Darwinism Evolution Intelligent Design

Michael Behe: New paper supports my “Darwin Devolves” thesis

Spread the love

The beneficial mutations that helped yeast survive were losses:

An interesting paper that strongly reinforces the lessons of Darwin Devolves was recently published in Nature Ecology and Evolution.1 University of Michigan biologists Piaopiao Chen and Jianzhi Zhang looked at the effect of changing environments on the evolution of laboratory yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae…

The most interesting point of their fine work to me is that all of the beneficial mutations almost certainly are loss- or degradation-of-function. That is, the mutations in the various conditions benefit the yeast by destroying pre-existing genes or diminishing their activity. Chen and Zhang followed two different categories of mutations: 1) mutations that substitute single nucleotide residues; and 2) mutations that delete chunks of DNA or cause a stop codon to appear in a gene. The latter category is highly likely to outright destroy the activity of the protein that the mutated gene codes for. Nonetheless, this category is actually the more frequently found of the two. The former category — substitution mutations — does not necessarily destroy a protein’s activity, but that’s certainly the way to bet here. The reason is that most of the selected genes that have substitution mutations (where the normal amino acid residue in the protein the gene codes for is swapped out for a different one) actually have multiple positions that can be beneficially substituted. That’s the signature of a mutation that is helping by degrading or destroying a protein’s activity, simply because there are many more positions where substitution will degrade activity than ones that will improve activity.

Michael Behe, “Helpful Devolutionary Mutations Are Rapid and Unavoidable: Paper Reinforces Darwin Devolves” at Evolution News and Science Today

Paper: Chen, P. and Zhang, J. 2020. Antagonistic pleiotropy conceals molecular adaptations in changing environments. Nature Ecology & Evolution 4:461-469. (paywall)

The trouble with Darwin Devolves is that it is likely to be both quite right and a big problem for schoolbook Darwinism. Just as it is much easier to—without thinking much—throw something out than fix or adapt it, life forms will far more likely randomly mutate by dumping complex equipment than by reengineering it. It’s not that life forms can’t develop complex new equipment. But such changes probably aren’t an instance of natural selection acting on random mutation. And in these times, that’s the controversial part: design in nature.

See also: Michael Behe and the broken wolves. In Darwin Devolves, he explains how much evolution depends on breaking genes. He picks up the theme in this video series. In the case of wolves, we call the broken ones dogs.

57 Replies to “Michael Behe: New paper supports my “Darwin Devolves” thesis

  1. 1
    Jim Thibodeau says:

    16 years ago Paul Nelson said:

    “Easily the biggest challenge facing the ID community is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design. We don’t have such a theory right now, and that’s a problem. Without a theory, it’s very hard to know where to direct your research focus. Right now, we’ve got a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions such as ‘irreducible complexity’ and ‘specified complexity’-but, as yet, no general theory of biological design.”

    Just bashing “Darwinism” over and over, year after year, accomplishes nothing. Evolution is every bit the current scientific paradigm as it was when Paul said that. There’s still no proper theory of ID. Indeed, most of the ID supporters have bailed. The year Paul said that, there were hundreds of different commenters here. Now there are what? A dozen? Two dozen?

  2. 2
    ET says:

    There isn’t a scientific theory of evolution, Jim. That said, unlike evolutionism, ID makes testable claims.

  3. 3
    Truthfreedom says:

    A growing number of scientists and philosophers are saying with greater confidence that Darwinism, as a mode of explaining all of life, is failing and failing badly.

    https://arcapologetics.org/objections/evolution-in-crisis/

  4. 4
    groovamos says:

    Thibodeau: Just bashing “Darwinism” over and over, year after year, accomplishes nothing.

    Oh. Supposedly the founding of an ID think tank in Brazil is nothing. Same for one in the UK: https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2010/oct/01/centre-intelligent-design-science-religion

    I suppose interest in Turkey and resulting conferences in Turkey are nothing: https://evolutionnews.org/2017/05/intelligent-design-goes-international-a-report-from-istanbul/

    Supposedly the recent refutation of neo-Darwinism by a major computer science prof at Princeton is nothing – based on a reading of books doing plenty of “bashing”. Same for a major paleontologist in Germany. Same for the most famous modern philosopher in England (Anthony Flew), who was converted from atheism to deism after reading ID books a couple of years before his death. Same for introducing yours truly ca. 2004 to the hopeless conundrums and contradictions of Darwinism., Same with millions of other citizens of Western countries, many of whom contribute significant funds to the “bashing of Darwinism” which obviously has had a widespread effect in the culture.

  5. 5
    jstanley01 says:

    re Jim Thibodeau @ 1

    CHAUFFEUR: The car is broken down, sir.
    THE BOSS: The car is what?
    CHAUFFEUR: We’ll have to walk.
    THE BOSS: You think I spent $275,163.21 on this vehicle so I could walk? I’m not going anywhere.
    CHAUFFEUR: Forgive my candor, sir, but sitting in the drivers seat saying, “varoom-varoom-varoom,” probably won’t work.

