Is “Directed Evolution” Darwinian? [with addendum]

_{William Dembski

April 11, 2007

Darwinism, Evolution, Intelligent Design}

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

I posted a reference the other day to a peer-reviewed paper by two Finnish ID-supporters that I claimed supported ID. The paper highlighted that evolutionary methods work to the degree that they are directed. As is typical with our detractors, whenever a pro-ID paper by pro-ID scientists comes out in a peer-reviewed biology journal, they try their best to show that it doesn’t actually support ID. An example is the following post at PT by Steve Reuland:

pandasthumb.org…the_proid_paper

In reading Reuland’s critique, try to keep track of “rational design,” “directed evolution,” and “Darwinian methods.” Reuland conflates the last two. In so doing, Reuland completely misses the boat. So let me spell it out: DIRECTED EVOLUTION IS NON-DARWINIAN. DARWINIAN EVOLUTION IS NON-DIRECTED. I’ve been saying this now for close to a decade (see ch. 4 of my book No Free Lunch). Just because the word “evolution” is used doesn’t mean that homage is being paid to Darwin. “Directed evolution” properly falls under ID.

[Steve Reuland, commenting at the Panda’s Thumb on this post, claims that I’ve misrepresented him and the paper. If he but were to read the paper closely, he would find that it distinguishes between Darwinian evolution as an “inspiration” to directed search and “Darwinian blind search” as inherently limited. Darwinian evolution, which is blind, is the inspiration for evolutionary computing, which employs well-crafted fitness landscapes to achieve ends and therefore is not blind — and therefore is properly a branch of ID and non-Darwinian. Yes, we’re playing a turf war here. But it will not do to have Darwin discard teleology and then to claim teleological processes as Darwinian. This is an abuse of language. Leisola and Turunen skirted the edge yet nuanced their views adequately; but Reuland is guilty of it.]

Comments

Great Ape, Let me try to elaborate a bit. Natural Selection is another name for Differential Reproduction. Some organisms have a higher net reproduction turnout than others; thus, these are said to be "selected" by "nature". What we really mean, when we examine it, is that some replicators replicate more than others and the offspring of these will exist in greater numbers. (A tautology.) Now, this point has been brought up by others, but that is not the force of what I am trying to say. Let's say we have to "forces": force A and force B. Force A examines all organisms, decides that those with a certain trait should be the ones who reproduce, then allow those to reproduce in greater numbers. The result is differential reproduction and the cause is Force A: Force A causes differential reproduction. Then we have force B. Let's say in the absence of force A, all organisms reproduce at whatever rate they choose, with all the uncertainty of reproduction. Some of these are stronger, or faster, or usually just luckier, so they reproduce more than others. The net effect is the same, and we label the EFFECT Force B. Notice, Force B describes the end result, differential reproduction, not the cause of that result. That is the thrust of what I am saying. People tend to see NS as a "force" capable of doing something further, when no, it is a description of the end result. Sompare this to the words of Darwin (notice how he makes NS an almost intelligence like force):
"It may be said that natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinising throughout the world, every variation, even the slightest; rejecting that which is bad, preserving and adding up all that is good; silently and insensibly working, whenever and wherever opportunity offers, at the improvement of each organic being in relation to its organic and inorganic conditions of life."
I am not aware of anyone else making that precise point. So any folly inherent in my argument is strictly my own I guess. :)Atom_{April 11, 2007
April
04
Apr
11
11
2007
03:00 PM
3
03
00
PM
PDT}

The source of most of the world's evil is not religion, like the organized atheists decry. Rather, it is Darwinism, an acid which destroys all goodness, beauty and meaning it touches. I think in Fred Hoyle's book the Intelligent Universe, Hoyle predicted that if the paradigm of thought didn't change from nihilistic Darwinism to something along the lines of Intelligent Design then society and the human race were destined for destruction. How can you can you convince true blue atheists/naturalists that they may in fact be mistaken? After all isn't Darwinism, like Communism simply a substitute religion?DanaMcgee_{April 11, 2007
April
04
Apr
11
11
2007
02:58 PM
2
02
58
PM
PDT}

great_ape, As you said the other day about natural selection, the environment including other organisms shape reproductive success and they are non- teleological forces. Artificial selection is teleological and intelligent directed. So they are very different. Yes in some ways they are the same but in essence very different. Interesting thing is that NS affects humans in a lot of ways but human reproduction is still mostly unaffected by NS.jerry_{April 11, 2007
April
04
Apr
11
11
2007
02:54 PM
2
02
54
PM
PDT}

