010 @ 8:21 am
May 3rd, 2010 at 8:37 am
Zachriel:
Either you're being dishonest, or you're reading comprehension is pretty much non-existent. Either one wouldn't surprise me.
Comment by Guts — May 3, 2010 @ 8:37 am
May 3rd, 2010 at 9:19 am
Perhaps you could take that up with Guts.
You said,
That's fine. But that's not the question. The question is whether macroscopic Irreducibly Complex structures can and have occurred by incremental, selectable changes.
Comment by Zachriel — May 3, 2010 @ 9:19 am
May 3rd, 2010 at 10:01 am
There isn't any evidence that changes to the genome can cause such a change.
You keep saying there is. Why can't you support your claim?
Nope, that isn't the question.
The question is whether macroscopic Irreducibly Complex structures can and have occurred by blind, undirected chemical processes.
Please stop being dishonest and obtuse.
Thank you.
Comment by ID guy — May 3, 2010 @ 10:01 am
May 3rd, 2010 at 10:21 am
Zach:
That's not the question Behe asked, so it's irrelevant. Behe's focus was on molecular IC machines, which evolves quite differently.
Comment by Guts — May 3, 2010 @ 10:21 am
May 3rd, 2010 at 10:40 am
Here's the original question:
Guts replied, and we're paraphrasing, "No."
This is Behe's argument, applied to the evolution of the mammalian middle ear.
Check.
Check.
Well, that's where Behe's argument breaks down. The reptilian middle ear and the intermediates are all functional. The process occurs through gradual changes where the same part can play two roles, one as a jaw bone and the other as an improvement in the auditory system. Evolutionary selection is direct, cooption is gradual, and redundancy maintains both structures during the transition.
But the mammalian middle ear is an irreducibly complex structure, and it apparently doesn't represent a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution. So Behe's claim in that regard is false.
Comment by Zachriel — May 3, 2010 @ 10:40 am
May 3rd, 2010 at 10:49 am
You're just repeating yourself, I showed the difference between evolution of molecular machines and macroscopic structures here . The conclusion being that using one in order to act as a general explanation for the other is invalid. Macroscopic evolution depends on this basic molecular IC machinery, and that is why it is important to focus on this level.
Comment by Guts — May 3, 2010 @ 10:49 am
May 3rd, 2010 at 11:18 am
Yes, we quoted that comment above.
We're not drawing any general conclusions. We're asking whether or not macroscopic irreducible complexity can occur through incremental, selectable changes. And they clearly can. Behe is the one making the sweeping claim and he is apparently wrong on this point. That you won't simply acknowledge the point is telling.
Perhaps, but that doesn't change the fact that irreducible complexity structures can occur through incremental, selectable changes. They don't have to pass through a "nonfunctional" state before being snapped into place.
Comment by Zachriel — May 3, 2010 @ 11:18 am
May 3rd, 2010 at 11:23 am
Zachriel:
Even if were to forget the fact that molecular IC systems don't have the luxury of a pre-existing developmental program, and even if were to 'forget' that Behe purposely focused on the molecular level, it's only 3 components, and Behe already stated that such IC systems can come about circuitously.
Comment by Guts — May 3, 2010 @ 11:23 am
May 3rd, 2010 at 11:56 am
Each bone's morphology is complex in-and-of-itself, and the relevant structure also includes the tympanic membrane and cavity. You're actually arguing that the precisely matched, interlocking components of the mammalian middle ear are not complex.
Comment by Zachriel — May 3, 2010 @ 11:56 am
May 3rd, 2010 at 12:10 pm
Pixie:
I just don't see how you can say that what I'm doing is science, but if it gets rejected , it's not science, and it never was science. Perhaps if you can quote some philosopher of science making those distinctions I could see it more clearly.
Pixie:
You kind of touch on it here. I might elaborate more in a future post.
I wrote:
Pixie replied:
It's the title of the article. Those aren't my words.
Pixie:
No, he's simply explaining the problem that String theory solves. He's not making any point about whether it's science.
Pixie:
I think it's clear there that he is saying it's scientific. But if you want a more direct quote, here's one:
Pixie:
Scientists rarely "believe in" things, Eugenie Scott makes this point nicely when asked in debates whether she "believes in" evolution. But nowhere does Brian Greene say it's "not science".
Comment by Guts — May 3, 2010 @ 12:10 pm
May 3rd, 2010 at 12:22 pm
zach:
Well yes they are complex in and of itself, but it's all pre-existing material, the structure in and of itself, if you count the parts, isn't as complex as say, an 8 part molecular machine that doesn't have the help of a developmental program.
Comment by Guts — May 3, 2010 @ 12:22 pm
May 3rd, 2010 at 1:08 pm
Of course it's preexisting material. That's what we mean by evolution. But the final parts are not much like the original parts. They've been substantially modified with each component requiring a precise morphology and relationship to the other components. The final structure is complex by any reasonable definition.
Comment by Zachriel — May 3, 2010 @ 1:08 pm
May 3rd, 2010 at 1:14 pm
zach:
That has to be determined on a case by case basis.
zach:
No, the articulation is preserved as it was in the jaw.
Comment by Guts — May 3, 2010 @ 1:14 pm
May 3rd, 2010 at 1:27 pm
The reptilian stapes is directly connected to the tympanic membrane, and two bones were interposed into that relationship. The bones were significantly modified over evolutionary history. By any reasonable measure, the mammalian middle ear (with tympanic membrane and cavity) is complex and irreducible, formed through incremental and selectable changes over millions of years.
Comment by Zachriel — May 3, 2010 @ 1:27 pm
May 3rd, 2010 at 1:40 pm
Zachriel:
No, the stapes was in contact with the quadrate, and the quadrate was in contact with the articular. They remained in contact as the quadrate evolved into the incus, and the articular evolved into the malleus. Again, this is just modification of old material due to changes in gene expression.
Comment by Guts — May 3, 2010 @ 1:40 pm
May 3rd, 2010 at 3:14 pm
There is evidence that synapsids developed stapes (possibly with cartilaginous extrastapes) connecting the tympanic membrane to the inner ear.
Müller & Tsuji, Impedance-Matching Hearing in Paleozoic Reptiles: Evidence of Advanced Sensory Perception at an Early Stage of Amniote Evolution, PLoS ONE 2007.
However, lower frequency sounds were presumably also transmitted by other bones. Microevolution! Does that change whether the mammalian middle ear is irreducibly complex?
Comment by Zachriel — May 3, 2010 @ 3:14 pm
May 3rd, 2010 at 3:47 pm
In these organisms, the tympanic middle ear is connected to the squamosal and the quadratojugal. Thanks for the reference, so it looks like tympanic hearing didn't just arise in basal mammals, but also in synapsids and eureptiles
Comment by Guts — May 3, 2010 @ 3:47 pm
May 3rd, 2010 at 4:12 pm
Sure. It may have evolved several times. We can discuss that in terms of your hypothesis, but it would be helpful if we could resolve this issue first.
Does any of this change whether the mammalian middle ear (with tympanic membrane and cavity) is irreducibly complex?
Comment by Zachriel — May 3, 2010 @ 4:12 pm
May 3rd, 2010 at 4:14 pm
I don't see why it would?
Comment by Guts — May 3, 2010 @ 4:14 pm
May 3rd, 2010 at 7:36 pm
So then, looking for obviously intelligent signatures in the genomes is "doing science?"
Comment by kornbelt888 — May 3, 2010 @ 7:36 pm
May 3rd, 2010 at 7:52 pm
SETI is based on hypotheses concerning the formation of planets and organic life, and is looking for signs of non-human, but human-like artifice; not a vaguely defined "intelligence." One of the most significant distinctions between SETI and ID is that SETI hasn't put forth extraordinary, fallacious claims. Any reasonable research program has to be able to separate the wheat from the chaff, something ID has been unwilling and unable to do. A reasonable likelihood of success wouldn't hurt either.
Comment by Zachriel — May 3, 2010 @ 7:52 pm
May 3rd, 2010 at 8:18 pm
Yes, looking for obviously intelligent signatures in the genome would be a scientific activity if done with a scientific definition of "obviously intelligent signature". ID's normal definition of "obviously intelligent signature" is typically something along the lines of "well, you can't explain it, so it must have an intelligent cause", and that definitely isn't a scientific definition.
By the way, did someone say SETI is looking for "obviously intelligent signatures"? I'd characterize the SETI search as looking for a signature that suggests the possibility of intelligent origin. If SETI says the signature it's looking for is "obviously intelligent", they're blowing smoke.
Comment by don provan — May 3, 2010 @ 8:18 pm
May 4th, 2010 at 1:36 am
In contrast, RD is quite similar to SETI, which is one of the many reasons it is such a reasonable proposition.
Comment by Guts — May 4, 2010 @ 1:36 am
May 4th, 2010 at 7:23 am
Zachriel,
There isn't any genetic eviodence that shows the mammalian middle ear can evolve from a reptilian jaw.
There isn't any way to test the claim.
All you have is speculation based on the assumption.
IOW you don't have any independent evidence that such a thing is possible.
Comment by ID guy — May 4, 2010 @ 7:23 am
May 4th, 2010 at 7:24 am
IOW DP admits that he knows absolutely nothing about ID.
Thanks for finally admitting that don.
Comment by ID guy — May 4, 2010 @ 7:24 am
May 4th, 2010 at 7:26 am
An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution.
1- You don't have any evidence that it evolved.
2- You don't have any evidence it evolved via blind, undirected chemical processes
IOW all you have is hearsay.
Comment by ID guy — May 4, 2010 @ 7:26 am