  6. 6
    Truthfreedom says:

    Ouch Jim Thibodeau!

  7. 7
    bornagain77 says:

    Jim Thibodeau claims,

    Evolution is every bit the current scientific paradigm as it was when Paul said that. There’s still no proper theory of ID.

    Interesting claim seeing that there is no known ‘law of evolution’ within the known physical universe for Darwinists to base their mathematics on, (as other theories of science, including Intelligent Design, have laws to base their mathematics on).

    As Murray Eden of MIT once explained, in a paper entitled “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory”, “the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.”

    “It is our contention that if ‘random’ is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.”
    Murray Eden, “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory,” Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, June 1967, p. 109.
    https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~christos/evol/compevol_files/Wistar-Eden-1.pdf

    And as Robert J. Marks also explained, “Hard sciences are built on foundations of mathematics or definitive simulations. Examples include electromagnetics, Newtonian mechanics, geophysics, relativity, thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, optics, and many areas in biology. Those hoping to establish Darwinian evolution as a hard science with a model have either failed or inadvertently cheated.”

    Top Ten Questions and Objections to ‘Introduction to Evolutionary Informatics’ – Robert J. Marks II – June 12, 2017
    Excerpt: “There exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. Hard sciences are built on foundations of mathematics or definitive simulations. Examples include electromagnetics, Newtonian mechanics, geophysics, relativity, thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, optics, and many areas in biology. Those hoping to establish Darwinian evolution as a hard science with a model have either failed or inadvertently cheated. These models contain guidance mechanisms to land the airplane squarely on the target runway despite stochastic wind gusts. Not only can the guiding assistance be specifically identified in each proposed evolution model, its contribution to the success can be measured, in bits, as active information.,,,”,,, “there exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. According to our current understanding, there never will be.,,,”
    https://evolutionnews.org/2017/06/top-ten-questions-and-objections-to-introduction-to-evolutionary-informatics/

    In fact, not only is there no ‘law of evolution’ within the known physical universe for Darwinists to build a realistic mathematical model upon, the second law of thermodynamics, entropy, a law with great mathematical explanatory power in science directly, or almost directly, contradicts the primary Darwinian claim that greater and greater levels of functional complexity can easily be had and/or ‘naturally selected’ for over long periods of time. Indeed, entropy’s main claim is that, over long periods of time, everything in the universe will eventually decay into simpler and simpler states until what is termed thermodynamic equilibrium is finally reached.

    Why Tornados Running Backward do not Violate the Second Law – Granville Sewell Professor of Mathematics at University of Texas – El Paso – May 2012 – article with video
    Excerpt: So, how does the spontaneous rearrangement of matter on a rocky, barren, planet into human brains and spaceships and jet airplanes and nuclear power plants and libraries full of science texts and novels, and supercomputers running partial differential equation solving software , represent a less obvious or less spectacular violation of the second law—or at least of the fundamental natural principle behind this law—than tornados turning rubble into houses and cars? Can anyone even imagine a more spectacular violation?
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....econd-law/

    And whereas Darwinian evolution has no known law of nature to appeal to so as to establish itself as a proper, testable, science, Intelligent Design does not suffer from such an embarrassing disconnect from physical reality. In other words, Intelligent Design can appeal directly to ‘the laws of conservation of information’ (Dembski, Marks, etc..) in order to establish itself as a proper, testable, and rigorous science.

    Conservation of information, evolution, etc – Sept. 30, 2014
    Excerpt: Kurt Gödel’s logical objection to Darwinian evolution:
    “The formation in geological time of the human body by the laws of physics (or any other laws of similar nature), starting from a random distribution of elementary particles and the field is as unlikely as the separation of the atmosphere into its components. The complexity of the living things has to be present within the material [from which they are derived] or in the laws [governing their formation].”
    Gödel – As quoted in H. Wang. “On `computabilism’ and physicalism: Some Problems.” in Nature’s Imagination, J. Cornwall, Ed, pp.161-189, Oxford University Press (1995).
    Gödel’s argument is that if evolution is unfolding from an initial state by mathematical laws of physics, it cannot generate any information not inherent from the start – and in his view, neither the primaeval environment nor the laws are information-rich enough.,,,
    More recently this led him (Dembski) to postulate a Law of Conservation of Information, or actually to consolidate the idea, first put forward by Nobel-prizewinner Peter Medawar in the 1980s. Medawar had shown, as others before him, that in mathematical and computational operations, no new information can be created, but new findings are always implicit in the original starting points – laws and axioms.,,,
    http://potiphar.jongarvey.co.u.....ution-etc/