DaveScot, wonderful post! I think you have very well defined the possible range of what is usually called "microevolution": creating variation which is, in essence, random and unrelated to complex function. That's reasonable, and observable. Instead, the mere idea that the repeated sum of a great number of this kind of variations can generate complex new information and function is simply ridiculous. GilDodgen, regarding the Weasel program, I perfectly agree with you that it is a wonderful example of how a random search can generate CSI if you already have the specified information you are trying to generate. The secret of that program is that the program already knows the final information, and so it can use a random search which "builds", step by step, the final result, by comparing each random bit obtained with the right sequence, and fixing it. That's easy, although it still requires some search, due to the random method of inducing variation. It's what we can call: "design through random variation and intelligent selection according to a specific plan". I really can't understand how any sentient being can use that example to promote the concept of darwinian evolution! In darwinian evolution, by definition the final information to be obtained is not known to the system, neither as a whole nor in any of its parts, and the supposed "fixing" has to happen according to function, not to recognition of information. That simply cannot happen, for two important reasons, each of which would be enough to rule out the theory from the realm of reasonable thinking: a) The space of functions is not continuos. You cannot pass from one function to another, different one, through a continuous number of modified functions, even if that continuity is reduced to single bit variations. After all, functions are not real numbers, not even natural numbers. A function is usually separated from another one by an ocean of non functional combinations. Functions are islands in the sea of possibilities. That's, in my opinion, a simple way of understanding Dembski's ideas about specification, and why CSI, and especially functionally specified complex information, can never arise from the noise of random variation. b) Many of the functions we observe in living beings are IC. Behe has shown that very simply, many years ago, and nobody has been able to answer that. All the attempts to show a reasonable way to IC biological machines has been, at best, pitiful. IC is a milestone in the ID thought, and that concept alone should be enough for anybody to reject darwinism. But the weasel program shows us very well how everything changes if we alredy know the information we want to implement. In other words, if we have a design to guide us. Then, random variation becomes a powerful tool to induce new configurations which define progressively narrower search spaces, fixing the bits already obtained, until the search space becomes narrow enough to allow the final result. I think we have a very good example of a "weasel" mechanism in the process of antibody maturation. The development of the immune system, both T and B, is really a marvel from the point of view of design. Here, speaking for simplicity only of the B part (antibody response), the B precusror undergoes somatic DNA mutations (random?), whose final result is to create a repertoire of receptors (membrane immunoglobulins in virgin B cells), which we can imagine as a well distantiated number of different antibody configurations, something like a great number of small islands in the sea of possible configurations, so that most "epitopes" occuring in nature (that is, the reacting sites of antigens) can be in some way recognized. This process of controlled mutation to attain a diversified, punctuated repertoire of combinations covering the search space of epitopes (a large, but not extremely large search space, given that an epitope is usually 3-20 aminoacids)is in itself really astounding, but not so astounding as what happens after. First of all, the repertoire must be intelligently "depleted" of all self-antigens, but we'll not enter into details of that. But, when an epitope of a foreign antigen is recognized (through a very complex and controlled procedure, involving the processing of the antigen by very intelligent antigen presenting cells, and then the stimulation and regulation by a T helper lymphocyte), the specific B lymphocyte begins to proliferate, giving birth to a clone of effector cells (plasma cells, secreting antibodies) and memory cells. But here comes the really amazing part. The initial antibodies are usually weak, their specificity for the antigen is only approximate. And then, a process of "maturation" starts. Well, this process, for what we know of it (which is not much), is very similar to the weasel program. A very intensive process of hypermutation starts, but it implies only the small segment of DNA which codes for the antibody receptor site, or the very near regions of DNA. Out of many mutant cells, only those with higher specificity for the original antigen are selected. Well, that's the interesting part: the results of a random (but very, very focused) hypermutation, whose mechanisms still defy us, are selected by matching them with a pre-existing information: the original antigenic epitope. And, even if the details of how that happens are not known, you can bet that it will certainly be a very intelligent and controlled procedure, involving the antigen presenting cell and various regulatory T cells, not to speak of lots of specific cytokines and other factors. In other words, the organism prepares itself by building a very intelligent random repertoire for all necessities, then recognizes and processes and stores a specific information from the environment (the antigen), then reacts to it with the means available in the repertoire (immature antibodies), and finally refines its response through a very controlled process of random (but not "natural") hypermutation followed by very intelligent selection, utilizing the original information (the antigen) to select the maximum function. This final process is very similar to the weasel program. It demonstrates how a very intelligent, designed process, utilizing a preformed information, can implement it in a new clone (the only difference is that, in the case of antibody maturation, the information contained in the antigen, in other words its form and chemical properties, is duplicated in a mirrored form, as an antibody, like in building a keyhole on a key). And, obviously, exactly like the weasel example, antibody maturation has immediately been presented as a proof of darwinian evolution... Well, Shakespeare's works will never be cloned by typing monkeys, that's for sure, but his beautiful words in Hamlet's monologue or in the even more beautiful Sonnet LXVI, about the subversion of values in human experience, about beholding "right perfection wrongfully disgrac'd" and "simple truth miscall'd simplicity", will always comfort and reassure us in this jungle of meaninglessness.gpuccio_{April 11, 2007
April
04
Apr
11
11
2007
02:44 PM
2
02
44
PM
PDT}

DaveScot, wonderful post! I think you have very well defined the possible range of what is usually called "microevolution": creating variation which is, in essence, random and unrelated to complex function. That's reasonable, and observable. Instead, the mere idea that the repeated sum of a great number of this kind of variations can generate complex new information and function is simply ridiculous. GilDodgen, regarding the Weasel program, I perfectly agree with you that it is a wonderful example of how a random search can generate CSI if you already have the specified information you are trying to generate. The secret of that program is that the program already knows the final information, and so it can use a random search which "builds", step by step, the final result, by comparing each random bit obtained with the right sequence, and fixing it. That's easy, although it still requires some search, due to the random method of inducing variation. It's what we can call: "design through random variation and intelligent selection according to a specific plan". I really can't understand how any sentient being can use that example to promote the concept of darwinian evolution! In darwinian evolution, by definition the final information to be obtained is not known to the system, neither as a whole nor in any of its parts, and the supposed "fixing" has to happen according to function, not to recognition of information. That simply cannot happen, for two important reasons, each of which would be enough to rule out the theory from the realm of reasonable thinking: a) The space of functions is not continuos. You cannot pass from one function to another, different one, through a continuous number of modified functions, even if that continuity is reduced to single bit variations. After all, functions are not real numbers, not even natural numbers. A function is usually separated from another one by an ocean of non functional combinations. Functions are islands in the sea of possibilities. That's, in my opinion, a simple way of understanding Dembski's ideas about specification, and why CSI, and especially functionally specified complex information, can never arise from the noise of random variation. b) Many of the functions we observe in living beings are IC. Behe has shown that very simply, many years ago, and nobody has been able to answer that. All the attempts to show a reasonable way to IC biological machines has been, at best, pitiful. IC is a milestone in the ID thought, and that concept alone should be enough for anybody to reject darwinism. But the weasel program shows us very well how everything changes if we alredy know the information we want to implement. In other words, if we have a design to guide us. Then, random variation becomes a powerful tool to induce new configurations which define progressively narrower search spaces, fixing the bits already obtained, until the search space becomes narrow enough to allow the final result. I think we have a very good example of a "weasel" mechanism in the process of antibody maturation. The development of the immune system, both T and B, is really a marvel from the point of view of design. Here, speaking for simplicity only of the B part (antibody response), the B precusror undergoes somatic DNA mutations (random?), whose final result is to create a repertoire of receptors (membrane immunoglobulins in virgin B cells), which we can imagine as a well distantiated number of different antibody configurations, something like a great number of small islands in the sea of possible configurations, so that most "epitopes" occuring in nature (that is, the reacting sites of antigens) can be in some way recognized. This process of controlled mutation to attain a diversified, punctuated repertoire of combinations covering the search space of epitopes (a large, but not extremely large search space, given that an epitope is usually 3-20 aminoacids)is in itself really astounding, but not so astounding as what happens after. First of all, the repertoire must be intelligently "depleted" of all self-antigens, but we'll not enter into details of that. But, when an epitope of a foreign antigen is recognized (through a very complex and controlled procedure, involving the processing of the antigen by very intelligent antigen presenting cells, and then the stimulation and regulation by a T helper lymphocyte), the specific B lymphocyte begins to proliferate, giving birth to a clone of effector cells (plasma cells, secreting antibodies) and memory cells. But here comes the really amazing part. The initial antibodies are usually weak, their specificity for the antigen is only approximate. And then, a process of "maturation" starts. Well, this process, for what we know of it (which is not much), is very similar to the weasel program. A very intensive process of hypermutation starts, but it implies only the small segment of DNA which codes for the antibody receptor site, or the very near regions of DNA. Out of many mutant cells, only those with higher specificity for the original antigen are selected. Well, that's the interesting part: the results of a random (but very, very focused) hypermutation, whose mechanisms still defy us, are selected by matching them with a pre-existing information: the original antigenic epitope. And, even if the details of how that happens are not known, you can bet that it will certainly be a very intelligent and controlled procedure, involving the antigen presenting cell and various regulatory T cells, not to speak of lots of specific cytokines and other factors. In other words, the organism prepares itself by building a very intelligent random repertoire for all necessities, then recognizes and processes and stores a specific information from the environment (the antigen), then reacts to it with the means available in the repertoire (immature antibodies), and finally refines its response through a very controlled process of random (but not "natural") hypermutation followed by very intelligent selection, utilizing the original information (the antigen) to select the maximum function. This final process is very similar to the weasel program. It demonstrates how a very intelligent, designed process, utilizing a preformed information, can implement it in a new clone (the only difference is that, in the case of antibody maturation, the information contained in the antigen, in other words its form and chemical properties, is duplicated in a mirrored form, as an antibody, like in building a keyhole on a key). And, obviously, exactly like the weasel example, antibody maturation has immediately been presented as a proof of darwinian evolution... Well, Shakespeare's works will never be cloned by typing monkeys, that's for sure, but his immortal words in Hamlet's monologue or in the even more beautiful Sonnet LXVI, about the subversion of values in human experience, about beholding "right perfection wrongfully disgrac'd" and "simple truth miscall'd simplicity", will always comfort and reassure us in this jungle of meaninglessness.gpuccio_{April 11, 2007
April
04
Apr
11
11
2007
02:42 PM
2
02
42
PM
PDT}

