“There is no controversy”

_{William Dembski

May 22, 2008

Evolution}

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

“There is no controversy.” “There should be no controversy.” “It’s okay to expel those who pretend that there is a controversy.” “Academic freedom does not apply where the scientific consensus says there is no controversy.” …

The Washington Post has a ridiculous editorial that elevates evolutionary theory to the same status as gravitational theory and the truths of mathematics (go here).

Meanwhile, the Altenberg meeting coming up this summer brings together biologists who see the contemporary state of evolutionary theory as in upheaval (go here). Yes, the field is in disarray, but there is NO CONTROVERSY. What, are we living in a Kafka novel?

Comments

Patrick: well, it was nice of you to basically ignore my entire answer to gpuccio's question with a simple handwave of 'I must be side-loading in information to the simulation' (which is what that GA Chess post suggests). It'd be nicer if you could tell me where, in my hypothetical machine code example, that side-loading is occuring. Is it the act of deciding what the code should be, and arranging a genetic toolkit for organisms to build themselves? The whole point of giving the lifeforms a building toolkit was precisely to avoid the claim of sneaky information. If you're going to assume that every single GA is sneaking it in via the back, then I'm wasting my time, aren't I? Also, I could be wrong, but wasn't Dr Marks' paper on ev found to be in error? In any case, thanks for the links to the posts and websites, but I have read a lot of the material already, even Dr Dembski's work on active information. I admire your effort to actually go through the math of ID, but I cannot find any that applies to what I'm talking about.Venus Mousetrap_{May 23, 2008
May
05
May
23
23
2008
11:19 AM
11
11
19
AM
PDT}

Venus Mousetrap: I can't find any real answer in what you say. I will be more clear: I need specific, detailed models or examples, not vague speculations. More in detail: a) Show me how you have created a program of at least 500 bit length from random variation in your computer, with a definite function (I mean a function of the whole problem, not just an incoherent mix of elementary functions). For instance, an ordering algorithm, or a self replicating computer virus. I have no preferences. I don't care if you have been using C or machine language. Detalis, please. Show the final program, and how you got to it, without a specific selection incorporating a definite idea of what you want to obtain. Please, show how you have, for the first time, overcome Dembski's limit of 2^500. b) It is perfectly OK for me if you duplicate your first program (although that, too, should happen randomly). But please, show us how you pass from proram A to program B, which has another function. For instance, how you pass from an ordering algorithm to, say, a program which sums numbers given in input. c) and, finally, just get four similar program working together (for instance, ordering numbers, then selecting the first 20, summing them, ang executing some final computation. For all of that, you must either show that you have done that and how, or show a theoretical model which lets us see that it is possible empirically, computing the statistical resources needed. And, please, be explicit and detailed. Again, good luck...gpuccio_{May 23, 2008
May
05
May
23
23
2008
11:14 AM
11
11
14
AM
PDT}

bornagain77: I point out that it is an established fact that quantum non-locality proves the transcendence and dominion of (catch this next word) TRANSCENDENT information over the material/energy realm! Isn't super-determinism a non-transcendent explanation?mike1962_{May 23, 2008
May
05
May
23
23
2008
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT}

I’m not sure dividing up micro and macro into separate theories is really accurate
Obviously there is a controversy at least on this subject, since I doubt all the Darwinists on UD would agree with you. That's assuming what you mean is that microevolution leads to macroevolution over long time, and that the mechanisms are essentially the same. And, yes, both would be contained underneath an overarching theory, so no need to nitpick me. Stern, David L. “Perspective: Evolutionary Developmental Biology and the Problem of Variation,” Evolution 2000, 54, 1079-1091. A contribution from the University of Cambridge. “One of the oldest problems in evolutionary biology remains largely unsolved…Historically, the neo-Darwinian synthesizers stressed the predominance of micromutations in evolution, whereas others noted the similarities between some dramatic mutations and evolutionary transitions to argue for macromutationism.” Simons, Andrew M. “The Continuity of Microevolution and Macroevolution,” Journal of Evolutionary Biology 2002, 15, 688-701. A contribution from Carleton University.”A persistent debate in evolutionary biology is one over the continuity of microevolution and macroevolution whether macroevolutionary trends are governed by the principles of microevolution.” Macneill, Allen. Uncommon Descent. "Do the "engines of variation" (EvoDevo, etc) provide sufficient variation to move beyond microevolution to macroevolution? This is indeed the central question. One of the central tenets of the "modern synthesis of evolutionary biology" as celebrated in 1959 was the idea that macroevolution and microevolution were essentially the same process. That is, macroevolution was simply microevolution extrapolated over deep evolutionary time, using the same mechanisms and with essentially the same effects. A half century of research into macroevolution has shown that this is probably not the case." and "Do the currently identified mechanisms of genetic and phenotypic variation produce enough variation to get from there to here or not? As for macroevolution, I agree that at the present time we have little or no formal theory predicting the observed patterns of change in deep evolutionary time. This is one reason why I have asserted that the so-called "modern evolutionary synthesis" of the mid-20th century is "dead" – it's theoretical predictions have either been superceded (e.g. by evo-devo) or shown to be inadequate. However, this only means that we do not currently have a comprehensive theoretical understanding of how macroevolution has occurred. What we do have is an immense and exponentially expanding body of evidence strongly supporting the inference that macroevolution has indeed happened. This is the inference that both Michael Behe and William Dembski (and my friend and colleague, Hannah Maxson) have agreed with on numerous occasions. the argument is not about whether, but rather about how. One approach to answering the question of how has macroevolution occurred is to analyze the previously mentioned mountain of empirical evidence with respect to any patterns that it might yield." Yes, MacNeill is positive that with further research that Darwinism will be vindicated. One of the focuses for ID proponents has always been–even 10+ years ago–to find whether there is positive evidence for Darwinian mechanisms being capable of macroevolution to the extent that everything we see since the OOL was created without any directed design involved. That is nowhere near a "small" controversy. That's a gaping hole in evolutionary biology that MacNeill is attempting to fill in with a shotgun filled with pebbles (the list of purported mechanisms for modern evolutionary biology). We're just seeking one example. Every time a Darwinist claims there is an example, it's either a trivial example we would not disagree with in the first place, like cladogenesis in plants or microevolutionary events like the nylonase in Flavobacterium, or they're playing connect-the-dots by comparing various creatures and presuming the mechanism works…which is the point under contention in the first place! Yet most Darwinists will never admit that examples have never been observed but are instead inferred to be real. Let's get real. There are real issues that both Darwinism and ID have trouble with. I'd be lying if I said that the ID movement has all its ducks in a row. The relatively low amount of ID research is one of them. It's a real problem even if there are a real life reasons such as persecution and the need to maintain day jobs that usually don't provide the opportunity for ID research. But increasing the amount of ID research is fixable, given enough support. Personally I'd love to see Darwinists and ID proponents working together. The major problem is procuring funding. I hate to see it when Darwinists are demanding that ID proponents produce more research and then at the same time advocating closing any potential avenues for this research to take place. If they want to be consistent and if they take these questions seriously they should be helping ID proponents receive a decent level of funding even if they do believe in general that ID is incorrect. At the very least these research projects may discover the limitations of certain mechanisms and in the process discover information that could advance medical technology. Who knows, maybe it would be an ID proponent who does the actual gruntwork and manages to find positive evidence for some Darwinian mechanisms being capable of producing CSI. But despite these disagreements, I personally am very thankful to him for declaring that Neo-Darwinism is largely dead and a new “evolving holistic synthesis” (MacNeill’s term) must be formed. The debate, and the controversy, has been centered around old ideas in evolutionary biology for far too long.
The fact that this occurs by pure random mutation (I wasn’t even selecting) means it is nonsense to claim that micro and macro evolution are two different ideas.
Perhaps in your model...which does not reflect biological reality.
I wasn’t talking about Darwinian evolution. I was talking about the inevitability of speciation.
You define species in a manner that doesn't refer to biology. What exactly are you modeling again? If your purposes is to showcase that Darwinian processes can function in limited environments/cases then I see no reason to disagree.
I’ll have to take your word for that since I’ve not been able to fathom how ID calculates information,
www.designinference.com A simpler version: http://www.overwhelmingevidence.com/oe/blog/patrick/csi_in_less_than_a_thousand_words Other examples: http://www.overwhelmingevidence.com/oe/blog/patrick/egnor_and_the_information_challenge http://www.overwhelmingevidence.com/oe/node/361
but you haven’t explained why a dog has to remain a dog.
Unless I missed some significant scientific progress, no one is yet able to look at the informational content and say "these sections here is what makes this dog unique".
This is what I meant by barriers - it’s possible for you to invent an infinite variety of barriers for evolution to overcome
Inventing barriers? We're talking basic engineering here. When the code is pleiotropic you have to have multiple concurrent changes that work together to produce a functional result. Simple changes adding up over deep time are not realistic. And, yes, I'm aware that the modular design of the code can allow for SOME largescale changes, especially noticeable with plants, but this is not uniform. Nor is it usually coherent (cows with extra legs hanging from their bodies, humans with extra mammary glands or extensions of their vertebrae [tails], flies with eyes all over). Nor non-destructive for that matter. And whence came the modularity? See this: http://www.overwhelmingevidence.com/oe/node/362
You’re asking for a demo of darwinian evolution, which I wasn’t actually talking about, but I’m game for this, too: ... This isn’t speculation. People do this. It’s my hobby.
Why such models are not a danger to ID, and in fact favor ID: http://www.overwhelmingevidence.com/oe/blog/patrick/ga_chess Dr. Marks, in an interview:
“Teleological” means that there is a goal in mind for the evolution process. Any time we go to the computer and actually simulate the evolution we have some sort of goal in mind, yet if you go over into the biology area, they say Darwinian evolution is not teleological — it has no goal. It’s just a process of meaningless, random events and, boom!, all of a sudden you have something which appears designed. Yet, intererestingly, in my limited exposure to some if the literature in biology, everything they do in computer modeling of evolution is teleological. And so, one of the things that I would like to see, and I have [as] a[n open] challenge, is to actually show me an emulation of a computer model that is nonteleological. And I don’t believe that there is one. We have looked at some different programs in the area of biology, and one of the things that is often claimed is that there is a magical design which occurs with the computer doing the evolution — again, not paying attention to all of this information that is snuck into the side. And what we have done, [is] we’ve been able to look at, for example, a paper from Tom Schneider at NIH, which actually proposed a[n] evolutionary program, ev, and we’re actually able to show that the amount of added information that he was using was incredible! There were two stages to it. One where he actually put together the program, and then he used an evolutionary program to do a search of this model, and it turns out his model was so information-rich that he didn’t even require an evolutionary program. He could have done it just by blind queries and it works better, and we actually were able to show this, and have it on one of our papers at evolutionaryinformatics.org — and we actually showed that the amount of added information that he placed into his algorithm was such that there only was required 8 bits of information that he needed to search for. … The other one we’ve looked at, which we haven’t published as of yet, is the Avida program. Now the Avida program has been written by some very top people in the area of computational intelligence and biology. They purported to show through this process that, gosh, evolution can, indeed, happen on the computer. And it was [Avida researcher, philosopher Robert] Pennock who was one of the witnesses that testified at the Dover trial. There was reference made [at Dover] to this program called Avida. And Avida, like many of these other programs that we see in the evolutionary literature, said “Wow! Look at the magic of evolution. Look at all this information that we gained without having information.” I am actually starting to believe that there’s a law — a type of law of conservation of information. That is, you can’t get much more information out of an evolutionary program than you put in. Well, we have also done an analysis of Avida and will very soon be publishing a paper showing that the amount of information that was snuck in from the side was such that the program would not have a snowball’s chance if it didn’t have this extra information placed into the side. They also talk about it being “non-targeted.” It does have a target. And they even say, “It looks like it has a target, but it doesn’t have a target.” Well, it does have a target, and we’ll be showing that and actually giving measures of the amount of information — in bits — that was added to the Avida program.
Another quote:
Edge of Evolution pg. 276 In Avida, acquiring new abilities is only one way for an organism to get computer food. Another way is by simply acquiring surplus instructions, whether or not they do anything. In fact, instructions that aren’t ever executed - making them utterly useless for performing tasks - are beneficial in Avida because they provide additional food without requiring any additional consumption. It’s survival of the fattest! It’s also very unrealistic. Biological organisms show the opposite behavior - genes that are useless in the real world are not rewarded; the genes are rapidly lost or degraded by mutation. Why, then, was Avida programmed to do the opposite? As explained on the Avida website, the counterbiological feature was needed, “Otherwise there is a strong selective pressure for shorter genomes.” In other words, otherwise the program wouldn’t give the desired results.
And you act as if this is a new concept to us, yet you admit to not knowing the basics of ID. I suggest you do some reading first: Lee Spetner, Not By Chance! (Brooklyn, NY: Judaica Press, 1997) Neil Broom, How Blind Is the Watchmaker? (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2001) David Swift, Evolution Under the Microscope (Stirling University Innovation Park, UK: Leighton Academic Press, 2002) John Sanford, Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome (Lima, NY: Ivan Press, 2005) Michael Behe, The Edge of Evolution (New York, NY: Free Press, 2007) And for balance, here's some of the latest from Darwinists. There’s “Endless Forms Most Beautiful” by Sean Carroll, Jablonka and Lamb’s new book “Evolution in Four Dimensions”, Elliot Sober and David Sloan Wilson’s book “Unto Others: The Evolutionary Psychology of Unselfish Behavior”, and Lynn Margulis’s book “Acquiring Genomes”.Patrick_{May 23, 2008
May
05
May
23
23
2008
08:46 AM
8
08
46
AM
PDT}

Patrick, I watched a course on the Philosophy of Science from the Teaching Company. While the guy was about as convoluted as one can imagine, one thing that I came away with is that there is no definition of science or any universally accepted method of practicing it. The other thing I learned from various discussions and reading is that there is no accepted definition of life and intelligence. Like science, each is fraught with problems. So three standard concepts we frequently deal with are unclear.jerry_{May 23, 2008
May
05
May
23
23
2008
08:09 AM
8
08
09
AM
PDT}

Some Cool "Uncontroversial" Videos: m RNA to Protein Synthesis http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJxobgkPEAo&feature=related RNA Animation http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ml0OqAUzEXU&feature=related The inner life of the cell http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B76hAYcAT8c The wonders of a tiny cell http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dMlde9akBk&feature=related DNA Replication http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfxnP8SwdRw&feature=related Privileged Planet http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWUbJzqLqB8 Case for Creator: Cambrian Explosion http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DV_jdTDZ5P0&feature=user Unlocking the Mystery of Life: Design Reasoning http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdfBrUFgfTc&feature=user Case for Creator: Bacterial Flagellum http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AX451w84VSs&feature=related Privileged Planet: Finely Tuned Universe http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vX5CbxiKHqY Unlocking the Mystery of Life: Information http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KzeKcruiD8&feature=related Fearfully and Wonderfully Made (The Amazing Human Body) http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=ebd24d7787d69d4974cabornagain77_{May 23, 2008
May
05
May
23
23
2008
07:56 AM
7
07
56
AM
PDT}

The A-Team is someone who should be ignored. Unlike the original A-Team, he/she does not have a plan or a logical argument. When A-Team demonstrates anything other than contempt or ridicule maybe he/she should be answered.jerry_{May 23, 2008
May
05
May
23
23
2008
07:11 AM
7
07
11
AM
PDT}

Cue may be banned but I thought I'd respond:
The scientific method is a specific process. It is not the only process. It is, however, the process represented in the schools when natural science is taught.
This discussion already took place at length: https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/complex-speciation-of-humans-and-chimpanzees/ My take: The major issue I have is that it comes down to asserting that a currently popular philosophy of science IS Science itself. I think that public school standards should attempt to be as neutral as possible in regard to these various philosophies. Many people are not even aware that there are many schools of thought (btw, Bill apparently likes Pragmatic Naturalism). Also, I’m not saying that any particular philosophy of science is right or wrong (they all have merits depending on the nature of reality). In fact, my preference would be that schools briefly outline the various philosophies in addition to a neutral definition like this one: science: a branch of knowledge conducted on objective principles involving the systematized observation of and experiment with phenomena After all, we’re talking about education, not indoctrination…which is what public education becomes if only a particular philosophy is taught as being the only option. Some may object that discussions of philosophy of science is too complicated and should be left for college. Well, personally I think we’re dumbing down the public education system enough as it is.Patrick_{May 23, 2008
May
05
May
23
23
2008
07:10 AM
7
07
10
AM
PDT}

dmso74, We can add you to the list of evolutionary biologists that do not provide any information to support macro evolution when asked. There is another evolutionary biologist who comments here all the time and never provides any support for macro evolution and we have regular biologists who also never comment. It is a telling trend. You have punted and pointed to the overwhelming evidence. But those that point to the overwhelming evidence nearly always fail to point to the best of the overwhelming. In other words they avoid any type of debate. I would suggest you pick the best of the 29 evidences and bring it forward for discussion. You seem like a reasonable person and not harboring inherent disdain for us here who challenge the naturalistic evolution paradigm. If so then the discussions could prove fruitful for both sides. But let me make a point. Such things as universal common descent are not evidence of any mechanism for change. UCD is a conclusion based on evidence, not evidence for a mechanism. Neither are the molecular DNA data differences between species. They have nothing to do with any naturalistic mechanism that creates new variants of life forms. We understand the possible means for deterioration of the genome so it is nothing new. Since you teach evolutionary biology, you know that the text books are nearly all about micro evolution. And the question becomes is micro evolution evolution upwards (species > genera > family > order) or devolution (order > family > genera > species.) The first would be Darwinian evolution or the modern synthesis macro evolution scenario while the later may be what the data says and is in complete contrast to the Darwinian paradigm. Many of us here tend to believe the latter scenario because that is what the evidence says and why we are skeptical of the current paradigm.jerry_{May 23, 2008
May
05
May
23
23
2008
07:07 AM
7
07
07
AM
PDT}

gpuccio: Exemplary analysis? He avoided making any explanations. I was showing that if you split a population and let them both carry on as normal, they will speciate from each other. The fact that this occurs by pure random mutation (I wasn't even selecting) means it is nonsense to claim that micro and macro evolution are two different ideas. You're asking for a demo of darwinian evolution, which I wasn't actually talking about, but I'm game for this, too: :) a) rm+ns (it's easier to say than Darwinian evolution) obviously can't arrive at a specific function. However, suppose we have a kind of machine code, where different combinations of bits are different operations. example: 0000 [address] - JUMP to address 0001 [direction] - ROTATE to direction 0010 [distance] - MOVE by distance 0011 [direction] - GROW in direction ... and more. Then a string of 500 bits will be a program for controlling and growing a virtual lifeform. A random string will result in a bizarre, deformed mess, but in a population of them, some must outperform the others, and the next generation will have more of their kids. This isn't speculation. People do this. It's my hobby. :) After a while you will have virtual lifeforms which are better at doing whatever it is they do, than the first ones were. This depends, of course, on a robust genome. That's why you can't mutate in C, but machine code is more forgiving. DNA already is this robust, and is therefore perfect for mutation and selection. Is that by design? b) Easy! duplicate the first program. This also happens in DNA. If your program's end result, for example, is to spin a flagellum about, there's no harm in doing it twice. Having a duplicated genome won't harm it at all. But now it gets interesting. With the code for spinning already in place, it doesn't matter if the duplicated version is changed. Suppose that mutations now cause the duplicated code to stretch and curl the flagellum, instead of spinning it, so that it becomes a sweeping organ which is good at gathering food. That could not have happened if it wasn't already spinning. The duplication gave it new material to operate upon. c) Well, this kind of follows from b): a new function evolved that depended on the function in a). If another function evolves which also requires the lifeform to be spinning, then, that's two. There's nothing to stop that happening five times. This is what I meant when I said I saw no difficulties with rm+ns producing complex structures. And to top it off, it's often the case in DNA that some genes ARE modified duplicates of others.Venus Mousetrap_{May 23, 2008
May
05
May
23
23
2008
07:05 AM
7
07
05
AM
PDT}

Just a general clarification about all this "controversy" issue. The controversy obviously exists. To say the contrary is pure folly (or just simply bad faith). A controversy does not exist only if no one dissents. Are we no one? Moreover, even if darwinists think differently, we are not stupid, our arguments are not stupid. Darwinists think differently, therefore the controversy exists. But there is more. We in ID have never asked that darwinian evolution, as a theory, be cancelled form the scientific community. We have never asked that it be never thaught in schools. We have never asked that it be never mentioned in schools, or that darwinian papers be never published on scientific journals. We are only asking that it may be freely debated, without being accused of heresy. On the contrary, darwinists ask that ID must not be considered a scientific theory, that it not only should not be taught in schools (which I agree with), but that it should never be mentioned in schools (which is inacceptable). They ask (and obtain) that no mention of ID be ever made in published papers (if not to attack it). Indeed, darwinists just want that ID may not exist, if not as folklore (and maybe not even as that). So, not only the controversy exists, but it is not even the same controversy. The controversy of IDists is a scientific controversy, the statement that darwinian evolution is indeed a scientific theory, but a bad theory, and that ID is a better theory to explain the same evidence. Both theories have the right to exist and to be debated seriously. The controversy of darwinists, instead, is one of dogma, intolerance and power, and has nothing to do with science. Darwinists are not arguing that their theory is better (which is their absolute right to do). They are arguing that no other theory exists, that there is no controversy. Indeed, they are often arguing that their theory is not a theory, but a fact. So, you see, there are at least two controversies, one good and the other bad. But, certainly, there are controversies.gpuccio_{May 23, 2008
May
05
May
23
23
2008
07:01 AM
7
07
01
AM
PDT}

gpuccio, You pity the fool. :-)tribune7_{May 23, 2008
May
05
May
23
23
2008
07:01 AM
7
07
01
AM
PDT}

The A-Team (#69): your post is really a masterpiece of unreasonabless. It's a true case of: with such enemies, who needs friends? "cdesign proponentsists have yet to present any falsifying tests on which to judge the merits of their hypothesis and thus cannot fall into the sphere of science. " Falsifying tests? A reasonable model of how CSI can come out of random noice + undirected selection would be a good start. But, you see, that's the task of darwinists to produce such a model, after all they believe that it exists. And, once the theoretical model exists (because, up to now, I don't think they really have one), it can certainly be tested in the lab. Any lab demonstration that CSI can come out of random noise plus undirected selection would certainly falsify ID, or at least a good part of it. But I have to remind you that, again, it is the task of the darwinists to realize the falsification. What is required of a scientific theory, in a Popperian sense, is that in principle it can be falsified, and that is certainly true of ID, as I have shown. But it is not certainly the duty of those who present a theory to falsify it! Therefore, ID can certainly "fall into the sphere of science" (your words). "You say there’s a magic leprechaun poofing everything into existence?" I have nothing against magic leprechauns, but that's not what ID is saying. ID is saying that biological information, or at least most of it, is best explained by design. Did I miss the leprechaun hiding in that definition? Are designers leprechauns by default? (and magic ones, too...) "Then put your money where your mouth is and prove it. " That's exactly what ID is doing (proving desing, not leprechauns). "That’s not an unreasonable request. " Not at all. "Prove your claims or get out of the lab. " We have, repeatedly, proven our claims, and a lab is not always necessary for that. Most of the ID theory deals with the existing evidence, exactly the same evidence which is being discovered in all labs in the world. Any protein sequence, for instance, is an example of CSI, and any cascade pathway an example of IC. "You don’t like the idea of empirical evidence (aka proving stuff)? Tough." Where did you get that strange idea from? We do like the idea of empirical evidence. Everything in ID is based on the available empirical evidence. "Evolution has empirical evidence in spades from transitional fossils like archeaopteryx and ambulocetus natons, DNA evidence, vestigial organs, etc." Others have already commented on that. I would like just to mention that all your examples, whatever their value, are at best evidence for common descent, and not for causal mechanism. Most IDists accept common descent. Some don't, and they have the task to show how all those arguments are controversial (and I do believe they are controversial, which is not the same as false. In general, I can believe in common descent). But, as you shoud know, common descent is in no way the central issue of ID. The central issue of ID, in case you have not noticed, is the causal mechanism for change and for the appearance of comlex functional information in biological beings. None of your arguments applies to that. So, where is that "empirical evidence in spades"? "Trying to deny this evidence by putting your hands over your ears and singing “la, la, la, la” over and over again isn’t going to make it go away." Is that a method you are familiar with? Interesting and original procedure! As for me, I have listened to you with attention, although with no great intellectual pleasure, and I have dutifully taken the time to answer you. Are you going to do the same?gpuccio_{May 23, 2008
May
05
May
23
23
2008
06:38 AM
6
06
38
AM
PDT}

Venus Mousetrap (#56): I appreciate that you like a challenge, but do you really think you are faceing it with your example? I have little to add to the examplary analysis made by F2XL. Just a couple of thoughts. What were you trying to prove? That you can arbitrarily change digits in numbers arbitrarily taken? Where is the deep point? If you really want to defend macroevolution, which was the original "challenge", you have to give a model of: a) how a string of at least 500 bits with a specific function (for instance, a simple computer program) could come out from random noise + any kind of selection which does not include any knowledge of the result to be obtained. b) how, starting from the above string, you can derive another string of approximatley the same length, with a completely different function (for instance, another program to do something else), different from he first one for at least, say, 100 bits, by random noice + any kind of selection which does not include any knowledge of the result to be obtained. c) how, by the same criteria, you can "evolve" a set of independent programs, let's say five of them, each one with a different function, and which, together, realize still another new function, which would be impossible without any of the five component programs. That's, more or less, the challenge, and in a really minimal forma. Good luck!gpuccio_{May 23, 2008
May
05
May
23
23
2008
06:04 AM
6
06
04
AM
PDT}

A common tactic employed by Darwinists (yes, I said it) is to grossly oversimplify the task at hand. Apparently this is exactly what we see now. In really life a 3/4 genome difference could practically be the difference between two species in entirely different animal kingdoms. In science, we call the process of simplification 'modelling'. It's then left to the scientists to decide just how well those models reflect reality. In my model I actually made it harder for myself, on purpose. If, for example, I had used strings of a billion bits, and insisted that the same species must be 99% identical, then I could still have run the sim to give the same effect: two populations will diverge while still remaining supposedly the same species themselves. The math hasn't changed. As stated before similarities between the genome of creatures within the same species is much more similar and fragile then that, think more like 99.9% when it comes to humans alone. That doesn't refute the math. It's the same in both cases. Except in real life it takes more then just a single bit change at a time to see any real changes. I suggest you join the current discussion in “Chance, Law, Agency, or Other?” Again, this is a M-O-D-E-L. It's an illustration of the math. In real life, it's even worse because there are more ways for it to change from one generation to the next... but it still remains the same species in its own line of descent. "after 6 mutations, it looks a lot different, but since it could still interbreed with its predecessor at all times, it can’t have changed species, no?" Except in reality you’re looking at a much larger genome, and are also looking at a much greater similarity within species. You keep saying this, but you're not explaining why it refutes the math. A large genome has the same problems as a small one (it mutates in all areas) and the high similarity between species actually means they'll become incompatible more quickly when separated. "I’m sure you can see where this is going." Yes, without a doubt this is a gross-oversimplification of the task at hand when it comes to evolutionary changes at the Macro-level. As admitted, but I've explained why it's still valid. "After 6 mutations in their species line, a and b can no longer breed (it’s pretty close - they match at 10/16 places, but they need 12/16). It’s mathematically inevitable that they will keep becoming genetically different if they are kept isolated." And yet no attempt was made to determine or at least justify why the changes were mutations which provide a functional advantage to the organism, and not anything neutral or possibly harmful. I wasn't talking about Darwinian evolution. I was talking about the inevitability of speciation. "Of course, this is just a silly model, but scientists have looked into what makes animals able to reproduce. They haven’t found anything in there that will keep two populations of dogs doglike in perpetuity if they’re not mating with each other." Maybe because the mating between dogs does nothing whatsoever to actually add new information to the gene pool and instead simply uses information which was already present to begin with. Not to mention the fact that to get significant changes in information without HARMING the organism would require and unrealistically huge (and lucky) set of mutations which often must happen simultaneously. I'll have to take your word for that since I've not been able to fathom how ID calculates information, but you haven't explained why a dog has to remain a dog. Are we defining species by their information level now? "It would be foolish to deny that two populations will not eventually diverge in the manner I describe above." Not it wouldn’t be, and for the following reason: You’re fighting chaos and probability there. Moving on… Um... that's not an answer. That was my answer. "Mutations do occur to all areas of DNA, so the chance of two populations remaining the same species relative to each other decreases with time." If you’re talking about the typical Macro-evolutionary change we look for which is the formation of new morphological structures, then you’re light-years away from the solution. Nope. I wasn't talking about Darwinism, just the accumulation of mutations. And I'm sure the evo-devo people will appreciate the ignorance of their years of research into how new structures form. The only way this can be false is if there if a mechanism which is keeping them the same species… See the above points. I'm guessing you meant that information stuff, but you didn't provide any details on that or why it prevents speciation. "…but, by the standards of evidence required by ID, if we can’t see it in action, it doesn’t count." Hence the reason we hold unguided macro evolution to be a mere falsehood. All we CAN do is quantify the factors involved to try and predict what can and can’t happen based on what we do know. ie. if you can't see how something happened, then it couldn't have happened. This is what I meant by barriers - it's possible for you to invent an infinite variety of barriers for evolution to overcome, and since it's impossible to watch evolution in the process of overcoming them, you declare it must fail. Odd that no one insists on watching the designer overcome them. And as we’ve seen with your example the only way to make macro changes realistic is to change the task at hand. Are you're trying to deny that animals have genomes which mutate? "Therefore macro evolution must be accepted as the best answer." I would sincerely love your input on the discussion on the “X” filter and how it applies to CSI and Irreducibility: https://uncommondescent.com.....-or-other/ I'll have a look at it.Venus Mousetrap_{May 23, 2008
May
05
May
23
23
2008
05:55 AM
5
05
55
AM
PDT}

Evolution has empirical evidence in spades from transitional fossils like archeaopteryx and ambulocetus natons, DNA evidence, vestigial organs, etc. Interestingly, New Scientist magazine recently ran an article on five vestigial things humans have but don't need: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13927 One of the things listed are goose bumps, which aren't anatomical structures at all! Guess that narrows the list down to four. 1. The VMO (vomeronasal organ), two dents on opposite sides of the vomer bone, makes the list despite scientists denying for decades that it even exists in humans. My university-level anatomy and physiology textbook doesn't mention it. 2.Darwin's point, or tubercle, which is a malformation of the tissues that form the outer ear which develop during the 6th week of gestation. Again, my textbook makes no mention of this congenital defect or even the 'hillocks of Hiss' that cause it. 3.The coccyx, or tailbone. The fact that there are 100 reports of babies being born with tails is posted as proof that this is a remnant of when humans had tails. And so possibilities become probabilities, which in turn become certainties. Speculations become conclusions. 4.Wisdom teeth, or third molars, appear generally during a person's late teens or early 20s. Some mammals don't have them at all, such as marmosets (which are "probably" evolutionary dwarfs). "Suggesting" that when mammalian body size reduces, their jaws become too small to contain all their teeth is just that...a suggestion. Not a fact. There was a time when physiologists thought that there were at least 180 vestigial organs, but now that list has been apparently narrowed down to four. Just because one doesn't know the function of an organ doesn't make it vestigial. For this reason, most doctors today hesitate to call any organs vestigial.Barb_{May 23, 2008
May
05
May
23
23
2008
03:16 AM
3
03
16
AM
PDT}

"There is no theory of macro evolution. None was ever presented in the Berkeley courses or in any of the books I have read. Speculation was presented but that is all. Maybe you could be the first to present such a theory here and the basis for it." I'm not sure dividing up micro and macro into separate theories is really accurate, as they are all a part of evolutionary theory.. the division is really just a pedagogical tool.. but basically macroevolution (and microevoluton, on a smaller time scale) is the idea that all organisms are "descended with modification" from other organisms.and the theory is all of the evidence supporting that idea; see e.g.: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ THere are lots of controversies and unknowns w/in evolution about tempo, mechanisms, etc. but that makes things more exciting. and credit where credit is due, I think ID and creationist people have been good at pointing out weaknesses and unstudied areas, and have stimulated some exciting new research. So thank you!dmso74_{May 23, 2008
May
05
May
23
23
2008
02:10 AM
2
02
10
AM
PDT}

I agree with Leo: the placement of the unqualified series of quotes immediately before the reference to the Post leader gives the strong impression that the quotes are taken from the article. So strong that it effectively represents them as such. It is possible plausibly to deny this in retrospect by presenting it as a joke, true, but it gives the appearance of deliberately trying to mislead. It might be better for Mr. Dembski to place himself above suspicion of the intention to mislead by responding to the criticism and rewording the article so that it cannot be described as misleading. Reacting by shooting the messenger does not seem very Christian and does not look like the act of a person determined to remain above suspicion - I would advise a rephrase or rewrite.Elliott the Contentious_{May 23, 2008
May
05
May
23
23
2008
01:11 AM
1
01
11
AM
PDT}

PPS: Speaking of magic leps, kindly explain the coherence of mind and its credibility relative to chance plus necessity only, in light of issues such as are summarised at 101 level here. In other words, we see signs that our minds act on our brains and bodies in ways that go beyond C + N, on pain of self-referential incoherence and absurdity. Call it magic if you will, our thoughts and choices poof into existence from our SELVES. Worse, this experience is personal fact no 1 of our existence as intelligent agents -- and without credible minds that think beyond mere lucky noise, chance conditions and control of mindless mechanisms, no science, indeed, no reason, is possible.kairosfocus_{May 23, 2008
May
05
May
23
23
2008
12:41 AM
12
12
41
AM
PDT}

If there is no "evidence" for design, then why would Richard Dawkins say in The God Delusion that "We live on a planet where we are surrounded by perhaps ten million species, each one of which independently displays a powerful illusion of apparent design." "One of the greatest challenges to the human intellect, over the centuries, has been to explain how the complex, improbable appearance of design in the universe arises." When he uses the words "illusion" and "appearance" in the chapter, it depends entirely on the power of his argument that an eternal designer outside the cosmos is wildly improbable/impossible. That is the only reason for Dawkins, that the abundant, clear evidence for design in biology, has to be an illusion. ID is about quantifying what design looks like and this is done only in relation to physiacl evidence.idnet.com.au_{May 23, 2008
May
05
May
23
23
2008
12:38 AM
12
12
38
AM
PDT}

AT: You need to get your facts straight first. For instance, Design Theory is not to be properly characrtersised by:
You say there’s a magic leprechaun poofing everything into existence? Then put your money where your mouth is and prove it.
That's a gross strawman misrepresentation. Similarly, science is not about "proof," but about empirically anchored inference to best -- abductive -- explanation. By contrast, here is a basic def'n of ID by Dr [x2 -- Mathematics, and Phil; add'l Masters is in theol] Wm A D:
. . . intelligent design begins with a seemingly innocuous question: Can objects, even if nothing is known about how they arose, exhibit features that reliably signal the action of an intelligent cause? . . . Proponents of intelligent design, known as design theorists, purport to study such signs formally, rigorously, and scientifically. Intelligent design may therefore be defined as the science that studies signs of intelligence.
Next, what ID sactually asserts, as just shown, is that certain feature of the observbable world show signs that in our experience reliably point to intelligent action, as opposed to chance and/or mechanical necessity. (And BTW, for whomever, it is routine in science to address unobserveds and even unobservables, e.g. the remote past, electrons, etc. What is done is to construct an empirically anchored explanation, which competes on a best explanation basis.] Wm A D and others have adapted fairly standared hyp testing processes to construct what let's now agree we may all call the X-filter. In all cases where the X-filter has been tried on known cases of cause, it is accurate as designed when it rules intelligence -- it is deliberately set up to rule so conservatively that too simple designs get ruled as chance; mechanical necessity produces natural regularities, so once we see high contingency, it is not the relvant explanatory factor. So per empirical tests The X-Filter is reliable for its purpose. The real challenge is for YOUR side to show, without imposing arbitrary, question-begging historically and phil of sci unwarranted evolutionary materialism-assuming redefinitions of science, that chance plus necessity adequatley accounts for:
1] origin of a fine-tuned, life facilitating cosmos as observed 2] origin of the organised complexity of cell-based life within that observed cosmos, on our planet and/or elsewhere [and if elsewhere, how observed and how does it get here] 3] OO body-plan level biodiversity, starting with the Cambrian revolution, per the Meyer paper at PBSW etc (which passed perr review by "renowned scientists") 4] OO a credible mind that can think for itself instead of beign driven by chance + necessity, and so also that can account for the binding nature of moral obligation beyond mere brute "might makes right."
Those are the four big bangs of ID. We say, on the evidence of what we do see on teh routine cause of functionally specified complex information [FSCI], irreducible complexity [IC] and organised complexity [OC], and on the causal impotence of chance + necessity to credibly find islands of function in the relevant config spaces on the gamut of the observed cosmos, etc, intelligence is the best explanation. [Cf here Appendix 1, point 6 the always linked.] What is your response, why? Now, let's see your answers, since you are the A-Team. [If you want a simple 101 survay of the X-Team's case, try my always linked for a start then go over to Research ID wiki and IDEA Center.] For the X-Team, GEM of TKI PS: You need to update your list of "evidence," e.g. DNA is evidence of FSCI not of body-plan level evolution driven by c + n only. Similarly, Archaeopterix is a mosaic not a transitional form -- on conventional dating more "modern" birds have earlier fossils than A -- which is also plainly a bird in basic body plan -- not ahalf-way house. Vestigial organs have so far shrunk in numbers as to be negligible, and the pattern is that uses were found for the "vestiges" on further investigaiton, so they never were.kairosfocus_{May 23, 2008
May
05
May
23
23
2008
12:31 AM
12
12
31
AM
PDT}

leo said (#7) --
BarryA, I’m shocked. Rightous anger when the inaccuracy (or shall I say outright lie) of a post is pointed out! From you! Instead of noting that it was wrong, you continue to genuflect. The fact is, when one wants to be taken seriously, one has to act seriously. [Leo: I’m afraid you don’t have the right sense of humor for this forum. Goodbye. –WmAD]
IMO Leo is right. The intolerance of critics and criticism of Darwinism is so great that the fake quotes are actually credible. I myself was taken in, thinking that the fake quotes were real. IMO the original post should have made it clear that the extra quotes are fake. Take, for example, the fake quote, “It’s okay to expel those who pretend that there is a controversy.” Isn't that what actually happened to astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez at Iowa State U.? The Washington Post should be renamed "Washington Pest."Larry Fafarman_{May 22, 2008
May
05
May
22
22
2008
10:35 PM
10
10
35
PM
PDT}

I'm going to come up with my own lifeforms, which are bit strings. I'm also going to declare that to belong to the same species, at least 3/4 of the bits must match. A common tactic employed by Darwinists (yes, I said it) is to grossly oversimplify the task at hand. Apparently this is exactly what we see now. In really life a 3/4 genome difference could practically be the difference between two species in entirely different animal kingdoms. The idea is to make a very crude mimic of binding sites in egg and sperm. Might supremely crude have been a netter way of describing what you're doing? Example: a:1011011110001010 b:1111101110001110 These two 16bit strings match in 12 places, so they are compatible - they're the same species. As stated before similarities between the genome of creatures within the same species is much more similar and fragile then that, think more like 99.9% when it comes to humans alone. Now I take them away from each other and let them mutate independently, one bit at a time. Except in real life it takes more then just a single bit change at a time to see any real changes. I suggest you join the current discussion in "Chance, Law, Agency, or Other?" a: 1011011110001010 0011011110001010 0011111110001010 0011111110101010 0001111110101010 0101111110101010 0101111110101000 after 6 mutations, it looks a lot different, but since it could still interbreed with its predecessor at all times, it can’t have changed species, no? Except in reality you're looking at a much larger genome, and are also looking at a much greater similarity within species. I’m sure you can see where this is going. Yes, without a doubt this is a gross-oversimplification of the task at hand when it comes to evolutionary changes at the Macro-level. After 6 mutations in their species line, a and b can no longer breed (it's pretty close - they match at 10/16 places, but they need 12/16). It's mathematically inevitable that they will keep becoming genetically different if they are kept isolated. And yet no attempt was made to determine or at least justify why the changes were mutations which provide a functional advantage to the organism, and not anything neutral or possibly harmful. Of course, this is just a silly model, but scientists have looked into what makes animals able to reproduce. They haven’t found anything in there that will keep two populations of dogs doglike in perpetuity if they’re not mating with each other. Maybe because the mating between dogs does nothing whatsoever to actually add new information to the gene pool and instead simply uses information which was already present to begin with. Not to mention the fact that to get significant changes in information without HARMING the organism would require and unrealistically huge (and lucky) set of mutations which often must happen simultaneously. And I'd like to hold ID to the same level of evidence that you demand of the naturalistic alternative here. Don't we all. :D It would be foolish to deny that two populations will not eventually diverge in the manner I describe above. Not it wouldn't be, and for the following reason: You're fighting chaos and probability there. Moving on... Mutations do occur to all areas of DNA, so the chance of two populations remaining the same species relative to each other decreases with time. If you're talking about the typical Macro-evolutionary change we look for which is the formation of new morphological structures, then you're light-years away from the solution. The only way this can be false is if there if a mechanism which is keeping them the same species... See the above points. ...but, by the standards of evidence required by ID, if we can’t see it in action, it doesn’t count. Hence the reason we hold unguided macro evolution to be a mere falsehood. All we CAN do is quantify the factors involved to try and predict what can and can't happen based on what we do know. And as we've seen with your example the only way to make macro changes realistic is to change the task at hand. Therefore macro evolution must be accepted as the best answer. I would sincerely love your input on the discussion on the "X" filter and how it applies to CSI and Irreducibility: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/chance-law-agency-or-other/ If this gets out of moderation (it took a day the last time I made a post, by which time my comment was all forgotten in the early days of the thread - I was quite disappointed) I look forward to arguing about this. :) I certainly do too. :DF2XL_{May 22, 2008
May
05
May
22
22
2008
07:53 PM
7
07
53
PM
PDT}

dmso, If you teach evolution then I suggest you defend it as a theory. No one has yet to do it here so maybe you could be the first. Please do not use micro evolution examples because few here dispute this process. I have watched the evolution section of Berkeley's biology course by 4 different instructors and I have a good feel for what is known and what is taught. I have also read several books by those who support naturalistic evolution. So we are not ignorant. There is no theory of macro evolution. None was ever presented in the Berkeley courses or in any of the books I have read. Speculation was presented but that is all. Maybe you could be the first to present such a theory here and the basis for it.jerry_{May 22, 2008
May
05
May
22
22
2008
07:47 PM
7
07
47
PM
PDT}

Venus, Your example aside, the real evidence we have coming in indicates that "sub-speciation" is brought about due to loss of genetic information (genetic diversity) from parent species. In fact it is commonly known that the further you breed a sub-species away from its parent species the more limited variability the sub-species will be found to have. As well, taken to an extreme, sub-speciation results result in problems of inbreeding brought about by detrimental mutations finding their match in the "bottleneck" population. Thus your example is extremely simplistic and ignores all major lines of empirical evidence.bornagain77_{May 22, 2008
May
05
May
22
22
2008
07:38 PM
7
07
38
PM
PDT}

Science, by definition, studies things that can be observed. If a claim about something can’t be observed, the claim really isn’t enapsulated in the field of “Science”. But black holes can't technically be 'observed' so does that mean that cosmology isn't a science? Many rational people accept the existence of things they cannot see. In the January 1997 issue of "Discover" magazine, an article reported that astronomers detected what they concluded were about 12 planets orbiting distant stars. Did the astronomers directly observe said planets? No. They were detected by means of the gravitational pull they exerted on their parent stars. Related evidence--not direct observation is a perfectly adequate basis for scientists to accept (and study) what is invisible.Barb_{May 22, 2008
May
05
May
22
22
2008
06:33 PM
6
06
33
PM
PDT}

Cue: I'm not following this thread too closely, but to say that methodological naturalism is an essential ingredient of the scientific method betrays a gross ignorance of the history and philosophy of science. Indeed, it's not even fair to say that there is one scientific method. Percy Bridgman put it this way: "the scientific method, insofar as it is a method, is doing one's damndest with one's mind, no holds barred." In any case, you're out of here.William Dembski_{May 22, 2008
May
05
May
22
22
2008
05:55 PM
5
05
55
PM
PDT}

Bornagain, to say that it is artificial may be correct, but to say that it is unnecessary is not. The scientific method is a specific process. It is not the only process. It is, however, the process represented in the schools when natural science is taught. Studies that don't fit the scientific method, such as they aren't conducive to experiments or aren't readily communicable, can still be studied, but not as a natural science. In 61 above, when you find imposed materialism to be the biggest hinderance to science, I suggest that simply doesn't make sense. Science (natural science), by definition, has that imposition. If you mean that imposed materialism is the biggest hindereance to knowledge - appreciating that science is but one tool to gain knowledge - then the argument would make more sense.Cue_{May 22, 2008
May
05
May
22
22
2008
05:33 PM
5
05
33
PM
PDT}

Cue, Limiting science to only material causations is artificially and unnecessarily retarding to science and would prevent any transcendent explanation. The transcendent (higher dimension) is precluded from any explantory power in the general definition of methodological naturalism and thus is unwarranted and unwelcomed until it is proven otherwise. In fact I find imposed materialism to be the biggest hinderance to science and would say that it has been that way every since the Michelson Morey experiment if not then, it was certainly a hinderance with Big Bang cosmology. I remind you thAT EINSTEIN'S GREATEST BLUNDER (cosmological constant to reflect a steady state universe) WAS BROUGHT ABOUT DUE TO HIS UNWARRATED ALLEGIANCE to the materialistic philosophy. With information finding a home in this higher dimension as well as information being established as having dominion over the material/energy realm, it is now time to call the materialistic allegiance on its bluff and seek to establish "natural" information causations of a higher order, a order not artificial hampered in its explanatory power.bornagain77_{May 22, 2008
May
05
May
22
22
2008
05:25 PM
5
05
25
PM
PDT}

dmso74 "Borne, Thank you for the psychological exam. " Quite welcome. It's actually a common occurrence among Darwinists but it's curable. "I published a paper this month basically pointing out that a colleague’s hypothesis was based on a complete misunderstanding of basic physiology. so it goes." I'll bet you assumed "a complete misunderstanding of basic physiology" because he didn't see things the way you do. Another thing Darwinists do all the time when facing IDists - the ubiquitous, "IDists don't understand evolution", "IDists are religious fanatics hiding behind pseudo-science".... "and as for the petition; petitions are political tools, not scientific ones. and yes, that goes for the list of Steves too." Now just what petition would that be? I don't recall mentioning a petition. Please stick your foot in your big mouth again and explain what you're talking about. I suspect you're referring to some popular Darwin dissenters list that I did not mention. If this is so then you're response is so lame only a teen with a lot of arrogant angst could have thought it up. And if so, your little world wherein there is no controversy, and no real scientists who doubt Darwin, is devoid of reality - exactly as I said the 1st time. Get real kid.Borne_{May 22, 2008
May
05
May
22
22
2008
05:18 PM
5
05
18
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply