Darwinian biologist Jerry Coyne takes on skeptical mathematician David Berlinski

Well you made some claims and haven't supported them. You seem to think that your equivocation means something. ET

ET,

Too bad Allan ran away from this discussion.

Still here. Just waiting for an actual discussion to begin. Allan Keith

Too bad Allan ran away from this discussion. ET

ET @ 62: Well, yes. It's a "fuzzy" specification, i.e. the antenna was already fully designed except for one aspect: the kinks in the wire. The GA doesn't provide materials or construction. It can't even offer that a kink is needed, or even that kinks are what it's specifying. And don't ask it where to plug this thing in. I've read the article @ 60 before (the link is wrong, but I Googled the title); it's a great reread, too. An interesting issue with Avida, per the configuration for Lenski's paper that actually yielded results. It doesn't require any base set of functionality, and functional complexity was universally selected for. If biology were this way, an especially functionally complex component, like a dog brain, would be of most value, and vital structures would be unnecessary (technically, "vital structures" wouldn't exist). Thus, a pile of dog brains would be superior to a dog in terms of fitness. LocalMinimum

Just think what would happen if the GA's didn't have a pre-specified goal. The antenna GA would never produce an antenna. Dawkins weasel would never hit upon the Shakespeare line. Nothing of note would ever happen. ET

ET @ 59:

Genetic algorithms use telic processes to solve the problems they were intelligently designed to solve. They are goal oriented.

Totally agree. Producing a proper Darwinistic simulation would require a near complete encephalectomy of a GA. Excellent link. I shall be digging in. Thank you! LocalMinimum

LocalMinimum- Genetic algorithms use telic processes to solve the problems they were intelligently designed to solve. They are goal oriented. You will also enjoy the following: Evolution by Intelligent Design: A Response to Lenski et al. For example:

When Lenski et al. created a simulation with high irreducible complexity, i.e. there was no selective advantage until the target function arose, EQU never evolved! Consider this quote from the Lenski paper:

"At the other extreme, 50 populations evolved in an environment where only EQU was rewarded, and no simpler function yielded energy. We expected that EQU would evolve much less often because selection would not preserve the simpler functions that provide foundations to build more complex features. Indeed, none of these populations evolved EQU, a highly significant difference from the fraction that did so in the reward-all environment (P ~= 4.3 x 10-9, Fisher's exact test)."

ET

AK @ 56: Well, there are plenty alleged. But they're all bluff and bunk. They all cheat and/or are just plain wrong, in many ways, without exception; which is pretty damning in and of itself. Some example practically universal problems: there are no minimum functional requirements, i.e. all configurations are viable, and there is no extinction, only substitution. Selection is often 100% correlated to a fitness function which is almost always defined on a single axis, so no antagonism between selective pressures creating potential wells in the fitness landscape. And these two cheats alone (and they're not going to be alone) are about enough to generate great piles of junk that would get selected into extinction by a proper simulation, but don't; and become what would be IC in a proper simulation, but without ever dealing with any of the barriers that define IC. Then they point to their fantasy world generated trash pile and say "look, emergent IC!" A simulation of evolution that was what it says on the tin would quickly become the focus of the debate; the gatekeeper, even; as it would put evolution on an actual theoretical standing. It would be the mathematical argument that Darwin could've put forward to actually stand with Newton, Einstein, etc. Won't be holding my breath. Genetic algorithms stripped to faithfully recreate RM+NS don't do much of anything. Far more capable algorithms require careful supervision and coaching to produce specific aspects of systems far less sophisticated than biology. LocalMinimum

Allan:

I was just responding to the obviously wrong claim that there are no computer simulations of evolution.

Except that wasn't the claim. The equivocation runs deep with this one.

But I know the difference between a volcano and a mountain.

Which is what? A mountain is a large landform that stretches above the surrounding land in a limited area, usually in the form of a peak. A mountain is generally steeper than a hill. Mountains are formed through tectonic forces or volcanism.

You should take a lesson from Tribune7, StephenB and others here who take a mature approach to debate.

You are a hypocrite. But hey if it gets you to ignore everything that was wrong with your argument then go for it. That is expected from your ilk. ET

LM,

List your personal favorites, please.

I don’t know enough about them to have a favourite. I was just responding to the obviously wrong claim that there are no computer simulations of evolution. Allan Keith

ET,

So Mount St Helens isn’t a mountain? Are you daft?

No. But I know the difference between a volcano and a mountain. Nice talking to you, but I don’t continue discussions with people who can’t disagree with someone without insulting them. You should take a lesson from Tribune7, StephenB and others here who take a mature approach to debate. Allan Keith

AK @ 52:

Except for all of the computer simulations.

List your personal favorites, please. LocalMinimum

So Mount St Helens isn't a mountain? Are you daft?

Except for millions of pieces of evidence from several different fields of study.

Negative. You are equating evolution with evolutionism.

Except for all of the computer simulations.

For example? Genetic algorithms use telic processes so they don't help you. So tell us what simulations show that bacteria can evolve into eukaryotes? You don't have a mechanism capable of that transformation. Peer-review isn't of any help as all it has in endosymbiosis which only gets you organelles and even that is speculation. No one can say how natural selection, drift or any other blind and mindless processes produced ATP synthase. You can't even muster a testable hypothesis for it

Except for the millions of observations that have been made that support evolution.

So you are equivocating. Is that really the best that you can do?

Except for the mountains of evidence, observations and published research papers suggesting otherwise.

Negative. We have asked for the papers that support evolution by means of blind and mindless processes and you ran away. The best evidence for macroevolution doesn't mention a mechanism- meaning it does NOT support evolution by means of blind and mindless processes. Microevolution- those small changes- cannot add up to macroevolution- the large changes- because there are different genes involved: Loci that are obviously variable within natural populations do not seem to lie at the basis of many major adaptive changes, while those loci that seemingly do constitute the foundation of many if not most major adaptive changes are not variable.- John McDonald, “The Molecular Basis of Adaptation: A Critical Review of Relevant Ideas and Observation”, Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics: 14, 1983, p77-102 Changing eye color does not explain vision systems. But that is moot as you don't seem to have a clue what is being debated even though it has been spelled out for you many times. Intelligent Design is NOT anti-evolution So all you can do is bluff and equivocate. Thank you ET

ET,

We can make diamonds so we understand the process.

OK. I’ll give you that

We have seen mountains rise, too (Paricutin).

No. We have seen volcanoes rise. Mountain formation has been postulated from observed small incremental changes extrapolated over long periods of time. Sound familiar?

Stars are a little but trickier but thanks to computers and the Hubble telescope we have a very good handle on it.

Still based on small scale observations extrapolated over a long period of time.

Evolutionism doesn’t have anything.

Except for millions of pieces of evidence from several different fields of study.

No computer simulations.

Except for all of the computer simulations.

No observations-

Except for the millions of observations that have been made that support evolution.

nothing but lies, bluffs and equivocations

Except for the mountains of evidence, observations and published research papers suggesting otherwise. Allan Keith

We can make diamonds so we understand the process. We have seen mountains rise, too (Paricutin). Stars are a little but trickier but thanks to computers and the Hubble telescope we have a very good handle on it. Evolutionism doesn't have anything. No computer simulations. No observations- nothing but lies, bluffs and equivocations ET

ET,

Negative. Those venues have actual evidence and a way to test their claims.

Really? How was mountain formation tested. Diamond formation? Star formation? Allan Keith

AK The same sort of “story telling” is used by geologists, nuclear physicists, archeologists and cosmologists Really? nature is absolutely replete with "mechanisms"? Why the universe must be one giant mechanism! All these mechanisms just accidently sprang into existence, what a fantastic story! groovamos

I think poor Jerry Coyne must be envious because he is mocking Berlinski. Also I was hoping Allan Keith would get comment 47 Eugen

Allan:

The same sort of “story telling” is used by geologists, nuclear physicists, archeologists and cosmologists.

Negative. Those venues have actual evidence and a way to test their claims. Evolutionism does not. For example no one can say how natural selection, drift or any other blind and mindless processes produced ATP synthase ET

Groovamos,

Or is this word “mechanism” mainly useful for story telling? In case you haven’t noticed, story telling is what Darwinists do,...

The same sort of “story telling” is used by geologists, nuclear physicists, archeologists and cosmologists. Allan Keith

AK: extending ID research into developing and testing hypotheses about possible mechanisms used to realize the design. So whatever exists, is extant due to "possible mechanisms"? Is that a scientific pronouncement? If so based on what? Where is the proof or better yet how would one falsify such an assertion? Shouldn't there be a thing somewhere or maybe everywhere universally called a 'mechanism' agreed upon by all of science for to be true? Or is this word "mechanism" mainly useful for story telling? In case you haven't noticed, story telling is what Darwinists do, not I.D. proponents, with the exception of telling the story of how and especially why, Darwinists tell stories. groovamos

Allan There is plenty of DNA that does not result in CSI and IC. In fact, the vast majority of it doesn’t. You remove guanine from a DNA molecule what happens? Regarding CSI, I'm not sure what DNA molecule doesn't have it but even granting the point that there are "plenty", you would only need one to perfectly correlate with the theory. the question on the table is the correlation to design. Well yes. You have a theory that says these characteristics perfectly correlate to design and this object has those characteristics. tribune7

Allan, Living organisms, their systems and subsystems correlate to design. It is a one-to-one correlation. And your position doesn't have anything to explain it. Attacking IDists is all you have and that is the coward's way. ET

Tribune7,

And you would be right but the correlation between CSI & IC with DNA is 1.

Hardly. There is plenty of DNA that does not result in CSI and IC. In fact, the vast majority of it doesn’t. But regardless, the question on the table is the correlation to design. Allan Keith

Allan For example, a correlation coefficient of 0.995 suggests a much stronger correlation than one of 0.625. And you would be right but the correlation between CSI & IC with DNA is 1. tribune7

Tribune7,

Allan, @32 Can you explain that (strengths of the conclusions drawn from them}" I only refer to this in the same way that we do in statistics or regression analysis. For example, a correlation coefficient of 0.995 suggests a much stronger correlation than one of 0.625.

Allan Keith

I must correct myself @ 36. Allen's approach wouldn't inform them that it wasn't designed, it would inform them that they had no reason to expect that it was designed, ad absurdum being the mode. LocalMinimum

OK, clearly Allan lied and there isn't any viable alternative and Allan cannot say how it was supposed to be viable. Typical ET

Allan, @32 Can you explain that (strengths of the conclusions drawn from them} tribune7

No. The identification of human design is obviously not based on faith.

Those scratches in the walls of caves we find are not independently indicative of human design, just regularities that don't fit available mindless processes. Bored alien visitors awaiting a slow rendezvous could've carved regular lines in a stone without betraying a non-human nature. We are first informed of design, then reference agents. If hunter gatherers isolated from the rest of the world found a dead cellphone, your approach would inform them that it wasn't designed. After all, they can't identify it as a human design. People from an early industrial age couldn't identify it as a human design.

However, the claim that you can identify design in biological organisms is based on faith as, to date, nobody has been able to do so.

Human designers are biological organisms and human design is a function of biology, from a materialist perspective. I feel if I could produce a piece of software that could algorithmically manage what Darwin attributes to RM+NS, it would be fair to call it an automatic designer. Purpose and goals don't matter; The purpose and goals of human designers are already simply a factor of this alleged mechanism, right? So why can't I just call Darwinism a design inference pointing to an idiot designer hiding in the noise and environment of a self-propagating system? LocalMinimum