"Natural Ã¢â‚¬Å“SelectionÃ¢â‚¬Â on the other hand is a-causal; it doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t cause differential reproduction, because it IS differential reproduction." --Atom I have to say again that this line of reasoning is highly suspect. By drawing a very straightforward analogy, humans play the same role in artificial selection that the environment plays in natural selection. The only sense that artificial selection is different consists in the entity or entities that are doing the filtering (i.e. that are defining which individuals differentially reproduce.) Yet how it is, under any common understanding of causality, you find artificial selection to be *more* causal than natural selection completely escapes me. Is this an argument you developed yourself or did you read it somewhere? If so, I'd like to find out what the original source is.great_ape_{April 11, 2007
April
04
Apr
11
11
2007
02:40 PM
2
02
40
PM
PDT}

"Dave, This is such a good essay (#16), why donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t you repost it as a new topic so it wonÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t be lost in the comments here?" Please do, DaveScot. I've copied it and saved it to a word doc.... but it would be cool if you'd post it as its own topic - easier retrieval.Tedsenough_{April 11, 2007
April
04
Apr
11
11
2007
01:01 PM
1
01
01
PM
PDT}

Dave, This is such a good essay (#16), why donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t you repost it as a new topic so it wonÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t be lost in the comments here? On the WEASEL program: A main point to note is that a letter is preserved in a given position even though it still produces complete gibberish, because it is known in advance that this letter will need to be in this position in the future to reach the goal. (For example HREJDF would be replaced with HREJDL because the L is in the right place to produce WEASEL later on, even though both strings are complete gibberish.) This is precisely NOT what Darwinian evolution is all about. How Carl Sagan could not have noted this is completely beyond me.GilDodgen_{April 11, 2007
April
04
Apr
11
11
2007
10:23 AM
10
10
23
AM
PDT}

DaveScot writes: "The question then becomes one of how many such agencies exist in the universe, what forms they can take, did any of those possible forms predate humanity, and did they have the physical means, motive, and opportunity to accomplish the things we see here without violation of any known laws of physics." This seems to be a crucial question, so I just wonder, is there any other research directed at this other than the SETI project?Dizzy_{April 11, 2007
April
04
Apr
11
11
2007
09:47 AM
9
09
47
AM
PDT}

I understand that the ID position is that the protein itself had to have been designed, not the variations that can occur through mutation. Proteins don't automatically warrant a design inference. It depends on the function of the protein and interdependencies on other proteins. A signalling protein could easily get a random mutation that slightly modifies a biologically active site making it more or less able to bind with a target and that can change a whole downstream cascade of events with large scale ramifications. I think I read recently that such a site has been implicated in whether a dog turns out to be a large or small breed, for example, as the cascade result is how much growth hormone is produced. It's not the sole determinant though as you can cross a large breed sire with a small breed bitch and the puppies never turn out so large the mother can't bear them. On the other hand some proteins that are components in intricate molecular machines and because their shape must critically match the shapes of other components for the machine to function variations that change the shape would cause the machine to not work without simultaneous variations that change the shape in other proteins. These simultaneous changes seem to go far beyond any reasonable odds of happening together. Click on the "Categories" sidebar Molecular Animations to see some examples of this type of molecular machinery. People have found this one particularly compelling for its simplicity, ease of understanding, and difficulty in imagining how it could have evolved ex nihilo. The problem it solves is DNA supercoiling which must have been a problem from the very first DNA molecule, all forms of life have one or both these machines in them, so it presents a classic chicken/egg problem with only one protein involved. What came first, the DNA molecule that has to have a topoisomerase family enzyme in order to be unwound for replication and reading or the DNA molecule that carries the information required to construct a topoisomerase enzyme? And this is a very very simple machine made of a single protein unlike many others you'll see in that animation series in which the machines are formed of multiple proteins. A ribosome in particular is composed of many different proteins and ribonucleic acids working together. The whole machine must be assembled and working in order produce the parts that make the up machine that makes the parts! This particular machine is also present in every form of life and is so basic (it's the machine that reads the coded information in a gene and builds a protein according to the coded assembly sequence) no life as we know it is possible at all without it. How'd that happen without a designer envisioning the entire machine in abstract then building all the hundreds of interlocking pieces that make it up simultaneously? It's like proposing that you can build an automobile by starting off with randomly shaped chunks of metal and just randomly changing the shapes until they all fit together into a working automobile. To compound the problem you need a fully working automobile to gather the parts together to make an automobile. This is the story the chance & necessity pundits ask you to accept and take as a matter of materialistic faith that, impossible as it sounds, eventually science will reveal how it was done without intelligent agency. And speaking of dogs, that brings up what appear to be fundamental limits on variation that mutation and selection can produce. Dogs are possibly the most widely varying species on the planet while still remaining a single species. In 20,000 years of artificial selection and preservation of variants that never would have survived in the wild there hasn't been a single variant with an anatomical feature not characteristic of canines nor has a new species of dog emerged. Not even something as simple as a retractable claw. The variations are entirely limited to the deleterious (dogs are predisposed to a large litany of genetic disorders) and the cosmetic. You can get big dogs and small dogs (change in scale) you can get wide variation in ratio of body part size (change in aspect), you can get broadly different coloration, patterning, coat length and thickness, and that's about it. What artificial selection and preservation can't accomplish seems to be even farther beyond the scope of natural selection and preservation which is restricted in that any variation must be either nearly neutral or decidedly beneficial in order to have the selection value required to fix the variation within the population. Island species are another good example of these limits. Isolation on an island for millions of years and the quite different environmental pressures (or lack thereof) drives selection at an accelerated rate for island species. The result is often dwarfism or gigantism but never any variation on the level required for evolution writ large like the appearance of a novel cell type, tissue type, organ, or body plan. In short, the observed limits of highly accelerated natural selection over millions of years are same kind of limits in variation you see in dogs through thousands of years of artificial selection but nothing beyond that. It appears there is something other than random mutation and natural selection that produces the fundamental differences between the higher taxonomic categories. Intelligent agency solves all these problems. We already know for a fact that intelligent agency with the capability or near capability of building or modifying complex organic machines in defiance of impossible odds of random assembly is extant in the present universe. That agency is us. The question then becomes one of how many such agencies exist in the universe, what forms they can take, did any of those possible forms predate humanity, and did they have the physical means, motive, and opportunity to accomplish the things we see here without violation of any known laws of physics. For example any agency in a remote galaxy would be prohibited from influencing anything in this galaxy because of the limitation imposed by the speed of light barrier. Given that normal matter and energy compose only a small fraction (5%) of what makes up the universe it seems premature to rule out exotic forms of intelligent agency that could very well be composed of non-baryonic matter that we only suspect exists through indirect observation of its gravitational effects on normal matter. In fact what we consider normal matter and energy may be the minority component and thus really an atypical form in the big picture - the froth on the top of an unplumbed ocean. Hubris is rampant in the halls of science today. Of course that's nothing new. The history of science is littered with disgarded theories that were once thought to be writ in granite. Thinking we have a fundamental understanding of nature where that understanding is lacking only in the fine details is something that has plagued inquiry since the getgo. DaveScot_{April 11, 2007
April
04
Apr
11
11
2007
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PDT}

Fross asked about our canine friends: Good question: Certainly this is directed, and thus we get the small ones who can fit in holes like Dachsunds to chase small animals, the very obedient working dogs, fight with each other for sport, and those who just sit around the house gaining weight. Some would argue we've done a great disservice. There is genetic damage evident, as in hip displaysia in German Shepards and just the general dumbness of some breeds compared to the wolf. Interestingly, they can all interbreed. Discover Magazine featured an article on Man's Best pal a few years ago portraying them as "they've been evolving for 12,000 years--so what's up with man's best friend." Sorry--"they" have not been "evolving" so much as being bred for whatever purposes we thought for them. Be that bad or good. But sorry again, IMHO Pandas Thumb does not get the brownie point on directed evolution any more than cute articles in Discover. As to Dawkins mechanism for weeding out superfluous letters, he is a weasel if he thinks this has not been answered in so many places before. And it has. His lock and gear mechanism analogy can be used to argue anything. You have but to know the code. Both Canines and Gears require Design parameters to make them bark or say what we want.Wakefield Tolbert_{April 11, 2007
April
04
Apr
11
11
2007
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT}

I read the PT response a day or two ago, and just couldn't see why Dembski was wrong. I try to be objective, but the Darwinists have become increasingly dishonest in their representations of Darwinian processes. I say dishonest because I think it's intentional. Also, if I see another Darwinist write that "so and so" doesn't "understand" evolution I'm going to scream. RM+NS = everything - yeah that's a tough one. After I figure out the math behind general relativity I'll try to tackle the intricacies of Darwin's super-theory, which supposedly is too complex to be grasped by physicists, doctors, mathematicians, engineers, and even some biologists. But the guys at PT can spell it all out for us.shaner74_{April 11, 2007
April
04
Apr
11
11
2007
08:42 AM
8
08
42
AM
PDT}

Fross, Artificial Selection is definitely not Darwinian. It is causal; it actually causes something, namely differential reproduction. Breeders see the variation they like or the ones that are "on the road towards" what they want and cause those to reproduce more. Natural "Selection" on the other hand is a-causal; it doesn't cause differential reproduction, because it IS differential reproduction. What does differential reproduction cause? Differential allele frequencies...but then again, isn't that what differential reproduction refers to anyway, since we talk about populations on the level of genes? So differential reproduction "causes" differential reproduction. What Truth and insight. Anyway, Artificial Selection is VERY ID, since it is: a) causal and b) has as its cause intelligence. I don't see how it can not be considered ID.Atom_{April 11, 2007
April
04
Apr
11
11
2007
08:19 AM
8
08
19
AM
PDT}

Check out this design inference (implicit): http://www.enterprisemission.com//NukingJupiter.htmljaredl_{April 11, 2007
April
04
Apr
11
11
2007
07:45 AM
7
07
45
AM
PDT}

What Fross is talking about seems to be what Dr. Yoshikawa (a theist) is talking about.DanaMcgee_{April 11, 2007
April
04
Apr
11
11
2007
07:38 AM
7
07
38
AM
PDT}

It is interesting that in the book Cosmos, Bios, Theos. The book is a collection of interviews with famous scientists about their views on the origin of the universe, life, Homo sapiens and their view on God. If they have one Professor Shoichi Yoshikawa a Senior Research Scientist and Professor, Department of Astrophysical Sciences, Princeton University puts forth a similar view. He writes. What is your view of the origin of life? I understand Darwinian Theory, and I believe the theory explains some of the cases of evolution where the external conditions remain static. For example, the development of organisms on an isolated island can be understood within the framework of the theory of evolution. However, it is very difficult for me to believe that all the evolution or, more precisely, the existence of all the varieties of DNA chains and egg cells can be accounted for by the mechanical processes only. What is your view on the origin of Homo sapiens? In particular, the origin of Homo sapiens may not be understood completely. The seemingly random events of nature, such as glacier periods, the apparent size of the moon versus the sun, volcanic eruptions, the existence of microorganisms (viruses, bacteria, and so forth) have influenced the development of the human beings. Were they just coincidences? Also the concept of beauty (music, poetry, paintings and so on) appears to be shared by many. The mechanical explanations could be advanced but... How should science approach these questions? Specifically the origin of the universe and the origin of life? The origin of the universe can be understood on a scientific level. It does not conflict with religion. The origin of life could be explained by the theory of evolution. However, it is equally possible that, during the birth of a new organism, the selection of a new set of genes is somehow influenced by a metaphysical force. I think God created the universe and life. Homo sapiens was created by God using the process that does not violate the physical laws of the universe significantly or none at all. I believe that the hidden variables of Quantum Mechanics are under God's control. I am a fan of Roy Abraham Varghese. Here are two of his most famous books. http://www.amazon.com/Cosmos-Bios-Theos-Scientists-Universe/dp/0812691865 http://www.thewonderoftheworld.com/Sections1-article9-page1.htmlDanaMcgee_{April 11, 2007
April
04
Apr
11
11
2007
07:32 AM
7
07
32
AM
PDT}

