Let’s open minds, textbooks to intelligent design theories

_{David L. Hagen

December 20, 2007

Darwinism, Education, Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

A thoughtful article by a perceptive engineer. A good example of priming the Origins Debate pump.

——————————

Let’s open minds, textbooks to intelligent design theories

Intricacies of Earth life-forms, microscopes challenge evolution ideas

Gordon Rose, Letter, Indianapolis Star Dec. 15, 2007

“In our school systems today, science, with its dramatic and continual advancement in knowledge, has to be one of the most interesting as well as important subjects being taught.

Strangely enough, it is here that we are teaching unchallenged, the biggest lie in education — the theory of evolution. Not that the theory shouldn’t be taught — it should, simply because it is believed to be true by so many scientists. But the latest research with modern tools such as the electron microscope, have ruled out any possibility of life on our planet occurring by accident. Modern, competent scientists can show that the unbelievable complexity of design of the human cell, for example, demands the acknowledgement of a designer, or an intelligence far higher than anything we can imagine. . . .” See full article

Comments

jerry (#87), well said and expresses my view of the matter. I would only quibble over your characterization of change in allele frequency over time being the essential true definition of "evolution". It seems to me that this phenomenon is only half of the process. The other half is the origin of new alleles.magnan_{December 26, 2007
December
12
Dec
26
26
2007
02:33 PM
2
02
33
PM
PDT}

PaV, There is only one definition of evolution that I believe makes sense and it gets rid of any equivocation in the debate and that is the one used by the modern synthesis and modern genetics. It is the change of an allele frequency over time. There is no reason not to use it in any discussion. It is applicable to all cases that come up and is the basis for all the other popular definitions of the word evolution. All cases can be analyzed based on this definition. I also do not think one looks smart by denying the obvious. That is what a lot do in the evolution debate. Yes, I do believe those who oppose the Darwinists are wasting time and energy attacking things like natural selection when the main proponents of Intelligent Design (Dembski, Behe, Wells etc.) accept these things as indisputable. I do not care what a few say about Denton. Pin them in the corner on something that is true and substantive. By denying natural selection, and I doubt Provine denies it since MacNeill is such a big proponent of natural selection, one causes the debate to shift to nonsense scenarios as opposed to the essence of the debate which is the origin of variation. If one wants to debate the speed of a change in an allele frequency in a population that is fair game but to deny that it occurs just wastes time and gives the Darwinists ammunition that ID proponents are not scientific.jerry_{December 26, 2007
December
12
Dec
26
26
2007
02:03 PM
2
02
03
PM
PDT}

ari-freedom (#72): " My point is that this self regulation cuts down on the selection process. There would be little competition and no survival of the fittest (whatever fit means)." "Survival of the fittest" selection would be reduced but not eliminated by self-regulation. The kind of axiomatic NS I referred to would inherently always have to apply. After all, to use an extreme example, animals with severe birth defects would still tend to die young. Some of these birth defects could be caused by genetic defects from factors including mutations. This sort of selection and self-regulation in conditions of little environmental change would maintain a sort of stasis. However, if a new competing species comes into the territory or there is a big change in temperature, rainfall, etc. etc. the self regulation of population would be overcome and survival of the fittest NS would take a major role. This mechanism is inherent in life. What seems to be the main issue is what is the source of the genetic variation fuelling NS. "One shouldn’t assume that any genetic change was the result of natural selection" Any given single genetic change must have spread through the population through some causative mechanism. It is normally assumed to be from some one founder individual. The known mechanism for higher animals is that individuals expressing the relevant genes had a tendency to survive to share their genes through sexual reproduction. If this isn't the case, then the logical alternative is that it could have appeared de novo in all the individuals in the population simultaneously or over a couple of generations. This alternative seems a lot less parsimonious in the Occam's Razor sense - requiring a much greater effort by outside Intelligence.magnan_{December 26, 2007
December
12
Dec
26
26
2007
12:46 PM
12
12
46
PM
PDT}

StephenB, in your prior post you give a good description of relationships between logic and observation. I assume it is an extension of my earlier comments about the dropping hammer. As I mentioned in post 81, I'm following this thread through my experience as a high-school science teacher. In that role, I must not claim that we "know" as "fact" that a dropped hammer will fall. I must limit the claims to observation, predictability, and theory - all of which have a probability involved, and no absolutes. The philosophical reason for this limitation has been detailed quite fully on this site, by a variety of posters. Specifically why BarryA's comment piqued my interest, some students may perform the acceleration of gravity test - a weight (like is a hammer) is dropped, dragging a paper tape. Almost always it will fall as predicted. Sometimes it will hang up. That is, sometimes unexpected events will interfere with the prediction of what is "fact". At roughly the same lesson, students will be exposed to people dropping things in orbit, or on the moon. We will see that some observations are merely outliers, some are in a different environment, but usually what we know has the confidence to be considered as fact. The same is true of observations for the biological classes. The students will be shown common events occurring, they will be shown that environments change, and they will be shown that the biological processes - i.e. chemical processes - will sometimes have outlier results. Then, they will be shown theories that attempt to explain these observations.Q_{December 26, 2007
December
12
Dec
26
26
2007
12:02 PM
12
12
02
PM
PDT}

Q: There are certain things that we must take on faith in order to even have a rational discussion. A thing cannot be true and false at the same time and under the same formal circumstances. The obvious corollary, to this principle of non-contradiction is the law of the excluded middle, which holds that there is no gray area between the two. Now granted, the truth of a matter can be hard to establish at times, and the ways that such a truth is expressed linguistically can cause great confusion. If I say, for example, that “If the streets are wet, it must be raining, or if it rains, the street will get wet, I immediately find that, unless I am careful, I can easily stumble over either the meaning of the word “rain” or the word “wet.” So much so, that I can lose track of the principle involved. Some would say, for example, that we socially construct our notion of both facts. What is truly happening may correspond to our interpretation of the events, but our interpretation may well be open to a certain level of scrutiny. Is it really wet if it is merely misty? Is it really raining if we can’t feel the drops? We could, indeed, find evidence that person A has interpreted and defined this event differently that person B. So much so, that a neutral observer may wonder of both parties are observing the same event., We may find that in order to analyze and communicate about these event, and the facts involved, we must “socially construct” an arbitrary definition of “rain” and “wet.” We can only quantify in discrete terms or in the context of mutually understood boundaries. Accordingly, we establish that the streets are wet only when saturated at [x} level of [y] and it is not raining until we feel [a] raindrops at [b] frequency. Each time we conduct and experiment or test of some kind, we are using subjectively oriented constructs. What gets lost, though, is that even though the terms are arbitrary, the regularity and predictability of the events and the facts involved remain consistent. Even though our definitions of “rain” and “wet” are subjective, the objective fact remains that each time it rains, the streets get wet. What we don’t want to do is intrude our subjectivity on an objective event on the grounds that our criteria for measuring that event is subjective. You, and some others on this thread, also seem to labor under the misconception the every inference begins with a presupposition and is therefore a kind of tautology. This error proceeds from the Hume/Kant error which holds that mental images do not reflect their corresponding realities in the world outside the mind. Both Hume and Kant caused all of western world to question whether our internal logic corresponded to nature’s logic? Allowing for our capacity to err and misinterpret, the bottom is that the two realms are indeed proportional and connected. We have rational minds, we live in a rational universe, and there is a correspondence between the two. That is no coincidence; it was set up that way. Modern philosophers and scientists continue to labor under the misconception that there is an epistemological break between us and our world, but, as Reid showed centuries ago, and as Mortimer Adler taught us in the twentieth century, we can be reasonably confident that our senses are not lying to us about “essences” (what a thing is ) in nature even though the material manifestations continue to be a mystery to us at some level. .The point is, we are not assuming or presupposing the thing we are drawing inferences about; we are really drawing inferences. To disagree about any of these points is to render rational discourse impossible. We must all begin with these assumptions or we cannot play the game. Most of all, we must agree that logic (if/then propositions) is dependable. Indeed, in order to prove that if/then propositions don’t work, you must use a series of if/then propositions.StephenB_{December 26, 2007
December
12
Dec
26
26
2007
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT}

evolutionists had to come up with multiple levels of selection. kin selection, group selection, sexual selection. According to Gould, selection occurs at 5 levels: gene, organism, deme, species and clade. Nobody can identify a beneficial trait (or which level of selection should rule) until after the fact. This is metaphysics multiplied. Perhaps the most parsimonious answer is that there is no selection at all and that all of life is one big cooperative self regulating unit, with the regulation coming from the inside, like an ant colony.ari-freedom_{December 26, 2007
December
12
Dec
26
26
2007
11:06 AM
11
11
06
AM
PDT}

PaV (80): Sì, sono nato a Palermo e ho sempre vissuto qui. Conosco Ischia, è un'isola molto bella.gpuccio_{December 26, 2007
December
12
Dec
26
26
2007
11:05 AM
11
11
05
AM
PDT}

PaV, in 79, mentioned "Nothing “evolves”; it “adapts”. I’m ready to fight the Darwinists on this. I'm pursuing this thread because of my career as a high-school science instructor, and the thread is about ideas that are presented in the school systems. So, when presenting the above claim to a class, I'm asking that more than quotes around words to be provided. The "adapts" claim, PaV, indicates some change in the population and environment is occuring. The "evolves" claim suggests a specific process - either the origin of a new feature or the continual distribution of that feature throughout the population. In that regard, PaV, it would be hard to demonstrate to a class that the adapatation claim (change of allele frequency) is mutually exclusive to parts of evolution (the change of an allele frequency once the allele is originated). In other words, I couldn't tell a class whether changes of allele frequency are or are not related to evolutionary theory, but instead I'd still have to say that changes of allele frequency would occur in several theories. Besides, some bright school kid would see right away that if something can be adapted, it probably had an origin. I'm also unsure of your complete position. Allele frequency can be caused by all members of a population having all traits, but only a sub-population expresses the trait. Or, allele frequency can change because only a segment of the population has the trait, and only that part of the population expresses the trait. (I.e. full front loading, versus partial front-loading, or tinkering, or mutation.) The first supports your claim of unlikely extinction. The second, however doesn't, because an unrelated event - like famine or flood - could reduce both segments of the population equally, and once the population uniformaly drops enough, one trait will be gone. If this is being presented to a class, and the best explanation of the trait is that there are two subpopulations - one with and one without an allele - some explanation should be provided about how the two sub-populations came about. Mutation, front-loading, or tinkering, I think.Q_{December 26, 2007
December
12
Dec
26
26
2007
11:02 AM
11
11
02
AM
PDT}

gpuccio (77): I miglei genetori errano d'isola d'Ischia, vicino Napoli. Sei stato nato la in Palermo?PaV_{December 26, 2007
December
12
Dec
26
26
2007
09:43 AM
9
09
43
AM
PDT}

Jerry, I don't think we're very far away from one another when it comes to what's happening out there, trivial as it is. Where I think we disagree is in the approach to be taken. Your approach, if I may be so bold as to speak for you, is to concede this to the Darwinists so as to not spend the time and energy arguing about it. For my part, however, I think that it is good to attack NS for the imaginary force that it is, since to concede to the Darwinists what is trivial emboldens them. E.g., Michael Denton wrote two books. In both books it is clear that he takes the same position as you do Jerry. When writing the second book, Denton's belief in microevolution comes more to the forefront. How do the Darwinists react? "It's good to see that Denton finally admits that evolution exists!" Again, I'm in Willima Provine's camp. NS is a myth. The peppered moth from 400 years ago is no different from the peppered moth from 80 years ago, and is no different from that of the one we now see in the fields outside of London. "Evolution" and "NS" are just "myths" imposed upon a change of appearance. I once said to a Darwinist: "When Europeans came over here from Europe, the generation born here was probably 5-6" taller than the ones being born in Europe. This is a changed phenotype. Doe you consider this evolution?" He answered, "Yes." This is idiocy. Microevolution is no more than the interaction between the adaptive mechanisms inherent in the an organism's genotype and the environment. Nothing "evolves"; it "adapts". I'm ready to fight the Darwinists on this. But then again, I've been known to punch a nose or two here and there.......PaV_{December 26, 2007
December
12
Dec
26
26
2007
09:40 AM
9
09
40
AM
PDT}

PaV, You have described classic natural selection. Natural selection says nothing about new alleles, just the allele frequency in a population due to some environmental change. Two environmental changes took place and two allele frequencies changes took place due to these environmental changes. In neither case did a new allele appear or did one disappear. Just because the environmental came back to something similar does not negate that natural selection did not take place. In fact it took place at least twice. The peppered moth study is classic natural selection and an example of evolution using the modern synthesis definition of evolution. However, it is just trivial and thus useless in the evolution debate. Those who use it essentially admit that there is no empirical evidence for macro evolution. Otherwise they would never keep using these trivial examples.jerry_{December 26, 2007
December
12
Dec
26
26
2007
01:26 AM
1
01
26
AM
PDT}

PaV (#73): Palermo, Sicilia. Buon Natale!gpuccio_{December 25, 2007
December
12
Dec
25
25
2007
10:27 PM
10
10
27
PM
PDT}

industrial pollution isn't really "natural" or even capitalistic as there is no real ownership for air and the public air is just used as a dumping ground.ari-freedom_{December 25, 2007
December
12
Dec
25
25
2007
08:53 PM
8
08
53
PM
PDT}

"Checking the other's numbers......." should be "Checking the author's numbers ....."PaV_{December 25, 2007
December
12
Dec
25
25
2007
08:43 PM
8
08
43
PM
PDT}

Q (51): "Would you agree that your position effectively requires front loading, since it rejects the evolution of new traits? Or, am I missing some alternative?" Not to be evasive, I wasn't arguing for front-loadin---I was arguing "against" natural selection. In your response you talk about 1/N. Well, IIRC, that's the probability that a "neutral mutation" will become fixed. If I may, I'd like to just set aside such probabilities for the time being. In my post, I had reference to an article regarding the new study of Biston bistullaria, the peppered moth. Checking the other's number regarding differential predation and it's link to a decline in the melanic form, to my surprise, I found that the numbers worked. But what was quite evident, mathematically, was that the gene frequency of the melanic form was going to asymptopically reach some small percentage of the population and simply remain there. There are three forms of Biston b.. If we assume a dominant and recessive allele, then whatever this asymptopically arrived percentage of observed melanics (homozygous) ends up being, the actual percentage of this "allele" in the population would be 2-3% higher. [Since two heterozygous moths will produce "grey" to "melanic" in a 3:1 ratio, although three of the four progeny have the "melanic allele"] So, I argue, that this "allele" will never be eliminated in the population. The author of the new study, it would appear, disagrees since he says that the melanic form was on its way to disappearing. Again, I'm arguing that NS is a meaningless term. Remember that Biston b., in the original Kettlewell experiment, was "proof" of "evolution", and thus "proof" of NS. Now, let's take a giant step backwards and take a look at the big picture here. 400 years ago in this same part of the London area---a time long before industrial pollutio---we can safely assume that the "grey" (typica) form of biston b. was the only form to be found. Since industrial pollution never existed before, can't we then assume that the "melanic allele" didn't exist, considering the eons of ages of the moth's existence in the absence of pollution? If this is the case, then, this would mean that under the differential predation pressure that industrial pollution provided, the melanic allele somehow arose. Finally, London having overcome the effects of industrial pollution, the "grey" form is now in the process of "eliminating" the melanic allele. But wait a minute. If it only takes 40 to 50 years to eliminate an allele (as the author suggests is now happening), this would then mean that industrial pollution acted for a long enough period of time for the "grey" allele to have been "eliminated". So, how did it happen that the "grey" allele showed up so quickly once industrial pollution began to be held in check? Isn't the more reasonable interpretation of all of this (using the Principle of Ockams' Razor)*** that: (1) there are two alleles for coloration (this is admittedly a simplictic model); (2) 400 years ago, the gene frequency (percentage of the population) of the "grey" allele is was quite high, while that of the "melanic" was quite low. Industrial pollution then comes along; (3) because of differential predation pressure between G (grey) and M (melanic), the "melanic" allele, M, increases in gene grequency while G decreases to a very low percentage; (4) then when industrial pollution ends, G increases and M decreases to a very low level? [*** It is simpler to assume that an "allele" goes from a low to a high gene frequency then having to assume the "allele" was built up, then eliminated, and then built up all over again.] Now this is all supposed to be "proof" of both "evolution" and NS. Yet, what do we see? After 400 years, we see that Biston b. looks the same as it did 400 years earlier. For the "time-traveler" who comes to the London in the year 1607, and then again in 2007, the Darwinist would try and convince him that "evolution" has taken place due to NS. I submit the Darwinist would have a hard time of it.PaV_{December 25, 2007
December
12
Dec
25
25
2007
08:41 PM
8
08
41
PM
PDT}

gpuccio: "That is a supreme lie. They are caling us unscientific, denialists, IDiots, stupid, criminal, and everything else you can imagine. That is a supreme lie. Either we are right or wrong, we are doing science, in the best of the senses. They are doing censorship, intelectual persecution, dogmatism. If we want a real progress, the restoration of helthy scientific debate about the genesis of biological information “must” take place." Esplendido! Buono Natale! Di che parte d'Italia abiti?PaV_{December 25, 2007
December
12
Dec
25
25
2007
07:44 PM
7
07
44
PM
PDT}

magnan 71 I'm not talking about the origin of the self-regulation. My point is that this self regulation cuts down on the selection process. There would be little competition and no survival of the fittest (whatever fit means). One shouldn't assume that any genetic change was the result of natural selectionari-freedom_{December 25, 2007
December
12
Dec
25
25
2007
03:16 PM
3
03
16
PM
PDT}

ari-freedom (#60): "If animals self-regulate their own population size then is natural selection still axiomatic?" Yes, if you mean the axiomatic NS I previously defined. The self-regulation of population size observation is interesting, but could be explained as a feedback mechanism developed to maximize survival of the species. On the micro real time scale of looking at each moment in the life of any particular individual, the axiomatic principle of survival to reproduction or nonsurvival to reproduction obviously still occurs. Some biological mechanism has developed within the animal to sense the effects of excessive or insufficient population for the local environment (including other species), and probably lower or increase birth rate as necessary in response. "re: common descent. What would life look like so that you would *not* infer common descent?" Interesting question. One thing would be that there would be no apparently accidental genetic defects shared between distantly related forms, like the damaged hemoglobin (pseudo)gene I mentioned in a previous post. Another expected feature of the data would be that the different apparent major "steps" (at the class and family level) in evolution based on the dated fossil record would not show any significant pattern of elaboration based on the previous stage. The lack of such pattern would be demonstrated by comparative physiology. For example, even if vertebrates were still classified into the major groups fish, amphibians, reptiles and mammals, these groups would exhibit no particular homologies. Mammals could have 6 digits, reptiles say 5, and amphibians 4. At the level of basic organ systems, there would be no particular homology between the micro design of the immune systems, liver, heart, brain, etc. etc. These biological systems would all look like they were separately designed from scratch, with the only constraints being functional.magnan_{December 25, 2007
December
12
Dec
25
25
2007
12:56 PM
12
12
56
PM
PDT}

Q: I will try to sum up a few concepts, the way I see them: 1) The theory of CD, at least in its simplest form, states that all present living things derive form the same precursor. CD does not imply any special mechanism for the transformation, and is perfectly compatible with both ID and darwinian evolution. 2) ID is perfectly compatible also with theories different from the standard CD. Darwinian evolution is not. 3) Even if we admit common descent, OOL has almost certainly been an independent event, probably rather sudden. Indeed, the simplest life forms we know are very complex, and could not in any known way derive from simpler intermediates, which have never been observed, either directly or indirectly. All existing theories for OOL, except ID and panspermia, are nuts. 4) Other important "giant steps" could be more difficult than others to explain in the context of common descent: in particular, the appearance of eukaryotes, of multicellular beings, of sexual reproduction. And probably others. 5) The best evidence in favour of common descent comes, as far as I know, from homologies, both in body structures and DNA sequences, between different species, which are usually compatible with a theory of common design; and from the occurrence, in different species, of similar apparently nonsense rats of the genome, like pseudogenes and ERVs. These, if really non functional, would be difficult to explain with common design. But, as you probably know, possible functions of ERVs are a very actual argument. 6) the only thing which seems rather defined is that life originated at some moment in the early history of earth, and that different forms of life, phyla and species, have arisen in different times. Many of these forms are apparently related in some way, according to the criteria given above. The cambrian explosion remains an amazing example of almost sudden appearance of a huge number of different body plans in a very short time, and is at present the most important argument against gradualism, together with OOL and with the almost complete absence of most intermediate links in the fossil record. This is a very gross summary of the main facts and of the main possible theories regarding descent. I think that we ought to consider the problem of descent still vastly open, not so much in the sense of refuting CD, but rather in the sense of frankly admitting that we have no clear understanding of many major aspects of the problem, and that many evidences are controversial, or incomplete. Regarding the causal mechanism of macro-variation, instead (OOL, generation of phyla and species, and so on), in my opinion there is no possible doubt: darwinian evolution has been already vastly falsified as an explanatory mechanism: it is logically inonsistent, because it is incompatible with elementary considerations of statistics and mathematics; and it is empirically inadequate, because it cannot explain most of the known facts, and each new fact we gather adds to its inadequacy. The theory of ID, at present, is the only scientific approach which gives a very good explanatory scenario of known data, in whosw context any new theory about modalities and cronological occurrence can grow, as new facts are added to our knowledge by scientific research.gpuccio_{December 25, 2007
December
12
Dec
25
25
2007
12:14 PM
12
12
14
PM
PDT}

DaveScot commented above "The kind of evolution ID is concerned with is the creation of novel cell types, tissue types, organs, and body plans. None of these have been observed to appear de novo in a living organism." Does ID consider variously observed morphological changes to be evidence that structures sometimes do occur de novo? Not proof necessarily, but evidence that must be accomodated in theory? Some of these observed variations in descent are the presence of new finger structures (pitcher Antonio Alfonseca has six fingers), new foot structures (he has six toes as well), colons of exceptional volume (see the victim of congenital aganglionic megacolon in the Mutter museum in Philadelphia), second uteruses in some women, etc. The question of if non-trivial variations can result in new organs or body plans occur seems to be observable. That the ones observed may be neutral or deleterious leads to other questions, such as how successful those new structures will be in the short term, or if they can trive in the long term. For instance, the variations I indicated may be the result of mutations, front loading, simply freakish anomolies, and may or may not be readily transferrable to descendents, but they have been observed to occur.Q_{December 25, 2007
December
12
Dec
25
25
2007
11:22 AM
11
11
22
AM
PDT}

Q Descent with variation can be observed but the observations you cite are due to recombination. In recombination there is nothing novel but rather just a different mix of characters that were already present in the immediate parent genomes. The kind of evolution ID is concerned with is the creation of novel cell types, tissue types, organs, and body plans. None of these have been observed to appear de novo in a living organism. All we have is their appearance in the fossil record (for what parts will fossilize) and a reasonable supposition for soft tissues that don't fossilize well that modern living creatures which closely resemble the fossilized ones are anatomically similar in soft tissue details. Any other types of descent with modification that have actually been observed are rather trivial and cannot be reasonably shown able to account for, even over the course of deep time, the creation of novel cell types, tissue types, organs, and body plans. Behe's "Edge of Evolution" is an excellent work on what random mutation can and cannot reasonably accomplish given the resources (time and number of replications) available to it.DaveScot_{December 25, 2007
December
12
Dec
25
25
2007
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PDT}

There are a bunch of facts that are part of the study of evolution. One is the different morphologies in the fossil record and the trend they exhibit which is another fact. There are more cell types as the fossil record moves along. That is a fact. There is the definition of evolution from the modern synthesis which is very simple. It is the change in allele frequency in a population over time. This time can be as short as 20 minutes for some bacteria or hundreds of years for some complex animals. So if the allele frequency changes in the population, evolution has taken placed and does not depend upon the change with each off spring which by definition are always different for those who use sexual reproduction. It is the population gene pool which determines whether evolution has taken place. If you stray from these concepts then you can get into all sorts of nonsense discussions. Now we know fairly clearly what causes allele frequency changes in a population so it is not much of debate issue. It is when the we extrapolate to deep time that the discussion gets speculative. There are some processes that have never been observed that explain the facts we observe in the fossil record. If these processes were capable of being observed, they would be facts but for now they are just hypotheses or speculations but some people would like to make these speculations facts which is absurd.jerry_{December 25, 2007
December
12
Dec
25
25
2007
08:24 AM
8
08
24
AM
PDT}

I agree that we cannot have a confused language. I've tried to avoid equivocating common descent with evolution, since common descent is but one portion of evolutionary theory. I've even tried to keep the notion of descent with variation as separate from the whole concept of common descent. Since we agree that variation of descendents is observable, and thus as much a fact as is that a hammer will fall when dropped, something must separate the fact of variation of descendents from the theory of common descent. Would it be the aspect of speciation, or perhaps the amount of variation? If so, do we have clear language on what constitutes speciation for ID, or what amount of variation separates the facts from the theory?Q_{December 25, 2007
December
12
Dec
25
25
2007
04:58 AM
4
04
58
AM
PDT}

BarryA and Q: First of all, merry Christmas to you! Just a couple of brief Christmas comments: 1)BarryA, you say: "Gpuccio writes: “So, common descent could be a fact, only if we had observed directly the whole process, starting with the first living being.” I do not agree with this statement. Common descent MAY have occurred (i.e., it may be a fact) even though no one was around to observe it. Scientists infer the existence of this fact from the data you mention (i.e., the fossil record, etc.). If these scientists’ inference is correct common descent corresponds to reality in the same way the hammer dropping corresponds to reality." I think you are equivocating what I mean, and the meaning itself of the world "fact", at least in scientific language. A fact is a category of scientific "material", defining anything observable, upon which to build theories. Nobody says that a fact "corresponds to reality". That is a rather debatable philosophical affirmation, and has little to do with science, perhaps only with the philosophy of science. So, the problem is never if something "corresponds to reality". The problem, as I said, is different for facts and theories: for facts (that is, observations) we mast ask: have they been really correctly observed? Can they be ysed for theory inference? For theories, we must ask: is it consistent? Does it "describe" correctly known facts? Can it make previsions of new observable facts? I understand that, in common language, we tend to use the word "fact" to say that something is absolutely real, but that is not true in science. Science does not deal with the ultimate reality (that is the field of philosophy), but rather with the explanation of what is observable. So, I can't agree with you that "If these scientists’ inference is correct common descent corresponds to reality in the same way the hammer dropping corresponds to reality". The inference of common descent remains an inference, even if it can "seem" correct (that is, it may be supported by many observed facts and be logically consistent), but it can never be proved "true" (no theory can). New facts, or another theory which explains facts better, can always change its status. So, theories are never ultimately correct, not even the best of them. Instead, the dropping of a single hammer, if correctly observed, has the highest (and only) status for a fact: it is "real", in the sense that it was really observed in a scientifically satisfying way. Nobody is saying that it "corresponds to reality" in any other or deeper sense. So, I maintain that common descent will never be a fact (unless we succeed in directly observing the past, which is always a possibility). 2) Q, you say: "Children do vary from their parents - I know from observation that children look different, and as such have a slightly different morphology. This is, if nothing else, evidence of small - perhaps very small but real - variation of descendents from a common descendent can readily be observed. To claim that variation among descendents is not observable is incorrect. It may not be enough to demonstrate the creation of new species, but the basic action of common descent - variation from parent to child - is observable." I really appreciate your will to specify better your thought, and I think that on this ground we can certainly agree. It would certainly be foolish to affirm that variation among descendents cannot be observed. It certainly can. It certainly is a cat. But variation is not evolution, the two things are quite different. "Evolution", however you define it, remains a theory, because it implies some kind of explanatory meaning in variation (different according to different definitions of evolution). So, the concept of evolution is always a theory, and can never be a fact. Variation, on the contrary, can be objectively defined at various levels: for instance, the occurring of a single nucleotide substitution in a child, which is not present in the original gene of the parent, is quite observable. It is variation. It is a fact. Evolution and common descent, as I have repeatedly affirmed, cannot satisfy, for their same nature, this definition. They are theories. If the observation of various kinds of variation among descendants is enough for you, alone or with other facts, to build and affirm a theory of common descent, I am perfectly happy with that. I always consider any theory of common descent with great respect. They are, in general, more convincing explanations foe the facts we know than, for instance, a theory of separate descent, or a theory of no descent at all. So, at present, I would support, in discussion, common descent, at least in some form. But, please, don't go on saying that it is a fact. Excuse me if I "am" pedantic about that, but we cannot really have a confused language about epistemology and scientific method. Again, happy christmas to all!gpuccio_{December 25, 2007
December
12
Dec
25
25
2007
01:05 AM
1
01
05
AM
PDT}

OOPS accidental cross-post!kairosfocus_{December 25, 2007
December
12
Dec
25
25
2007
12:57 AM
12
12
57
AM
PDT}

All: Greetings at Christmas! Look, today is a very special day, and I have on the sofa behind me an eager-beaver of a Little Kairosfocus (his own self-chosen title!), who is just napping and waiting for dawn to open his present from his indulgent "uncle" G. [I will be giving him and his older sister rather more pedestrian, though unusual, gifts!] And, the morrow is my wife's birthday! So, any serious response is the day after that. (And, I think that we should all be having family time now . . .) I simply note briefly: 1] I see that IDC has evidently responded to my note, over at Amazon. --> I will get around to it, but GP's points are devastatingly revealing, once we apply basic principles of comparative difficulties across worldviews and address the usual selective hyperskepticism that such evo mat rhetoricians routinely use. 2] I see Q is trying to challenge my "premises." --> First, we directly observe agents in action, chance in action and natural regularities in action. So, I would love for him to analyse my case of a die tossed to say play a turn at Monopoly! (A great Christmas gift, that.) --> E.g., from the always linked and as already excerpted in its context:
For instance, heavy objects tend to fall under the natural regularity we call gravity. If the object is a die, the face that ends up on the top from the set {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6} is for practical purposes a matter of chance. But, if the die is cast as part of a game, the results are as much a product of agency as of natural regularity and chance. Indeed, the agents in question are taking advantage of natural regularities and chance to achieve their purposes!
--> I think that this illustrates just how complex cause is. And, that agent action is sigificant and qualitiatively different from chance and necessity. --> Think of the difference if the box has just been opened under the tree, and oops, it spills out, and the dice tumble out to a 7. --> That is very different from the case where in playing a game a bit later that day, that same relatively highly probable 7 would put you at Park Avenue with three hotels on it! "RENT!!!!!" --> Second, on in effect asserting and/or implying that agency reduces to/emerges from chance plus natural regularities in action, Q opens himself up to the major comparative difficulties challenge of the dynamical incoherence of evo mat in accounting for the origin and trustworthiness of the mind. --> This, I and others debated at length in the Aug 20 Charles Darwin, originally humourous, thread; cf. 48 on. So, Q cannot simply say he is challenging my premises and assume that that is good enough -- or else he is simply committing selective hyperskepticism, aka intellectual suicide. [Onlookers, I think you will love the new appendix on the Lucy Pevensie school of epistemology!] 3] In short, the issue does not go away so easily as playing selective hyperskepticism, but leads straight into a major comparative difficulties challenge for evo mat, as my note on the subject linked in the CD thread observed long since:
materialism . . . argues that the cosmos is the product of chance interactions of matter and energy, within the constraint of the laws of nature. Therefore, all phenomena in the universe, without residue, are determined by the working of purposeless laws acting on material objects, under the direct or indirect control of chance. . . .
--> Q, does this not fairly state your [for argument's sake?] position? If so, cf below. [If not, kindly distinguish, with at least and outline explanation. Consequences and CD issues follow.] --> Continuing . . .
But human thought, clearly a phenomenon in the universe, must now fit into this picture. Thus, what we subjectively experience as "thoughts" and "conclusions" can only be understood materialistically as unintended by-products of the natural forces which cause and control the electro-chemical events going on in neural networks in our brains. (These forces are viewed as ultimately physical, but are taken to be partly mediated through a complex pattern of genetic inheritance and psycho-social conditioning, within the framework of human culture.) Therefore, if materialism is true, the "thoughts" we have and the "conclusions" we reach, without residue, are produced and controlled by forces that are irrelevant to purpose, truth, or validity. Of course, the conclusions of such arguments may still happen to be true, by lucky coincidence [NB my always linked, section A, on lucky noise . . .] — but we have no rational grounds for relying on the “reasoning” that has led us to feel that we have “proved” them. And, if our materialist friends then say: “But, we can always apply scientific tests, through observation, experiment and measurement,” then we must note that to demonstrate that such tests provide empirical support to their theories requires the use of the very process of reasoning which they have discredited!
--> Worldview level consequences follow:
Thus, evolutionary materialism reduces reason itself to the status of illusion. But, immediately, that includes “Materialism.” For instance, Marxists commonly deride opponents for their “bourgeois class conditioning” — but what of the effect of their own class origins? Freudians frequently dismiss qualms about their loosening of moral restraints by alluding to the impact of strict potty training on their “up-tight” critics — but doesn’t this cut both ways? And, should we not simply ask a Behaviourist whether s/he is simply another operantly conditioned rat trapped in the cosmic maze?
--> Bottomline:
In the end, materialism is based on self-defeating logic, and only survives because people often fail (or, sometimes, refuse) to think through just what their beliefs really mean. As a further consequence, materialism can have no basis, other than arbitrary or whimsical choice and balances of power in the community [aka "might makes 'right' "], for determining what is to be accepted as True or False, Good or Evil. So, Morality, Truth, Meaning, and, at length, Man, are dead.
--> Q, methinks you have some serious answering to do, on both logic and premises. [. . . ]kairosfocus_{December 25, 2007
December
12
Dec
25
25
2007
12:52 AM
12
12
52
AM
PDT}

BarryA, thank you for seeking an understanding in what I, perhaps laboriously, was writing. It seems that we are no longer talking past each other. A point that I think is a conclusion of my part of this discussion goes back to the original post. In that post, it was claimed that the theory of evolution is the biggest lie in education. What I wanted to point out is that this statement is too broad, and is not supportable even by the developing tenets of ID. Children do vary from their parents - I know from observation that children look different, and as such have a slightly different morphology. This is, if nothing else, evidence of small - perhaps very small but real - variation of descendents from a common descendent can readily be observed. To claim that variation among descendents is not observable is incorrect. It may not be enough to demonstrate the creation of new species, but the basic action of common descent - variation from parent to child - is observable. Instead, to be correct, I suggest, ID should seek to identify what parts biology theory are best explained through ID and which are best explained through other theories. It may be that front-loading is the most reasonable explanation for ID. It may be that some aspects of mutation must be considered as reasonable. But, wholesale suggestions that evolution is a lie, and variation of descendents is never seen, are likewise incorrect. Without the refinements that add to evolution, and not simply dismiss it, ID is probably not ready to be taught in the school books. Oh yeah, you have a good holiday too! :-)Q_{December 24, 2007
December
12
Dec
24
24
2007
10:50 PM
10
10
50
PM
PDT}

Q writes: “ Just as we assume as fact (i.e. infer to be consistently occur) that hammers will fall, we can similarly assume as fact (i.e. infer to occasionally occur) that the descendents will vary from the antecendents, even if only slightly.” I think I understand why we may be talking past each other. The key is in your choice of the words “will fall.” I am not talking about future events based upon extrapolating observations of past events. I am talking about a single discrete event: Just now I dropped a hammer and I observed it fall to the ground. That was a fact. Gpuccio writes: “So, common descent could be a fact, only if we had observed directly the whole process, starting with the first living being.” I do not agree with this statement. Common descent MAY have occurred (i.e., it may be a fact) even though no one was around to observe it. Scientists infer the existence of this fact from the data you mention (i.e., the fossil record, etc.). If these scientists’ inference is correct common descent corresponds to reality in the same way the hammer dropping corresponds to reality. My point has always been very simple. We can be more certain that the hammer dropping just now corresponded to reality because we observed it happen. We must be less certain that common descent corresponds to reality because no one observed it happen. It may have happened (i.e., the inferences from other data may be correct), but we cannot be as sure it happened as we can be as sure that the hammer we just dropped hit the ground. Some facts (especially things that happened in deep time) are forever removed from observation, and their existence must be inferred from the observation of other facts. That does not make them any less facts. It just makes our ability to perceive them dimmer and more subject to error (i.e., we may say of some things that they are facts when they are not). Merry Christmas to all. Now turn off your computers and go be with your loved ones . . . Now; I mean it. ;-)BarryA_{December 24, 2007
December
12
Dec
24
24
2007
07:04 PM
7
07
04
PM
PDT}

magnan 59 If animals self-regulate their own population size then is natural selection still axiomatic? re: common descent. What would life look like so that you would *not* infer common descent?ari-freedom_{December 24, 2007
December
12
Dec
24
24
2007
06:42 PM
6
06
42
PM
PDT}

ari-freedom (#54), re. natural selection. You appear to be defining "natural selection" in the more inclusive elaborate form of a combination of the axiomatic NS as I defined in #47 plus random variation. Genetic drift and all other mechanisms of genetic change are irrelevant to the fact that animals survive or die based on conditions and that the ones that survive to reproduction pass on their genes (whatever they are and however they came to be). This process is inherent in life and has to be a dominant force, but this is not saying that this PLUS RANDOM VARIATION is the dominant force in evolution. Re. common descent, I agree with most of what you said, the main difference being that I tend to go with the preponderance of evidence as to the most likely explanation and think it is at least somewhat compelling. But as you put it we need to keep an open mind.magnan_{December 24, 2007
December
12
Dec
24
24
2007
06:12 PM
6
06
12
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply