Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Another example of reductive evolution? More bad news for Darwinism

Salvador Cordova
November 14, 2006
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In information science, it is empirically and theoretically shown that noise destroys specified complexity, but cannot create it. Natural selection acting on noise cannot create specified complexity. Thus, information science refutes Darwinian evolution. The following is a great article that illustrates the insufficiency of natural selection to create design.

Key to zebrafish heart regeneration uncovered

“Interestingly, some species have the ability to regenerate appendages, while even fairly closely related species do not,” Poss added. “This leads us to believe that during the course of evolution, regeneration is something that has been lost by some species, rather than an ability that has been gained by other species. The key is to find a way to ‘turn on’ this regenerative ability.”

If the ability to regenerate major organs is hardly visible for natural selection to preserve, how in the world will natural selection be able to even create the ability to regenerate major organs in the first place?

Natural Selection does not trade in the currency of design (ala Allen Orr). I have also argued here why contingency designs are almost invisible to natural selection. The ability to regenerate major organs is an example of a contingency design.

The discovery by these researchers again illustrates the ID’s Law of Conservation of CSI and ID’s formulation of the 4th law of thermodynamics.

(HT: Mike Gene, Telic Thoughts)

Comments
I wrote: In information science, it is empirically and theoretically shown that noise destroys specified complexity, but cannot create it. […]
Benjy inquired: Recent references would be much appreciated.
This is basic stuff Benjy. Since when has a communication engineer welcomed noise when trying to pump the specified complexity of a modem signal through a communication channel??? Nothing in the literture of communications engineering will suggest noise can construct a highly complex specified signal. The only place such ideas exists is in Darwinian biology, not in real science.scordova
November 15, 2006
November
11
Nov
15
15
2006
11:11 PM
11
11
11
PM
PDT
Benjy, Oh, and your understanding of LCI (Law of Conversation of Information) is completely flawed:
As best I can tell, Dr. Dembski has not written on the law of conservation of complex specified information or the Fourth Law in the past three years. In making his best case for ID in his expert statement for the Dover trial, he never mentioned these topics. And I think it is best he did not. Even in this thread, you and others indicate that CSI can be lost in reductive evolution, thus contradicting the notion that it is conserved in any conventional sense (e.g., as matter and energy are conserved).
The LCI restated in simple terms: "Natural causes are incapable of generating CSI." The first corollary says that "the CSI in a closed system of natural causes remains constant or DECREASES." This would include computer hardware storage losing data, transcription errors in DNA, and reductive evolution. Before you start criticizing ID on here you really ought to go read the literature.Patrick
November 15, 2006
November
11
Nov
15
15
2006
08:34 PM
8
08
34
PM
PDT
Benjy, As far as I know this is the latest on abiogenesis : https://uncommondescent.com/archives/1621 To me discussing a hypothetical RNA world is like discussing a nascar race when you can't even get the starting flag to wave.Patrick
November 15, 2006
November
11
Nov
15
15
2006
08:23 PM
8
08
23
PM
PDT
Benjy Compson My last post would have been more accurate if I had said, "Sal then draws an inference from this conclusion about the ability of natural selection to evolve the trait" instead of, "Sal then draws an inference from this conclusion about the alleged selective pressure that would have evolved the trait."Jehu
November 15, 2006
November
11
Nov
15
15
2006
07:46 PM
7
07
46
PM
PDT
Benjy Compson
Mr. Cordova’s quote is immediately preceded by his claim that “The following is a great article that illustrates the insufficiency of natural selection to create design.” Why would one suppose anything but that he intended for the quotation to back up his claim?
Because that is not the context of Sal's use of the qoute. Sal quotes the article for its conclusion that regeneration was not conserved in most vertebrates. Sal then draws an inference from this conclusion about the alleged selective pressure that would have evolved the trait. Sal does not infer that the article claims regeneration did not evolve. This is abundantly obvious.
Here you use (or should use) “logic” in an informal sense — say, as an attorney might use it. How in the world are you going to demonstrate that methodological naturalism is not as useful in science as claimed by almost all practicing scientists? You can bandy “logic” in this echo chamber all you want, but in the end what is going to sway scientists is compelling empirical evidence that the natural universe is informationally open, and that they are missing important explanations because of their commitment to methodological naturalism.
Your argument is a false dichotomy. Both logic and empirical evidence are necessary. If empirical evidence is not logically interpreted it will lead to false conclusions. This is in fact what is happening. The logical interpretation of existing empirical evidence indicates design, hence the effectiveness of using logic.
What I see time and again is that “logical” argument against current scientific beliefs is the hobgoblin of unscientific minds. That is, those who could not do science to save their lives think they can compensate with rhetoric. There is no need for a thousand little Phil Johnson wannabes. One Phil Johnson was enough. Let’s hear from some scientists.
That is complete nonsense. Science is not the possession of some elite class of "scientists" such that only they are allowed to comment on it. The scientific method is very simple and every bit as subject to the rules of logic as it is to the rules of math.
You’re harping on a false dichotomy. Abiogenesis, along with evolution and morphogenesis, may have required injection of information from a source outside of nature. This does not mean that it was not abiogenesis.
I have not made a false dichotomy. If information is injected from outside nature it is not abiogenesis, it is creation. Abiogenesis is the technical term for spontaneous generation. Spontaneous generation was falsified by Louis Pasteur in the 19th century. Recent scientific developments demonstrating the minimum requirements for life have strengthened Pasteur's findings. In spite of the empirical evidence, many scientists believe that abiogenesis occurred. Why? It is not because of the empirical evidence or logic, it is because of their philosophical commitment to materialistic naturalism.Jehu
November 15, 2006
November
11
Nov
15
15
2006
06:21 PM
6
06
21
PM
PDT
Jehu, Mr. Cordova's quote is immediately preceded by his claim that "The following is a great article that illustrates the insufficiency of natural selection to create design." Why would one suppose anything but that he intended for the quotation to back up his claim? To insinuate something and then, when challenged on it, respond that you really did not say it (because you did not say it outright) is one of the older propaganda tricks in the world.
The idea that “logic” can be used to “prove” something is not a “dogma” it is a mathmatic truth.
I know a fair amount about mathematical logic, and that's news to me.
If the beliefs of scientists are the result of the false consequences of godless materialism then logic is an appropriate tool to expose that.
Here you use (or should use) "logic" in an informal sense -- say, as an attorney might use it. How in the world are you going to demonstrate that methodological naturalism is not as useful in science as claimed by almost all practicing scientists? You can bandy "logic" in this echo chamber all you want, but in the end what is going to sway scientists is compelling empirical evidence that the natural universe is informationally open, and that they are missing important explanations because of their commitment to methodological naturalism. What I see time and again is that "logical" argument against current scientific beliefs is the hobgoblin of unscientific minds. That is, those who could not do science to save their lives think they can compensate with rhetoric. There is no need for a thousand little Phil Johnson wannabes. One Phil Johnson was enough. Let's hear from some scientists.
For example how do you explain the fact that many scientists believe in abiogenesis? The answer is that it is the deluded consequence of godless materialism.
You're harping on a false dichotomy. Abiogenesis, along with evolution and morphogenesis, may have required injection of information from a source outside of nature. This does not mean that it was not abiogenesis. Many of the engineering and programming types here seem to think that design is necessarily a discrete event, perhaps because they create the designer in their own image. This is a grave error. The entry of information from outside nature may be continual, with the consequence that the evidence for design is very subtle. For example, there may be no particular point in time at which the design for the flagellum entered nature. Indeed, the flagellum may have emerged through a improbable sequence of gradual steps, with design information entering nature gradually.Benjy_Compson
November 15, 2006
November
11
Nov
15
15
2006
05:38 PM
5
05
38
PM
PDT
Benjy Compson, You said,
Your use of the Poss quotation borders on quote mining. You know, as I do, that he is not saying that the regenerative capacity did not evolve in the first place.
Sal did not imply that Poss was saying regeneration did not evolve. That was not the point of Sal's use of the quote at all. Apparently you have failed to comprehend the meaning of Sal's post.
I am sick of the dogma that “logic” allows people without scientific training to “prove” that the beliefs of scientists are merely the false consequences of godless materialism.
The idea that "logic" can be used to "prove" something is not a "dogma" it is a mathmatic truth. If the beliefs of scientists are the result of the false consequences of godless materialism then logic is an appropriate tool to expose that. For example how do you explain the fact that many scientists believe in abiogenesis? The answer is that it is the deluded consequence of godless materialism.Jehu
November 15, 2006
November
11
Nov
15
15
2006
04:03 PM
4
04
03
PM
PDT
P.S.--Mr. Cordova, recall that I have complimented you on bringing good scientific content into another thread.Benjy_Compson
November 15, 2006
November
11
Nov
15
15
2006
01:48 PM
1
01
48
PM
PDT
Along with everyone in this thread, I am awed by the design in nature. Personally, I believe that God created the universe, and the notion that we can detect his fingerprints scientifically appeals to me. But I am sick of the dogma that "logic" allows people without scientific training to "prove" that the beliefs of scientists are merely the false consequences of godless materialism. And I am particularly offended by propanganda tactics. When it comes to creating an environment in which scientists can test design hypotheses, the sociopolitical "advocates" of ID are the worst enemies. Mr. Cordova:
In information science, it is empirically and theoretically shown that noise destroys specified complexity, but cannot create it. [...] The discovery by these researchers again illustrates the ID’s Law of Conservation of CSI and ID’s formulation of the 4th law of thermodynamics.
Recent references would be much appreciated. As best I can tell, Dr. Dembski has not written on the law of conservation of complex specified information or the Fourth Law in the past three years. In making his best case for ID in his expert statement for the Dover trial, he never mentioned these topics. And I think it is best he did not. Even in this thread, you and others indicate that CSI can be lost in reductive evolution, thus contradicting the notion that it is conserved in any conventional sense (e.g., as matter and energy are conserved). And what is CSI in its current form but specificity with an additive bias? To say that CSI is conserved is a dandified way of saying that specificity is conserved. Perhaps there is a limit to how much the specificity of a system can be increased by natural processes, but certainly one can drive it close to zero without any gain in specificity outside the system (e.g., one may nuke a bridge). Your use of the Poss quotation borders on quote mining. You know, as I do, that he is not saying that the regenerative capacity did not evolve in the first place. A journalist quoted his obviously informal remarks in an interview. Every time you engage is this sort of tactic, it says to the world that design advocates do not have a legitimate case to make. You may win the battle to sway susceptible minds here, but you will lose the war to conduct scientific research into design.Benjy_Compson
November 15, 2006
November
11
Nov
15
15
2006
12:58 PM
12
12
58
PM
PDT
I've seen three studies or clinical test now. 1) Bladder tissue regrowth from original donors built on a ballon like scafolding with stem cells. 2) artificial Nano structure scafolding(lattice) that allow brain lesions to heal - without need for progenitors - I think(hmm, need more infor). The article did not state. 3) Now this Zebrafish with progenitors that act as the scafolding if I correctly understand the article regarding fibroblast.(oops, no, other way around) Stem cells in our bone marrow act as progenitor cells. I'm curious if its just a matter of flipping some switches back on in a progenitor cell, or a regulatory function that is no longer communicating? Would a good experiment be to attempt to "repair" or "switch back on" such cells? Or, maybe first determine if progenitor cells are even appearing around such stressed areas in mamals? Or, forgive my ignorance here, are they just functional for bone calcium deposits? If not, then its a communication problem, possibly? If it is a matter of lossed information? Internet is great! Just found a few articles... "The new firm combines the core technologies of Matrigen's proprietary gene activated matrix technology and Prizm's proprietary fibroblast growth factor gene targeting technology. The combination of these technologies gives Selective Genetics the ability to deliver genes with high target-cell selectivity to tissue repair cells." Selective Genetics is already on it. They're targeting, maintaining site target and creating extra cells for healing. Another interesting quote. "As the body tries to mend a fracture, its healing abilities are marshalled in a precise pattern. First, immune system cells flood the site to "clean up" the wound, taking away blood, dead cells, and debris. A few days later, a fibrous tissue fills the wound. Then progenitor bone cells drawn to the injury site from nearby tissues start to replace the fiber with good bone.(ok, wrong about progenitors function) Genes for bone growth factors "switch on," directing the cells to produce proteins that stimulate and regulate the creation of new bone." from http://www.research.umich.edu/research_guide/research_news/bioengin/bone.html This is too cool and way practical - pattern: clean, fibrous scafolding, stimulate workers, build and heal. And a really interesting perspective: "Goldstein says his main contribution to the project stems from his engineering perspective. From the science side, a biologist might report, "I've discovered a gene that makes bone grow." Discovery is the objective. Perhaps it would be followed by the steps needed to make it into a potential therapy, or perhaps it would languish in the scientific literature." Engineers, God love em, always building bridges from ideas to reality. So, about the 4th Law. This would concur with your statements Dave? With information you need intelligence to conserve and transfer?Michaels7
November 15, 2006
November
11
Nov
15
15
2006
05:38 AM
5
05
38
AM
PDT
Jehu Yes, but even amongst egg laying cold blooded animals, regeneration has mostly been lost. Only true if we restrict the discussion to vertebrates. Innumerable species of invertebrates, plants, and fungi still retain the ability. But I take your point. Creative evolution appears to be over in the old manner of descent with modification. Nothing is going on in evolution today except the generation of sub-species. The period of great fecundity in phylogenesis is over. The process has wound down almost to a complete halt. This fits well with evolution as a front-loaded self-limiting self-terminating process. It appears to have terminated with the emergence of modern man. Davison (see the sidebar) makes compelling arguments to that effect. However, I differ with Davison in that I believe evolution has reached a point where there's a paradigm shift. Where organic evolution leaves off, genetic engineering through intelligent agency begins. This I believe is also part of the grand plan for life. It also rectifies the apparently deteriorating genomes which you point out well enough. Modern man will take an active role in reversing the deterioration. Intelligence is the only thing that CAN reverse the deterioration. "Physician, heal thyself" takes on a whole new meaning in this context. God helps those who help themselves. -Benjamin Franklin I'm a great fan of Franklin. DaveScot
November 14, 2006
November
11
Nov
14
14
2006
11:18 PM
11
11
18
PM
PDT
If the ability to regenerate major organs is hardly visible for natural selection to preserve, how in the world will natural selection be able to even create the ability to regenerate major organs in the first place?
Can we imagine the species that needed to regenerate some limbs before it procreated badly enough to evolve this feature? What was it? A population of half eaten salamanders? What species has a tendency to get only partly eaten?Jehu
November 14, 2006
November
11
Nov
14
14
2006
02:41 PM
2
02
41
PM
PDT
AFAIK all species that can regenerate lost parts are cold blooded, reproduce by laying lots of eggs (so they can afford to lose more offspring), and indeed are highly susceptable to tumors.
Yes, but even amongst egg laying cold blooded animals, regeneration has mostly been lost. Here is my theory on why: The regeneration gene is generally helpful to organisms that have it but it is not conserved due to lack of selective benefit, so it falls prey to entropy. This is what happens to genes that are helpful but not quite helpful enough. This is my point about laryngeal echolocation which has been lost in certain bats. What bat wouldn't benefit from laryngeal echolocation? Does it cause cancer? No. It is a helpful feature. Yet it is lost to entropy do to lack of selective benefit. Darwinists seem to always to want some sort of positive selection hypothesis to explain the loss of the feature. Darwinists are reluctant to admit that entropy is working in the genome more so than positive evolution. Features will be lost to entorpy if they don't present a selective benefit. Another example is that greater than 97% of all birds have lost their intermittent organs. Darwinists are puzzled as they can see no disadvantage to the intermittent organ. http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=14134992Jehu
November 14, 2006
November
11
Nov
14
14
2006
02:11 PM
2
02
11
PM
PDT
I was curious a year or two ago about why regeneration was lost in mammals since it seems like it would be a deucedly handy thing to have as a survival tool. I googled around for an explanation and all I found was some speculation that along with the ability to regenerate lost parts comes a far higher risk of tumors. AFAIK all species that can regenerate lost parts are cold blooded, reproduce by laying lots of eggs (so they can afford to lose more offspring), and indeed are highly susceptable to tumors. Of course like most evolutionary narratives based on chance & necessity there's no way to confirm it. It's just one tough break after another trying to tease real answers out of a process that is unpredictable, unrepeatable, and uncontemporary. Is uncomtemporary a word? It fit so well I just couldn't resist. :-)DaveScot
November 14, 2006
November
11
Nov
14
14
2006
01:31 PM
1
01
31
PM
PDT
Well I would really like to keep regeneration. Imagine loosing a leg and it grows right back! Seems like Natural Selection didn't feel like keeping the most valuable traits. Maybe it needed all the strenght at that time to get bats "fully formed and ready to fly"!tb
November 14, 2006
November
11
Nov
14
14
2006
01:27 PM
1
01
27
PM
PDT
Regeneration! Now that seems like a feature any organism could use. Yet not enough selective benefit to remain conserved? Hmmm. Biology is full of reductive evolution or evolutionary loss. Many organisms that have been classified as primitive are now being found to be derived from more "advanced" ancestors. Take bats for example. Bats have always been a problem for evolution because they jush show up in the fossil record fully formed read to fly. It also appears that many modern bats have less sophisticated echolocation than their ancestors.
Microbat paraphyly implies that complex laryngeal echolocation either evolved independently in rhinolophoids and other microbats or evolved in the ancestor of Chiroptera with subsequent loss in megabats. Given these competing hypotheses, which are equally parsimonious in the context of molecular phylogenies that have only included living taxa, we investigated the origin and evolutionary history of laryngeal echolocation in microbats by using an integrated approach that used both molecular phylogenies and morphological data for living and extinct taxa. Molecular phylogenies were used to construct a backbone phylogenetic constraint, or scaffold, for a subset of extant bat families/subfamilies for which DNA phylogenies are available (see Methods). Parsimony analyses with the morphological data set of Simmons and Geisler, in conjunction with the molecular scaffolds, provide support for the hypothesis that laryngeal echolocation evolved in the common ancestor of Chiroptera and was subsequently lost in megabats.
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/98/11/6241 This of course, is just one of countless examples.Jehu
November 14, 2006
November
11
Nov
14
14
2006
11:22 AM
11
11
22
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply