Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community
Category

Intelligent Design

More Mindless OOL Nonsense

Rabid ID-hater Larry Moran offers some insights that sound almost like the founding book of Intelligent Design: The Mystery of Life’s Origin. Sometimes the truth is so obvious even Larry Moran has to concede it. Moran writes in: More Prebiotic Soup Nonsense The problem is that most scientists are not thinking critically about the origin of life. There are several possibilities and none of them are particularly convincing. However, the Primordial Soup Hypothesis has a number of glaring weaknesses that need to be addressed honestly and it doesn’t do anyone any good if scientists sweep these weaknesses under the rug. HT: Mike Gene

Coffee!! A lesson in design detection, or in not being stupid enough to buy lottery tickets

Here: Srivastava had been hooked by a different sort of lure—that spooky voice, whispering to him about a flaw in the game. At first, he tried to brush it aside. “Like everyone else, I assumed that the lottery was unbreakable,” he says. “There’s no way there could be a flaw, and there’s no way I just happened to discover the flaw on my walk home.” And yet, his inner voice refused to pipe down. “I remember telling myself that the Ontario Lottery is a multibillion-dollar-a- year business,” he says. “They must know what they’re doing, right?” Oh yes, Mohan, that’s something you can count on for sure. The government around here knows what it’s doing. Or someone knows what they’re Read More ›

Are 72% of biology teachers hindering scientific literacy in the US?

Some have described the survey as shocking. The authors of the report are gloomy about their findings. The perceived problem is this: evolutionists have won court cases bearing on the teaching of evolution in schools; state curricular standards have been revised to reinforce the status of evolutionary theory in biology – but despite all this, “considerable research suggests that supporters of evolution, scientific methods, and reason itself are losing battles in America’s classrooms”. The problem is that only 28% of teachers are forthrightly explaining evolutionary biology. The situation is deemed to “expose a cycle of ignorance in which community antievolution attitudes are perpetuated by teaching that reinforces local community sentiment”. The recalcitrant teachers are “hindering scientific literacy in the United Read More ›

Kepler-10b – The first extrasolar system rocky planet

2011 got off to an exciting start with the announcement of Kepler-10b, the first rocky planet ever discovered outside our solar system. The announcement was widely expected. Last August, a NASA scientist referred to 140 candidates for rocky planet status and now, it appears, they have a confirmed result. The discovery was announced at the a meeting of the American Astronomical Society by Nasa’s Kepler team, accompanied by a press release. Richard Kerr, writing in Science, pointed to the significance of the find: “Astronomers have announced the discovery of an extrasolar planet not much larger than Earth – the smallest exoplanet yet found. Although the world orbits too close to its sun to sustain life, the finding is a milestone Read More ›

search_window

ID Foundations, 4: Specified Complexity and linked Functional Organisation as signs of design

(NB: ID Foundations Series, so far: 1, 2, 3.)

In a recent comment on the ID Foundations 3 discussion thread, occasional UD commenter LastYearOn [henceforth LYO], remarked:

Behe is implicitly assuming that natural processes cannot explain human technology. However natural processes do explain technology, by explaining humans. We may think of computers as somehow distinct from objects that formed from the direct result of natural process. And in important ways they are. But that doesn’t mean that they aren’t ultimately explainable naturally. Behe’s argument is therefore circular.

Think of it this way. In certain ways nature is prone to organization. From cells to multicellular organisms to humans. Computers are just the latest example.

In essence, LYO is arguing — yea, even, confidently  assuming — that since nature has the capacity to spontaneously generate designers through evolutionary means, then technology and signs of design reduce to blind forces and circumstances of chance plus necessity in action. Thus, when we behold, say a ribosome in action —

Fig. A: The Ribosome in action in protein translation, assembling (and then completing) a protein step by step [= algorithmically] based on the sequence of three-letter codons in the  mRNA tape and using tRNA’s as amino acid “taxis” and position-arm tool-tips, implementing a key part of a von Neumann-type self replicator . (Courtesy, Wikipedia.)

___________________

. . . we should not think, digitally coded, step by step algorithmic process, so on signs of design, design. Instead, LYO and other evolutionary materialists argue that we should think: here is an example of the power of undirected chance plus necessity to spontaneously create a complex functional entity that is the basis for designers as we observe them, humans.

So, on the evolutionary materialistic view, the triad of explanatory causes, necessity, chance, art, collapses into the first two. Thus, signs of design such as specified complexity and associated highly specific functional organisation — including that functional organisation that happens to be irreducibly complex — reduce to being evidences of the power of chance and necessity in action!

Voila, design is finished as an explanation of origins!

But is this assumption or assertion credible?

No . . . it fallaciously begs the question of the underlying power of chance plus necessity, thus setting up the significance of the issue of specified complexity as an empirically reliable sign of design. No great surprise there. But, the issue also opens the door to a foundational understanding of the other hotly contested core ID concept, specified complexity.

Read More ›

Information Runs The Show — The Understatement of the Century!

An interesting paper published in Nature by Evgenia et al. documents the ability of the DNA double helix to exist in a functional alternative form for 1% of the time, called an “excited state.” What does this mean for neo-Darwinism? What is particularly remarkable is that the base-pairs present in these alternative forms show the ability to break apart and come together again to form stable structures which are non-characteristic of Watson-Crick base-pairing (called “Hoogsteen base pairs”). While these Hoogsteen base pairs have been observed before in instances where DNA has been subjected to damage or bound to drugs, this is the first time where such Hoogsteen base pairs have been observed under normal circumstances. Read More>>>

Darwinism: Pathetically Low Standards of Evidence, Unacceptable Anywhere Else

In my work in aerospace R&D I produce computer simulations using what is arguably the most sophisticated Finite Element Analysis program ever developed: LS-DYNA. It was originally conceived and developed at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in the mid-1970s for research into variable-yield nuclear weapons. For more than 35 years it has been under constant refinement and development by the best and the brightest in the field. This computational tool is phenomenally valuable and powerful, because it can tell you what is likely to work and what is not. However, it is not a perfect representation of reality — simplifying assumptions must be made or the computational overhead will become insurmountable. The trick is knowing and identifying what simplifying assumptions can Read More ›

Running On Immunity Against Disproof

Three months ago Princeton evolutionary biologist Andrea Graham became the talk of the ecoimmunology town through her summarization of the apparent connection between immunity and fertility (1). From trials carried out on 1476 individuals of wild Soay sheep from the St Kilda island archipelago in northern Scotland, Graham et al painted a complex picture of competing trade-offs the strengths of which were intimately dependent on the prevalence of environmental extremes. They found that higher immunity amongst animals, while promoting better survival, negatively affected reproductive prowess (1,2). More specifically sheep with increased immune readiness against ‘parasite infested winters’ were less likely to sire offspring, which Graham et al attributed to the concomitantly higher levels of auto-reactive antibodies (1,2).

Low immune-response animals fared better in low ‘parasite prevalence’ environments perhaps because energy for reproduction was not frivoled away on energy-costly antibody manufacture (1,2). The conclusion drawn was that the selective advantage of low immune-and high-immune response animals in low parasite prevalence and high parasite prevalence environments respectively explains why evolution has in effect “failed to eliminate alleles that confer susceptibility to infection or promote autoimmunity”(2).

So can we pack our bags and head home content with yet another open-and-shut case in which natural selection has been incontrovertibly authenticated? Not quite. Read More ›

Now that we have got to “pre-selection”, even Darwinians must be wondering …

In “Evolution by Mistake: Major Driving Force Comes from How Organisms Cope With Errors at Cellular Level” ScienceDaily (Jan. 26, 2011), Joanna Masel and Etienne Rajon posit “pre-selection” by error in order to explain how natural selection works its Darwinian wonders:

In nature, it turns out, many new traits that, for example, enable their bearers to conquer new habitats, start out as blunders: mistakes made by cells that result in altered proteins with changed properties or functions that are new altogether, even when there is nothing wrong with the gene itself. Sometime later, one of these mistakes can get into the gene and become more permanent.

“If the mechanisms interpreting genetic information were completely flawless, organisms would stay the same all the time and be unable to adapt to new situations or changes in their environment,” said Masel, who is also a member of the UA’s BIO5 Institute.

Living beings face two options of handling the dangers posed by errors, Masel and Rajon wrote. One is to avoid making errors in the first place, for example by having a proofreading mechanism to spot and fix errors as they arise. The authors call this a global solution, since it is not specific to any particular mistake, but instead watches over the entire process.

The alternative is to allow errors to happen, but evolve robustness to the effects of each of them. Masel and Rajon call this strategy a local solution, because in the absence of a global proofreading mechanism, it requires an organism to be resilient to each and every mistake that pops up.

Offhand, this sounds a lot like design. Would anyone like to calculate the probability of such a process forming by Darwinian means (natural selection acting on random mutation)? Read More ›

Anthony Hopkins Schools Charlie Rose on the Warfare Thesis

As if we needed more evidence that the myth of the warfare thesis is alive and well, Charlie Rose supplied it in abundance in his interview with legendary actor Anthony Hopkins last week. Fortunately Hopkins was able to disabuse the audience of Rose’s misconceptions, though it is not clear Rose was the better for it. Here is the relevant discussion, beginning at the 11:25 mark of the interview:  Read more

New Book on Alfred Russel Wallace and the ID Connection

    In my new book, Alfred Russel Wallace: A Rediscovered Life, I take the reader on a journey from 19-century England, to the wilds of the Amazon River Basin, to the Malay Archipelago, and back to the highly charged scientific climate of Victorian London. Wallace’s story is one of discovery, from shocking Charles Darwin with his own theory of natural selection to his realization that the very principle he used to explain the diversity of biological life itself had limits, limits with profound implications about humankind and nature itself. After years of research across the globe, Wallace came to believe that some intelligence was required to explain the natural world. This intelligent evolution would be explained by Wallace as directed, detectably designed, Read More ›

Coffee!! Flying reptile egg soon to be major movie

Adult pteranodon fossils from Royal Ontario Museum. Courtesy  Kenn Chaplin from Toronto Jonathan Amos reports at BBC News (20 January 2011) on a “Fossil female pterosaur found with preserved egg“. Wonderful news, and note this: The egg indicates this ancient flying reptile was a female, and that realisation has allowed researchers to sex these creatures for the first time. Writing in Science magazine, the palaeontologists make some broad statements about differences in pterosaurs, including the observation that only males sported a head-crest. “Broad” statements indeed, about the head-crest. They couldn’t really be sure unless they could sex a flock, and there’s a risk of being led off course. The state of the egg’s shell suggests it was well developed and Read More ›

300px-AmineTreating

ID Foundations, 3: Irreducible Complexity as concept, as fact, as [macro-]evolution obstacle, and as a sign of design

[ID Found’ns Series, cf. also Bartlett here]

Irreducible complexity is probably the most violently objected to foundation stone of Intelligent Design theory. So, let us first of all define it by slightly modifying Dr Michael Behe’s original statement in his 1996 Darwin’s Black Box [DBB]:

What type of biological system could not be formed by “numerous successive, slight modifications?” Well, for starters, a system that is irreducibly complex. By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the [core] parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. [DBB, p. 39, emphases and parenthesis added. Cf. expository remarks in comment 15 below.]

Behe proposed this definition in response to the following challenge by Darwin in Origin of Species:

If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case . . . . We should be extremely cautious in concluding that an organ could not have been formed by transitional gradations of some kind. [Origin, 6th edn, 1872, Ch VI: “Difficulties of the Theory.”]

In fact, there is a bit of question-begging by deck-stacking in Darwin’s statement: we are dealing with empirical matters, and one does not have a right to impose in effect outright logical/physical impossibility — “could not possibly have been formed” — as a criterion of test.

If, one is making a positive scientific assertion that complex organs exist and were credibly formed by gradualistic, undirected change through chance mutations and differential reproductive success through natural selection and similar mechanisms, one has a duty to provide decisive positive evidence of that capacity. Behe’s onward claim is then quite relevant: for dozens of key cases, no credible macro-evolutionary pathway (especially no detailed biochemical and genetic pathway) has been empirically demonstrated and published in the relevant professional literature. That was true in 1996, and despite several attempts to dismiss key cases such as the bacterial flagellum [which is illustrated at the top of this blog page] or the relevant part of the blood clotting cascade [hint: picking the part of the cascade — that before the “fork” that Behe did not address as the IC core is a strawman fallacy], it arguably still remains to today.

Now, we can immediately lay the issue of the fact of irreducible complexity as a real-world phenomenon to rest.

For, a situation where core, well-matched, and co-ordinated parts of a system are each necessary for and jointly sufficient to effect the relevant function is a commonplace fact of life. One that is familiar from all manner of engineered systems; such as, the classic double-acting steam engine:

Fig. A: A double-acting steam engine (Courtesy Wikipedia)

Such a steam engine is made up of rather commonly available components: cylinders, tubes, rods, pipes, crankshafts, disks, fasteners, pins, wheels, drive-belts, valves etc. But, because a core set of well-matched parts has to be carefully organised according to a complex “wiring diagram,” the specific function of the double-acting  steam engine is not explained by the mere existence of the parts.

Nor, can simply choosing and re-arranging similar parts from say a bicycle or an old-fashioned car or the like create a viable steam engine.  Specific mutually matching parts [matched to thousandths of an inch usually], in a very specific pattern of organisation, made of specific materials, have to be in place, and they have to be integrated into the right context [e.g. a boiler or other source providing steam at the right temperature and pressure], for it to work.

If one core part breaks down or is removed — e.g. piston, cylinder, valve, crank shaft, etc., core function obviously ceases.

Irreducible complexity is not only a concept but a fact.

But, why is it said that irreducible complexity is a barrier to Darwinian-style [macro-]evolution and a credible sign of design in biological systems?

Read More ›

Information and Energy

Today’s PhysOrg.com site contains this article. To my view, their investigation has important implications for ID. Many critics of ID ask us: “Well, how does your Designer design?” This is their way of saying to us that a Designer who lies outside the physical realm cannot possibly act within it. Of course, this amounts to a theological claim, and not a scientific one; nevertheless, it’s made. What’s new here, though, is that, whereas formerly it was thought that energy was needed to “erase” information (which leaves its own physical residue–that is, it’s measurable), now this is no longer the case. However, if it is true that energy is not needed to “erase” information, contrariwise, wouldn’t it also be true that Read More ›

A (Perhaps) Scientific Revolution, Brewing Among Young Scientists

This short essay was inspired by Denyse here. She appears to have an inspirational effect on me. Older scientists are still stuck in the past. Richard Dawkins is a prime example, although I don’t consider him to be a “scientist” who has demonstrated any devotion to legitimate scientific rigor throughout his career. He is essentially nothing more than a relatively eloquent storyteller with a very creative imagination, who has no experience in the real world with designing or engineering anything that can be demonstrated to actually work. With the discovery of the fine-tuning of the laws of physics for life, and the discovery that living systems are fundamentally based on the most sophisticated nano-technological, information-processing system ever devised, the Darwinian Read More ›