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

_{William Dembski

July 20, 2009

Darwinism, Evolution, Intelligent Design}

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

Mr Joseph, Hoki: Unless, of course, the binding site is copied as well. Or if the gene gets spliced in near an already existing binding site. Can you provide any evidence for either of those scenarios? And in the end all that either of your scenarios will do is make more of an already existing protein. Opsins in the vision system.Nakashima_{July 22, 2009
July
07
Jul
22
22
2009
10:28 AM
10
10
28
AM
PDT}

Mr bFast, 500 * 100 * 3 * 2 = 300,000. There is 2^300,000 bits of data which represent this organism. No. 300,000 bits represent the organism. You could claim that there is a search space of 2^300,000 possible different genomes.Nakashima_{July 22, 2009
July
07
Jul
22
22
2009
10:26 AM
10
10
26
AM
PDT}

Nakashima-san:
I agree, if we want to dismiss Pinker’s letter, we have to dismiss the pro-ID ones also. Letters mean nothing compared to peer-reviewed articles.
And there aren't any peer-reviewed papers that support the non-telic position for the OoL nor the theory of evolution.Joseph_{July 22, 2009
July
07
Jul
22
22
2009
10:09 AM
10
10
09
AM
PDT}

Mr Charrington:
If 500 bits of FSCI indicates “design” then 499 bits must indicate “not design”.
That is false. The premise behind 500 bits of specified information is that it translates to a probability of 10^150. But anyways how many bits of specified information has anyone observed nature, operating freely cobbling together? That is all you need to do- show that nature, operating freely can readily account for what IDists call CSI. IOW stop whining about ID and start substantiating the claims of your position.Joseph_{July 22, 2009
July
07
Jul
22
22
2009
10:06 AM
10
10
06
AM
PDT}

bFast, not really. in 43 you calculate the FCSI of an entire organism. can you calculate the FCSI of a simple protein taking these factors into account? the 3rd position in a codon typically has a lot of "wobble", and the 2nd position a bit less. together, these should cut the FCSI value of a protein by 1/3. then the aa wobble of the protein itself should cut it down by more. how about the fact that multiple proteins perform the same function? how does this affect FCSI? and why are you taking your calculated FCSI values and using them as exponents of 2?Khan_{July 22, 2009
July
07
Jul
22
22
2009
09:45 AM
9
09
45
AM
PDT}

A nucleotide is 2 bits of information just because there are 4 possibilities for any one site. That is how one calculates the number of bits- how many characters can be used in any one position. It is pretty elementary actually. 26 lower case letters in the alphabet translates to 5 bits per character, which also allows for 6 other characters. But what does matter is how many possible sequences do not allow for a functional protein. Some proteins can't handle any change.
even more, many proteins with completely different sequences can perform the same function. does that impact their FCSI?
1- Whether or not CSI is present depends on the size of the protein. 2- All proteins require a specific sequence as not every sequence gives a proteinJoseph_{July 22, 2009
July
07
Jul
22
22
2009
09:36 AM
9
09
36
AM
PDT}

Khan, you are absolutely correct that in a protein-coding gene there are multiple nucleotide triplets that correspond to a single amino. In addition, there are some amino substitutions that make little or no difference to the function of a protein (substituting aminos that are in the same grouping relative to the function the amino is playing in the particular protein). Certainly these factors contribute to a rigorous calculation of the FCSI which is lower than the simple calculation. You will notice that in post 43 I said,
We may be able to argue, rightly, that we can make some count deduction due to mutatability of the aminos. However, we would be hard pressed to argue the count down lower than about 2^200,000 bits of FCSI data.
In this statement I gave a factor of 2^100,000 fudge factor to reference your concerns (in simplest known life) This should be well adequate to address your concerns.bFast_{July 22, 2009
July
07
Jul
22
22
2009
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT}

Joeph, all I'm doing is trying to work through your arguments.I still don't understand why a nucelotide is 2 bits of data, but I'll ignore that now. it just seems like if a nucelotide can be replaced with no effect, it shouldn't count the same in calculating FCSI as one that can not be replaced. same thing w amino acids that can be substituted with no effect on the protein. even more, many proteins with completely different sequences can perform the same function. does that impact their FCSI?Khan_{July 22, 2009
July
07
Jul
22
22
2009
09:25 AM
9
09
25
AM
PDT}

Mr Carrington:
As nobody knows what the first replicatior consisted of we can’t say that 382 genes were required for it.
Living organisms are much more than replicators. And to think that simple replicators can give rise to living organisms is nothing but wishful thinking.Joseph_{July 22, 2009
July
07
Jul
22
22
2009
09:17 AM
9
09
17
AM
PDT}

Khan:
so what happens when a nucleotide can be substituted with no effect on the protein?
Sometimes nothing happens and sometimes even allegedly "silent" mutations have some effect.
it seems like you should account for that when calculating FCSI.
As I have stated thousands of times- if you don't like the design inference then just start substantiating the claims of your position. However it has become obvious that your "positive" evidence amounts to a refusal to accept design.Joseph_{July 22, 2009
July
07
Jul
22
22
2009
09:15 AM
9
09
15
AM
PDT}

Joseph, so what happens when a nucleotide can be substituted with no effect on the protein? it seems like you should account for that when calculating FCSI.Khan_{July 22, 2009
July
07
Jul
22
22
2009
06:53 AM
6
06
53
AM
PDT}

Khan, There are 4 possible nucleotides for DNA or RNA. 2^2 = 4 Therefor 2 bits per nucleotide.Joseph_{July 22, 2009
July
07
Jul
22
22
2009
06:36 AM
6
06
36
AM
PDT}

With gene dupication the new gene requires a new binding site just to be able to be activated. Hoki:
Unless, of course, the binding site is copied as well. Or if the gene gets spliced in near an already existing binding site.
Can you provide any evidence for either of those scenarios? And in the end all that either of your scenarios will do is make more of an already existing protein. And that can be accomplished via enhancers.Joseph_{July 22, 2009
July
07
Jul
22
22
2009
06:33 AM
6
06
33
AM
PDT}

Mr Charrington, 1- Behe does not assume the mutations have to occur simultaneously. 2- How many individuals in the same population will get the same mutation? Isn't the premise behind DNA matching is the fact that the same mutations do not occur in different individuals? What the authors of the paper don't take into account and Behe has told them of is the fact that the original mutation doesn't have to stay in that state plus the fact that other sites in that region could also change while awaiting for that second mutation. But I am sure you have been told this and just refuse to acknowledge it.Joseph_{July 22, 2009
July
07
Jul
22
22
2009
06:31 AM
6
06
31
AM
PDT}

90degree:
Instead one goes about forming hypothesis’, performing experiments, and collecting data.
Tell us what is the hypothesis pertaining to non-telic processes? I have been asking but have never seen one.Joseph_{July 22, 2009
July
07
Jul
22
22
2009
06:26 AM
6
06
26
AM
PDT}

Mr. Charrington, If ever the question was begged, you have begged it, by using DNA and all existing life as evidence that DNA and all existing life occurred naturally. Neither logic nor debate will penetrate that. I could do that same: Show you evidence that life was designed? Look - life! There it is! Us! Here were are! But such reasoning is as substantial as dust.ScottAndrews_{July 22, 2009
July
07
Jul
22
22
2009
05:22 AM
5
05
22
AM
PDT}

Mr Cabal, I agree, if we want to dismiss Pinker's letter, we have to dismiss the pro-ID ones also. Letters mean nothing compared to peer-reviewed articles.Nakashima_{July 22, 2009
July
07
Jul
22
22
2009
05:14 AM
5
05
14
AM
PDT}

Gage,
For just one example, take a look at the Letters section (p 5-6) of the July 6th issue of Chemical and Engineering News. Of six letters published in response to the Editor’s heavy-handed dismissal of ID, five acknowledged flaws in evolutionary theory and, it seems to me, all five were supportive of ID too.
I agree with you, that is an impressive record. But is it a typical example? I may be wrong but that is not quite the impression I am left with from my many years of lurking various forums. Maybe it would be a good idea to have something like the Project Steve, let's say "Project IDProp", listing Design Proponents instead of scientists named Steve? (It would have been nice with a name like "Project Bill" or "Project Mike", but it might perhaps be difficult to find a thousand of them?) Or an alternate clergy project? Just some stray thoughts of mine, I suppose facts eventually will settle the controversy.Cabal_{July 22, 2009
July
07
Jul
22
22
2009
01:39 AM
1
01
39
AM
PDT}

VJ
The study concluded that the simplest form of life known to have existed requires around 382 “essential” genes.
Again, the word "known" appears. As nobody knows what the first replicatior consisted of we can't say that 382 genes were required for it.
You ask for a cutoff point that would unambiguously indicate the presence of an intelligent designer.
That is not what the FSCI FAQ indicates, nor what most of the other posters on this board think.
These results indicate that it is about 10^22 times more probable that the watermarks required ID than that they could be produced by mindless natural processes.
What watermark have you found in DNA that the designer put in then?
I believe the flagellum has about 30 proteins. 700 x 30 = 21,000 bits.
One of them. Now show me something with 499, 500 bits of FSCI please. Also which specific flagellum are your figures for, there are many different types.
He calculates that “[t]he functional information required, therefore, to code for a stable, folded protein domain is 213 to 256 bits,” which exceeds his significant level of 185 bits, so he concludes that “ID is highly likely to be required to produce folded, functional protein domains.”
Could you convert those figures into FSCI please? Is his "significant level" of 185 bits exactly equal to FSCI's "significant level" of 500 bits ?Mr Charrington_{July 22, 2009
July
07
Jul
22
22
2009
01:10 AM
1
01
10
AM
PDT}

Mr Charrington I have responded to some of your arguments on another thread, but I don't mind duplicating my efforts. Anyway, here goes. 1. You ask how we know what the simplest form of life is. I suggest you have a look at John Glass, et. al., Essential genes of a minimal bacterium, Synthetic Biology Group, J. Craig Venter Institute, in Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, Jan 2006, vol 103, No. 2, pp. 425-430. The study concluded that the simplest form of life known to have existed requires around 382 “essential” genes. The average length of a gene of a prokayote is around 900 nucleotides, or 343,800 nucleotides for the 382 essential genes. 2. You ask for a cutoff point that would unambiguously indicate the presence of an intelligent designer. I don't think there is one. To illustrate why, I'd like to quote from a 2008 paper by K.D. Kalinsky, entitled, Intelligent Design: Required by Biological Life? :
[L]et us imagine that the SETI Institute obtains a signal from outside the solar system that contains the first 50 prime numbers. If they were to conclude that it was more likely that a mind would be necessary to produce the signal than that mindless natural processes were sufficient to produce the phenomenon, then the signal would be a possible example of intelligent design. It would only be a possible example, due to the nature of scientific investigation; we could not be certain. No matter how improbable, it is still logically possible that the signal could have been generated by mindless natural processes. The best we could do is to weigh the probability that a mind could produce such a signal against the probability that mindless natural processes could do it and draw a conclusion as to which option was more likely. We know that a mind can generate the first 50 prime numbers, so the probability that a mind could produce that information is 1. If the probability that natural processes could generate the first 50 prime numbers is less than 1, then one can compare the two probabilities to decide how much more likely intelligent design is than mindless natural processes. If it turns out that intelligent design is ten times more likely, or a thousand more times more likely, then it becomes increasingly irrational to invoke mindless natural processes, and increasingly rational to invoke intelligent design.
3. You ask for examples of something with 500, 1000 or 1,000,000 bits of FSCI, because you are interested in identifying what you call the "edge of evolution." No problem. I'd be happy to oblige. I should state at the outset that the formula used by Kalinsky for what he calls “functional information” is somewhat different from William Dembski’s formula for CSI. It's not exactly the same as FSCI, either. However, it comes from a peer-reviewed source (PNAS), so you can hardly object. Anyway, here it is (I'm quoting Kalinsky):
A method to measure functional information has recently been published by Hazen et al. whereby functional information is defined as: I(E_x) = -log(to base 2) [M(E_x)/N] (1) where E_x is the degree of function x, M(E_x) is the number of different configurations that achieves or exceeds the specified degree of function x, >= E_x, and N is the total number of possible configurations. (Ref: Hazen, R.M., Griffen, P.L., Carothers, J.M. & Szostak, J.W. (2007) ‘Functional information and the emergence of biocomplexity’, PNAS 104, 8574-8581.)
Kalinsky goes on to calculate a significant level of information to be 185 bits, with reference to the evolution of life on Earth. Beyond this point, he considers that an intelligent design explanation is more likely, although a natural explanation cannot be positively ruled out. Kalinsky then gives some concrete illustrations. 1. Case One: the Venter Institute’s synthetic genome for M. genitalium. The five ‘watermarks’ in the synthetic Venter genome are formed by choosing base pairs that, when translated into amino acids and using the amino acid single letter symbols, spell out the following five words: VENTERINSTITVTE CRAIGVENTER HAMSMITH CINDIANDCLYDE GLASSANDCLYDE. In this case, Kalinsky calculates that the number of bits of functional information is 259. However, he has already calculated that the significant level of information in the biological realm is 185 bits. He concludes:
These results indicate that it is about 10^22 times more probable that the watermarks required ID than that they could be produced by mindless natural processes.
Case 2. Case Two: a folded, functional protein domain. Kalinsky quotes an estimate that the frequency of occurrence of stable, folded functional protein domains, a structurally independent component of a protein, is somewhere between 10^-64 to 10^-77. He calculates that “[t]he functional information required, therefore, to code for a stable, folded protein domain is 213 to 256 bits,” which exceeds his significant level of 185 bits, so he concludes that “ID is highly likely to be required to produce folded, functional protein domains.” 3. Case Three: an average 300 amino acid protein. Kalinsky calculates that the functional information required for the average 300 amino acid protein to be around 700 bits of information, so ID is 10^155 times more probable than mindless natural processes to produce the average protein. 4. Case Four: the simplest life form. To quote Kalinsky: It is estimated that the simplest life form would require at least 382 protein-coding genes. Using our estimate in Case Four of 700 bits of functional information required for the average protein, we obtain an estimate of about 267,000 bits for the simplest life form… [I]t is about 10^80,000 times more likely that ID could produce the minimal genome than mindless natural processes. You also asked me on another thread: What value of FSCI does the flagellum have, do you happen to know? I believe the flagellum has about 30 proteins. 700 x 30 = 21,000 bits. Does that answer your question? I’d like to finish with a quote from Kalinsky:
Actual mutations, insertions, deletions, and genetic drift may be chance events, but natural selection essentially guides the search and, hence, the search is not blind. On the one hand, it is assumed that natural selection explains how life could appear and diversify without requiring any intelligence, but on the other hand, terms that that are usually applied to intelligence, such as ‘design’ and ’selecting’ are commonly applied to natural selection. It is very common to read articles where the author marvels at what natural selection is capable of. Of course, this raises the question, does natural selection, itself, require intelligent design? The fatal mistake made by many who appeal to natural selection is the assumption that natural selection, itself, does not require intelligent design. It is bad science that does not test its assumptions, so we must apply intelligent design detection to natural selection itself.
vjtorley_{July 21, 2009
July
07
Jul
21
21
2009
11:26 PM
11
11
26
PM
PDT}

Mr bFast, I agree that non-boolean thinking may be more appropriate, but mr Charrington is following Mr KF. on the other current thread he defends his use of binary variables and simply tests againsts a limit value, which would lead to the inference that one less bit really would make a difference. But when I asked him about this he stood by it, so I guess it must be the right way to work with FSCI. Or FCSI. Whatever.Nakashima_{July 21, 2009
July
07
Jul
21
21
2009
09:13 PM
9
09
13
PM
PDT}

Mr Charrington, "If 500 bits of FSCI indicates “design” then 499 bits must indicate “not design”." This is terribly boolean thinking. Lets see if we can explain the concept of probability in very practical terms. Consider a large pail of pure white paint. If we put one drop of black paint in it, is now no longer white? Is there some majic number of drops of paint that would toggle the entire body of paint analysts where one less = they agree it is still white, one more and they agree that it is now "grey"? No. The number of 2^500 or the chance of one in 2^500 is presented as "big enough that any idiot would agree that chance doesn't play a part". Other numbers used for the "universal probability bound" (the c'mon, chance didn't do this, point) are 1 in 10^150 (about the number of atoms in the universe), 1 in 10^40(about the number of organisms that have ever lived) and other numbers. I, personally think that 1 in 10^40 is proof enough. My base 10 to base 2 conversion isn't good enough to convert 10^40 to base 2, but the number is a whole lot less than 2^500. Now that we are past the concept of the magic 2^500 is, 2^499 isn't, lets look at what 2^500 looks like. The average gene contains about 300 nucleotides. This is 2^600 bits of data. So 2^500 is somewhere in the zone of one gene's worth of data. As genes vary in length, some will have more, and some less than the magic 2^500. A gene appearing "de-novo" has about 50% chance of meeting the definition of FCSI if the threshold of complexity is set at 2^500. There appear to be at least 50 de-novo genes that separate the human and the chimp. Each of these, it would appear, should fry the theory of neo-Darwinian evolution. BTW, there's a bunch of other de-novo genes floating around at about every branch in the proposed tree of life.bFast_{July 21, 2009
July
07
Jul
21
21
2009
08:47 PM
8
08
47
PM
PDT}

ab,
The further you drift away from 500 bits the less likely it is that natural processes could have produced it. When you say “design” or “maybe designed” or “not designed”, that is not really the question nor does it render “the” answer, in the absolute sense, the question is can natural processes produce it, if not then design becomes more probable. Its as simple as that.
IIRC, someone calculated that 500 bits of FSCI allows you to reject the null hypothesis of "not designed" at the $\alpha = 0.01$ significance level. Damned if I can find the source now, unfortunately.herb_{July 21, 2009
July
07
Jul
21
21
2009
05:10 PM
5
05
10
PM
PDT}

If 500 bits of FSCI indicates “design” then 499 bits must indicate “not design
The further you drift away from 500 bits the less likely it is that natural processes could have produced it. When you say "design" or "maybe designed" or "not designed", that is not really the question nor does it render "the" answer, in the absolute sense, the question is can natural processes produce it, if not then design becomes more probable. Its as simple as that. I'll admit, the Darwinists do know how to frame something in such a way that makes the subject in question sound stupid or ridiculous, and it seems the more stupid they can make it sound the lesser the subject in question becomes true (in their minds). So they have their own little version of "csi"; decreasing the probability of something being true the more stupid they can make it look/sound.ab_{July 21, 2009
July
07
Jul
21
21
2009
04:53 PM
4
04
53
PM
PDT}

Still, I have to wonder what Pinker bases his outrage on. Is it: a. That the BG has published op-eds from the super-mega-evil Discovery Institute? b. That it establishes a trend: TWO--COUNT 'EM--TWO pro-ID op-eds IN AS MANY YEARS? Why, that's ONE PER YEAR!! Beware the coming theocracy!!! c. That the publication of the super-mega-despicably-evil op-ed from the SMDE Discovery Institute occurred so close to Our Lord's 200th birthday? Was its publication merely an instance of bad timing? Would there have been a better time to publish it? Arbor Day, perhaps? d. Or that it "sows confusion about evolution"? Apparently, this is Pinker's job. After all, isn't this the same Steve Pinker who published a NYT op-ed defending infanticide?Terry Mirll_{July 21, 2009
July
07
Jul
21
21
2009
04:50 PM
4
04
50
PM
PDT}

bFast
the simplest known form of independant life
And there is the key. Known. The simplest known form of life. As you say known you imply there is a possibility of a simpler unknown "lifeform". I put it in quotes on purpose. So, you do not deny the possibility that there are simpler "lifeforms" then the one you are aware of. Then, if we subtract 1 from the number of bits in that lifeform then is that not a simper, but potentially viable "lifeform". It's only 1 bit less after all. And so on and so forth.
There is 2^300,000 bits of data which represent this organism.
OK
2^200,000 is rather plenty when you are calling for 2^500.
You have misunderstood my request. If 500 bits of FSCI indicates "design" then 499 bits must indicate "not design". I'm more interested in the edge cases, the "edge of design" if you will. I'm asking for an example of somthing with 1 bit of FSCI (Is that even possible?) 250 bits of FSCI (Halfway?) 499 bits of FSCI (Almost designed) 500 bits of FSCI (Designed) 501 bits of FSCI (Designed but more certain then 500) 1,000,000+ (Most certanly designed).
However, we would be hard pressed to argue the count down lower than about 2^200,000 bits of FCSI data.
I believe you'l find it's FSCI https://uncommondescent.com/faq/#fsci_rts So. OK. You've added up a few things to do with the organism in question. How does that prove it was designed, exactly? How do you get from "A huge FSCI value" to "designed", exactly, and how does the specific value of FSCI get used to do that?Mr Charrington_{July 21, 2009
July
07
Jul
21
21
2009
03:51 PM
3
03
51
PM
PDT}

Mr Joseph, With gene dupication the new gene requires a new binding site just to be able to be activated. It is a good thing the DNA for binding sites can get duplicated too! And you might form a hypothesis that genes where the DNA for the protein and the DNA for the binding site are close together on the same chromosome are easy to duplicate. Therefore that one protein could get modified over and over again in different ways to serve different purposes. Like opsin.Nakashima_{July 21, 2009
July
07
Jul
21
21
2009
03:35 PM
3
03
35
PM
PDT}

bFast, Ok, now we're getting somewhere. I guess my first question is:
A nucleotide represents 2 bits of data
why?Khan_{July 21, 2009
July
07
Jul
21
21
2009
03:34 PM
3
03
34
PM
PDT}

Mr Charrington, the simplest known form of independant life (not requiring a host to reproduce, like viruses do) contains aproximately 500 genes. An average gene is made up of 100 amino acids. Each amino is made up of 3 nucleotides. A nucleotide represents 2 bits of data. 500 * 100 * 3 * 2 = 300,000. There is 2^300,000 bits of data which represent this organism. We may begin to argue, rightly, that 4^3 is more than necessary to represent the 20+ aminos. We may be able to argue, rightly, that we can make some count deduction due to mutatability of the aminos. However, we would be hard pressed to argue the count down lower than about 2^200,000 bits of FCSI data. 2^200,000 is rather plenty when you are calling for 2^500.bFast_{July 21, 2009
July
07
Jul
21
21
2009
03:30 PM
3
03
30
PM
PDT}

Or perhaps you’d prefer to give me a example of a thin with 499 bits of FSCI?
that should have of course read "thing" with 499 bits of FSCI. I know there are some people on here who take spelling more seriously then the arguments being misspelled and I don't want to give them any ammunition.Mr Charrington_{July 21, 2009
July
07
Jul
21
21
2009
02:07 PM
2
02
07
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply