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
bFast,
still takes an enormous amount of time to search for a specific 300,000 bit number
once again you are are thinkibng about all 300,000 bits coming together at once. that is completely irrelevant.Khan
July 22, 2009
July
07
Jul
22
22
2009
01:55 PM
1
01
55
PM
PDT
Scott,
Nonsense is Charrington’s assertion, backed by you, that a 1 in 2^300,000 lottery is comparable to a 1 in 2^31 lottery.
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.Khan
July 22, 2009
July
07
Jul
22
22
2009
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PDT
Scott, if that is your real problem with the analogy, why didn't you say that in your first post, where you talked about the odds of winning the lottery? in any case, Charrington was responding to bFast, so your beef is with him. I happen to agree with your subsequent point about random numbers, but bFast probably doesn't.Khan
July 22, 2009
July
07
Jul
22
22
2009
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PDT
Khan, If it takes 6 of 6 to get some functionaliy then what selection, other than artificial, would keep 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 of 6? That is what you guys keep ignoring-that and the fact that all sequences have the same probability of aligning along the sugar backbone.Joseph
July 22, 2009
July
07
Jul
22
22
2009
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT
Khan:
according to Scott, the scenario you have just described is nonsense.
BFast is explaining the math. Nonsense is Charrington's assertion, backed by you, that a 1 in 2^300,000 lottery is comparable to a 1 in 2^31 lottery. While we're at it, good is bad, war is peace, etc.ScottAndrews
July 22, 2009
July
07
Jul
22
22
2009
01:44 PM
1
01
44
PM
PDT
Khan:
if you want to make the analogy (slightly) more biologically realistic, then think of the ticket purchaser already knowing 5 of the 6 winning numbers because they have been locked in by previous selection. makes the odds a lot better, huh?
Lets see, if we consider the binary search -- an algorithm that is much tighter than a darwinian search even in an environment that has a booloean pathway, it still takes an enormous amount of time to search for a specific 300,000 bit number. Even with 2^40 searchers, the amount of searching required is enormous.bFast
July 22, 2009
July
07
Jul
22
22
2009
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PDT
Nakashima-san, Which article or articles in your link support the non-telic position? Also how do you know the opsin genes are duplicates? That is as opposed to being designed?Joseph
July 22, 2009
July
07
Jul
22
22
2009
01:40 PM
1
01
40
PM
PDT
Khan: I'm not even going to argue this ridiculous point. Charrington compared evolution to winning the lottery, and you are standing by it. I figured you were just taking a cheap shot, but now I see that you're going to stand by it. It's nonsense and it doesn't deserve a response. I'll let you off the hook for your childish name-calling. I learned to ignore that in elementary school.ScottAndrews
July 22, 2009
July
07
Jul
22
22
2009
01:39 PM
1
01
39
PM
PDT
bFast, according to Scott, the scenario you have just described is nonsense. perhaps you two would like to discuss your differences? I happen to agree with Scott, for the reasons he provided (90), and many others.Khan
July 22, 2009
July
07
Jul
22
22
2009
01:37 PM
1
01
37
PM
PDT
Lets consider the powerball, the chances of winning are 1 in 146,000,000. That's about 1 in 2^31. What if we have a lottery whose chances are 1 in 2^300,000. Now, the world has had about 2^40 organisms in it. The chance of any of those organisms finding a particular number in 2^300,000 numbers is, well 2^299,960. Anyone wanna play? I, for one would much rather count on my one powerball ticket winning than all of the organisms that have ever lived winning. Much, much so. BTW, I don't do lotteries.bFast
July 22, 2009
July
07
Jul
22
22
2009
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PDT
Scott, Keep running, Jim Marshall. actually, that is precisely what the ID people on this board are arguing with their FCSI calculations. if you want to make the analogy (slightly) more biologically realistic, then think of the ticket purchaser already knowing 5 of the 6 winning numbers because they have been locked in by previous selection. makes the odds a lot better, huh? (please, I know, those #s aren't actually locked.. from the bottom of my heart I plead that this not turn into another Weasel thread)Khan
July 22, 2009
July
07
Jul
22
22
2009
01:30 PM
1
01
30
PM
PDT
Khan: Each Powerball ticket is a random combination of numbers. Are you suggesting that each living thing is a random combination of genes? And that given a few million, billion, or trillion chances, one of those combinations will successfully specify a successful organism? Just like that winning ticket? Mr. Charrington wrote nonsense. You should distance yourself from it.ScottAndrews
July 22, 2009
July
07
Jul
22
22
2009
01:21 PM
1
01
21
PM
PDT
Scott,
The odds of a single ticket winning the Powerball are roughly 1 in 146,000,000. When millions of tickets are purchased, the odds of a winner increase, and with enough tickets the event becomes inevitable.
kind of like when millions of organisms are born over time? thank you for making the point even clearer, Jim Marshall.Khan
July 22, 2009
July
07
Jul
22
22
2009
01:13 PM
1
01
13
PM
PDT
Mr. Charington, "Please support that statement with a reference from a published biologist please." 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 scientif 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. "Taking your numbers as given, are these trials happening in parallel or serial?" There is some parallelity (there's a word) to the trials, but not that much. Consider first that 2^40 represents all life-forms that have ever existed. Consider that 2^300,000 - 2^40 is 2^299,960. Consider also that in asexually reproducing organisms (subtracting the hgt effect) each mutation must happen in the same lineage as each other mutation. Organism A getting a mutation and organism B getting the other doesn't help either out to the extent of mutation A + B. Not now, not in the future (barring hgt). "do the “bits” have to be “precisely” alligned? Does that not assume only a single configuration that “works”?" Ultra-conserved genes make the strong implication of "only one design that works". Even if there are lots, say 2^100 designs that would work, it doesn't reduce the potency of a 2^300,000 challenge by much -- 2^299,900 isn't that easy to achieve. IE there's a heck of a lot of ways of doing it wrong, and relatively few ways of doing it right.bFast
July 22, 2009
July
07
Jul
22
22
2009
01:07 PM
1
01
07
PM
PDT
Mr Charrington:
And yet, despite the odds, somebody wins the lottery every week! What are the chances of that eh? I hear some people have even won twice! Wow, that must be because of the multiverse!
This sort of nonsense suggests that you are only amusing yourself to provoke a reaction. The odds of a single ticket winning the Powerball are roughly 1 in 146,000,000. When millions of tickets are purchased, the odds of a winner increase, and with enough tickets the event becomes inevitable. If you don't see how that's different from the subject at hand, then the other folks are being quite generous by even playing along with you.ScottAndrews
July 22, 2009
July
07
Jul
22
22
2009
01:06 PM
1
01
06
PM
PDT
bFast
Somehow, however, the evolutionary crowd says, “hey, neo-darwinian search is more effective than random search therefore 500 bits of data, (a 2^500) search, is suddenly easy
Please support that statement with a reference from a published biologist please.
Precisely aligning 300,000 bits is not just 300,000/500 times as hard, but is closer to 2^300,000/2^500 times as hard.
Taking your numbers as given, are these trials happening in parallel or serial? And do the "bits" have to be "precisely" alligned? Does that not assume only a single configuration that "works"? Do you think that is in fact the case, that only a single arrangement of the parts is viable?Mr Charrington
July 22, 2009
July
07
Jul
22
22
2009
12:48 PM
12
12
48
PM
PDT
bFast
Cool, take a cell, and remove its existing dna, then take 300,000 random nucleotides, and stick ‘em into a cell. Think it will work? If you do, I bet you also buy lottery tickets.
And yet, despite the odds, somebody wins the lottery every week! What are the chances of that eh? I hear some people have even won twice! Wow, that must be because of the multiverse!Mr Charrington
July 22, 2009
July
07
Jul
22
22
2009
12:43 PM
12
12
43
PM
PDT
Complexity (the C) is measured in possibilities. Honest, Khan, the scientific view that something must have preceeded the archae is not lost to the sophisticated IDer. It is also recognized that the neo-darwinian model can be a more effective search algorithm than random search. Somehow, however, the evolutionary crowd says, "hey, neo-darwinian search is more effective than random search therefore 500 bits of data, (a 2^500) search, is suddenly easy. Even if there is a boolean pathway from simple replicator to archae (by boolean pathway I mean a sequence of single mutational events such as a point mutation an insertion, deletion, transposition gene transfer etc.) precisely aligning 500 bits of data, testing out each boolean event in the crucible of life, is alot to ask. Precisely aligning 300,000 bits is not just 300,000/500 times as hard, but is closer to 2^300,000/2^500 times as hard. In addition, another thing that the darwinists have been unwilling to voice is that though the darwinian search can be better than random search, it can be worse also. What Behe shows in "Edge..." is that if an advance requires two boolean events, if the first offers no advantage, then the neodarwinian search is worse than a random search. If an advance requires two boolean events, but each event is slightly deleterious on its own, then darwinian search is much worse. When we study the archae and find ultra-conserved genes, suspicions should be raised that the only path to get there from here is to align the entire packet in one zap -- ie, we end up with the strong implication that the only way to get there from here is with a truly random search.bFast
July 22, 2009
July
07
Jul
22
22
2009
12:39 PM
12
12
39
PM
PDT
bFast
It so holds that n bits produces 2^n possibilities. 300,000 bits = 2^300,000 possibilities.
When you do what? As Kahn notes, what are you calculating here? The probability of a genome coming into existence all at once? What is it that you are "trying" here? What possibility are you measuring? The fact is that no actual biologist who knows what they are talking about talks about the probability of a cell or other biological strucure forming complete and by chance. It's Hoyle's fallacy all over. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoyle%27s_fallacy
These people, including Fred, have committed one or more of the following errors. 1. They calculate the probability of the formation of a "modern" protein, or even a complete bacterium with all "modern" proteins, by random events. This is not the abiogenesis theory at all. 2. They assume that there is a fixed number of proteins, with fixed sequences for each protein, that are required for life. 3. They calculate the probability of sequential trials, rather than simultaneous trials. 4. They misunderstand what is meant by a probability calculation. 5. They seriously underestimate the number of functional enzymes/ribozymes present in a group of random sequences.[1]
Mr Charrington
July 22, 2009
July
07
Jul
22
22
2009
12:38 PM
12
12
38
PM
PDT
so why are you talking about "possibilities" when FCSI is supposedly calculated in bits? are you really calculating the possibility of a bunch of nucelotides spontaneously joining together to form a genome? to echo Nakashima, please cite a valid reference where anyone has claimed that this is how evolution or abiogenesis works.Khan
July 22, 2009
July
07
Jul
22
22
2009
12:22 PM
12
12
22
PM
PDT
Nakashima, I reread your post #70 more carefully. You accurately corrected me. There are about 300,000 bits of data in a minimal genome. There are therefore 2^300,000 possible different genomes. Kahn, if you have two bits of data, you have 2^2 (4) possibilities. 00, 01, 10, and 11. If you have 3 bits of data, you have 2^3(8) possibilities, 000,001,010,011,100,101,110,and 111. It so holds that n bits produces 2^n possibilities. 300,000 bits = 2^300,000 possibilities.bFast
July 22, 2009
July
07
Jul
22
22
2009
12:11 PM
12
12
11
PM
PDT
jehu, no, it's not. please explain.Khan
July 22, 2009
July
07
Jul
22
22
2009
12:06 PM
12
12
06
PM
PDT
Khan,
bFast, that’s great and everything, but you still didn’t explain the biological reason why you put the calculated # of bits as an exponent of 2.
I am not a software engineer but I think the answer is self explanatory if you consider what a bit is and the number of different types of nucleotides in DNA.Jehu
July 22, 2009
July
07
Jul
22
22
2009
11:58 AM
11
11
58
AM
PDT
Mr bFast, Cool, take a cell, and remove its existing dna, then take 300,000 random nucleotides, and stick ‘em into a cell. Think it will work? If you do, I bet you also buy lottery tickets. I don't think it will work, but then again I don't know anyone who thinks that is how either abiogenesis or evolution works. Many of the genes in archae are ultra-conserved in all living organisms. If neo-darinian theory is correct, then these genes have no mutational flexibility. Well, if they mutate they die before reproducing. Conservation of itself doesn't tell you that genes are immune from mutation. Rhetoric does not dispose of IDs position quite that easily. I don't think I was engaging in anything rhetorical. There is a big difference between 300,000 and 2^300,000.Nakashima
July 22, 2009
July
07
Jul
22
22
2009
11:32 AM
11
11
32
AM
PDT
bFast, that's great and everything, but you still didn't explain the biological reason why you put the calculated # of bits as an exponent of 2.Khan
July 22, 2009
July
07
Jul
22
22
2009
11:27 AM
11
11
27
AM
PDT
Weird, Evolution try that one. Don't move the goalposts, you asked for duplication of binding sites and proteins, you got it.Nakashima
July 22, 2009
July
07
Jul
22
22
2009
11:23 AM
11
11
23
AM
PDT
Folks, we are talking to software engineers here. We software engineers have an intricate understanding of what 2^n means. 2^32 is considered in the software developer as an integer. It can hold values between -1,000,000,000,000 and 1,000,000,000,000. 2^33 can hold twice that amount! By time we get to 2^1000, we have a number used in the highes security encription. It is considered that if one randomly chose number within that field, and set all of the computers in the world to the challenge of guessing the number, it would take them 10 years to get there. 2^1001 is twice that size. 2^500 is about the number of atoms in the universe, 2^501 is twice that size. Now, when we are talking about numbers in the order of 2^300,000, or fudge factors of 2^100,000 these numbers are so large that even the programmer's brain gets boggled. I have proposed that to consider permutations, substituions, the fact that aminos can be represented by two or three nucleotide combinations etc we use a factor of 2^100,000. This number is actually vastly larger than is called for to account for variants. We still have an astounding 2^200,000 worth of data to contend with. Please, folks, study a bit about what archae life looks like so you quit sounding like idiots.bFast
July 22, 2009
July
07
Jul
22
22
2009
11:11 AM
11
11
11
AM
PDT
Nakashimi:
You could claim that there is a search space of 2^300,000 possible different genomes.
Cool, take a cell, and remove its existing dna, then take 300,000 random nucleotides, and stick 'em into a cell. Think it will work? If you do, I bet you also buy lottery tickets. Many of the genes in archae are ultra-conserved in all living organisms. If neo-darinian theory is correct, then these genes have no mutational flexibility. Rhetoric does not dispose of IDs position quite that easily.bFast
July 22, 2009
July
07
Jul
22
22
2009
11:02 AM
11
11
02
AM
PDT
Nakashima-san- Your link didn't work. Also what is the scientific data that demonstrates opsins are a result of gene duplication, complete with binding sites, as opposed to being designed that way?Joseph
July 22, 2009
July
07
Jul
22
22
2009
10:37 AM
10
10
37
AM
PDT
Mr Joseph, And there aren’t any peer-reviewed papers that support the non-telic position for the OoL nor the theory of evolution. Don't tell these guys, they'll be crushed.Nakashima
July 22, 2009
July
07
Jul
22
22
2009
10:34 AM
10
10
34
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5

Leave a Reply