The Edge
by MikeGeneThere's been quite a lot of debate about whether or not Michael Behe has successfully identified the "edge of evolution." But I would like to step back from this debate and pose a more general question to the TT members.
Does evolution have an edge?
July 25th, 2007 at 11:38 pm
Hi Mike,
Interesting question.
I would say "probably not" on multiple levels.
First of all, I am biased in looking at things as totally interconnected in both space and time. Looking for an "edge" of evolution would be like looking for the "edge" of the world. The area of the world is limited, but there are no definable edges to that area.
There is also the problem with infinite regression and/or asymptotic effects. This is another likely situation for limiting evolution yet providing no definable edge. If each step taken is half as small as the previous step, forward progress is continually made and no edge is reached.
I can hazard a guess as to why you brought this up. It makes providing evidence for front-loading (and the Third Choice) an interesting challenge. If there is no hard "edge" then the presentation must necessarily be holistic in nature. IOW, a preponderance of evidence is needed, no one piece will do.
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 25, 2007 @ 11:38 pm
July 25th, 2007 at 11:54 pm
Yes. It's a practical boundary delineated by our capacity to predict and confirm predictions. So the edge can move.
Comment by Bradford — July 25, 2007 @ 11:54 pm
July 26th, 2007 at 12:04 am
Hi Bradford,
You wrote…
lol
So the goalposts DO move!
(sorry, I couldn't help myself)
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 26, 2007 @ 12:04 am
July 26th, 2007 at 12:09 am
Glad to provide some levity TP. These goalposts though are pegged to our advancing knowledge rather than some polemical device.
Comment by Bradford — July 26, 2007 @ 12:09 am
July 26th, 2007 at 12:22 am
Hi Bradford,
Are you accusing me of being provocative or are you suggesting you aren't?
Or did you have another reason for using the adjective "polemical"
But back on topic. I was presuming that both MikeGene and Behe were talking about an edge that could be defined (and thus wouldn't move).
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 26, 2007 @ 12:22 am
July 26th, 2007 at 12:32 am
You are the Thought Provoker are you not?
I think that is an unrealistic way of viewing it unless you are omniscient. I think pegging the edge to our capacity to predict would gain me kudos from Popper and maybe Ernst Mach too.
Comment by Bradford — July 26, 2007 @ 12:32 am
July 26th, 2007 at 12:35 am
According to mainstream biology it does.
Its study is part of "Population Genetics" or "Population Biology".
Comment by Patrick Caldon — July 26, 2007 @ 12:35 am
July 26th, 2007 at 12:46 am
Hi Bradford,
You asked…
Yes I am!
You and I are probably arguing semantics since we both doubt there is a hard, immobile, definable edge. I am curious to see MikeGene's reaction to this.
As much fun as this has been, it is past my bedtime.
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 26, 2007 @ 12:46 am
July 26th, 2007 at 3:20 am
Right, so if I come home from a vacation on the Côte d'Azur and find birds have built a nest in my attic, I can't be sure if they got in through a vent or if they evolved there de novo while I was gone. I mean, there is no edge to evolution, right? So bacteria can evolve into barn swallows in just over a month. Not a problem. There is no edge.
Comment by Jehu — July 26, 2007 @ 3:20 am
July 26th, 2007 at 8:24 am
Hi Jehu,
I agreed there is a LIMIT to evolution, just no definable edge.
There is a limit of the area of the surface of the Earth.
There is a limit to some infinate regressions.
In both of these situations, there is a limit, just no edge.
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 26, 2007 @ 8:24 am
July 26th, 2007 at 10:26 am
Seems to me one obvious edge to blindwatchmaker evolution is the number of selectable beneficial mutations that are possible within a given time frame for a given genome.
Another edge (in the past) is the number of actual mutational pathways available that could lead to the actual lifeforms that exist or have existed, with all the cooperative subsystems, brain "programming", nervous system, muscular system, etc,. Darwinians seem to merely assume these pathways exist, yet they have not demonstrated that they exist. (Which is one reason I am skeptical of the blindwatchmaker thesis.)
Comment by kornbelt888 — July 26, 2007 @ 10:26 am
July 26th, 2007 at 10:27 am
Common Descent and the rate of evolutionary change place very specific limitations on what we can expect from evolutionary processes. The vast majority of imaginable traits are never in reach of evolutionary processes.
Comment by Zachriel — July 26, 2007 @ 10:27 am
July 26th, 2007 at 11:57 am
Evolution might have no edge. But the Darwinistic explanation of evolution does indeed have an edge, which is what Behe is referring to - the edge that Haldane roughly mapped out.
It's just that "The Edge of the Darwinistic Explanation for Evolution" doesn't have the same ring to it.
Comment by chunkdz — July 26, 2007 @ 11:57 am
July 26th, 2007 at 3:18 pm
In his 1974 essay, "The Problem of Demarcation" Karl Popper wrote that "the transition between metaphysics and science is not a sharp one: what was a metaphysical idea yesterday can become a testable scientific theory tomorrow." (Popper Selections, p123) I think what Popper was saying is that because scientific knowledge is always expanding it is impossible to define any fixed boundary, because that boundary may be erased or may be moved by new discoveries.
Maybe the term edge is a little misleading. Edge carries with it, IMO, somewhat of an absolutist connotation. Think of the edge of a cliff; step over it and"¦ well, better to stay on the safe side. Boundaries or borders have a somewhat better connotation because borders and boundaries are somewhat arbitrary and therefore changeable. Still, the idea of borders and boundaries is quite static. Step over this border you are in Canada step back you are back in the USA. The borders between the US and Canada probably won't change unless there is a war. Catch a football with one foot an inch out of bounds and it's an incomplete pass. Canadians play football on a larger field than their American friends to the south, but the boundaries remain fixed until someone, actually a committee of some kind, decides to change those boundaries.
I think horizon is a much better and more dynamic concept when it comes to thinking about natural science. (Of course, it also is an idea that harks back to the "Age of Exploration.") "˜Science' has limits but they are constantly changing limits, limited only by what we presently know. We can't see beyond the horizon, but we know from our past experience of what we know today, that what we now know was once beyond or over the horizon. Perhaps then, we can say with quite a bit of confidence that there will be scientific breakthroughs in the future but, on the other hand, we have only a very vague idea what those future discoveries will be.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — July 26, 2007 @ 3:18 pm
July 26th, 2007 at 5:12 pm
Thought Provoker:
I think you are making a distinction without a difference.
Zachriel:
I agree and I would add that the vast majority of existing traits were never in reach of evolutionary processes.
Comment by Jehu — July 26, 2007 @ 5:12 pm
July 26th, 2007 at 5:41 pm
Hi Jehu,
You wrote…
I think you are missing the point.
Our universe is limited but has no edge.
MikeGene asked "Does evolution have an edge?"
He didn't ask if evolution was limited.
I could be wrong and he wasn't making the distinction, but I have found MikeGene tends to choose his words carefully.
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 26, 2007 @ 5:41 pm
July 26th, 2007 at 6:16 pm
Kent Hovind correctly reminds us from his prison-cell that frogs cannot evolve into monkeys. There's your limit.
Comment by salimfadhley — July 26, 2007 @ 6:16 pm
July 26th, 2007 at 6:35 pm
The vast majority of scientists in the relevant specialties would strongly disagree with your position.
Darwin pointed that out in Origin of Species, "we have no reason to believe that the same identical form ever reappears".
Comment by Zachriel — July 26, 2007 @ 6:35 pm
July 26th, 2007 at 8:02 pm
Thought Provoker,
How do you know it has no edge?
Anyway, we are not talking about a sphere, we are talking about Darwinism. In that context, I don't see a difference between "edge" and "limit."
Comment by Jehu — July 26, 2007 @ 8:02 pm
July 26th, 2007 at 8:09 pm
Zachriel
The vast majority of scientists are committed to materialism and have never seriously considered the issues raised by Behe in the Edge of Evolution. Since Behe raised the issues he did, watching scientists attempt to refute him as been a pathetic train wreck. It has been amusing to watch leading scientists systematically lie and misrepresent Behe's book as well as the existing literature. They have sunk even beneath the usual shoddy propoganda standards of Talk Origins.
Comment by Jehu — July 26, 2007 @ 8:09 pm
July 26th, 2007 at 9:19 pm
Behe's book has had virtually no influence on the scientific community as it lacks any scientific significance.
Comment by Zachriel — July 26, 2007 @ 9:19 pm
July 26th, 2007 at 9:42 pm
Actually, ALL of evolutionary theory proceeds on the assumption that evolution has an edge. Arguments from homology are thought to be valid precisely _because_ mass converenge in evolution should be beyond its edge. All evolutionary thinking implies an assumed edge.
The problem is that evolutionists are, in general, unwilling to define that edge. They can assume an edge when evolution itself is not in question, but they cannot use that same assumption of an edge to question evolution.
Comment by johnnyb — July 26, 2007 @ 9:42 pm
July 27th, 2007 at 2:13 am
Population genetics, Jehu.
Population genetics, johnnyb. "Evolutionists" are very keen to define edges, and have been working hard at it for the last 80-100 odd years. That's why Haldane and Fisher are famous. Maybe you should read their stuff.
If anyone had found a sound method which showed that evolution/common descent was questionable, they'd probably get a Nobel prize, and a job for life at an excellent salary at a top institution as a result. That's what happened to the guy who destroyed the orthodoxy that the only infectious agents that spread disease are cellular things like bacteria and viruses.
Comment by Patrick Caldon — July 27, 2007 @ 2:13 am
July 27th, 2007 at 3:04 am
For one thing Behe doesn't question common descent, he questions the ability of nonintelligent means to produce common descent. And he crushes Darwinism in the process. People who rely on Darwinism for their creation myth are not happy and will not give Behe a Nobel prize no matter how correct he is.
Comment by Jehu — July 27, 2007 @ 3:04 am
July 27th, 2007 at 3:16 am
I have read Behe's new book, read many of the critical reviews, and spent countless hours debating the merits of the book. I am really impressed at the inability of anybody to raise any kind of a substantive argument against it. When reviewers and critics resort to huge blatant lies to try to refute it, it makes you realize how vested the scientific community is in the myth of Darwinism.
Comment by Jehu — July 27, 2007 @ 3:16 am
July 27th, 2007 at 3:39 am
Zachriel's argument is no more than a fallacious appeal to authority. Not to mention there is no single 'scientific community' which deems a scientist's work unworthy of significance. Zachriel is all bluster and rhetoric.
Comment by Jean — July 27, 2007 @ 3:39 am
July 27th, 2007 at 5:24 am
It's more the case that if they do raise a substantive argument against it, they get banned from whatever forum they're on.
Jehu, you still don't seem to know the difference between molecular biology and population genetics. There is a difference between the probability of a mutation arising and it hanging around in a population. Until you grasp what that distinction is you're not going to understand why Behe is wrong.
I'm sorry, by "evolution/common descent" I meant the modern evolutionary synthesis.
Comment by Patrick Caldon — July 27, 2007 @ 5:24 am
July 27th, 2007 at 6:42 am
Do you mean that there are no valid arguments against it, or that you did not get round to reading any of the many criticisms of his book? Carroll did not address every point in the book, however he did substantively focus on the algorithmic errors Behe made, specifically the ones concerned with searches through fitness landscapes.
Fitness landscapes and optimization-functions are a well-understood topic in computer-science, and something that Chu-Carroll seems to be well-qualified to speak on.
Was this not substantive enough for you? Do you believe it casts any doubt at all on Behe's mathematical claims? Does Chu-Carroll have a point?
Or perhaps you were able to detect a mathematical error in Carroll's argument?
Comment by salimfadhley — July 27, 2007 @ 6:42 am
July 27th, 2007 at 7:29 am
Actually, it's a valid appeal to authority.
You could make an ad hominem attack against the authority, such as Jehu does, calling them liars for myth. Or you could actually grapple with the evidence.
Within the limited venue of the Intelligent Design community (a social debating club of sorts), I'm sure you're a big fish. But as I said, Behe's views are scientifically shallow, lead to no new insights, has no empirical implications of note, and have had no impact on the progress of scientific investigation.
Comment by Zachriel — July 27, 2007 @ 7:29 am
July 27th, 2007 at 7:35 am
Hi TP,
I really liked your metaphor about the edge of the world as it suggests we won't find any edge by looking over here or there, but by looking above and below. And I do appreciate that you recognize the holistic nature of my approach.
However, I should mention that not much thought was used when choosing the word "˜edge,' as I was simply borrowing from Behe's terminology.
Comment by MikeGene — July 27, 2007 @ 7:35 am
July 27th, 2007 at 7:36 am
Okay, if we define 'edge' as a limitation, is it safe to say we have a consensus that there are indeed limitations on evolution?
Comment by MikeGene — July 27, 2007 @ 7:36 am
July 27th, 2007 at 11:04 am
Mike,
By "limitations on evolution," I take it you are asking what can random mutation + natural selection do, by themselves, unaided by intelligence. And I guess that depends upon how much information has been front-loaded into the original cells. If there is sufficient information, then whatever random mutations occur may just be a way of unfolding a determined pathway. To use one of Behe's metaphors, a blind man may not get anywhere, if he has the ability to go anywhere. But if he is sufficiently constrained by walls and an inability to go backwards, he could get very far, even though he has no idea where he is going.
Comment by Bilbo — July 27, 2007 @ 11:04 am
July 27th, 2007 at 12:16 pm
Not that I have observed. For example, I don't think I have seen anybody banned on this blog.
Notice how you are suggesting an argument without really making one. Then for good measure you throw in a few condescending ad hominems stating that I don't "know," "grasp," "understand" etc. I have seen Darwinists like you pull this type of a stunt so many times I have lost count. It is a technique to avoid actually having to produce the goods.
Usually if challenged the Darwinist does nothing more than produce a link to TalkOrigins or Panda's Thumb or some equally specious Darwinist propaganda site.
In this case, I am familiar with the argument you are suggesting and I have debated it ad nauseam. I have shown time and again how it is an invalid argument.
Comment by Jehu — July 27, 2007 @ 12:16 pm
July 27th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
Mike:
I would concur with that. I would add that, mainly because of its historical nature, neo-Darwinian evolution is limited to what the past has left us. Furthermore, if it's true as Darwinist's have argued that evolution is a completely unguided and undirected process then its future path is totally unpredictable. Some scientific theories can make predictions, Darwinism seems to be very limited in this regards.
This by no means exhausts the list in the ways NDE is limited, but it's all that I have time for right now.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — July 27, 2007 @ 12:37 pm
July 27th, 2007 at 1:04 pm
I have been banned from exactly one blog in my life, here:
http://www.uncommondescent.com...
Here is a comment of yours (one of several) in the same post after my banning was announced:
http://www.uncommondescent.com...
If I can indulge in another ad-hom, if you haven't observed any bannings, it says more about your powers of observation than the lack of bannings.
My offense? I suspect it was that post that was deleted contained words to the effect that mutating a nucleotide into itself (e.g. A -> A) is not a mutation.
I don't particularly mind being banned by the Uncommon Descent crowd, but it is interesting that the response to serious criticism is to ban the critic. And I'm hardly a serious critic, I've just read a few textbooks on population genetics.
I'll respond to your second argument in a little time, you'll forgive me but I'm quite busy at the moment.
Comment by Patrick Caldon — July 27, 2007 @ 1:04 pm
July 27th, 2007 at 1:16 pm
Every valid scientific theory makes predictions about the kinds of things that can and cannot happen. This is evolution's 'edge'.
Id's problem is that it lacks precisely this edge.
Comment by salimfadhley — July 27, 2007 @ 1:16 pm
July 27th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Salim:
At best it tell us that there is a group of scientists who have a consensus opinion, well gee what a surprise! It does not tell us whether the consensus opinion itself is true.As wikipedia correctly states:
Even more so, by arguing that scientific consensus is decisive as to whether Behe is right or wrong, you imply that that scientific consensus cannot be challenged. Because if Behe were right, scientific consensus would change on the spot. Do you believe that is a fair prediction of what would happen, if Behe were right? Do you think their would be no resistance to the idea?
Consensus science is not synonymous with truth, nor is it infallible (think the theory of continental drift, for example). Neither do changes in scientific consensus happen overnight, it takes time for ideas to graft themselves into the science populace (Kuhn's paradigm shift). Why ID pseudoskeptics expect overnight miracles with proof beyond doubt and believe the field is without political and personal issues is beyond me.
Comment by Jean — July 27, 2007 @ 2:24 pm
July 27th, 2007 at 2:56 pm
True enough. But we should be wary of claims rejected by experts in a field.
Quite so, and they add,
Challenging scientific authority is more than proper, but a challenge to a reigning orthodoxy in science requires data. And merely saying authority can be challenged doesn't represent an actual challenge.
I did no such thing. Let's look at the claim closely, shall we?
Please note the order of causation in my statement. It's not because authority "says so", but because Behe's book lacks scientific significance (a claim I would be happy to engage).
Your claim, on the other hand, is faulty. Mine was a valid appeal to authority, strongly supported and representing a consensus from many fields of research. Your recourse at this point is to the evidence.
Comment by Zachriel — July 27, 2007 @ 2:56 pm
July 27th, 2007 at 3:20 pm
Patrick Caldon,
I didn't say that I had never seen anybody banned. I said I had never seen anybody banned on Telic Thoughts. UD is a different story. Anyway, it is not like you raised some tough question that nobody could respond to. It was discussed in detail.
Comment by Jehu — July 27, 2007 @ 3:20 pm
July 27th, 2007 at 3:50 pm
Salim:
Indeed, your argument is even sillier!
Which makes it all the worse!
Your conclusion does not follow from your presumption at all. Foremost, it presumes that if there was some substance to Behe's arguments, the "scientific community" would immediately incorporate Behe's findings into their own theories. This of course, given the nature of Behe's arguments, is unlikely by itself since Behe doet not consider Darwinian mechanisms to generate most of the novelty we see and thus challenges established dogma.
Given what we know about frontier research and the inherent resistance of science to radical and new ideas, it may take a while for Behe's ideas to make their mark on the establishment. If this is true - and you have shown no reason why it is not - then your argument is entirely meaningless.
Comment by Jean — July 27, 2007 @ 3:50 pm
July 27th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
Patrick
Me too! Same blog, by coincidence!
My offense was that I made an unkind remark about Dell computers.
(Apparently Dave Scot's daughter works for Dell):smile:
Comment by chunkdz — July 27, 2007 @ 4:03 pm
July 27th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
Do the critics prominent in Behe's blog accept Behe's basic premise (which I assume from the discussion, because I haven't read his book) that there are limits to evolution? If so, if that is indeed some sort of "consensus" (as if I care about any such "consensus") then why didn't they just say so: We garee with the professor–Evolution has limits. Now let's explore what they are or might be…
I don't see any possibility of "consensus"–And why should I GAS about a "consensus" formed amongst scientists? I can think for myself.
And Z, is it an appeal to authority you (repeatedly make) or an argument from authority? Everyone appeals to authority–Science rejects arguments from authority. What is the diff? Do you know?
(Not sure I even know!)
If the critics agree there are limits to evolutionary processes (which is trivial) do they make a distinction between the limits of theory and the actual process that theory is supposed to model?
Obviously, there is a difference between evolution as it occurs and how it occurs according to theory.
Each one of Behe's critics, Carrol, Coyne, and Orr recognize that fact in their own published works. And I will cite if you so require.
Comment by Rock — July 27, 2007 @ 4:04 pm
July 27th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
Science will bend to the data, but Behe did not provide any data or distinguishing empirical predictions.
Yes, being happy to engage the evidence is "all the worse".
Comment by Zachriel — July 27, 2007 @ 4:09 pm
July 27th, 2007 at 4:23 pm
Argumentum ad verecundiam is the same as an appeal to authority.
People once said ipse dixit, meaning "He himself has spoken" referring to Pythagoras and later to Aristotle. It was enough that a great man had said it to establish its truth. This is a fallacy.
Nevertheless, arguments to authority are ubiquitous and often reasonable. A paleontologist might rely on a geologist. A parent with a sick child might rely on a doctor. An astronaut relies with his life on rocket engineers.
On the other hand, within a group of like experts, authority has little weight. It's important to note that when experts contend, it is with the purpose of convincing their skeptical peers. Not laypersons. Not public school boards.
And an argument to authority is always subject to disputation with reference to the evidence.
Comment by Zachriel — July 27, 2007 @ 4:23 pm
July 27th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
I am going to strongly disagree with your mention of "trivial". Limitations"”more than anything"”define a theory. We don't see a willy-nilly distribution of traits among organisms, but a clear nested hierarchy, evidence of stochastic processes, and ad hoc adaptation.
I'm confused on what you mean here. If the facts don't match a theory, then the theory is typically modified accordingly. The Theory of Evolution, like all robust scientific theories, has been subject to substantial modification.
Comment by Zachriel — July 27, 2007 @ 4:41 pm
July 27th, 2007 at 4:49 pm
There are valid-sounding scientific questions for which no scientific consensus exists. That is to say they are genuine controversies. One that immediately pops into my mind is string theory, which having generated much controversy does not seem to have delivered on it's hype. I understand that many authoritative experts regard it with skepticism.
On the other hand there are purportedly controversial theories, of which an overwhelming consensus does exist. ID is perhaps the most famous of this category. I would also be tempted to include some of the theories that we discussed MCromer should be in this category.
If you accept that a strong consensus is a usually an excellent indicator of which ideas have merit, how do ID's proponents reconcile this with the fact that the overwhelming informed consensus of biologists reject ID.
To what extent are you prepared to trust a consensus of experts? If you believe in ID, how do you account for the notion that it's ideas have been broadly rejected by the consensus?
Comment by salimfadhley — July 27, 2007 @ 4:49 pm
July 27th, 2007 at 5:05 pm
One reason (we discussed this with Bilbo in another thread) is that as mortal human beings we do not have time to conduct all of the basic research that has brought mankind to it's current level of knowledge. We cannot be experts in all things, so at some point we may seek the advice of an expert or a book if the information we seek is outside of our field of expertise.
But the question is, which expert or which book? As we all know the world abounds with cranks and frauds.
One method for selecting the ideas that are most likely to be trustworthy is to find out which ideas informed people with relevant expertise find most trustworthy. If an overwhelming majority of informed opinion favor one idea over another then it would probably be a much safer bet to pick the favored idea.
Ideas which have been substantially validated and form the basis of other validated research are more likely to be trustworthy. Ideas that have not been validated, are not well-regarded and are not widely used may still be true but should arouse a great deal more skepticism.
Comment by salimfadhley — July 27, 2007 @ 5:05 pm
July 27th, 2007 at 5:43 pm
TP:
I think what TP is saying is that there is no "precise" edge, or "actual" edge to evolution, but a "Potential?" edge. We can't really define what that edge is, but somewhere on the outer fringes between what looks like evolution and what looks like design, there is an edge.
It's the same problem with trying to distinguish actual infinites from potential ones. Where within the line that defines a border between two countries, does the real border lie? Where within that border line does the actual border lie? Do we define the border as the line, or some line within the line? How precise do we want to be? Is there such thing as precision in this matter? How long is the East coast of the United States? Are you sure? by what method are you measuring? You can see how one person can find an entirely different answer to these questions than another, depending on their method of measurement, and what exactly they are measuring. This is the problem with defining the edge of evolution.
I think this is the very problem of distinction that lies between the Darwinists and IDists. Darwinists believe that there is no difference between macro and micro-evolution. This is because they do not believe there is an edge. Their philosophy dictates that speciation is the same as adaptation, and so forth. If we can resolve this problem, then we can resolve much of the disagreement between Darwinists and IDists.
Comment by Randy — July 27, 2007 @ 5:43 pm
July 27th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
The answer is painfully obvious. Darwinism is a religion that is defended for metaphysical reasons. Anybody that attempts to cast doubt on the recieved knowledge of Darwinism is quickly Sternberged, ensuring that there is no debate.
Comment by Jehu — July 27, 2007 @ 6:05 pm
July 27th, 2007 at 6:06 pm
Randy:
So what is the difference between macro and micro-evolution according to you? And what dictating philosophy are you talking about? Speciation is obviously not the same as adaptation. Adaptation certainly plays a role in speciation, but it's not the same thing. It (disruptive selection) seems to be quite important in sympatric speciation, but in allopatric speciation genetic drift is relatively more important. How exactly do you suppose the disagreement between IDists and "Darwinists" can be resolved along these lines?
Comment by Raevmo — July 27, 2007 @ 6:06 pm
July 27th, 2007 at 6:21 pm
Jehu:
So you admit that religion is characterized by ensuring there is no debate. That's what I thought. That probably explains why at UD intelligent commentators are banned in no time, leaving only a sad collection of semi-retarded sycophants of Dr Dr Dembski, including yourself.
Comment by Raevmo — July 27, 2007 @ 6:21 pm
July 27th, 2007 at 6:38 pm
Raevmo,
No, I don't think so.
Sheesh, get over it.
Comment by Jehu — July 27, 2007 @ 6:38 pm
July 27th, 2007 at 6:45 pm
What is frustrating to me is that Behe's critics don't even address his arguments It's like they don't even understand them.
He is not basing his arguments on hypotheticals or on statistical probabilities or on fitness landscapes.
These things mentioned in the book but are only added for emphasis.
His argument is based on empirical observations of what random RM/NS is capable of.
For example we know that RM/NS in malaria is not capable of defeating sickle cell or cool weather in the time that has bee available to it
We know what the edge of evolution is because we have observed it.
To deny a edge is to deny our own scientific observations.
Comment by fifth monarchy man — July 27, 2007 @ 6:45 pm
July 27th, 2007 at 6:54 pm
Jehu:
I'm over it. Do you deny that critics are systematically banned at ID sites, such as UD (TT is a happy exception, and I appreciate it)?
Comment by Raevmo — July 27, 2007 @ 6:54 pm
July 27th, 2007 at 7:15 pm
Yes, I deny it. Other than UD, TT, and ARN what other ID sites are there? I haven't seen anybody banned at either TT or ARN.
Comment by Jehu — July 27, 2007 @ 7:15 pm
July 27th, 2007 at 7:23 pm
This is true. We are supposed to believe that in fewer reproductive events than malaria has in one year, mammals evolved from small shrew like animals into humans, bats and whales? So mammals can create mammary glands, fur, wings, flippers, human intelligence, echolocation, and placentas in fewer reproductive events than Malaria has in one year, yet after 100,000 years Malaria cannot adapt to cold weather? Interesting.
Comment by Jehu — July 27, 2007 @ 7:23 pm
July 27th, 2007 at 8:21 pm
Um — is someone going to point out that the malaria parasite lives in adult mosquitos, but that in cold regions all the mosquitos (and all other flying insects) die when the temperature hits freezing, and that this provides a perfectly obvious explanation for the distribution of malaria which Behe and all his fans somehow, incredibly, shockingly, astoundingly missed?
Looks like I just did.
Comment by Nick Matzke — July 27, 2007 @ 8:21 pm
July 27th, 2007 at 8:55 pm
Raevmo:
Good question. I would define micro-evolution as small adaptive changes within a species. I would define macro-evolution as large adaptation from one species into another altogether different species. That's how I understand it. I accept that micro-evolution occurs. There are evidences for it. I'm not certain where I stand on "macro-evolution", since there really hasn't been any evidence beyond the small adaptive changes. Darwinists seem to be saying that micro-evolution as defined above, is evidence for speciation. I'm not certain that it is.
Comment by Randy — July 27, 2007 @ 8:55 pm
July 27th, 2007 at 8:59 pm
Hey Nick,
Your comment is just the kind of remark from the critics that I am talking about
I live on the edge of a swamp, I can't step out side my front door with out being attacked by adult mosquitoes the that appear to be the size of bumble bees. Yet I have absolutely no fear of being infected by malaria where I live.
In fact the parasite can not reproduce when the temp is below 60 degrees Fahrenheit
If you would have taken the time to read the book this fact would have been obvious to you.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — July 27, 2007 @ 8:59 pm
July 27th, 2007 at 9:34 pm
Jehu wrote:
Ironically, G.A. Kerkut would probably agree with Jehu. He suggested to his students that they were not being very scientific when they "just swallowed the latest scientific dogma and when questioned just repeated parrot-fashion the views of the current Archbishop of Evolution. In fact," Kerkut commented, "he was behaving like certain of those religious students he was affected to despise. He would be taking on faith what he could not intellectually understand and when questioned appeal to the authority of the "good book""¦The Origin of the Species.
By the way, Kerkut was an evolutionist who believed that one of the best things that students could learn was critical-thinking. That, of course, included thinking critically about long established theories like Darwin's theory of evolution. He certainly understood that like any other scientific theory it was limited and based on some assumptions that were in and of them selves unverifiable.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — July 27, 2007 @ 9:34 pm
July 28th, 2007 at 12:09 am
Is this your question: "since Plasmodium cannot defeat cool weather by evolutionary means, why should we expect any other creature to defeat cold weather by evolutionary means?"
Could you also clarify whether the area you live in has ever been subject to a malaria eradication program? This will assist in answering your second question.
Comment by Patrick Caldon — July 28, 2007 @ 12:09 am
July 28th, 2007 at 12:42 am
I think you did disagree with my comment that I have seen numbers of people banned on for raising a substantive argument on a blog, and it's not hard to verify by reading the comments below. Perhaps you did not mean to say it. Whatever.
The post I was banned for (on UD) was this:
—
scordova, DaveScot,
Your tone of victory would be a lot more appropriate if you actually addressed any of JAMs points. For instance the following challenge:
is fatal to BeheÂ?'s case. As I sit down and play with the maths here, it's plain that JAM has a point. Indeed the very rapidity of reproduction in this case will drive the CQR population down to negligible levels w.r.t. the CQS population, so virtually sod all gametocytes make it to a mosquito vector, and then in the mosquito itself there will be no CQ (unless we've magically found a way of making the mosquitoes themselves to take anti-malarials). This is exactly the point which White makes in the quoted paragraph in post #56.
You would both do well to answer him on this point, since this concretely shows the difference between the two anti-malarials that youÂ?'re wondering about in these latter posts.
DaveScot, as an aside with your calculation, I think youÂ?'ve neglected that if a nucleotide mutates into itself thatÂ?'s no mutation at all, i.e. A -> A is not a mutation by definition.
—
You claim to know something about population genetics. Can you answer the question above? No-one on UD managed the last time it was posted.
Is anyone here up to the challenge?
This question should be well within the ability of anyone who's done some population genetics in an undergraduate biology course. It also has the happy effect of showing that Behe's comparison of the two anti-malarials is nonsense.
Here's the post #56:
http://www.uncommondescent.com...
If you can't answer the above question, why not this simpler one: is the quote of White's in the posting above primarily discussing molecular biology or population genetics? This should be an easy question for someone who knows the difference.
Comment by Patrick Caldon — July 28, 2007 @ 12:42 am
July 28th, 2007 at 1:21 am
Excuse me for injecting some facts into the discussion, but human malaria is only about 7000 years old, according to some studies. The family of malaria organisms goes back millions of years, but the present human form seems to have arisen around the same time as human agriculture.
Not that it matters, because the fact that malaria hasn't evolved to the point where it can survive in cold climates proves absolutely nothing. Ants haven't evolved to live at the North Pole, birds haven't evolved to live at the bottom of the ocean, and spiders haven't evolved to the size of tigers, despite millions of years of opportunity to do so.
Comment by mtraven — July 28, 2007 @ 1:21 am
July 28th, 2007 at 4:31 am
You mean JAM the supposed geneticist who admitted I caught him making an incompetent error on the Fidock paper, and then pumping out probabilities based on his faulty reading of Fidock. None of the Darwinists here called him out on it and neither did you Patrick. If I didn't force him to fess up he would kept using that misreading all over our weblogs.
I didn't see you coming to my defense on his mis-reading and my correct reading. Now why was that.
Furthermore, JAM kept misrepresenting Behe, he refused to answer question I repeatedly posed to him to force him to admit he mis-represented Behe. We owe no air time to such people. In fact, to keep granting air time to someone who wilfully and maliciously misrepresents another person seems a bit unethical.
So Patrick, do you think it's right that UD give air time for Darwinists to spam our weblogs with misrepresentations all day long? Set up your own weblog if you have such a hard time about it….
I didn't ban JAM, someone else did.
Regarding the math question, where the heck did he come up with those numbers? Why should 10 CQS sporozoites be introduced along with 10 CQR sporozites? Did it occur to you that a mosquito biting a person who has all the malaria in him in only the form of CQR, upon biting another individual will only put CQR sporozoites into the next host and ZERO CQS sporozites.
You think we don't see through this sort of shallow crap. Did JAM think I wouldn't catch him on his misreading of Fidock. I suppose Ken Miller can think he can get way citing papers dealing with lipids in trying to refute Behe's ideas dealing with proteins. You'd think Ken Miller, a professor of biology at Brown could tell the difference between a lipid and a protein.
This is total garbage.
All lot of us finally said enough with this garbage, and perhaps that's why I grew tired of arguing at TT.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — July 28, 2007 @ 4:31 am
July 28th, 2007 at 4:53 am
mtraven,
Plasmodium falciparum accounts for 80% of all human malarial infections and 90% of the deaths. According to a publication in Nature, current strains of P. falciparum are estimated to have arisen from a common ancestor 100,000-180,000 years ago.
So the limited ability of other organisms to diversify is an argument for Darwinism? I hardly think so.
The fact is, there is obviously significant selective pressure for Malaria to be able to reproduce below 60 degrees, a seemingly simple task, yet in spite of an astronomical number of reproductive events it has been unable to acquire this trait. Yet you believe that in exponentially fewer opportunities mammals have learned to swim, fly, give live birth, develop echolocation, and build space shuttles. A shrew like animal has become a bat, a whale, a human, and a polar bear in fewer reproductive events than it is taking malaria to be able to reproduce below 60 degrees? The absurdity of your belief is obvious.
Comment by Jehu — July 28, 2007 @ 4:53 am
July 28th, 2007 at 5:44 am
Because I didn't understand either of you on that point, and I didn't (and still don't sadly) have the time to do a couple of days reading on the issue; I'm certainly not qualified to know if a coisogenic experiment is the best kind for sorting out this kind of detail, and I'd have to have a long chat to a few biologists to really get a grasp of the issues involved. Further by the time I saw that issue being discussed JAM had apologized and said he had made an error in the reference and given you the correct one. The post is here:
http://www.uncommondescent.com...
Your acknowledgment of the apology is here:
http://www.uncommondescent.com...
so I expect you did indeed see his apology. He then gave you the correct reference which you didn't seem all that keen to read.
You consider the post above "spam" or "misrepresentation" This must be some new definition of the word "spam" I am unfamiliar with. To be honest it is hard to view being banned by UD as an insult, but it is amusing to see the denials and attempted justifications.
I suspect the numbers come from a basic knowledge that 20 is close to the median number of sporozoites that are injected into a host by a mosquito. Your second comment "Did it occur …" is self-evidently true, but not self-evidently relevant. Is it possible for someone to be infected only with a single-mutation CQR strain? It doesn't happen in practice as far as I know, which suggests that the host immune system can overwhelm the mutants, or they just get outbred as soon as they arise.
The point remains that Michael Behe uses a population genetics statement in a parasite with a bizarre life cycle as the centrepiece for his molecular biology argument in humans. My biology knowledge is limited to working through the exercises on a few textbooks and a couple of courses, but even I know how broken that is.
Anyway, I note you haven't answered the question. Are you capable of answering it? Why don't you? Why will no-one on UD or here answer it? If someone of my meagre biological knowledge can answer this question, why can't the combined weight of the ID commentariat answer it?
Comment by Patrick Caldon — July 28, 2007 @ 5:44 am
July 28th, 2007 at 9:19 am
OFF-TOPIC: bannings
What happened to JAM, Jehu? What happened to JAM? In any case, Do you deny that critics are systematically banned at UD?
Genesis 4:9 And the LORD said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother?
Is JAM a "supposed geneticist" Is that different than an actual geneticist?
You are incorrect about any supposed "incompetent error". JAM cited the wrong paper, then corrected his error. That is what he is supposed to do. You then refused to read the corrected cite. Now, that he can no longer defend himself, you slam him, preferring to misrepresent the exchange. This may make you feel superior somehow, but does nothing to advance the discussion or convince anyone of the merit of your argument. Quite the contrary.
Comment by Zachriel — July 28, 2007 @ 9:19 am
July 28th, 2007 at 9:35 am
This is an important issue. If there is a recent bottleneck in the evolution of the parasite, then an effective vaccine will be easier to produce. Your link doesn't work, but probably refers to a 2002 study "Chromosome-wide SNPs reveal an ancient origin for Plasmodium falciparum", Mu et al. Because of the importance of the phylogenetic history to fighting the disease, much research has ensued trying to resolve this issue. From 2005, Neafsey et al.
So Malaria's Eve and a practical vaccine are reasonable possibilities.
Of course, you miss the important point for the purposes of this discussion. The common ancestor of P. falciparum and other parasitic Plasmodia occurred ~10^5 years ago. But the current strain of Plasmodium has continued to evolve with specific adaptations occurring with the rise of agriculture in Africa"”and continues to evolve. An understanding of the evolutionary history of this parasite is essential in the fight against a disease that kills mostly children.
You didn't indicate where in the world you live, but in the United States, malaria was a serious health issue as far north as New Jersey until its eradication in the 1950's.
For someone who claims to have spent substantial time learning about the Theory of Evolution, you seem to know very little other than standard strawman representations. The Theory of Evolution doesn't posit an unlimited ability to change. Rather, history and the step-wise nature of evolutionary processes put important limitations on the process.
As for parasitic Plasmodium's ability to thrive in cold temperatures; as they are transmitted by mosquitoes, which reproduce best in warm wet conditions, the parasite evolved to fit where their vector is, not where it isn't. More specifically, they have coevolved with mosquitoes and with their hosts and are very well-adapted for their niche.
Behe's entire point is that some adaptations are difficult for evolutionary processes. Though he completely mangles the specifics of malarial resistance, the point remains that many adaptations are not in the reach of evolution. He therefore concludes that all significant adaptations are beyond the reach of evolutionary processes. But this is a hasty generalization and a strawman.
Comment by Zachriel — July 28, 2007 @ 9:35 am
July 28th, 2007 at 10:29 am
Hey all,
I'm unaware of any eradication effort in my area but if there was one this only serves to bolster Behe's case. How is it that a species that has so many chances to evolve (1,000.000,000,000 in a single sick person) can be thwarted by the efforts of a nineteenth century government barely past using leaches for treatment?
There are mosquitoes and humans as far north as Alaska yet malaria is trapped in the tropics. Despite having more chances for RM/NS to do it's magic than all mammals have had combined. How is it that we managed to occupy every part of the planet and almost every conceivable niche but it hasn't been able to move a couple hundred miles north.
These are interesting questions but the critics are too afraid of the nasty "creationists" behind every bush to even look at them.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — July 28, 2007 @ 10:29 am
July 28th, 2007 at 10:57 am
If you would have read the book you would know that Behe combines the data about malaria. (One mutation is easy the the two mutations required for quinine resistance is hard and resistance to sickle cell is impossible ) and compared that with what we know from other studied organisms such as HIV and E Coli. And came up with a tentative boundary that RM/NS can not reasonably cross.
If critics could point to observable real world/real time examples of RM/NS going beyond this boundary it would falsify Behe's claim and shut him up but you must not or you would have presented them.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — July 28, 2007 @ 10:57 am
July 28th, 2007 at 11:33 am
Yeah. Only a few hundred million infections, and a couple million dead per year (mostly children) in the 21st century, the Age of Genetics.
Most evolution isn't posited to occur by multiple point mutations that exhibit no selectable pathways. However, sequential, selectable mutations are common in nature. We don't even have to look further than P. falciparum which develops resistance to antifols (pyrimethamine and cycloguanil), each mutation conferring a stepwise reduction in susceptibility, as well as resistance to sulfonamides and sulfones. Even the so-called double-mutation that Behe claims is actually a single mutated gene with *several* other associated mutations.
(Multiple point mutations do occur on occasion, as well as many other types of genetic change such as recombination; and evolution being an opportunistic process will take advantage of whatever presents itself.)
You will find sequential mutations in the treatment of other diseases, as well. That's why and how researchers develop drug cocktails, and why consistent and persistant treatment is so important. While a disease organism is unlikely to evolve simultaneous resistance to drugs that work by different methods, they are very likely to evolve resistance stepwise if you treat first with one drug, then another. (Ironic you mention HIV in that regard which is known to rapidly evolve by sequential mutations to evade both drugs and the host immune system.) Behe adds not one iota of original thought to understanding this process.
But like all discussions of the Theory of Evolution, you have to start with the evidence for Common Descent.
Comment by Zachriel — July 28, 2007 @ 11:33 am
July 28th, 2007 at 3:36 pm
Yeah Yeah God does not exist but you hate him blah blah blah
I know the song and dance I've heard it many times now how about dealing with the fact that we can't produce cheap fuel from corn but we can easily eradicate a rapidly evolving pathogen from an entire continent.
These are dealt with in the book and are considered by Behe to be within the powers of evolution. As long as each mutation is beneficial to the organism they are on this side of the edge
Yet none of those things are able to allow malaria to defeat sickle cell or reproduce in 55 degree weather. Things that are on the other side of the edge
Once again all of this this is pointed out by Behe Yet HIV has been unable to move even one inch beyond the edge. No new structures no new complexity no new protein binding sites just more of the same old single point mutations and lost complexity for short term survival.
Thanks for agreeing with Behe now how about answering his arguements
Or are you admiting you can't
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — July 28, 2007 @ 3:36 pm
July 28th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
That's quite a non sequitur. You had claimed that malaria had been "thwarted". By any reasonable measure, this is false.
That's fine. Evolutionary theory doesn't posit that adaptation proceeds by statistically improbable events. And there is far more to evolutionary novelty than point-mutations. Behe doesn't add anything of significance.
Evolutionary theory doesn't posit that any arbitrary adaptation will be available. Meanwhile, malaria seems to be quite well adapted to its current niche and has a long evolutionary relationship with humans and other land vertebrates.
Behe's entire point is that some adaptations are difficult for evolutionary processes. Though he completely mangles the specifics of malarial resistance, the fact remains that many adaptations are not in the reach of evolution. He therefore concludes that all significant adaptations are beyond the reach of evolutionary processes. But this is a hasty generalization and a strawman.
Comment by Zachriel — July 28, 2007 @ 4:09 pm
July 28th, 2007 at 5:07 pm
If you live anywhere south of New England, malaria actually was common up into the early 20th century. It was only eradicated within the last 100 years. This is somewhat possible in temperate regions where all you have to do is temporarily break the transmission cycle and then prevent re-invasion from the south. (All diseases have to be transmitted at a certain rate to persist, and they collapse if transmission is decreased — often only a moderate decrease is required. This is epidemiology.) This is much more difficult in tropical regions with year-around mosquitos and year-around infections.
In other words, if you know anything about the subject and actually stop to think for a second about the biology malaria life cycle and how that must interact with mosquito populations and subtle things like…winter…then you realize Behe's "problem" is in his own head and not in reality.
I mean really, is it too much to ask for someone to ponder the role that seasonal freezing temperatures might play in the distribution of malaria before pontificating on how malaria distribution is some huge problem for evolution? This kind of thing is exactly why biologists are so dismissive of ID, and rightly so.
Comment by nickmatzke — July 28, 2007 @ 5:07 pm
July 28th, 2007 at 5:18 pm
Hey Zachriel
The definition of thwart is to frustrate something I believe it's wholesale extermination from the vast majority of a continent with vacuum tube level technology to meet that standard
you provided no evidence to the contrary only a complaint that we as humans have not been able to completely prevail as of yet and a dig about how bad it is where the weather is hot.
It just sounds to me like you are whining about how unfair life is to me
We are not talking about just some arbitrary adaptation. We are talking about simple adaptations that would by any account double or triple the fitness of the organism in question in an instant. RM/NS can't accomplish them no matter what strategy it uses.
Yet we are to believe that in the same number of tries a shrew became a bat and a whale and a Maytag repair man.
Make up your mind are Behe's ideas incompetent and completely wrong or redundant you cant have it both ways
That is all Behe is saying why is this so hard?
No it's a generalization based on all the scientific observations we have to date. Once again if you know of any real time/real world examples that go beyond what he is claiming present them and you will prove that his generalization was hasty and shut him up
If not his edge is the default limit and anything beyond that must be considered at least as far as we know to be not based on RM/NS.
Simple logic really
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — July 28, 2007 @ 5:18 pm
July 28th, 2007 at 6:40 pm
I agree with some of what Nick is saying but the dismissive stuff is handwaiving. Behe has a knack of using scenarios that are appealing to mass audiences. Some are visually appealing and others interesting from an experential POV. Unfortunately, Behe has tossed some softballs when he could have fired 98 MPH fastballs. There is much that is not explained by standard models and if you go there you will be accused of gapping. Whether most biologists are dismissive of Behe matters little in the long run.
Comment by Bradford — July 28, 2007 @ 6:40 pm
July 28th, 2007 at 6:58 pm
This is evidence: Hundreds of millions of infections and a million dead, mostly children, every year. Forty percent of the world's population at risk. That is hardly thwarted. Malaria is thriving, has diversified to infect a wide variety of hosts, has developed resistance to a number of important drugs, and there is no end in sight.
Evolution is an opportunistic process, and malaria has observably evolved even in modern times. And how the parasite has coevolved with its host and vector organisms, and how it has diverged from its common ancestors are important questions in the fight against this pernicious disease. (Not that you would care about fighting a disease already thwarted "by the efforts of a nineteenth century government barely past using leaches for treatment" .)
Comment by Zachriel — July 28, 2007 @ 6:58 pm
July 28th, 2007 at 7:09 pm
Bradford:
It's perfectly alright and even helpful to point to gaps in knowledge and understanding. What's less alright is to claim without proof that such gaps are the result of an inherent incapability of known (or even unknown) natural evolutionary me