Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Steven Pinker — Let’s show some proper deference to Darwin!

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Is this vapid appeal to authority all the Darwinians have left?

Creationism piece no way to honor Darwin’s birthday
July 20, 2009

Letter to BOSTON GLOBE

SHAME ON you for publishing two creationist op-eds in two years from the Discovery Institute, a well-funded propaganda factory that aims to sow confusion about evolution. Virtually no scientist takes “intelligent design’’ seriously, and in the famous Dover, Pa., trial in 2005, a federal court ruled that it is religion in disguise.

The judge referred to the theory’s “breathtaking inanity,’’ which is a fine description of Stephen Meyer’s July 15 op-ed “Jefferson’s support for intelligent design.’’ Well, yes, Thomas Jefferson died 33 years before Darwin published “The Origin of Species.’’ And Meyer’s idea that the DNA code implies a code maker is just a rehash of the ancient “argument from design’’ – that an eye implies an eye maker, a heart implies a heart maker, and so on. Darwin demolished this argument 150 years ago.

In a year in which other serious publications are celebrating the bicentennial of Darwin’s birth and the sesquicentennial of “Origin,’’ the Globe sees fit to resurrect his long-buried opposition.

The advantage that traditional newspapers have over the Internet competition is quality control. If the Globe repeatedly gives its imprimatur to the latest nonsense from an anti-science lobbying organization, what’s the point of going to it for reliable, intelligent commentary?

Steven Pinker
Cambridge

Comments
Ya got me there Joseph: Ya see, ya'll have to tell me what ya mean, and the evidence ya have, before I can give ya post the thought it probably deserves.damitall
July 26, 2009
July
07
Jul
26
26
2009
11:31 AM
11
11
31
AM
PDT
damitall, Again if you don't like the improbability PoV all you have to do is start substantiating the claims of the non-telic position. Ya see those small molecules you mentioned are very fragile and open to any number of possible reactions with any number of possible reactants.Joseph
July 24, 2009
July
07
Jul
24
24
2009
07:22 AM
7
07
22
AM
PDT
I think that the argumant from improbability is a red herring. For one thing,as far as I can see, no evolutionary biologist of sound mind thinks that the the whole shebang started on the prebiotic earth with some huge molecule which had to be searched for against vast odds. Smal molecules, which came to be the foundations of larger ones, yes. For another thing, everyone sems to be running around with the idea that, in order to be functional, a protein or polypeptide has to be both large and have a very specific aminoacid sequence, any change to which "de-functionalises" the molecule. This is not true. Quite small random libraries can produce a number of polypetides with the function being searched for inthe particular experiment, one report of a search for ATP-binding polypetides amongst a random library of sequences of 80 aas yielded 5 in 10^12 such. Long odds, but not as long as 1 in 10^150; and who knows what other functions were embodied in the rest of those molecules. Furthermore, there is a wealth of papers showing that random mutations, even in highly conserved regions of critical enzymes such as polymerases, are not nearly as deleterious as some would have us believe. Many are exactly neutral; some even increase enzyme activity, or fidelity, or even both. Why, some positions could be substituted with a whole variety of different aas without apparent effect on function of the whole. If one could take into account the possible variations in structure or sequence which still allow a particular function (and I'm sure it is mathematically possible just not - alas!- for me!) the odds against assembling a functional polypeptide from randomly available resources shorten very considerably indeed.damitall
July 23, 2009
July
07
Jul
23
23
2009
01:46 PM
1
01
46
PM
PDT
One more time- If you guys don't like the probability calculations then all you have to do is to actually start supporting your position by presenting the data which demonstrates that in question can be reduced to matter, energy, chance and necessity. However it is obvious that you can't so all you have is to continue whining about the design inference. So thank you for continuing to prove that point.Joseph
July 23, 2009
July
07
Jul
23
23
2009
06:23 AM
6
06
23
AM
PDT
Nakashima-san, "Evolution" is not being debated. See biological evolution- what is being debated See also equivocation and evolution Also color blindness could be due to a deletion of an opsin rather than color vision being an addition of an opsin gene.Joseph
July 23, 2009
July
07
Jul
23
23
2009
06:20 AM
6
06
20
AM
PDT
Khan:
oh, so now this is your problem with the analogy? i thought it was that genetic inheritance doesnt work like a random lottery. just let me know when you reach a consistent position.
Charrington argued that if mutations can't hit a 1 in 2^300000 target, how do people win the lottery? The analogy fails both on the odds and the way it relates to evolution. You should be backing me up, not him. No one believes that evolution works like drawing lottery numbers. (Except Charrington.) Each generation must closely resemble the one before. None are new random combinations. Are you required by law to support everything he says, no matter how absurd?ScottAndrews
July 23, 2009
July
07
Jul
23
23
2009
05:35 AM
5
05
35
AM
PDT
Nakashima
I agreed (above) with your point that there is nothing logically stopping P. falciparum from mutating towards faster development in lower temperatures, just a lot of operational barriers. If a scientist could raise the parasite in the lab free of the constraints of its natural environment, maybe it could happen. As it is, we have to look elsewhere for innovation in the parasite’s genome. That’s randomness for you!
Well how hard is it? Is it harder than evolving from a dog like animal into a giant whale? Because that is what mammals did in fewer reproductive events. Mammals also sprouted wings and learned to fly. Mammals also invented hair, mammary glands, the freaking neocortex, the inner ear, and sweat glands. In exponentially fewer reproductive events! Furthermore, p. vivax travels through similar vectors and can reproduce all the way down to 57ºF, so we know it is not impossible. The bottom line is, when we can't observe it, Darwinism lays claim to an ocean of miracles and innovation, but where we can observe an even greater number of reproductive events we get squat.Jehu
July 22, 2009
July
07
Jul
22
22
2009
10:32 PM
10
10
32
PM
PDT
Mr Jehu, There is still not logical nexus to the idea that p. falciparum would not benefit from a lower minimal reproductive temperature. Nothing comes for free. Develpoing faster as it gets colder is extremely challenging. Energy and resources spent doing it have to come from somewhere else. I agreed (above) with your point that there is nothing logically stopping P. falciparum from mutating towards faster development in lower temperatures, just a lot of operational barriers. If a scientist could raise the parasite in the lab free of the constraints of its natural environment, maybe it could happen. As it is, we have to look elsewhere for innovation in the parasite's genome. That's randomness for you!Nakashima
July 22, 2009
July
07
Jul
22
22
2009
04:44 PM
4
04
44
PM
PDT
Khan
not in those areas where the temp is below 68.
Assuming that is accurate, so what? There is still not logical nexus to the idea that p. falciparum would not benefit from a lower minimal reproductive temperature. BTW, do you have any citations for your assertion? Not saying that it is not true, because it makes sense, I would just like to see the numbers myself.Jehu
July 22, 2009
July
07
Jul
22
22
2009
04:29 PM
4
04
29
PM
PDT
Jehu
It would be a very small thing in light of the claims that Darwinism makes about much greater innovations occurring in far fewer reproductive events.
All swans are white.Mr Charrington
July 22, 2009
July
07
Jul
22
22
2009
04:15 PM
4
04
15
PM
PDT
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/scientific-american-quietly-disowns-ida-missing-link-fossil/comment-page-2/#comment-327352Mr Charrington
July 22, 2009
July
07
Jul
22
22
2009
04:14 PM
4
04
14
PM
PDT
Jehu,
If anything p. falciparum out competes p vivax, since p. falciparum is responsible for 80% of malaria infections
not in those areas where the temp is below 68.Khan
July 22, 2009
July
07
Jul
22
22
2009
04:02 PM
4
04
02
PM
PDT
Mr. Charrington, Your link does not work.Jehu
July 22, 2009
July
07
Jul
22
22
2009
03:58 PM
3
03
58
PM
PDT
Khan,
perhaps it doesn’t because it is outcompeted by P. vivax, which can reproduce down to 57 F?
That is not why. If anything p. falciparum out competes p vivax, since p. falciparum is responsible for 80% of malaria infections. If Darwinism is true, it is difficult to reconcile why in so many reproductive events, p. falciparum has not lowered its reproductive temperature to at least enable it to exploit all of the geographical niches occupied by its host mosquito. It would be a very small thing in light of the claims that Darwinism makes about much greater innovations occurring in far fewer reproductive events.Jehu
July 22, 2009
July
07
Jul
22
22
2009
03:57 PM
3
03
57
PM
PDT
Jehu, Just in case you missed it Any comment?Mr Charrington
July 22, 2009
July
07
Jul
22
22
2009
03:41 PM
3
03
41
PM
PDT
Dave Wisker
Sorry, but you don’t seem to be referencing any theory of evolution I’m familiar with. Can you suggest a reference in which this scenario is discussed as a plausible possibility?
I am not aware of one but then I am not the guy claiming the life evolved without intelligent assistance. But what I think bFast is trying to do is just put a number on the odds of the information in the most simple life form even coming together, he is not even including the absurdly tiny probabilities of the structure that holds and translates information also coming into place in order to house that information.Jehu
July 22, 2009
July
07
Jul
22
22
2009
03:41 PM
3
03
41
PM
PDT
Jehu,
There are lots of areas adjacent to the P. falciparum where it could innovate and gain a selective advantage
perhaps it doesn't because it is outcompeted by P. vivax, which can reproduce down to 57 F?Khan
July 22, 2009
July
07
Jul
22
22
2009
03:37 PM
3
03
37
PM
PDT
Mr Joseph, Which article or articles in your link support the non-telic position? Gosh, in a journal named Evolution... :) Also how do you know the opsin genes are duplicates? That is as opposed to being designed? Color blindness. Think of it as a molecular fossil, in this case not of an ancestor but a process.Nakashima
July 22, 2009
July
07
Jul
22
22
2009
03:34 PM
3
03
34
PM
PDT
Hi jehu, Consider the moment the first reproducing DNA based single cell organism mutates into existence. What are the odds of that event? Sorry, but you don't seem to be referencing any theory of evolution I'm familiar with. Can you suggest a reference in which this scenario is discussed as a plausible possibility?Dave Wisker
July 22, 2009
July
07
Jul
22
22
2009
03:21 PM
3
03
21
PM
PDT
Mr Jehu, Yet while mammals have managed to diversify into giant ocean going whales, nimble flying bats, and spaceship building humans, P. falciparum cannot even reproduce below 68ºF. It is difficult for a parasite to reproduce if its host is dead. It is difficult for a parasite to reproduce if there are too few vectors to complete its life cycle. P. falciparum has show strong abilities to mutate in response to anti-malarial drugs. But mutation is not the only requirement for the establishment of a new phenotype.Nakashima
July 22, 2009
July
07
Jul
22
22
2009
03:21 PM
3
03
21
PM
PDT
Correction to last post. Should be "below 68ºF" instead of "over 68ºF".Jehu
July 22, 2009
July
07
Jul
22
22
2009
03:17 PM
3
03
17
PM
PDT
Khan
what, exactly, were you expecting malaria to do? sprout legs and wings and fly off while dancing the charleston?
Malaria is a disease, not an organism.
It is constrained in what it can do, esp. given its parasitic lifestyle in which it is dependent on two different hosts. do you really think extrapolating from one odd organism up to every living organism is a reasonable thing to do?
There are lots of areas adjacent to the P. falciparum where it could innovate and gain a selective advantage. For example, it could evolve the ability to reproduce over 68ºF, yet it has not, in spite of the fact that it has had exponentially more reproductive events than it allegedly took mammals to evolve hair, mammary glands, vaginas, the neocortex, the three bone inner ear etc. And it isn't just P. falciparum the same is true in any observable high reproducing organism, pitifully few innovations.
and you argue that extrapolating from micro- to macroevolution is a stretch.
Yes. Arguing that because the probable event of micro evolution has been observed that therefore the improbable event macro evolution has occurred is illogical.Jehu
July 22, 2009
July
07
Jul
22
22
2009
03:00 PM
3
03
00
PM
PDT
Dave Wisker
If each state were equally probable, you might have a point , but we know from basic biology that this is not true: the number of possible states that can be generated in a generation is constrained by the states that existed in the previous generation.
Consider the moment the first reproducing DNA based single cell organism mutates into existence. What are the odds of that event?Jehu
July 22, 2009
July
07
Jul
22
22
2009
02:49 PM
2
02
49
PM
PDT
Jehu, what, exactly, were you expecting malaria to do? sprout legs and wings and fly off while dancing the charleston? it is constrained in what it can do, esp. given its parasitic lifestyle in which it is dependent on two different hosts. do you really think extrapolating from one odd organism up to every living organism is a reasonable thing to do? and you argue that extrapolating from micro- to macroevolution is a stretch..Khan
July 22, 2009
July
07
Jul
22
22
2009
02:48 PM
2
02
48
PM
PDT
Mr bFast, A binary search for a 300,000 bit number should take 150,000 search queries, on average. But that is taking advantage of knowledge of the 'landscape' of ordered binary integers. An evolutionary algorithm would not have that advantage.Nakashima
July 22, 2009
July
07
Jul
22
22
2009
02:45 PM
2
02
45
PM
PDT
Khan & Mr. Charrington: I will try to explain this as simply as possible. With a lottery, the number of tickets purchased is very fairly close to the odds of the winning combination being selected. Therefore, the overall odds of a winning combination being amongst the purchased ticket is very good, although the odds for any given ticket is very low. With evolution, the odds of any given mutation in a single reproductive event is very low but with a large number of reproductive events the odds are much better. As the number of reproductive events approaches the odds of any given mutation occurring improves. The problem with Darwinism is that there are not enough reproductive events to make macro evolution probable. This is a key point because Darwinists like to hide behind "deep time" as a way to overcome the low probabilities of evolution. However, "deep time" is not the issue. The number of reproductive events is the issue. And we don't need "deep time" to observe large numbers of reproductive events. For example, the organism P. falciparum has more reproductive events every year than mammals have had in their entire alleged evolutionary history. Yet while mammals have managed to diversify into giant ocean going whales, nimble flying bats, and spaceship building humans, P. falciparum cannot even reproduce below 68ºF. In every instance where we can observe large numbers of reproductive events that supposedly yielded tremendous diversity and innovation in the past, we observe pitifully few innovations.Jehu
July 22, 2009
July
07
Jul
22
22
2009
02:31 PM
2
02
31
PM
PDT
Hi bfast, What exactly is the practical, biological relevance for the fact that 300,000 bits of data/genome represent 2^300,000 possible states? If each state were equally probable, you might have a point , but we know from basic biology that this is not true: the number of possible states that can be generated in a generation is constrained by the states that existed in the previous generation. This is because organisms do not completely shuffle all of their their gene positions every meiotic cycle. The fact that the previous generation's sequences are copied (albeit imperfectly) and recombination does not completely shuffle the genome means the state of the previous generation's genome influences the number of possible states of the next generation.Dave Wisker
July 22, 2009
July
07
Jul
22
22
2009
02:29 PM
2
02
29
PM
PDT
bFast
When I bring out binary search as a “best case” that darwinian search is clearly poorer than, it is ignored.
Where have you published this work? Can you provide a citation? Who is "ignoring" your work?
However, numbers like 300,000 bits of data are huge. The challenge of getting all of those bits aligned perfectly is a huge challenge. I suggest that it is not surmountable with reasonable statistical probability — ie, without miraculous luck.
you can suggest it all you want, unless you back it up with some work you'll continue to be ignored. Except by me, I'm a fan! :)
Bottom line, quit telling me, “darwinian search is better” show me the math that demonstrates that darwinian search is in any way realistic given the time/organism count/reproduction rate constraints.
http://www.amazon.com/Population-Genetics-Matthew-Hamilton/dp/1405132779/ref=pd_rhf_shvl_1 What have you read so far that was unconvincing?Mr Charrington
July 22, 2009
July
07
Jul
22
22
2009
02:20 PM
2
02
20
PM
PDT
bFast, actually, it is up to you to explain why the probability of 300,000 bits joining together at once to form a functioning genome is at all relevant to, well, anything. you can't just say "well no one has shown me Darwinian mechanisms are any better." you need to provide positive evidence for your own position. if you want some examples from the evolutionary literature, i suggest you start with FIsher's "The genetical theory of natural selection."Khan
July 22, 2009
July
07
Jul
22
22
2009
02:13 PM
2
02
13
PM
PDT
Khan, please check out my post in #88:
I support it by the repeated report (shout) that neo-Darwinism is not random, and by an abject lack of recognition that it remains challenging. I support it by the fact that the scientific community doesn’t publish reasonable analysis of how many organisms mutating at what rate over how many years could reasonably have produced the data that is there — especially how it produced ultra-conserved datasets.
It seems that there are teams of biologists that have not chosen to do the math. The general answer from the darwinian camp seems to be "darwinian search is better than random." When I bring out binary search as a "best case" that darwinian search is clearly poorer than, it is ignored. Darwinian search is better than random (I don't think it is by all that much) at least in an ideal environment. (It may be pointed out that if darwinianism did produce life, the pattern that was found is that ideal environment despite the fact that ultra-conserved genes imply otherwise.) However, numbers like 300,000 bits of data are huge. The challenge of getting all of those bits aligned perfectly is a huge challenge. I suggest that it is not surmountable with reasonable statistical probability -- ie, without miraculous luck. Bottom line, quit telling me, "darwinian search is better" show me the math that demonstrates that darwinian search is in any way realistic given the time/organism count/reproduction rate constraints.bFast
July 22, 2009
July
07
Jul
22
22
2009
02:03 PM
2
02
03
PM
PDT
1 2 3 5

Leave a Reply