    Evolutionary Computing: The Invisible Hand of Intelligence – June 17, 2015
    Excerpt: William Dembski and Robert Marks have shown that no evolutionary algorithm is superior to blind search — unless information is added from an intelligent cause, which means it is not, in the Darwinian sense, an evolutionary algorithm after all. This mathematically proven law, based on the accepted No Free Lunch Theorems, seems to be lost on the champions of evolutionary computing. Researchers keep confusing an evolutionary algorithm (a form of artificial selection) with “natural evolution.” ,,,
    Marks and Dembski account for the invisible hand required in evolutionary computing. The Lab’s website states, “The principal theme of the lab’s research is teasing apart the respective roles of internally generated and externally applied information in the performance of evolutionary systems.” So yes, systems can evolve, but when they appear to solve a problem (such as generating complex specified information or reaching a sufficiently narrow predefined target), intelligence can be shown to be active. Any internally generated information is conserved or degraded by the law of Conservation of Information.,,,
    What Marks and Dembski (mathematically) prove is as scientifically valid and relevant as Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem in mathematics. You can’t prove a system of mathematics from within the system, and you can’t derive an information-rich pattern from within the pattern.,,,
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....96931.html

    And since Intelligent Design is mathematically based on the ‘law of conservation of information’, that makes Intelligent Design very much testable and potentially falsifiable, and thus makes Intelligent Design, unlike Darwinism, a rigorous science instead of a unfalsifiable pseudoscience.

    The Law of Physicodynamic Incompleteness – David L. Abel
    Excerpt: “If decision-node programming selections are made randomly or by law rather than with purposeful intent, no non-trivial (sophisticated) function will spontaneously arise.”
    If only one exception to this null hypothesis were published, the hypothesis would be falsified. Falsification would require an experiment devoid of behind-the-scenes steering. Any artificial selection hidden in the experimental design would disqualify the experimental falsification. After ten years of continual republication of the null hypothesis with appeals for falsification, no falsification has been provided.
    The time has come to extend this null hypothesis into a formal scientific prediction:
    “No non trivial algorithmic/computational utility will ever arise from chance and/or necessity alone.”
    https://www.academia.edu/Documents/in/The_Law_of_Physicodynamic_Incompleteness

    In fact there is currently up to a 10 million dollar prize being offered for the first person that can “Show an example of Information that doesn’t come from a mind. All you need is one.”

    The Origin of Information: How to Solve It – Perry Marshall
    Where did the information in DNA come from? This is one of the most important and valuable questions in the history of science. Cosmic Fingerprints has issued a challenge to the scientific community:
    “Show an example of Information that doesn’t come from a mind. All you need is one.”
    “Information” is defined as digital communication between an encoder and a decoder, using agreed upon symbols. To date, no one has shown an example of a naturally occurring encoding / decoding system, i.e. one that has demonstrably come into existence without a designer.
    A private equity investment group is offering a technology prize for this discovery (up to 10 million dollars). We will financially reward and publicize the first person who can solve this;,,, To solve this problem is far more than an object of abstract religious or philosophical discussion. It would demonstrate a mechanism for producing coding systems, thus opening up new channels of scientific discovery. Such a find would have sweeping implications for Artificial Intelligence research.
    http://cosmicfingerprints.com/solve/

    Thus, Jim Thibodeau may say that ‘evolution is science’ until he is blue in the face, but the simple fact of the matter is that evolution simply does not qualify as a “hard science” since it has no known laws of the universe to base its math on.

    Shoot, by any reasonable measure one may seek to establish Darwinian evolution as a ‘hard science’, evolution fails to meet those ‘reasonable’ criteria as well:

    “There are five standard tests for a scientific hypothesis. Has anyone observed the phenomenon — in this case, Evolution — as it occurred and recorded it? Could other scientists replicate it? Could any of them come up with a set of facts that, if true, would contradict the theory (Karl Popper’s “falsifiability” tests)? Could scientists make predictions based on it? Did it illuminate hitherto unknown or baffling areas of science? In the case of Evolution… well… no… no… no… no… and no.”
    – Tom Wolfe – The Kingdom of Speech – page 17

    Darwinian Evolution Fails the Five Standard Tests of a Scientific Hypothesis – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7f_fyoPybw

    By all rights, Darwinian evolution should be classified more as pseudoscientific religion for atheists rather than as a hard science:

    1 Thessalonians 5:21
    but test everything; hold fast what is good.

  8. 8
    Ed George says:

    I see Behe’s theory as a huge step forward for ID. If mutations and adaptions are truly the result of loss of function then the natural conclusion, of ID is true, is that the designer is constantly intervening to add new functionality. Otherwise life would have lost all functionality millions of years ago. This continual intervention must leave some evidence. It should not be difficult to identify it

  9. 9
    jstanley01 says:

    Ed George @8
    I hear you, and that would be psychedelic! I look forward to keeping my ear to the ground for the rumble of breakthroughs. But at the same time, I would add a cautionary note.

    It makes sense to me that if how the information required for life to start and diversify was developed and encoded cannot be explained by chemical reactions and physics and whatnot, and if the intelligent agent posited by our “inference to the best explanation” isn’t hawking a detailed tell-all, despite the massive publishing advance that would be involved — maybe it was God, maybe it was an alien, either way, if they’re mum — it seems to me that how life started and diversified is going to be a much bigger hurdle than we figured back in 1859. A reverse-engineering nightmare, even.

    If Newton’s apple falling from a tree was hard — he had to invent calculus just to explain his physics — and if Einstein is harder, it’s a real bummer that we’ve lost a theory that did the trick for life, which the veriest idiot could understand and wholeheartedly get behind — spending his or her leisure hours trolling anyone on the Internet who disagrees.

    Speaking of lingo like “psychedelic” and “bummer,” I’ve got a bad habit when I respond to people on the Internet who act like, just because there is a problem, there has to be a solution. “Okay Boomer.” (Like a said, it’s a bad habit; especially seeing as how I am one too.) Maybe I should say, rather, “Yeah well, maybe. Who knows? Keep on a’lookin’, Pilgrim!” Better?

    Ten Hours of “Boomer Sooner”

  10. 10
    ET says:

    Earth to Eddie- Random, as in chance, mutations lead to loss of function. But that loss of function can be beneficial. That is the context of Dr. Behe’s premise. If what he says is true then what is being taught in schools is a lie. And what he says is true.

  11. 11
    Ed George says:

    Jstanley, what I am trying to say is that evolution postulates that the source of all new function, ultimately, is mutation and other sources of “genetic shuffling”. But if, as Behe proposes, these processes can only result in loss of function, even if they can provide some adaptive advantage, that over millions of years, all function must be lost. But we don’t see this. The alternatives are either 1) Behe is wrong, or 2) the designer is continuously intervenes to add function back in and leaves absolutely no evidence of these actions. I would lean towards Behe being wrong. Especially considering the extensive research showing examples of mutations resulting in new function.

  12. 12
    Seversky says:

    I would argue that there is no such thing as devolution – except in the political sense. There are living things that change over time, that’s all.

    One of the processes that enable that change is genetic mutation. The majority of those mutations have little or no observable effect. A smaller number are definitely harmful. A much smaller number still are beneficial.

    The neutral mutations are effectively invisible to natural selection. The detrimental mutations are the ones that will tend to be filtered out over time by natural selection, leaving the beneficial ones to flourish.

    That’s in principle. In practice, life is a messy business. There are no guarantees. The ‘signal’ of a beneficial mutation might easily be swamped by the ‘noise’ of harmful mutations such that the unfortunate species goes extinct in spite of it. Successful animals such as the dinosaurs can be overwhelmed by natural disasters long before any beneficial mutations could kick in.

    It’s estimated that 99% of all species that have ever existed on Earth are now extinct. And we seem to be doing our level best to push that number even higher.

    Like I said, life is a messy and wasteful business and it’s what you might expect from a natural process like evolution. A gain of function increases the chances of survival? So be it. A loss of some function improves the chances of survival? Make it so. Who cares? It’s whatever works in that time and at that place.

    The problem is that, while evolutionary biology has no problem living with all that waste and inefficiency, ID theorists do. They have to explain away evidence that suggests a Designer that is incredibly wasteful and incompetent and a far cry from the Creator they feel drawn to worship.

  13. 13
    ET says:

    “Ed George”:

    what I am trying to say is that evolution postulates that the source of all new function, ultimately, is mutation and other sources of “genetic shuffling”.

    Mainstream evolution postulates that the source of all new function arose by chance. ID postulates that organisms were designed to evolve and evolved by design.

    But if, as Behe proposes, these processes can only result in loss of function, even if they can provide some adaptive advantage, that over millions of years, all function must be lost.

    That isn’t what Dr. Behe proposes.

    Especially considering the extensive research showing examples of mutations resulting in new function.

    Such as? Seeing that you don’t know what Behe is saying and also given your penchant for equivocating, my bet is that either you won’t reference anything or what you reference will be BS.

  14. 14
    ET says:

    seversky:

    I would argue that there is no such thing as devolution

    And I can show you instances in which it is known to occur- loss of sight comes to mind.

    A much smaller number still are beneficial.

    Loss of function can be beneficial. That’s the whole point. It is all contingent serendipity, as far as blind watchmaker evolution is concerned.

    It’s whatever works in that time and at that place.

    EXACTLY! And THAT is why you have to be daft to think such a process can create the diversity of life. You have to be so aft and desperate that you are forced into strawman manufacture.

    Pathetic, really.

  15. 15

    .
    Jim Thibodeau in #1,

    ID is opposed to doctrine of materialism, not the evolvable nature of the living cell. A legitimate and unambiguous inference to design is on the table because the physical system that enables biological evolution is a known system; it was predicted to exist, its material features are uniquely describable, and it is a universal correlate of intelligence.

    This is an empirical and historical reality. In the practice of science, it must be treated as such. It cannot be kicked out of the conversation based on the socio-political identities of the people who acknowledge the facts; it is likewise unresolved by the declarations of judges, or by how many people choose to visit a website.

  16. 16
    Truthfreedom says:

    @12 Seversky

    The majority of those mutations have little or no observable effect. A smaller number are definitely harmful. A much smaller number still are beneficial.

    Beneficial for what?
    There is no goal in evolution. You yourself said it: ‘There are living things that change over time’.

    The neutral mutations are effectively invisible to natural selection.

    Again, neutral with respect to what? It seems like you have a ‘purpose’ in mind.
    Bad naturalist, stuff happens is what happens.

  17. 17
    Truthfreedom says:

    ‘Hey fellas, I have found a beneficial mutation. Benefitial for nothing really, because purpose does not exist in ‘nature’.
    ‘It is pretty ridiculous, but I am a naturalist, so speaking non-sense is allowed’.
    ‘If you worship lab coats, you get used to disregard logic’.

  18. 18
    Truthfreedom says:

    *Have discovered*, *beneficial*.
    Neurons informing them-selves.

  19. 19
    JVL says:

    Truthfreedom, 16: Beneficial for what?

    For the individual and its descendants, i.e the descendants/offspring will be better able to exploit the environmental conditions so that their population percentages increase with respect to the base population. So, they may be able to escape predators better, they may be able to reach more food, they may be better able to survive local climatic conditions, they may have larger ‘litters’, they may have smaller litters (thereby having more time to protect and guide their offspring, etc. There are lots of different survival techniques/ways of producing more descendants.

    Again, neutral with respect to what? It seems like you have a ‘purpose’ in mind.

    Neutral with respect to survival advantage or disadvantage, i.e. some mutations have no effect on the organism’s ability to survive.

  20. 20
    ET says:

    Beneficial could be just about anything- from better to best eyesight to no sight at all. Taller, shorter, bigger, smaller, faster, slower, stripes, spots, plain.

    It is all contingent serendipity.

  21. 21

    .
    How many of these advantageous or disadvantageous mutations require a working multi-referent symbol system to be in place?

  22. 22
    JVL says:

    ET, 20: Beneficial could be just about anything- from better to best eyesight to no sight at all. Taller, shorter, bigger, smaller, faster, slower, stripes, spots, plain.

    It all depends on the local environmental conditions, the other life forms present and the capabilities of the organism in question and the particular mutations that occur.

    UBP, 21: How many of these advantageous or disadvantageous mutations require a working multi-referent symbol system to be in place?

    The mutations have to have an effect on the ability of the organism to generate surving descendants in order to be considered ‘advantageous’ or disadvantageous’. Since we’re still not sure what the first basic self-replicator was like it’s hard to say when the kind of system you’re referring to was in place.

    I’m thinking of viruses . . . they don’t have ‘bodies’ or structures but some do better than others because their combination of factors matches the environment they are in better than some others. But, to be honest my knowledge of origin of life research is not great.

  23. 23

    .

    JVL: For the individual and its descendants …

    UB: How many of these advantageous or disadvantageous mutations require a working multi-referent symbol system to be in place?

    JVL: The mutations have to have an effect on the ability of the organism to generate surving descendants in order to be considered ‘advantageous’ or disadvantageous’.

    Okay … so how many of these advantageous or disadvantageous mutations require a working multi-referent symbol system to be in place?

  24. 24
    JVL says:

    UBP, 23: Okay … so how many of these advantageous or disadvantageous mutations require a working multi-referent symbol system to be in place?

    Again, I would think it would depend on what stage of the development of life you’re referring to. Are we talking very near the origin of life or later in the process?

    I don’t know how to answer your question as stated.

  25. 25

    .

    JVL: For the individual and its descendants …

    UB: How many of these advantageous or disadvantageous mutations require a working multi-referent symbol system to be in place?

    JVL: The mutations have to have an effect on the ability of the organism to generate surving descendants in order to be considered ‘advantageous’ or disadvantageous’.

    UB: Okay … so how many of these advantageous or disadvantageous mutations require a working multi-referent symbol system to be in place?

    JVL: Again, I would think it would depend on what stage of the development of life you’re referring to.

    The “stage of development” I was referring to?
    I was asking you about your statement. So, once again, how many of these advantageous or disadvantageous mutations require a working multi-referent symbol system to be in place?

  26. 26
    JVL says:

    UBP, 25: I was asking you about your statement. So, once again, how many of these advantageous or disadvantageous mutations require a working multi-referent symbol system to be in place?

    You posed the initial question which you haven’t varied so, as I said, I do not know how to answer your question as stated. If you’d like to be a bit more specific then I MIGHT have some better idea.

    Are you talking about mutations in organisms near the beginning of the origin of life or later? Which life forms are you asking about?

  27. 27
    ET says:

    JVL:

    It all depends on the local environmental conditions, the other life forms present and the capabilities of the organism in question and the particular mutations that occur.

    Contingent serendipity. It is definitely impotent with respect to universal common descent.

  28. 28
    ET says:

    Upright Biped:

    How many of these advantageous or disadvantageous mutations require a working multi-referent symbol system to be in place?

    Every. Single. One.

    It’s not that difficult, JVL.

  29. 29

    .
    Did you notice these two sentences in my previous comment (its the part of my comment that you did not include in your response):

    The “stage of development” I was referring to? I was asking you about your statement.

    I am going to go out on a limb and stand by my assumption that you had some idea of Life in mind when you wrote the words “for the individual and its descendants” in your comments above. If that assumption is unfounded, then just let me know. If not, then my question stands. How many of these advantageous or disadvantageous mutations require a working multi-referent symbol system to be in place?

  30. 30
    JVL says:

    ET, 28: Every. Single. One.

    Strictly speaking mutations require nothing, they just happen randomly. But I was assuming that Ubp was getting at something more involved. And then I don’t think it’s clear.

  31. 31
    JVL says:

    UBP, 29: Did you notice these two sentences in my previous comment (its the part of my comment that you did not include in your response):

    Yes, I did notice. I am responding to your original question again.

    I am going to go out on a limb and stand by my assumption that you had some idea of Life in mind when you wrote the words “for the individual and its descendants” in your comments above.

    Yes but I think the answer to your question might depend on whether you’re asking about a basic self-replicator or something more complicated.

    Viruses are arguably alive (it’s contentious, granted) but they do not ‘code’ for proteins or more complicated structures. They just get copied.

  32. 32
    ET says:

    JVL:

    Strictly speaking mutations require nothing,…

    So they can occur outside of a cell? Without proteins? Do tell.

    they just happen randomly.

    That’s debatable, but I understand that is what mainstream evolution posits.

  33. 33
    ET says:

    JVL:

    Viruses are arguably alive (it’s contentious, granted) but they do not ‘code’ for proteins or more complicated structures.

    Viruses require a functioning, living organism for a host. Viruses have a nucleic acid sequences based on the same coding as the hosts use.

  34. 34
    JVL says:

    From the Wikipedia article on viruses:

    Viruses are considered by some to be a life form, because they carry genetic material, reproduce, and evolve through natural selection, although they lack key characteristics (such as cell structure) that are generally considered necessary to count as life. Because they possess some but not all such qualities, viruses have been described as “organisms at the edge of life” and as replicators.

    ET, 32: That’s debatable, but I understand that is what mainstream evolution posits.

    Thanks for that! I realise how significant that is for you.

    33: Viruses require a functioning, living organism for a host. Viruses have a nucleic acid sequences based on the same coding as the hosts use.

    But if they don’t code for proteins then the sequence ain’t a code for them is it? It’s just a chemical bonding sequence. That’s the question.

  35. 35
    ET says:

    JVL:

    Thanks for that! I realise how significant that is for you.

    Facts and reality should be significant for you, too. But I understand that you have issues with them.

    The book “Not By Chance” was published in 1997. You seem to be decades behind.

    Why did you avoid the most important part? So they (mutations) can occur outside of a cell? Without proteins? Do tell.

    It’s just a chemical bonding sequence.

    That requires a working multi-referent symbol system to be in place. Or nothing happens.

  36. 36

    .
    Good grief JVL, you seem to really be struggling to answer an entirely unambiguous question about your own equally unambiguous statement. Is it indeed an unfounded assumption to think that you had some concept in your mind about the organisms you were speaking of? Is that really unfounded; it seems rather incoherent to think anything else. When you wrote “for the individual and its descendants”</i< did you not have something in mind? When you suggested ”they may be able to escape predators better“ did you make that suggestion without any conception whatsoever of any life form that it might apply to? Of course not. So what’s the problem? It is those organisms (the ones you were speaking about) that I asked my question. So, once again: How many of these advantageous or disadvantageous mutations require a working multi-referent symbol system to be in place?

  37. 37
    JVL says:

    ET, 35: Why did you avoid the most important part? So they (mutations) can occur outside of a cell? Without proteins? Do tell.

    Do viruses generate proteins or just exploit them? Is their sequence a ‘code’ or just a chemical game that depends on basic chemical rules?

  38. 38
    ET says:

    Holy whacko. Viruses require a working multi-referent symbol system to be in place. Or nothing happens.

    A virus doesn’t have the machinery to generate proteins. But viruses require a working multi-referent symbol system to be in place. Or nothing happens.

    In order for a virus to mutate during replication it requires a working multi-referent symbol system to be in place. Or nothing happens.

  39. 39
    JVL says:

    UBP, 36: When you wrote “for the individual and its descendants”</i< did you not have something in mind? When you suggested ”they may be able to escape predators better“ did you make that suggestion without any conception whatsoever of any life form that it might apply to? Of course not. So what’s the problem?

    I didn’t think it was clear (and I didn’t want to assume) that when you asked your question that you were restricting it. I was trying to make sure you had the chance to be clear.

    So, since we now know you are referring to multicellular life forms . . . mutations require nothing, they just happen when cells reproduce. They’re just mistakes.

    What you’re really asking is: How many of these mutations require a “working multi-referent symbol system to be in place” in order to have an effect on the physiology of the organism and its offspring. I think. Please correct if necessary.

    I suppose it’s first necessary to acknowledge that the answer must be: all or none. But, I suppose, a case can be made that neutral mutations do not require “a working multi-referent symbol system” to be in place since they have no effect on physiology.

    There is research which suggests that the genetic “code” isn’t a real “code” in that it might not be completely arbitrary. IF it is based on chemical bonds then there would be no requirement for “a working multi-referent symbol system to be in place” since that wouldn’t be the basis of the system.

    IF the genetic code really is a purely arbitrary, abstract code then YES the question of where it came from and how it got implemented and enforced is a huge question. I think that’s what you wanted me to get to. But I seriously think there are reasons for questioning whether or not the “code” is actually arbitrary.

    So, I’m going to wait and see what the research suggests. I don’t think it’s correct to second guess work that hasn’t been done yet. I’m happy to accept that everyone who claimed that there was a genetic “code” might have been wrong. Are you?

  40. 40
    JVL says:

    ET, 38: A virus doesn’t have the machinery to generate proteins. But viruses require a working multi-referent symbol system to be in place. Or nothing happens.

    But doesn’t it suggest to you that it’s possible that there could be a basic, simple replicator that could just reproduce exploiting existing environmental chemicals? I don’t think we know the answer to that question yet. I’m happy to keep an open mind and decide after the work has been done. We both have our opinions and guesses but, honestly, don’t we still have to wait until more work has been done?

  41. 41
    ET says:

    JVL:

    There is research which suggests that the genetic “code” isn’t a real “code” in that it might not be completely arbitrary.

    Reference please. Hopefully you link to Yarus, et al.

    IF it is based on chemical bonds then there would be no requirement for “a working multi-referent symbol system to be in place” since that wouldn’t be the basis of the system.

    It uses chemical bonds to be carried out, yes. But how can it be based on chemical bonds? What determined which codon represented what amino acid? What chemical bonds?

  42. 42
    ET says:

    JVL:

    But doesn’t it suggest to you that it’s possible that there could be a basic, simple replicator that could just reproduce exploiting existing environmental chemicals?

    No. Molecules just don’t replicate. You need a catalyst and a template. Then you need to go from that basic replicator to a coded information processing system. Why? Nature is fine with stones and minerals.

  43. 43
    JVL says:

    ET, 41: Reference please. Hopefully you link to Yarus, et al.

    Some of the papers referenced in the Wikipedia article are behind a paywall which I can do nothing about but you can go to the link and see the references. Anyway, from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_code#Origin

    Chemical principles govern specific RNA interaction with amino acids. Experiments with aptamers showed that some amino acids have a selective chemical affinity for their codons. Experiments showed that of 8 amino acids tested, 6 show some RNA triplet-amino acid association.

    It uses chemical bonds to be carried out, yes. But how can it be based on chemical bonds? What determined which codon represented what amino acid? What chemical bonds?

    I guess you’ll have to start tracking down some references.

    No. Molecules just don’t replicate. You need a catalyst and a template.

    But what if the first basic replicator was not a “molecule”? Not in the sense we use that term now anyway.

    And, again, why not wait until more work is done before making a fast and final call? What’s the rush?

  44. 44
    ET says:

    Speigelman’s Monster reign’s supreme with respect to molecular replicators. Not a molecule?

    Not in the sense we use that term now anyway.

    Sort of like gibberish?

    And if there are RNA triplet to amino acid associations that just gets in the way of producing the system currently in use.

  45. 45
    ET says:

    It’s pretty cool how I called that one, eh, JVL? Two of the papers referenced in your Wikipedia quote are from Yarus, et al. 😎 Don’t feel like beating that dead horse again. But I am sure that upright biped will step in and help you out.

  46. 46

    .
    Sorry for the delay, a rack of baby-back ribs took priority.

    I suppose it’s first necessary to acknowledge that the answer must be: all or none.

    So which is it? If you answer “all of them” then your answer is congruent with the fact that the symbol system was famously used predicted to exist prior to being found, then it was found, then it was carefully and unambiguously documented in the physics literature to be just as it was first predicted to be. If you answer “none of them” then your answer is a sweeping denial of the well-documented history of science, as well as its experimental results. If, on the other hand, your desire is simply to ignore the documented history and empirical facts surrounding the system — in the hopes that your personal assumptions about it will someday be shown to be true — then your position is plainly illogical, non-falsifiable, and anti-science. In other words, the symbol system is a symbol system based on the recorded science, regardless of whether or not you find it ideologically uncomfortable. As a materialist you can either acknowledge that your preferred metaphysical assumptions must produce a multi-referent symbol system (using discontinuous association, spatial orientation, language structure, and semantic-closure in order to exist and persist over time), or, you can be demonstrably anti-science and frankly anti-intellectual.

    If you’d like, we can start walking through the physical findings of the symbol system, one by one, and see how well you can ignore them.

  47. 47
    PaV says:

    Jim Thibodeu:

    Evolution is every bit the current scientific paradigm as it was when Paul said that.

    I would slightly disagree with you here. I think Darwinian evolution is beginning to slip.

    However, there is a bigger point you haven’t addressed: Behe’s Darwin Devolves makes the case that what we know as Darwinian evolution borders on the trivial. The case Behe makes is that the “First Rule of Adaptation” is that organisms begin breaking and altering what already exists–that is, they don’t bring anything of any consequence into existence; and, further, that the ease with which organisms can ‘break’ things puts typical Darwinian evolution/mechanisms at a severe disadvantage.

    So, while Darwinian evolution might be the “current paradigm,” it looks feeble and inconsequential. Another way of putting this is that by using Darwinian thought, scientists end up “barking up the wrong tree.”

    As to the number of commentators here, I wrote a blog post about four years ago entitled, “The War is Over: We Won!”. I’m not interested in posting article and getting into discussions with Darwinists because they’re simply wrong and take positions that are indefensible. IOW, I don’t want to waste my time.

    The “Darwin Wars” are over–there is nothing left to say. With time, Darwinism will be seen to be more and more wrong. In the meantime, the Darwinists will enforce their orthodoxy and the “current paradigm” will remain Darwinism.

    Take an article, whenever you see the word “evolve” being used, either substitute “changed” or “adapted,” and you’ll find that nothing of value will have been lost. Darwinism is no more than a narrative gloss.

  48. 48
    Truthfreedom says:

    @19 JVL
    Truthfreedom asked (16):

    ‘Beneficial’ (mutations) for what?

    JVL replied:

    For the individual and its descendants, i.e the descendants/offspring will be better able to exploit the environmental conditions so that their population percentages increase with respect to the base population. So, they may be able to escape predators better, they may be able to reach more food, they may be better able to survive local climatic conditions, they may have larger ‘litters’, they may have smaller litters (thereby having more time to protect and guide their offspring, etc. There are lots of different survival techniques/ways of producing more descendants.

    So survival + consequent reproduction are the ‘goals of evolution’?

  49. 49
    Truthfreedom says:

    @47 PaV

    As to the number of commentators here, I wrote a blog post about four years ago entitled, “The War is Over: We Won!”
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-war-is-over-we-won/

    Excellent blog post. Thank you for the link.

  50. 50
    JVL says:

    Truthfreedom, 48: So survival + consequent reproduction are the ‘goals of evolution’?

    There are no goals! There is no “directive”, no target. You might not like the use of “beneficial” or “selection” but it’s clear what they mean in this context.

  51. 51
    Truthfreedom says:

    @JVL 50

    There are no goals! There is no “directive”, no target.

    So I was right. Under naturalism, there is no purpose to anything.

    You might not like the use of “beneficial”

    -Of course I do not like arbitrary and non-sensical terminologies.
    Neither should you.
    Naturalism makes no sense. It contradicts it-self (pun intended).

  52. 52
    ET says:

    JVL:

    There are no goals! There is no “directive”, no target.

    Just another reason why unguided evolution is impotent with respect to universal common descent and producing protein machines.

  53. 53
    tommy hall says:

    From the OP: “ it. It’s not that life forms can’t develop complex new equipment. But such changes probably aren’t an instance of natural selection acting on random mutation.”

    Can you give me an example?

    And as far as how organisms change, how they adapt to their surroundings, Darwinian theory says that an external mechanism is the cause (natural selection which acts on random mutations), so ID is the opposite; adaptive change happens by endogenous mechanisms that are not random. On its fave it’s as simple as that, as the individual himself is his own creative force. “Evolution” over time is just a process of conscious individuals who are intelligently responding to environmental challenges with an array of endogenous mevchanusms.

  54. 54
    ET says:

    ID says that organisms were intelligently designed with the ability to adapt and evolve. That would mean they were given the information to do so.

  55. 55
    tommy hall says:

    I would suggest organisms were given the intellectual capacity to perceive environmental information, and then use that to alter their own biological information….aka their genes/physiology. The living organism is a mindful, creative entity. The environment is informative; the organism responds to it and changes itself adaptively.

  56. 56
    ET says:

    “Built-in responses to environmental cues”- Dr. Lee Spetner in “Not By Chance”.

  57. 57

    Apparently my offer (to discuss the material and organizational hurdles described in the literature) was unwanted by our neutral friend with the open mind. I bet there is a self-serving reason for that.

Leave a Reply