I realize that natural selection can only work on what's extant. In the paper cited above, mutations caused protein variation, at which some were selected for their properties by people. This happens in nature too via natural selection, no? I understand that the ID position is that the protein itself had to have been designed, not the variations that can occur through mutation. What I didn't realize was that the ID position also considers breeding programs, eugenics, (possibly sexual selection) etc or anything else that uses conscious selection to fall under the ID banner. I think this is one of those rare things that both sides agree on, (mutations can cause variations that can be selected for) and I don't think that it's correct to say that it falls soley under Intelligent Design. Intelligent selection maybe. :)Fross_{April 11, 2007
April
04
Apr
11
11
2007
06:54 AM
6
06
54
AM
PDT}

Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan said,
"it comes down to the SAME THING.[emp mine.] DawkinsÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s arbitrarily chosen twenty-eight letter sequence, toward which his selection was aiming, was METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASELÃ¢â‚¬Â¦by forty-one generations, weÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re there."
I'm amazed when I read some person or other who says they were influenced by Carl Sagan's alleged brilliance. And yet he is impressed by Dawkins's WEASEL program. Even my 14 year old son picked up on the lunacy of the WEASEL program as being any kind of help to the blindwatchmaker idealogues. And Sagan couldn't see it? Maybe he didn't want to. Who knows. At any rate, yes, the weasel program shows how accumlated small changes compared against a preset [read: intelligently designed] goal can lead toward that goal. Wow, that's earth shattering. As if dog breeders and pidgeon breeders didn't know that already. But how is this like blindwatchmaker evolution? Does Dawkin's little program demonstrate the alledged power of RM+NS in building up CSI without an intelligently designed preset goal? If not, what's the point of WEASEL? Oh, right, to show us how how accumlated small changes compared against a preset [read: intelligently designed] goal can lead toward that goal. OK, then. Thanks Richard for demonstrating something obvious, that has no bearing on blindwatchmaker production of CSI.mike1962_{April 11, 2007
April
04
Apr
11
11
2007
05:53 AM
5
05
53
AM
PDT}

OT: good memory there's this great little jazz bar in Helsinki. Freezin cold winter drive from St. Petersburg and we find this little oasis of Americana jazz, playin old tunes, Sunny Side of the Street, classics from Sachmo and some big band tunes. Words & Music by Dorothy Fields & Jimmy McHugh, 1929 Recorded by Jo Stafford, 1945 (#17)
G7 C C/B Bm7-5 E7 Grab your coat and get your hat, F Bm7-5 Bb9 Leave your worries on the door - step; Am Am+7 D9 D7 Just direct your feet F G7 C To the sunny side of the street. G7 C C/B Bm7-5 E7 Can't you hear the pitter-pat? F Bm7-5 Bb9 And that happy tune is your step! Am Am+7 D9 D7 Life can be complete Dm7 G7 C On the sunny side of the street. Bridge: CM7 C7 Gm7 C7 Gm7 F I used to walk in the shade with those blues on parade; D9 Am7 D7 G7 G9 But I'm not afraid -- this rover crossed over! G7 C C/B Bm7-5 E7 If I never had a cent, F Bm7-5 Bb9 I'd be rich as Rock - e - fel - ler, Am Am+7 D9 D7 Gold dust at my feet Dm7 G7 C On the sunny side of the street.
Michaels7_{April 11, 2007
April
04
Apr
11
11
2007
04:46 AM
4
04
46
AM
PDT}

This unjustified conflation is made again and again by Darwinists (as you know). Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan, Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors, p. 127:
An illuminating computer experiment analogous to the evolution of a short DNA sequence was performed by biologist Richard Dwakins. He starts with a random sequence of twenty-eight English-language letters (spaces are counted as letters): WDLTMNLT DTJBKWIRZREZLMQCO P. His computer then repeatedly copies this wholly nonsensical message. However, at each iteration there is a certain probability of mutation, of a random change in one of the letters. Selection is also simulated, because the computer is programmed to retain any mutations that move the sequence of letters even slightly toward a pre-selected goal, a particular, quite different sequence of twenty-eight letters. (Of course natural selection does not have some final ACGT [DNA base] sequence in mind, but -- in preferentially replicating sequences that improve, even by a little, the fitness of the organism -- it comes down to the same thing.) Dawkins's arbitrarily chosen twenty-eight letter sequence, toward which his selection was aiming, was METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL. ...by forty-one generations, we're there.
(Boldface added.) And in nature, those with "improved fitness" are better able to survive, and those who survive are more fit. Get it? ;-) __________ Fross: "Would something like dog breeding be considered ID? (and therefore something like eugenics?)" Millenia of dog-breeding somehow didn't cause people to institutionalize the application of the same principles to humans. This all changed very soon after Darwin claimed that man was an animal with no inherent, fundamental differences from other animals.j_{April 11, 2007
April
04
Apr
11
11
2007
04:45 AM
4
04
45
AM
PDT}

"Can natural selection not be seen as a director? I realize itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s not conscious, but it is a mechanism that directs." It appears NS can "direct" accumulative deleterious mutations "over time" for extinction... "Mutation Rate Catastrophy" http://creationsafaris.com/crev200704.htm#20070409a hattip: creationsafaris.com A nice summary review from CS:
"Think of it: neo-Darwinists have pinned their hopes on the rare, mythical Ã¢â‚¬Å“beneficial mutationsÃ¢â‚¬Â to generate novelty, and for natural selection to save every blessed tidbit in its sieve, leading to the wondrous variety of adapted life (wave the magic wand of millions of years here). But now, their own mechanisms have turned on them. Beneficial mutations (if there are such things) actually trigger a mutational arms race. This subverts natural selection, begins a mutational meltdown, and sends the population off the cliff to extinction."
Original paper: Complete genetic linkage can subvert natural selection http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0607280104v1 This is getting hilarious. This is in direct opposition to conservation of genes across hundreds of millions of years. I've never seen a more hodge-podged goooop of guessing games and contradictions in my life in one field of study. Maybe I'm naive, but only in politics can one waggle so much tongue in different directions and get away with it. Materialist evolution is in deep trouble.Michaels7_{April 11, 2007
April
04
Apr
11
11
2007
04:17 AM
4
04
17
AM
PDT}

fross Can natural selection not be seen as a director? I realize itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s not conscious, but it is a mechanism that directs. Can an unconscious director write a script? The problem is that natural selection works with what is already extant. The question is whether NS is capable of abstraction. How does it work to create the abstract genetic code - a code which requires the products of code translation to replicate the code itself? The ability to work with abstraction is a hallmark of intelligence. Where there's a code there's a coder. Natural selection is no coder. It might modify existing codes within the confines of no abstraction with random change as the only input of variation but how does it create the code in the first place?DaveScot_{April 11, 2007
April
04
Apr
11
11
2007
01:30 AM
1
01
30
AM
PDT}

It is frustrating isn't it. They really need to adopt the term a-telic evolution, although I guess that would give the game away wouldn't it. I guess nobody really expects honesty from many in the darwinist camp at this point.Jason Rennie_{April 10, 2007
April
04
Apr
10
10
2007
10:17 PM
10
10
17
PM
PDT}

Would something like dog breeding be considered ID? (and therefore something like eugenics?) Can natural selection not be seen as a director? I realize it's not conscious, but it is a mechanism that directs. The above study seems to indicate (I put the lay in lay person) that they're causing these proteins to mutate and then they're selecting the ones with the properties they set out to get. So the design isn't going into the pre-selection materials, but design is being applied in the selection event. I thought ID had problems with the random aspect of the pre-selection materials mutating to something with useful properties that could be selected. (either by people or natural selection)Fross_{April 10, 2007
April
04
Apr
10
10
2007
09:29 PM
9
09
29
PM
PDT}

Directed evolution requires a director. Any director that I can envision uses intelligence in the process of directing. Directed evolution is unquestionably an ID position.bFast_{April 10, 2007
April
04
Apr
10
10
2007
08:11 PM
8
08
11
PM
PDT}

...pro-ID scientists...
Had you not mentioned it, I would have missed the fact Matti Leisola is listed in www.dissentfromdarwin.org I then looked at Steve Reuland's response and realized on top of Leisola being listed in dissentfromdarwin, Leisola participated in a creationist conference. The fact Leisola succeeded in this endeavor is news in itself. Matti Leisola is a Professor at Laboratory of Bioprocess Engineering Helsinki University of Technology. Congratulations on another pro-ID paper passing peer review!!!!scordova_{April 10, 2007
April
04
Apr
10
10
2007
08:02 PM
8
08
02
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply