A Bogey Moment with PZ Myers

_{Cornelius Hunter

September 30, 2009

Intelligent Design}

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

It is interesting to see how evolutionists respond to failures of their theory. For all their talk of following the evidence and adjusting to new data, evolutionists find all kinds of ways to resist learning from their failures. Consider one of the major failures of evolution, its view of the very nature of biological change. Twentieth century evolutionary theory held that biological change is a rather simple process that is blind to the needs of the organism. As Julian Huxley, grandson of Darwin confidant T. H. Huxley, put it, mutations “occur without reference to their possible consequences or biological uses.” Read more

Comments

Sorry, bad copy-paste on my part. I meant: "What is the evidential strength of observing that SI, FCSI and IC result from intelligence?" I ask because I am learning about Bayesian reasoning and these seem like the kinds of questions that would be helpful in thinking about these issues. Cheers.Larry Tanner_{October 2, 2009
October
10
Oct
2
02
2009
10:58 AM
10
10
58
AM
PDT}

Larry Tanner: Based on observation, can one infer that CSI, FCSI and IC result from non-intelligent causes? No observations have been produced to support such an inference. What is the evidential strength of observing that SI, FCSI and IC result from non-intelligence? It's never happened.ScottAndrews_{October 2, 2009
October
10
Oct
2
02
2009
10:11 AM
10
10
11
AM
PDT}

#80 William Murray However, if it is shown that it has a probability of occurring within the probability bounds of the system, then of course ID is no longer the better explanation. Why? If there is an independent reason for believing in ID (other than the perceived failure of RM+NS) then surely this reason has to be balanced against the case for RM+NS and may indeed prove stronger?Mark Frank_{October 2, 2009
October
10
Oct
2
02
2009
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PDT}

#77, ScottAndrews
That CSI, FCSI, and IC result from intelligence is an inference based on observation.
Two questions: Based on observation, can one infer that CSI, FCSI and IC result from non-intelligent causes? What is the evidential strength of observing that SI, FCSI and IC result from non-intelligence? Thanks, LTLarry Tanner_{October 2, 2009
October
10
Oct
2
02
2009
09:16 AM
9
09
16
AM
PDT}

It seems that some consider it improper to make an argument against chance; which is more improprer - to make an argument that chance cannot account for something, or to make no argument that chance can account for something? It seems that the chancers want to be able to take their position for granted; that, unless ID can prove otherwise, chance is the better explanation ... without even having provided a description of probability bounds that demonstrate chance to be a sufficient explanation. Until the chancers can show chance (+ physiodynamic forces) to be sufficient, then all they have is a hypothesis that doesn't rise to the level of a theory, much less a fact.William J. Murray_{October 2, 2009
October
10
Oct
2
02
2009
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT}

Mark Frank writes: If it were shown to your satisfaction that in fact the bacterial flagellum could have arisen through RM+NS would you have any reason for supposing it was designed? The problem in this question lies in the parameters of what constitutes "could have". Providing a pathway for something to occur doesn't mean that, given the probability bounds of chance and known physiodynamic forces, it has a meaningful probability of occurring. However, if it is shown that it has a probability of occurring within the probability bounds of the system, then of course ID is no longer the better explanation.William J. Murray_{October 2, 2009
October
10
Oct
2
02
2009
09:02 AM
9
09
02
AM
PDT}

Mark Frank: If it were shown to your satisfaction that in fact the bacterial flagellum could have arisen through RM+NS would you have any reason for supposing it was designed? If that were demonstrated, then the inference that only intelligent design produces such complexities would no longer be valid. It's an inference based on observation. You want to invalidate the inference without producing a shred of evidence contradicting that from which the conclusion is inferred. You want to *poof* away the inference and the odds on some imagined technicality. And when you do, somehow your fantasy of accidentally built machinery will win by default. If you need scientific definitions of complexity and probability calculations to tell you that DNA reproduction and beehives don't happen by accident, the battle is half lost. Bottom line for me: Neither I, you, nor anyone else has ever observed random processes organizing functional complexity or increasing it. Belief in such a phenomenon is beyond the bounds of science. It's nonsense. No one can ever use it to explain anything, ever, and call it science. If you remember one thing, remember that. Intelligence is real. It doesn't paint the whole picture, but it's still real and observed vs. nonsensical fantasy. Your determined belief, in the face of any fragment of the evidence you ignore, puts you squarely in fantasy land.ScottAndrews_{October 2, 2009
October
10
Oct
2
02
2009
08:31 AM
8
08
31
AM
PDT}

#77 ScottAndrews Would you care to give a definition of CSI, FCSI, and IC that avoids talking about the improbability of a chance explanation? CSI means a specified outcome that is highly unlikely to arise by chance. Look the glossary. The definition is: ? = – log2[10^120 ·?S(T)·P(T|H)] the H in this case is chance! Look at another way. If it were shown to your satisfaction that in fact the bacterial flagellum could have arisen through RM+NS would you have any reason for supposing it was designed?Mark Frank_{October 2, 2009
October
10
Oct
2
02
2009
07:59 AM
7
07
59
AM
PDT}

Mark Frank: First. I am not sure now – are you able to point to a proof of ID that does not require showing that NS+RM is wildly improbable? Here is where your logic fails. If you find a 500-page novel, why do you conclude that it came from a writer, not as a result of chance? Because you know that writers write books, or because astronomical odds disfavor random chance? The answer is that a writer wrote the book because writers write books. You wouldn't consider the odds of the book occurring by chance because no one would ask such a stupid question. The inference is enough. Now lots of people start suggesting, with no evidence, that books can occur by chance. It's nonsense, but you calculate the improbable odds and include them when stating your inference. Does that mean that we're now concluding that writers write books only because of the odds against chance? That CSI, FCSI, and IC result from intelligence is an inference based on observation. That is the evidence you claim does not exist. The side point that they are highly improbable is not at the core of that inference. It's only necessary because of the persistent fantasy that such things come about by chance. Either the inference or the probability, individually, is a sound basis for drawing a conclusion. You offer no meaningful objection to either, which means you haven't a leg to stand on. Your claim has been answered.ScottAndrews_{October 2, 2009
October
10
Oct
2
02
2009
07:20 AM
7
07
20
AM
PDT}

ellazimm (#70),
I do tend to trust people who have spent years and years and years of their lives studying biological phenomena . . .
As they said when I was growing up, "Keep the faith, baby." People do not realize how much trust, faith, whatever you want to call it, is involved with science. There really isn't that much of a gap between science and religion in this area.Paul Giem_{October 2, 2009
October
10
Oct
2
02
2009
07:04 AM
7
07
04
AM
PDT}

ellazimm (#70), Glad you like the joke. Seriously, though, the irony is that PZ never attacks evolutionary speculation with anywhere near the same vigor as he attacks ID. It can be called selective hyperskepticism. I suspect the real reason for male nipples is that it is too hard (impossible?) to code for female nipples in female humans without coding for male nipples, and in the era before bottles, female nipples were necessary for survival. This works whether humans were designed or evolved, and therefore provides no differentiation between ID and unguided evolution. Does that answer your original question? To get back to the original post, some epigenetic changes are at least partly Lamarkian, and so the categorical denial is inappropriate.Paul Giem_{October 2, 2009
October
10
Oct
2
02
2009
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PDT}

Sorry that last sentence should read: Try reading the chapter on intelligent design in his book Evidence and Evolution.Mark Frank_{October 2, 2009
October
10
Oct
2
02
2009
06:43 AM
6
06
43
AM
PDT}

#72 ScottAndrews First. I am not sure now - are you able to point to a proof of ID that does not require showing that NS+RM is wildly improbable? Meanwhile your post #72 has a number of things that need clarifying. My original point (back in #40) was that ID argues that current MET=RM+NS and RM+NS cannot account for certain aspects of life therefore life must have been designed. Epigenetics presents a non-designed extension to RM+NS. So this undermines the whole argument. You can see I was not disputing whether RM+NS can account for life. I was merely pointing out that even if it cannot, then there are known natural alternatives (and there may of course be unknown natural alternatives) so design does not follow. To try and answer your specific point. If knowing that X is wildly improbable is not enough to dissuade you from assuming that X is, by far, the best explanation, despite a logical inference based on tons of experience which suggests otherwise, what’s the point in trying to reason? You seem to be confusing X is wildly improbable with (O|X) is wildly improbable. I don't think anyone disputes that there is such a thing as random mutation and natural selection. They are both observed almost every day. So the probability of RM+NS is very high. The question is does RM+NS account for various aspect of life. What is the probability of various aspects of life given RM+NS? Having rephrased your question (I hope correctly) the answer is still not simple. The fact that a(O|H) is very low is not in itself a reason for dismissing H. I am sure William Dembski would agree with this. He would say that O has to be specified. I, and many others, would disagree. Elliot Sober is particular good on this. Try reading the chapter on intelligent design and Evidence and Evolution.Mark Frank_{October 2, 2009
October
10
Oct
2
02
2009
06:41 AM
6
06
41
AM
PDT}

Mark Frank: Let's say you're right, which I am not conceding. If knowing that X is wildly improbable is not enough to dissuade you from assuming that X is, by far, the best explanation, despite a logical inference based on tons of experience which suggests otherwise, what's the point in trying to reason? Perhaps instead of the FAQ I should point to the dictionary, and the meaning of "improbable." I'm not sure people know what that means. What you're proposing is improbable, not in a manner that can be overcome by repeated attempts, but assuming all the attempts ever made. If you believe that the improbable is probable, what it the point of further addressing the question using logic? We're at an impasse.ScottAndrews_{October 2, 2009
October
10
Oct
2
02
2009
05:32 AM
5
05
32
AM
PDT}

Re #48 ScottAndrews, you wrote: "I don’t understand how you propose to argue against something without first taking steps to understand it. Your question suggests that you don’t understand, on a fundamental level, what ID is. Why is it up to me to explain that? Read the FAQ." You were presumably responding to my #46. The only question I asked in #46 was "And how does it set about proving this?" which was clearly a rhetorical question which I answered myself. I think maybe you were referring to my challenge to point to a "proof" of ID other than attempting to show the low probability of some aspect of life given RM+NS. Now maybe I don't understand some aspect of ID but I cannot find such a proof in the FAQs and I have never come across such a proof in the 5 or so years I have been reading about ID. Surely it is not too hard to point to one. This proof cannot, of course, use CSI, FSCI, or IC, all of which require that a result be wildly improbable given RM+NS.Mark Frank_{October 2, 2009
October
10
Oct
2
02
2009
05:10 AM
5
05
10
AM
PDT}

Paul, hahahahahhaahha :-) I do tend to trust people who have spent years and years and years of their lives studying biological phenomena and whose work has been published in places where it's been available for criticism from others of the same ilk. Even when I was in grad school I had to defend my views against the maddening crowd that liked nothing better than to shoot me down. I suspect that males didn't live long enough and bred too early for selection pressure from carcinoma to have an effect until quite recently.ellazimm_{October 2, 2009
October
10
Oct
2
02
2009
12:25 AM
12
12
25
AM
PDT}

ellazimm (#60), I am from the evolutin police, you know, what PZ Myers referred to when he said (see #9),
We’re all the evolution police. It isn’t as sinister as Begley seems to imply: we just demand a little more evidence than speculation.
It seems that you accept the concept that
the presence of nipples in males is probably best explained as a genetic correlation that persists through lack of selection against them, rather than selection for them.
However, this is speculation. Not only that, but it is evident that there is negative selection against male nipples, in the form of carcinoma, as noted later in your quote. Now this may be rare, but according to Darwin, even slight selection pressure acting over millions of years is enough to change the phenotype for the better, that is, the more likely to survive. In the name of PZ Myers, I demand that you stop this speculation without evidence, and in this case even against the evidence. ;)Paul Giem_{October 2, 2009
October
10
Oct
2
02
2009
12:05 AM
12
12
05
AM
PDT}

From the conclusion of Abel & Trevor's paper: "Algorithmic "self-organization" has never been observed [70] despite numerous publications that have misused the term [21,151-162]. Bone fide organization always arises from choice contingency, not chance contingency or necessity." And "Nucleic acid prescription of function cannot be explained by "order out of chaos" or by "order on the edge of chaos" [163]. Physical phase changes cannot write algorithms. Biopolymeric matrices of high information retention are among the most complex entities known to science. They do not and can not arise from low-informational self-ordering phenomena. Instead of order from chaos, the genetic code was algorithmically optimized to deliver highly informational, aperiodic, specified complexity" I do not have the background to evaluate the veracity of the mathematics or how well it models the biological reality. I do think that when part of the argument is that something has never been observed and that something cannot happen (trying to prove a negative) then I do get a bit wary. Has this work been reviewed anywhere by someone else in the field?ellazimm_{October 1, 2009
October
10
Oct
1
01
2009
10:54 PM
10
10
54
PM
PDT}

Upright, I KNOW what I think! I'm trying to figure out what other people think and why. :-) I question my "conclusions" all the time. I did find Abel & Trevor's paper very difficult to read . . . I will try again.ellazimm_{October 1, 2009
October
10
Oct
1
01
2009
10:35 PM
10
10
35
PM
PDT}

ellazimm, You successfully deflected the argument and changed the topic to an unrelated issue without ever having addressed the evidence or displaying the capacity to subject your conclusions to the risk of disconfirmation by the observations at hand. Congratulations. You advance with a perfect score.Upright BiPed_{October 1, 2009
October
10
Oct
1
01
2009
08:25 PM
8
08
25
PM
PDT}

ellazimm (#61): Yes; the second quote in particular relates directly to my point in https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-bogey-moment-with-pz-myers/#comment-335931 #57. It is of course true that a creature (or a species) blessed with some means of adaptive variation in addition to "RM + NS" (it would seem that "undirected variation + differential reproductive success" is more precise) is capable of adaptations that would be effectively impossible through RM + NS alone. The question is how the system of adaptive variation arose, how it says arisen, and how updates or improvements to the system (if any) came about. If you say that the ability has been programmed into the species (or an ancestor) by some kind of designer(s), or if you say (like Lamarck, and afaict Kammerer) that it's a direct or indirect result of some kind of vital force or telic influence that affects living things, then you are (whether you know it or not) an ID supporter, and NCSE and the Army of Steves are gunning for you. If, on the other hand, you are confident that everything in biology can be fully explained in terms of a purely materialistic basic physics, with no miraculous design interventions and no woo woo of any other kind, then you are facing the bootstrap problems pointed towards in #57. To explain any given system of adaptative variation, those two options are (almost) exhaustive; the only way to escape or minimise the dilemma is to deny adaptive variation or to minimise its amazingness (respectively).anonym_{October 1, 2009
October
10
Oct
1
01
2009
07:27 PM
7
07
27
PM
PDT}

Why men have nipples is not a question ID addresses or answers. ID is a test, not an umbrella theory that encompasses all the ways or reasons a thing could have been designed.
And this, IMHO, is why the vast majority of scientists summarily dismiss ID. This is equivalent to a geologist claiming that geology only involves being able to distinguish rocks from other forms of matter, and then happily crossing the Rockies identifying rocks left and right without wondering how the mountains got there in the first place. To say "we've detected design!" and then head off down to the pub strikes the scientific community as rather odd. The "how" of things is where ID gets really interesting, yet there seems to be an odd lack of interest in exploring this area.
Thermometers are wrong because they don’t explain how the heat was generated. But does that mean that they are reporting the temperature inaccurately?
OK - so which is correct - axial, rectal or oral readings? Thermometer readings only make real sense in light of the other knowledge about heat, heat transfer, body temperatures and patterns, etc. Without that related knowledge the test results are completely useless. "ID is a test" seems to suffer from much of the same problem.mikev6_{October 1, 2009
October
10
Oct
1
01
2009
06:14 PM
6
06
14
PM
PDT}

Following up on #59: (ellazimm quoting Abel and Trevors):
“One of the requirements of any semantic/semiotic system is that the selection of alphanumeric characters/units be “arbitrary”[47].
Well, the experimental evidence shows that the "alphanumeric characters/units" in life are not arbitrary. Someone needs to explain why the rest of A&T's nearly-incomprehensible tome should be taken seriously. It's obvious got nothing to do with biology and reality.Arthur Hunt_{October 1, 2009
October
10
Oct
1
01
2009
05:04 PM
5
05
04
PM
PDT}

ellazimm (47)
I was wondering . . . if one of those mutations that Dr Behe talks about as being extremely improbable occurred would you think that there was no edge of evolution OR would you think that maybe the intelligent designer had intervened? Actually, now that I think about it . . . . how can you tell the difference?
An interesting question. I suppose if the mutation took a very brief period of time for a multitude of complex reactions that was nearly infinitely improbable I would call that miraculous. That would be in the same category as a man crippled from birth standing up and walking, or a blind person being able to see. However, if the reaction took a logical length of time for the number of reactions that occurred naturally I would have to say that no miraculous action was performed. Miracles have happened and have been documented. The creation of the universe happened outside the laws of nature, so the universe and everyone in it was created miraculously.Peter_{October 1, 2009
October
10
Oct
1
01
2009
03:58 PM
3
03
58
PM
PDT}

anonym: You linked to a thread which included: "Under the hood, biology reveals far more complex and intelligent mechanisms for change, collectively referred to as epigenetic inheritance." And "Epigenetic inheritance falsifies evolution’s prediction about adaptation and evolutionists are in denial about both the evidence, and its implications." AND "This is what ID is, seeing a pattern in nature that you’re already familiar with. The arrangement of life falls into familiar patterns, just like Stonehenge. It should not be ruled out because ID is seen in a cell instead of a rock formation David. Unless you have an a priori prejudice against finding ID in the cell (maybe it hits too close to home), the inference is just as obvious, if not more obvious, (once the complexity of the cell is grasped) than the design inference of Stonehenge."ellazimm_{October 1, 2009
October
10
Oct
1
01
2009
02:34 PM
2
02
34
PM
PDT}

How about this regarding male nipples: "The uncoupling of male and female traits occurs if there is selection for it: if the trait is important to the reproductive success of both males and females but the best or "optimal" trait is different for a male and a female. We would not expect such an uncoupling if the attribute is important in both sexes and the "optimal" value is similar in both sexes, nor would we expect uncoupling to evolve if the attribute is important to one sex but unimportant in the other. The latter is the case for nipples. Their advantage in females, in terms of reproductive success, is clear. But because the genetic "default" is for males and females to share characters, the presence of nipples in males is probably best explained as a genetic correlation that persists through lack of selection against them, rather than selection for them. Interestingly, though, it could be argued that the occurrence of problems associated with the male nipple, such as carcinoma, constitutes contemporary selection against them. In a sense, male nipples are analogous to vestigial structures such as the remnants of useless pelvic bones in whales: if they did much harm, they would have disappeared." You might disagree with it but. . . have you got a viable alternative explanation? That's what I want to hear: your alternative! Why would I be here otherwise? :-)ellazimm_{October 1, 2009
October
10
Oct
1
01
2009
02:12 PM
2
02
12
PM
PDT}

Upright: I have started to read the research you linked to; I'm sorry I gave the wrong impression, my fault. It's very dense. I'm not sure I can argue all its points on the week that my 7-year old son almost got hit by a car on the way to school and I've been fighting an low level virius and I'm trying to plan for his 8th birthday party. But it is clear that one has to be a specialist in the field to interpret: "One of the requirements of any semantic/semiotic system is that the selection of alphanumeric characters/units be "arbitrary"[47]. This implies that they must be contingent and independent of causal determinism. Pattee [72-74] and Rocha [58] refer to this arbitrariness of sequencing as being "dynamically inert." "Arbitrary" does not mean in this context "random," but rather "unconstrained by necessity." Contingent means that events could occur in multiple ways. The result could just as easily have been otherwise. Unit selection at each locus in the string is unconstrained. The laws of physics and chemistry apply equally to whatever sequencing occurs. The situation is analogous to flipping a "fair coin." Even though the heads and tails side of the coin are physically different, the outcome of the coin toss is unrelated to dynamical causation. A heads result (rather than a tails) is contingent, unconstrained by initial conditions or law." I am not that specialist! But I will make the attempt around my other . . . duties. :-) Aside from arguing about the specifics, which is the bedrock of the disagreement, there still has to be a level of . . . . guess where ID proponents speculate about things like male nipples. Surely. I'm just going to google the mainstream thoughts on this but I really, really, really want to know what you all think about this issue. Independent of what "Darwinists" think. You must have thought about it! Have a guess!!ellazimm_{October 1, 2009
October
10
Oct
1
01
2009
02:01 PM
2
02
01
PM
PDT}

Ellazim, I find it somewhat hard to believe you when you say things like: "I ask questions because I’d like to hear what people think not just what someone else wrote in the FAQ. Plus, I do try and ask questions I haven’t heard answered before OR I have heard differing answers." I provided a link to p-r research that directly talked to the questions you asked. You seemingly blew it off, yet, you have returned several times to ask the same general level of questions. It makes one wonder. The link I gave you was: http://www.tbiomed.com/content/2/1/29 Mark Frank, Perhaps you should break down and give it a read as well since it's not a probabilities argument - and that is what you claim to want to see. Well...see it.Upright BiPed_{October 1, 2009
October
10
Oct
1
01
2009
12:54 PM
12
12
54
PM
PDT}

ellazimm: I'll begin with these.
And if there are some who think that a prince who conveys an impression of his wisdom is not so through his own ability, but through the good advisers that he has around him, beyond doubt they are deceived, because this is an axiom which never fails: that a prince who is not wise himself will never take good advice, unless by chance he has yielded his affairs entirely to one person who happens to be a very prudent man. In this case indeed he may be well governed, but it would not be for long, because such a governor would in a short time take away his state from him. But if a prince who is not experienced should take counsel from more than one he will never get united counsels, nor will he know how to unite them. Each of the counsellors will think of his own interests, and the prince will not know how to control them or to see through them. And they are not to be found otherwise, because men will always prove untrue to you unless they are kept honest by constraint. Therefore it must be inferred that good counsels, whencesoever they come, are born of the wisdom of the prince, and not the wisdom of the prince from good counsels.
- Nicolo Machiavelli, The Prince chapter 23
THe simplest way to put it is this: you can not escape natural selection. even if epigenetics is shown to be the main mode of inheritance (very doubtful), selection still has to operate on the machinery responsible for the adaptive variation.
- Khan, https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/epigenetic-inheritance-can-evolution-adapt/#comment-320645
Who designed the designer?
- popular wisdom Does this shed some light?anonym_{October 1, 2009
October
10
Oct
1
01
2009
12:29 PM
12
12
29
PM
PDT}

ps - I was being rhetorical when I asked for an explanation of evolutionary events. I already know that there are none. The existence of such knowledge would be the end of the debate. Good news - we can exchange each others' Google homework and still have the night off!ScottAndrews_{October 1, 2009
October
10
Oct
1
01
2009
11:49 AM
11
11
49
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply