Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

When Darwinism infects popular culture, confusion follows as well as nonsense

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email
File:Nostradamus prophecies.jpg

Every so often, one reads a sentence that just takes one’s breath away from an otherwise intelligent writer who uses Darwinism to help explain the world: This from Colin Dickey’s “Quack Prophet” (Lapham’s Quarterly):

Whether it’s the Dead Sea Scrolls or Finnegan’s Wake, there’s a long literary history of taking the garbled and the fragmented and looking for lucid meaning beneath. The science writer and professional skeptic Michael Shermer has gone so far as to argue that we’re hard-wired, from an evolutionary perspective, to look for such hidden meanings. “From sensory data flowing in through the senses the brain naturally begins to look for and find patterns, and then infuses those patterns with meaning,” Shermer writes. “We can’t help it. Our brains evolved to connect the dots of our world.” By adjusting the signal-to-noise ratio, Nostradamus introduced enough static into his Prophecies that they could be all things to all readers, poetic Rorschach blots of detail and blur.

Excuse us, but: The Dead Sea Scrolls are a remarkable 1947 find (since augmented) of a group of manuscript fragments and artifacts that everyone knew had lucid meaning, but awaited translation and clarification. You didn’t need to be “hard-wired” to notice any of that. Finnegan’s Wake is a deliberately obscure novel written by Irish novelist James Joyce, pored over by generations of academic dullards – to Joyce’s huge amusement, had he lived to see that entire circus play out. Much of it probably did have some meaning; it was written in English by an already successful novelist. Again, no “hardwiring” required to suppose that, though a certain amount of denseness for spending a lot of time on the problem.

It’s not like seeing patterns in the clouds, which might actually be evidence for Shermer’s thesis if not pressed too far – which it nearly always is.

Conflating the Scrolls and Finnegan’s Wake, spiced up with some Shermerite nonsense about how our brains evolved to … whatever, is an appalling but telling example of cultural Darwinism at work.

Those who don’t believe in meaning corrupt and confound it.

Note: The ostensible subject of the piece is that reliable checkout counter tabloid icon, the “prophet” Nostradamus, who was obscure for an entirely unrelated reason – to avoid falsification. Reminds one of something, no … ?

Comments
DrREC,
body plan changes-with only a few amino acid changed.
You're equivocating. What is the greatest evolution of a 'body plan change' observed? Is it greater than the difference between a chihuahua and great dane? It's one thing to change a body plan - shorten, lengthen, etc. It's another to come up with a new one. If you can attribute that to evolution then please share. You're name-dropping without naming names. I'm close friends with lots of famous movie stars. There's the one guy. And the other. And the woman from that film. Right.ScottAndrews2
November 5, 2011
November
11
Nov
5
05
2011
02:22 PM
2
02
22
PM
PDT
chuckle, chuckle I love it when a materialist says that material observations don't matter.Upright BiPed
November 5, 2011
November
11
Nov
5
05
2011
02:21 PM
2
02
21
PM
PDT
DrREC, Please elaborate on how you decide in which medium fcsi may exist and be considered a possible product of design. Because it really looks like you're just making it up. If you find an elaborate code spelled out with thumbtacks, will you reject ID because you've never seen another observed instance of thumbtack fsci? It appears that you just draw this demarcation wherever it suits you. The obvious purpose of both inference and extrapolation is to reason beyond what we observe. I asked you before - do you therefore reject inference and extrapolation altogether, or only in this case? What is the difference? And how can you rationalize that logic with accepting the wildly hopeful, speculative, and improbable extrapolation of all life from incremental variations? It's like turning turning Mickey Rourke away from your night club because he's not good-looking enough and then inviting in the Elephant Man. One must conclude that you either hate Mickey Rourke, love the Elephant Man, or both. But either way your claim to be measuring by an objective standard is up in smoke.ScottAndrews2
November 5, 2011
November
11
Nov
5
05
2011
02:12 PM
2
02
12
PM
PDT
14.2.2.1.2 ScottAndrews "I agree that the changes you have observed do not require a designer." Excellent. These changes are evolutionary-small changes over time. And from KFs reference, enzymes and domains have fits that fail to exceed the universal probability bound. Therefore, no inference to a designer is needed for them. We observe new steroid receptor binding, ruminant digestion of bacteria, body plan changes-with only a few amino acid changed. So we observe evolution, but ID is an inference without even an observation. There simply isn't an example of design-of fsci exceeding 500 bits.DrREC
November 5, 2011
November
11
Nov
5
05
2011
02:05 PM
2
02
05
PM
PDT
Upright, your response is non-pertinent. Thanks for explaining how a music box works for me, but unless you have a single observed instance of calculated biological fcsi exceeding the universal probability bound (and thus requiring a designer by inference) then ID has no merit.DrREC
November 5, 2011
November
11
Nov
5
05
2011
02:00 PM
2
02
00
PM
PDT
Dr Rec at 14.2.2.1.1
So where is this increase in biological fcsi, outside of human design, that warrents inference of a designer? Or is ID a theory explaining a non-observation?
Yes there is such an inference. And it not negated by the ability of an organism to sustain change to its information, but instead is based on what that information is - physically is. I remind you once again that you bounced out of the conversation where this was being explained to you. It was also explained here.Upright BiPed
November 5, 2011
November
11
Nov
5
05
2011
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PDT
DrREC,
I’ve observed small changes over many generations-incremental increased, less than the universal probability bond, not requiring inference of a designer. So where is this increase in biological fcsi, outside of human design, that warrents inference of a designer?
I agree that the changes you have observed do not require a designer. That's actually the point. You have not observed such a degree of biological change with or without a designer. And yet you reject one inference and accept another extrapolation. I'm trying to determine what the difference is, except that you like the extrapolation and don't like the inference. That appears to be the bottom of it. So where is this increase in biological fcsi that makes advanced biological diversity attributable to evolution? You reject because it is not observed, and allow the other which is also not observed. I can't explain to my wife why tomatoes are bad, and she can't explain why she hates rats. Those are preferences. They cannot be explained rationally because they are not rational. Can you explain why you reject the unobserved because it is unobserved while embracing the unobserved, or is it also an irrational preference? (I'm not using "irrational" in a negative way. I'm referring to that which cannot be derived from reason.)ScottAndrews2
November 5, 2011
November
11
Nov
5
05
2011
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT
kairosfocus, This is a funny little dance you're doing. ID is the notion that design in nature, exceeding a value you've set, must be the product of a designer, by inference to human design. I ask what design in nature has shown a spontaneous increase in biological fsci exceeding the value you set, and you refer me back to a human design (which actually produced no new biological fcsi, in my opinion-see below). Putting aside that you don't actually have the demonstrated ability to calculate fCSI in biology*, it looks like you have a theory in search of an observation! *(though you reference papers, where fits are estimated based on number of sequences performing the same function. This places enzymes, and domains well below the universal probability bound. Since we know evolution hasn't searched all sequence space, this is probably an overestimate. Actually taking the sequence space of a moderate sized protein and testing for function would quickly exceed the resources of a laboratory). "Venter et al have demonstrated proof of concept for intelligent design of living forms, period." False. False. False. Venter did NOT design a genome. He copied a genome, added non-biologically relevant watermarks, and inserted it into a cell. "“They rebuilt a natural sequence and they put in some poetry,” said University of California at San Francisco synthetic biologist Chris Voigt. “They recreated some quotes in the genome sequence as watermarks.” It’s an impressive trick, no doubt, but replicating a natural genome with a little panache is also the limit of our present design capabilities." http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/05/scientists-create-first-self-replicating-synthetic-life/ Perhaps you could calculate the gain in biological fcsi in this experiment? I'd say it is zero-no new biological functionality.DrREC
November 5, 2011
November
11
Nov
5
05
2011
01:26 PM
1
01
26
PM
PDT
"How many bits of information have you observed arising by natural means? Are you prepared to refute that explanation using the very same logic?" I've observed small changes over many generations-incremental increased, less than the universal probability bond, not requiring inference of a designer. So where is this increase in biological fcsi, outside of human design, that warrents inference of a designer? Or is ID a theory explaining a non-observation?DrREC
November 5, 2011
November
11
Nov
5
05
2011
01:15 PM
1
01
15
PM
PDT
Ok. I just tend to jump all over the place randomly and wanted to make sure it wasn't inappropriate.ScottAndrews2
November 5, 2011
November
11
Nov
5
05
2011
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT
:) :) :) No, it's not a "search with special luck" either, gpuccio :) It's search of connected space. Some of those connections can be along ridges, or even via the odd ravine. :DElizabeth Liddle
November 5, 2011
November
11
Nov
5
05
2011
11:21 AM
11
11
21
AM
PDT
Elizabeth: I am happy that you agree on those fundamental points. I will not enter your personal discussion with KF, but I believe that we can agree on many things, although I have to remind you that other darwinists here have many times denied even those basic concepts.
Not that I'm aware of, gpuccio, but terminology can be difficult. Sometimes the disagreement is more apparent than real, as will also be apparent below! There is no point in arguing about what "the dictionary definition" of a term is, because dictionaries record usage, they do not prescribe it. What matters is what people mean when they use a term. I'm happy to use "Digital base N" to mean an alphabetic information transfer system with N "letters", as long as we are clear that that is all it means. It is important not to then extrapolate to other usages. But as long as no-one is doing that, fine.
So, let’s see where we agree. You can confirm or not. no-one, certainly not me, denies that information transfer occurs in life That’s fine. I will limit the discussion, for the moment, to protein coding gene information.
Are you including the mechanisms by which that "protein coding" gene information is coded? I'll assume yes.
So I suppose you agree: a) That in protein coding genes there is information about the corresponding protein sequence (some deny even that)
No-one denies that (to my knowledge), but as usual a lot depends on exactly what you mean by "information". If you mean, as per Merriam Webster's definition 2b:
the attribute inherent in and communicated by one of two or more alternative sequences or arrangements of something (as nucleotides in DNA or binary digits in a computer program) that produce specific effects
Yes.
b) That such information is symbolic, in the sense that it is coded by a symbolic code, called the genetic code
Let's try Merriam Webster again:
Symbol 1 : an authoritative summary of faith or doctrine : creed 2 : something that stands for or suggests something else by reason of relationship, association, convention, or accidental resemblance; especially : a visible sign of something invisible 3 : an arbitrary or conventional sign used in writing or printing relating to a particular field to represent operations, quantities, elements, relations, or qualities 4 : an object or act representing something in the unconscious mind that has been repressed 5 : an act, sound, or object having cultural significance and the capacity to excite or objectify a response
No, none of the above definitions describe the mapping of nucleotide triplet to amino acid, IMO. 3 is the closest, but it the genetic code fails to meet the criterion on a number of counts.
c) That the genetic code is a digital base 4 code, organized in three charatcter “words”, for a total of 64 word values, corresponding in a redundant “many-to-one” mapping to the 20 AAs and to the stop command
Well, as long as we stipulate that "digital base 4" does not refer to numeric values or arithmetical computations, yes, I accept that, as long as we are only talking about mRNA after editing. At that point, the mapping is one-to-one-or-more, and all units are triplets. I'd have called that "base 64", as the units are more naturally (IMO) viewed as molecular subunits of three nucleotides (so the unite with multiple states is the triplet, not the nucleotide), but as long as we are careful not to overapply the metaphor, I'm happy to call it "base 4".
d) That there is no known biochemical law that connects the symbolic values in the codons to the corresponding AAs
Of course there's a "chemical law". Or rather, there are perfectly comprehensible chemical processes. I would readily agree that the mapping is arbitrary, in the sense that another set of tRNA molecules would do the job as well, as long as it consisted of only not more than one tRNA molecule for each triplet, but given that in most life forms (not all) the tRNA molecules coded are the specific sete that gives us the well-known "genetic code", the the mapping obeys straightforward chemical laws. The "laws" that govern the selection of the set are IMO, likely to be the laws that govern natural selection in general - it's a set that maximised reproductive success, in this case, via reproductive fidelity, and maximising use of the available amino acids. The law in question being: that when things reproduce with heritable variance in reproductive success, those variants that reproduce most successfully will become the most prevalent. It would be interesting to simulate the evolution of triplet-amino acid mapping. I might try it some time.
e) That the physical connection between the gene and the protein if made only by the transcription and translation apparatus
Of course.
f) That specific information about the genetic code is independently embedded in the structure of the 20 aminoacyl tRNA synthetases, and that such specific information is the key to decoding the information in the protein coding genes.
Yes, exactly. A different set would give a different mapping. Only those sets with one-to-one or more mappings will result in reproductive fidelity.
IOWs, we find the information about the genetic code independently in two dofferent parts of the cell: the protein coding genes (written according to the genetic code) and the 20 aminoacyl tRNA synthetases (structured so that they can correctly decode the coded information)
Well, not "independently". The set of 20 tRNA molecules will give you the mapping, but you couldn't derive the mapping without access to that set. An alien, given only the genome, would be hard pressed to derive the mapping, unless they could figure out where in the genome the tRNA molecule templates would be found.
g) That the information in protein coding genes is exclusively about primary sequence, and therefore the search space for that information in any random system acting on the genes is the sequence search space
I don't understand what you are saying here. Could you clarify?
h) That the relation between sequence, structure and function in proteins is very complex, and, while being essentially a necessity relationship (depending on biochemical laws), it is at present mostly beyond the calculation abilities of us humans
Yes.
Well, I would like to verify with you these points. None of them is essentially an ID argument, but they are obviously important points for the ID theory.
And for any evolutionary theory :)
I am afraid that, if you disagree with any of them, discussion will always be chaotic. So, if you disagree, please try to explain clearly where and why.
I hope I have done so, and where I found your point unclear.
If, instead, you agree, I would appreciate if you could simply tell us at least some simple and basic points about “the problems you see with ID”, and I will be happy to comment on those problems, trying to use a common language.
In brief, problems I see with ID are these: 1. That despite protestations, it is essentially an argument from ignorance. By this I mean that ID is inferred from lack of an alternative explanation from the observed pattern. When an alternative explanation is offered, the response is usually "but you can't explain x, y, z" or "x, y, z have never been observed". ID despite claims is not a "positive" hypothesis and provides no (or few) differential predictions. Dembski's Filter (in new or old form) "rejects the null" without specifying that null, or, at best, mis-specifying it. 2. The argument that design can be inferred because biological things resemble human designs, and we know human designs were designed is fallacious for two reasons: one is simply that it commits the fallacy of the excluded middle (Intelligent agents design complex things; this is an complex thing; this thing was designed by intelligence), and the second, much more serious, is that the very thing that distinguishes most human artefacts from all biological organisms is that organisms reproduce themselves. This is the response to the old chestnut about "how do we know the watch on the heath was designed?" We know it was designed because it's fairly complex, and it doesn't reproduce itself, and the only things we know of that are this complex are either self-replicators, or designed by self-replicators. So it is probably designed by a self-replicator (Alternatively by some other iterative feedback process such as crystalisation. Snowflakes tendn to look designed). 3. Many ID arguments hinge on the assertion that information (of some type, or quantity) cannot be generated except by intelligent agents. Given a simple-self-replicator, I would argue that we can observe the self-generation of information, as defined by most criteria that seem to me to be relevant to the kind of information we see in living things. 4. The arguments that micro-evolution is fine, but there is an "edge" or "barrier" that means that Darwinian processes are not capable of "macro-evolution" seems to me based on flawed understand of evolutionary processes. The only sound-ish argument I see for ID is the argument that the simplest possible Darwinian-capable self-replicator is itself too complex to have arisen spontaneously from a pool of non-self-replicators. Once you have that simplest possible Darwinian-capable self-replication, I see no barrier to the evolution of complex life. And that itself still suffers from Flaw 1. It is true that we do not yet have a good complete theory for how Darwinian-capable self-replicators emerged from non-self-replicators (or non-Darwinian capable self-replicators, not quite the same thing), but there are already highly promising leads. Inferring ID from the lack of a complete alternative theory is not sound scientific reasoning IMO. Only if ID could come up with a better alternative theory (because a negative inference is not an "alternative" theory in science), such as "front-loading", that makes differential predictions, would we be justified in drawing an ID inference. Front-loading should be fairly easy to test, BTW, but I don't think it has much in the way of legs. Finally, I'll say that the idea that "Darwinists" claim to have "disproven" or "falsified" ID is simply wrong (or, if the claim is made, it is unjustified - it's possible that some ignorant "Darwinists" may have claimed it). Darwinian theory does not falsify ID. Actually, nothing could falsify ID, which is one of the problems with ID. Darwinian theory (or rather modern evolutionary theory, based on Darwin's basic idea), rather, provides a coherent account as to how life, in all its variety and complexity, could have evolved from simple organic self-replicators, and OOL theories, which do incorporate Darwinian mechanisms, in fact, provide a less well-worked out set of hypotheses about those early organic self-replicators, and which, so far, have limited evidential support. Neither set of theories accounts for every single lineage, every single observation, every single information-transfer mechanism, but nor do they suggest that there are any insuperable problems, rather the reverse. I hope that helps :)Elizabeth Liddle
November 5, 2011
November
11
Nov
5
05
2011
11:18 AM
11
11
18
AM
PDT
Elizabeth: Well, sometimes I select some posts if they contain smiles :) And yes, I know, darwinian search is a search with special luck... and maibe NS (except for neutralists, I suppose) :) (In case you haven't noticed, I am doing my best to have this post selected).gpuccio
November 5, 2011
November
11
Nov
5
05
2011
10:57 AM
10
10
57
AM
PDT
Darwinian search is not a random search ;)Elizabeth Liddle
November 5, 2011
November
11
Nov
5
05
2011
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PDT
KF: Absolutely! For me it has become, almost always, a truly random search. I open threads in the hope, rarely satisfied, that some darwinian luck will help me to find the comments I would like to read...gpuccio
November 5, 2011
November
11
Nov
5
05
2011
10:12 AM
10
10
12
AM
PDT
SA and KF: I only meant that I did not want to intrude in some aspects of that discussion that could be better clarified between Elizabeth and KF personally. I just took some more general aspects, trying to express my view. In no way I wanted to suggest any general rule. :)gpuccio
November 5, 2011
November
11
Nov
5
05
2011
10:10 AM
10
10
10
AM
PDT
SA: the matter is definitely not personal. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
November 5, 2011
November
11
Nov
5
05
2011
08:26 AM
8
08
26
AM
PDT
Dr Rec This would be amusing if it were not so sad. Venter et al have demonstrated proof of concept for intelligent design of living forms, period. We see in living forms, a clear manifestation of a known, empirically tested and reliable sign of design, complex specified informational in this case cashed out as function based on a digital information system. No one was present to observe the remote past origin of life, but on the uniformity principle commonly used in science, it is a reasonable inference to best empirically anchored explanation that systems manifesting the characteristic were designed. The point is that DNA in life is not sui generis, it is an instance of a well known type of entity, a digital code based information system, and it is of a degree of complexity that the possibility of blind chance and necessity successfully implementing a trial and error approach is sufficiently minimal to be effectively zero. but we do have a well known causal factor that is fully capable of causing such an information system, namely intelligent design. Designers are routinely observed producing discrete state information system entities of many kinds, that greatly exceed a threshold of 500 - 1,000 bits, which blind chance and mechanical necessity has never been observed to do. In addition, Venter et al show that it is feasible for engineers to manipulate the required entities and even to synthesise them, e.g. his watermark. So, the objection you are making is plainly selectively hyperskeptical. You are demanding an example you know does not yet exist as the technology is emergent, but refuse to attend to a cluster of evidence that points to the grounds for inferring that design is the best explanation of FSCI, while your side is demanding that we blindly accept that something NEVER shown to produce that sort of scope of specifically functional information, is to be taken as practically certain as the source of the FSCI in life, which is many orders of magnitude beyond the threshold. Sorry, but your reasoning simply does not add up. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
November 5, 2011
November
11
Nov
5
05
2011
08:25 AM
8
08
25
AM
PDT
DrREC, Cite any observed origin of 500 bits or more - at once or otherwise. You cannot. Therefore, you are again applying your logic selectively. How many bits of information have you observed arising by natural means? Are you prepared to refute that explanation using the very same logic? Logic is only logic when you apply it consistently. Otherwise it's only justification, an excuse.ScottAndrews2
November 5, 2011
November
11
Nov
5
05
2011
08:17 AM
8
08
17
AM
PDT
gpuccio, It is empirically demonstrable that smaller amounts of fcsi can arise without design. KF's reference on fits puts whole enzymes and protein domains under the universal probability bound. Since these can arise, and be retained by selection, an additive process where small amounts of fsci accumulating over time is the evolutionary model.DrREC
November 5, 2011
November
11
Nov
5
05
2011
07:54 AM
7
07
54
AM
PDT
"This is beginning to sound like the recent objection that an inconveniently discrete state complex system is not digital." Actually not at all the point I'm making. Thanks for changing the subject. My request was quite specific- an example of genetic biological fcsio of greater than 500 bits arising at once. Otherwise, biological ID has never been observed.DrREC
November 5, 2011
November
11
Nov
5
05
2011
07:49 AM
7
07
49
AM
PDT
I will not enter your personal discussion with KF
I hope that's not a bad thing because I do it all the time. I figure it's a comment board, not a private discussion. That being said, I'm happy to conform if it's an accepted rule of etiquette and if I can determine which discussions are personal.ScottAndrews2
November 5, 2011
November
11
Nov
5
05
2011
07:38 AM
7
07
38
AM
PDT
DrREC, What about inference's cousin, extrapolation? Does your skepticism apply when multicolored cichlid fishes, finches beaks, and the varying sizes of lizard heads are extrapolated to explain the origin of the creatures and features that are varying? Apparently your skepticism is dialed back a few notches when it suits you. And you failed to address the natural origin of life which is neither inferred nor extrapolated, merely taken as an article of faith. So when you say that a particular inference overreaches, one must consider the source. In other words, it doesn't mean much coming from you.ScottAndrews2
November 5, 2011
November
11
Nov
5
05
2011
07:33 AM
7
07
33
AM
PDT
I am finding that on occasion comments come up at strange points in the thread, we do need the chronological view.kairosfocus
November 5, 2011
November
11
Nov
5
05
2011
07:16 AM
7
07
16
AM
PDT
Predictable Strawman: One is able to identify reliable signs that point to design as causal process, and on the basis of such indiuctive evidence, infer ha the sign speaks true when we see it. That is how science works. And, on the debates on the value of S, the DEFAULT is that S = 0, i.e the assumption default is that blind chance and necessity -- per sampling theory and the issue of what is plausible to pick up in a sample -- can explain something. It is when one has good reason to see that an event E comes form a specific, narrow and unrepresentative zone T that is unlikely to come up on a sample of the relevant scope, that one sets S = 1; specifically, one can give an independent description (one that does not simply quote E like announcing the wining number for a lottery). This is of course closely related to the common approach to hypothesis testing, as was pointed out and as usual ignored.kairosfocus
November 5, 2011
November
11
Nov
5
05
2011
07:14 AM
7
07
14
AM
PDT
LOL! KF, you're absolutely the last person on this blog who should be lecturing about how blind repetition of already refuted nonsense somehow make it reality.GinoB
November 5, 2011
November
11
Nov
5
05
2011
06:48 AM
6
06
48
AM
PDT
F/n 2: IOSE on the nature and practice of science in an education context, here.kairosfocus
November 5, 2011
November
11
Nov
5
05
2011
06:08 AM
6
06
08
AM
PDT
Thanks for your intervention.kairosfocus
November 5, 2011
November
11
Nov
5
05
2011
05:57 AM
5
05
57
AM
PDT
F/N: IOSE on the issue of methodological naturalism and the issue of natural vs supernatural vs nature vs art, here.kairosfocus
November 5, 2011
November
11
Nov
5
05
2011
05:55 AM
5
05
55
AM
PDT
Actually, this has the opposite effect, as Dr Liddle wanted to classify DNA as being alphabetic not digital.kairosfocus
November 5, 2011
November
11
Nov
5
05
2011
05:46 AM
5
05
46
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5 12

Leave a Reply