At Some Point, the Obvious Becomes Transparently Obvious (or, Recognizing the Forrest, With all its Barbs, Through the Trees)

_{Gil Dodgen

June 5, 2011

Intelligent Design}

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

At UD we have many brilliant ID apologists, and they continue to mount what I perceive as increasingly indefensible assaults on the creative powers of the Darwinian mechanism of random errors filtered by natural selection. In addition, they present overwhelming positive evidence that the only known source of functionally specified, highly integrated information-processing systems, with such sophisticated technology as error detection and repair, is intelligent design.

[Part 2 is here. ]

This should be obvious to any unbiased observer with a decent education in basic mathematics and expertise in any rigorous engineering discipline.

Here is my analysis: The Forrests of the world don’t want to admit that there is design in the universe and living systems — even when the evidence bludgeons them over the head from every corner of contemporary science, and when the trajectory of the evidence makes their thesis less and less believable every day.

Why would such a person hold on to a transparently obvious 19th-century pseudo-scientific fantasy, when all the evidence of modern science points in the opposite direction?

I can see the Forrest through the trees. Can you?

Comments

EZ: I have provided a 101 look at the evidence that points tot hat collapse. To begin with, the fossil evidence did not support Darwin's icon -- the only diagram in Origin. Darwin hoped that the then relatively sparse evidence would be filled in as he desired. With 250,000+ fossil species in hand and millions of specimens in museums, billions observed, that has not happened, starting with the Cambrian. And remember, we are here seeing the opposite of what was expected: sudden appearance of top level categories of life, in a context where if they were there in the required numbers to support that much of a burst of massive evolution of body plans, we should have seen the fossils, even if soft bodied and even if micro-scopic. The overwhelming pattern, onward, is sudden appearance in the layers, stasis, disappearance or continuation into the modern world. The molecular trees that were hoped to be the salvation of the case, then fell into contradictions to one another and to the gross anatomy tree. (Cf the linked.) To cap off all, it turns out that the genome of the platypus shows a mosaic from several branches of the vertebrate family of animals [just as the gross anatomy suggests], and that of the kangaroo shows vast swathes of the human genome sitting there, for species whose lines are said to have diverged 150 mn YA. The evidence is that of a library adapted to specific cases, not of a branching tree. And, it is of a discrete categorisation into distinct kinds. The headlines, the confident textbook and brochure declarations may suggest or outright say otherwise, but the pattern is of islands of function. Precisely what one would expect of a code-based, symbolic system that needs to construct meaningful structures that must work in the real world. You may choose to deny this, but that is the actual state of the facts, as I took time to document and have now repeatedly linked. In addition, the best explanation -- the only observationally supported one -- for FSCI is intelligent cause. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{June 6, 2011
June
06
Jun
6
06
2011
10:01 AM
10
10
01
AM
PDT}

Upright BiPed, @ # 84
EL, “What makes you think that “there is nothing in the material make-up that sets this characteristic as a matter of physical necessity?” What do you think, in the cell, constrains DNA to be “read in a linear fashion” if not “physical necessity”? Design. A system set up with foresight to the retrival of recorded information, including the information required to build and operate the system doing the retrieval.
I can't have made myself clear - my question was much simpler than the one you answered! I will rephrase: when DNA, today, this minute, is read in a cell, in my body, linearly, what is it that constrains it to be read linearly? What stops it, if not physical/chemical forces, from reading it non-linearly? What constrains it? (Analogy: if I'd asked the question: what stops me getting into last summer's jeans? the answer you gave me was the equivalent of "your inability to stay on your diet" whereas what I was after was "the waistband" :)) Hope that is clearer! As to your request - thanks for reposting your response, I'm sorry I missed it (I did, in fact, go looking). But you have made it far too easy for me by letting me choose my definition! Let's say I choose Shannon information, so that if I send you a message that you cannot predict in advance, then I have sent you information, right? So if I send you a series of 100 ones and zeros, and I arrange it so that at each position, ones and zeros are equiprobable, then I have sent you 100 bits of information, right? Well, I don't even need natural selection to do that, I can just toss a coin 100 times! And, by an entirely stochastic process, I have sent you 100 hundred bits of information. So on that definition, any stochastic process creates information. Indeed, the more "intelligent" the process, the less information I actually create. If instead of coin tosses, I sent 1010101010101010101..... You'd start to make some pretty good guesses at the rest of the series, so the amount of new information I'd created would be very small. And indeed, the message would be extremely compressible as a result. So by that definition, "intelligent design" is marked not by how much information is generated, but how little. And this is actually very useful - we can, for example, analyse output of what are supposed to be randomly generated 1s and 0s and figure out that the generator is a human being rather than a coin-tossing machine, because interestingly, human beings are very bad at reproducing flat probability distributions. But I don't think that's what you meant! So can you give me a definition, that will provide me with a slightly greater challenge :p More to the point, one that gets to the heart of what you think evolutionary processes can't do?Elizabeth Liddle_{June 6, 2011
June
06
Jun
6
06
2011
09:59 AM
9
09
59
AM
PDT}

Ella, Perhaps you are just being obtuse today. "I think any good book on the modern evolutionary synthesis shows how information can arise within a system of modification with common descent". There isnt a single evolutionary book that shows the rise of the information REQUIRED for your "system of modification with common descent". One cannot exist without the other, Ella. It is simply taken for granted, blindingly so, just as you just did yet again. It sometimes seems quite immpossible to get a materialist to focus on the issues at hand. They are so wound up in their prior assumptions that they simply cannot see that they are missing the important pieces of the puzzle. You take it for granted Ella, thats the cheap way out. You can do better than that.Upright BiPed_{June 6, 2011
June
06
Jun
6
06
2011
09:55 AM
9
09
55
AM
PDT}

WJM: I apologise if I answered questioned you did not ask. "It doesn’t prove that Darwinistic forces **actually** created anything; it just demonstrates them scientifically capable of producing the claimed product within reasonable (qualified stochastic) parameters. And that’s all I’m asking for: that you support your claim that Darwinism offers a satisfying explanation by directing me to where the chance* and natural* characteristics of the processes in question (mutation and selection) have been properly quantified as sufficient to produce macro-evolutionary success." I think they already have been shown to be sufficient to the the task at hand. I believe that evidence exists in the fossil record, the geographic distribution of species, shared morphology and the copious DNA evidence. I think the quantification is there. What kind of proof do you want? Stick around for a couple of million years and see what happens!! But will that satisfy those that say that the design implementation is at the mutation level??ellazimm_{June 6, 2011
June
06
Jun
6
06
2011
09:52 AM
9
09
52
AM
PDT}

UB: I know, I know, I said I was going. And I will! Promise! "No, actually I don’t, since there are no books that demonstrate the rise of information without a living thing. That’s the point. You assume it can happen, but you have not a shred of evidence that it can happen." I think any good book on the modern evolutionary synthesis shows how information can arise within a system of modification with common descent. I think there's over 150 years of evidence. You've read the books, you disagree. I've got nothing new to add. Best to leave that there. Well . . . science is about finding plausible models that have explanatory power. You think my model is not plausible. Fair enough. Propose another. Be specific. If there was design then when and what? (We'll leave off why and how.) Make sure your when and what have explanatory power, that they explain some of what we see. You say no materialist answers your questions well I have a hard time getting an ID proponent to answer these questions. AND, once you've answered those, show that there was a designer present at the time to implement the design interventions you propose. Show that the design inference sits on multiple lines of positive evidence. And no begging the question: In my experience design only arises from an intelligence and I see what I perceive to be design therefore there was a designer. Give some other, independent evidence. Make the design inference that much stronger and undeniable. It seems to me that the design inference hangs on two major hypothesis: In our experience, complex specified information and design only arises from intelligent agents. AND there is no proof that non-intelligent processes are capable of creating life and/or imbibing life with complex and specified information. In some ways ID IS like archaeology. And there have been moments when things have been discovered which looked designed but dated too early based on our understanding of the evolution of human beings. And those moments are open issues until they are further explored or verified. They DO NOT over throw the existing paradigm until there is an accumulation of more, independent evidence. If an archaeologist tries to prove that some artefact is human designed then there has to be independent evidence that there were humans about to do the designing. IF you think the designer is transcendent and removed from the world to the point that no evidence of intervention need be left then that will always be outside the realm of science. That's not part of this world/universe, it's outside. And that cannot be analysed and sliced and defined. But then it cannot be an understandable and definable explanation for events. And that's why Sagan said what he did: we cannot do science with things that don't play by the rules. And now I really do have to go.ellazimm_{June 6, 2011
June
06
Jun
6
06
2011
09:43 AM
9
09
43
AM
PDT}

ellazimm, This is about the time that I - and others, I would suppose - begin to suspect that you are deliberately employing evasive and distracting tactics. Note - you responded: "Why are you assuming intelligence is the null hypothesis and I have to prove non-intelligence?" I have assumed no such thing. I have only asked you and Dr. Liddle to support your asserted contentions - that the characterization of the evolutionary processes of selection and mutation as chance* and natural* have been scientifically demonstrated as reasonably capable of producing what they are claimed to have produced. ellazimm said: "But I don’t know that there was an intelligence there to do the producing." Now you are doing what is called shifting the burden. Instead of supporting your own assertion, you want someone else to provide evidence against your assumption. ellazimm said: "I think you’re begging a question. In my opinion. You’re satisfied with the design inference when you don’t know that there was a designer around at the time that was capable and motivated to do the designing." I can only interpret this as deliberate obfuscation. I never said I was satisfied with the design inference, nor have I claimed that there was a designer around, nor that any supposed designer was "motivated". You seem to be saying: "You can't support your claims, either!" only, I haven't made such claims here that require supporting - I've only asked you and Dr. Liddle to support your assertions. Perhaps you should wait until I make an assertion before you ask me to support it or accuse me of "begging the question". ellazimm said: "Whatever designing you are proposing. No one seems to have narrowed that down yet." I haven't proposed any desining. I am asking you to support your assertions. ellazimm stated: "How would you prove non-intelligence?" I don't know. It's not my job to "prove" it (support the claim) because I haven't made such a claim. Should i give you and Dr. Liddle and Darwinists a pass simply because you are foolish enough to make a claim you cannot support? Here's a suggestion: when it has been pointed out to you that you have made an unsupportable claim, rescind your claim. ellazimm said: "Some ID proponents accept some form of ‘micro’ evolution thereby assuming that random mutation and natural selection can fix some new morphologies." What some ID proponents accept has nothing to do with whether or not you can direct me to any rigorous, scientific support for your claim here that chance* mutations and natural* selection offer a satisfying scientific explanation. ellazimm said: "And how would you show that a beneficial mutation was random? You could always make the argument that that’s how the design implements design." It's not necessary to prove that any particular mutation was random; it's only necessary to demonstrate that the claimed product of the process in question is within the reasonable parameters of what the process can be shown to produce. It doesn't prove that Darwinistic forces **actually** created anything; it just demonstrates them scientifically capable of producing the claimed product within reasonable (qualified stochastic) parameters. And that's all I'm asking for: that you support your claim that Darwinism offers a satisfying explanation by directing me to where the chance* and natural* characteristics of the processes in question (mutation and selection) have been properly quantified as sufficient to produce macro-evolutionary success. Please note: how many responses, and still I have not been directed to any legitimate source that has even made an attempt to quantify evolutionary forces as chance* or natural*, yet Darwinists are "satisfied" that evolutionary processare are in fact chance* and natural*. How can they be, when there is **zero** evidence they are, and when mainstream science itself claims there is no metric capable of making such a distinction when it comes to evolution? I suggest your satisfaction is borne from faith in other, more ideological considerations, and is not - ooulc not be - the result of any evidence.William J. Murray_{June 6, 2011
June
06
Jun
6
06
2011
09:41 AM
9
09
41
AM
PDT}

Meleager @ #21: Apologies for the delay in responding:
Elizabeth: In other words, you cannot direct me to where such limitations have been formally provided by pro-Darwinists, and you cannot provide any answer to the challenge of where evolutionary processes have been scientifically vetted as natural* or chance*.
No, I don't have a citation for a formalised version of the limits I suggested, but they seem intrinsic to me. And I'm not at the moment quite sure what kind of "vetting" you mean - can you provide operational definitions for "natural" and "chance"?
You are doing nothing but assuming your conclusion that such processes, however you narrate them as “stepwise” or “treelike”.
I don't think so. "Stepwise" and "treelike" are direct predictions from Darwin's theory. If we find evidence that life unfolds in a non-stepwise, or non-treelike fashion, then clearly that raises doubt about the theory. And indeed, we already know that the "tree" is bushier than Darwin's theory predicts.
You are stating that Darwinism is “an adequate explanation” without even providing a rigorous explanation of the power (and limits of that power) of chance* and natural* processes claimed to be “an adequate explanation”.
I did not say that "Darwinism" was adequate. I said "evolutionary processes" but I should have been clearer - I think that the evolutionary processes that have been hypothesised and tested (which extend well beyond Darwin's) are a good fit to the data. No theory will ever be entirely "adequate", and it was a poor choice of words. But my position right now is that there is no glaring gap that shows no promise of being filled by something other than an Intentional Designer (note that I did not say "intelligent"!)
How can you claim those processes are adequate, if you cannot even direct me to where they have been vetted as adequate via a rigorous falsification metric?
Well, as I've said elsewhere, falsification isn't, in general, how science proceeds, pace Popper. Rather, we fit models to data, and discard the models that fit less well. Only very occasionally is falsification used, apart from falsification of the null, of course, but that isn't what you mean. In my view evolutionary processes fit the data better than any other model. I do not think that ID is a well fitting model, and indeed, I have seen few, if any, attempts to fit it.
If there is no rigorous means to examine the computational and engineering limitations of the natural* and chance* processes claimed to be sufficient for producing macro-evolutionary successes (such as winged flight and stereoscopic, color vision), then how can one possibly be satisfied that such processes are “an adequate explanation”?
Well, I will gladly walk back the word "adequate". I do think think that we have good models for all those phenomena, models that predict new data, and for which new data have been found that support the models. I am a little puzzled though by your references, with asterisks, to natural* and chance* - do they link to a definition somewhere that I should know about? Cheers LizzieElizabeth Liddle_{June 6, 2011
June
06
Jun
6
06
2011
09:37 AM
9
09
37
AM
PDT}

Ella, Also, I noticed in your answer, you immediately tried to change the subject to evolution, and chimps, and mutations, and what not... It doesn't work. It is the rise of information that is at issue. And once again, you cannot demonstrate the rise of information without a prior living thing.Upright BiPed_{June 6, 2011
June
06
Jun
6
06
2011
09:16 AM
9
09
16
AM
PDT}

Caught my eye: the so-called "unbiased observer with a decent education in basic mathematics and expertise in any rigorous engineering discipline" In my experience, the branches of engineering are amalgams of rigorous and hueristic approaches, even given a mathematical subject such as classical signal and systems theory. And engineering expertise has a prerequisite - education in higher mathematics and analysis.groovamos_{June 6, 2011
June
06
Jun
6
06
2011
09:14 AM
9
09
14
AM
PDT}

Ella, "You know what I would say." No, actually I don't, since there are no books that demonstrate the rise of information without a living thing. That's the point. You assume it can happen, but you have not a shred of evidence that it can happen.Upright BiPed_{June 6, 2011
June
06
Jun
6
06
2011
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT}

EL, "What makes you think that “there is nothing in the material make-up that sets this characteristic as a matter of physical necessity?” What do you think, in the cell, constrains DNA to be “read in a linear fashion” if not “physical necessity”? Design. A system set up with foresight to the retrival of recorded information, including the information required to build and operate the system doing the retrieval. And now its your turn, you've removed from your explanatory toolbox anything but the physical make-up of the material itself. So, what in the material make-up of the DNA molecule establishes linear decoding as a physical requirement? How was this requirement manifest in the material, and how did this manifestation play a role in the existence of the decoding system? - - - - - - - - As for the previous post regarding the onset of information, here is my last respose to you:
You are going to demonstrate how neo-darwinism brought information into existence in the first place??? Please feel free to use whatever definition of information you like. If that definition is meaningless, then we’ll surely both know it. For what it is worth, I follow the common etymology of the word: that which gives form, to in-form (the latin verb informare). This defnition is not in conflict with the more technical definition of a set of symbols that can cause a transformation within a system. The problem you face is not the definition of the word so much, it is that the state of an object must be in some way “sensed” or “experienced” in order for the information to come into existence. That is the mechanism which is missing from the narrative; it is simply taken for granted for the past 60 years. I am delighted that you intend to tackle it here and now. :)
Upright BiPed_{June 6, 2011
June
06
Jun
6
06
2011
09:09 AM
9
09
09
AM
PDT}

UB: "I think evolution shows this. And your other points. By all means, show me." You know what I would say. What books I would point you to. Time to leave it I think. We're not going to agree so there's no point. But, if I did try to show you . . . and I found a complete step-by-step mutational path from, say the common ancestor of humans and chimps (impossible since we don't have the DNA) all the way down to humans it would still be possible for one branch of ID theory to say that all or some of the mutations were 'designed'. I don't think I can ever prove to everyone's satisfaction. And I find no intelligence more parsimonious than an unknown and un-proven intelligence.ellazimm_{June 6, 2011
June
06
Jun
6
06
2011
08:51 AM
8
08
51
AM
PDT}

:-) Lizzie is back and I have to start taking care of my family. I'll try and check on the thread later but I've got a meeting of my local archaeology club this evening (where we will be hoping to infer design in some crop marks . . . if they're not blindingly clear the answer is no) so I might not make it back. Night al!ellazimm_{June 6, 2011
June
06
Jun
6
06
2011
08:46 AM
8
08
46
AM
PDT}

ellazzim,
"You can’t demonstrate the onset of information without a prior living thing.”
I think evolution shows this. And your other points.
By all means, show me.Upright BiPed_{June 6, 2011
June
06
Jun
6
06
2011
08:46 AM
8
08
46
AM
PDT}

WJM: "If you cannot support the claim that the processes involved were non-intelligent, then one shouldn’t make the assertion that they were non-intelligent by characterizing them as chance* muatation and natural* selection." Why are you assuming intelligence is the null hypothesis and I have to prove non-intelligence? Because we know intelligence can produce complex, specified information? I agree it can. But I don't know that there was an intelligence there to do the producing. I think you're begging a question. In my opinion. You're satisfied with the design inference when you don't know that there was a designer around at the time that was capable and motivated to do the designing. Whatever designing you are proposing. No one seems to have narrowed that down yet. How would you prove non-intelligence? Would you have to rerun all of evolution to show that each and every step happened without direction? Some ID proponents accept some form of 'micro' evolution thereby assuming that random mutation and natural selection can fix some new morphologies. And how would you show that a beneficial mutation was random? You could always make the argument that that's how the design implements design.ellazimm_{June 6, 2011
June
06
Jun
6
06
2011
08:43 AM
8
08
43
AM
PDT}

OK, teabreak.... Upright BiPed @ #52:
“And it is this similarity that, I submit, that is reflected in their “CSI”, not the additional factor of “intention”.” The sequence of chemical symbols in DNA is useless unless it is read in a linear fashion. Otherwise no information would come from it. But, there is nothing in the material make-up of the DNA molecule that sets this charateristic as a matter of physical neccesity. So the question becomes, can it be said that DNA was not intended to be read in a linear fashion?
What makes you think that "there is nothing in the material make-up that sets this characteristic as a matter of physical necessity?" What do you think, in the cell, constrains DNA to be "read in a linear fashion" if not "physical necessity"? Are you actually suggesting that something other than physical/chemical forces constrain the linear reading? If so, what? If not, I'm not getting your point!
- – - – - – - – - By the way Dr Liddle, you were going to demonstrate how neo-darwinian processes brought information into existence in the first place. I am eargerly awaiting your explanation.
Glad you mentioned that - I lost the URL of the thread in question (or couldn't find it in the threads I had bookmarked). I am more than willing, as long as (as I think I asked) you give me the definition you are using for "information" (there are of course several :))Elizabeth Liddle_{June 6, 2011
June
06
Jun
6
06
2011
08:38 AM
8
08
38
AM
PDT}

WJM: "I’m challenging the assertion that the process of that descent with modification can be properly, scientifically characterized as being by chance* and natural* processes." But, by my way of seeing things, there is no other viable method. Can't be design without a designer. UB: "You can’t demonstrate the onset of information without a prior living thing." I think evolution shows this. And your other points. I think self-replication with modification is selected by the environment so that organisms are 'designed' that are better and better able to exploit the environment (including other organisms). Sometimes gene drift has an effect, sometimes sexual selection. Some times the steps are bigger or smaller depending on the random modification. Sometimes the environment changes. Have you ever asked yourself why you don't believe Darwinism? Why you are right and thousands, millions of other sincere and intelligent people are wrong?ellazimm_{June 6, 2011
June
06
Jun
6
06
2011
08:36 AM
8
08
36
AM
PDT}

If you cannot support the claim that the processes involved were non-intelligent, then one shouldn't make the assertion that they were non-intelligent by characterizing them as chance* muatation and natural* selection. Or does everyone get to make negative claims and then not have to support them?William J. Murray_{June 6, 2011
June
06
Jun
6
06
2011
08:31 AM
8
08
31
AM
PDT}

KF: I don't think I am begging the question obviously. I disagree that the Tree of Life model has collapsed. I don't think the preponderance of the evidence points that way. And I don't find the design inference, as it stands right now, to be the most parsimonious answer or the one with the most explanatory power. There's no real point to hashing it over again. I was just trying to answer a question, not get into an argument. Not only does the truth or falsehood of the modern evolutionary synthesis not depend on my ability to defend it NEITHER does the design inference depend on your convincing me that it's true.ellazimm_{June 6, 2011
June
06
Jun
6
06
2011
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PDT}

"Which is why I do not want to propose a designer without several lines of evidence for there being one" How many do you need? You can't demonstrate the onset of information without a prior living thing. You can't demonstrate the existence of symbolic representation without a living thing. You can't demonstrate the presence of an abstraction without a living thing. You can't explain the existence of a decoding system without appealing to foresight. You can't explain the existence of matter arranged to record discrete information without a mind. The list goes on and on.Upright BiPed_{June 6, 2011
June
06
Jun
6
06
2011
08:26 AM
8
08
26
AM
PDT}

ellazimm says: "Which is why I do not want to propose a designer without several lines of evidence for there being one." I'm not talking about proposing a designer at this point. All I'm talking about is how you (and Dr. Liddle) have justified your view that Darwinism offers a "satisfactory [or adequate] explanation". eallazimm stated: "But, I have several lines of evidence which indicate not only is the system up to the task but that it is unguided. I know you know what I’m going to say but I’ll repeat them anyway: Fossils, geographic distribution of species, morphology and the DNA evidence. I’ve discussed these before and anyone who is interested in reading up on them will be able to find many good explanations of the evidence. " None of the things you mentioned have anything whatsoever to do with what we are talking about. We are talking about qualifying the collections of mutations, and the sequences of selection, as chance*, and as natural*. Your evidence (to whatever degree) is that general evolution occurred via descent with modification from a common ancestor through genetic variations in populations; I'm not challenging that. I'm challenging the assertion that the process of that descent with modification can be properly, scientifically characterized as being by chance* and natural* processes. "AND my own poor ability to argue in their favour does not indicate their truth or falsehood. " While a "poor ability to argue in their favour" doesn't matter as to the validity of darwinism itself, it does directly indicate that your belief in them as "satisfying explanations" is suspect and probably not well-founded.William J. Murray_{June 6, 2011
June
06
Jun
6
06
2011
08:25 AM
8
08
25
AM
PDT}

KF: I never doubt you. I do disagree with you sometimes though. :-)ellazimm_{June 6, 2011
June
06
Jun
6
06
2011
08:21 AM
8
08
21
AM
PDT}

EZ: Pardon a direct question: why do you keep begging the question of getting to islands of function in beyond astronomically large config spaces, as again just linked on? FYI, on fair comment, the Darwin tree of life type model has collapsed. The evidence that functionally specific complex organisation and associated information (especially coded information) will come in deeply isolated islands of function is supported by the actual evidence. There is no smoothly graded branching tree of life with a root in one or a cluster of original microorganisms, and of course OOL is an even more blatant example that design is the best explanation of what we can actually observe. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{June 6, 2011
June
06
Jun
6
06
2011
08:21 AM
8
08
21
AM
PDT}

KF: Yes, I know the Sagan quote. Only natural processes can be examined by holding some parameters constant. By definition, something that is super-natural cannot be so constrained and so cannot be studied by the scientific method. WJM: "I’m not asking you to prove a negative. I’m asking you to support the positive claim that natural* and chance* processes are reasonably capable of producing what you have claimed they explain.? I have. I find the lines of evidence I've already mentioned, and I'm sure you are very familiar with, to be sufficient proof. What I was referring to as trying to prove a negative was your question as to whether I could prove that the processes were non-intelligent. Chris: "I repeat: artificial selection does NOT act upon random mutations." So, if a mutation occurred which pushed the breed in the direction the breeder wanted the breeder would not be acting on random mutations? I'm thinking of Lenski's experiments getting colonies of bacteria to adapt to a different food source. Or human becoming lactose tolerant. Or blue eyes (which are recessive) becoming quite common. Are the last two examples natural or artificial selection? If humans are themselves breeding for certain characteristics? KF: Yes, I know that. I don't see an 'edge' to evolution.ellazimm_{June 6, 2011
June
06
Jun
6
06
2011
08:19 AM
8
08
19
AM
PDT}

PPS: If you doubt me, cf here on the darwinian tree of life and in context on related claims and issues.kairosfocus_{June 6, 2011
June
06
Jun
6
06
2011
08:09 AM
8
08
09
AM
PDT}

WJM: "No, it’s not. Occam’s razor and the principle of parsimony states that you don’t want to multiply explanatory entities beyond necessity." Which is why I do not want to propose a designer without several lines of evidence for there being one. "Fewer assumptions? You have **assumed** your entire engine of evolution to be something you cannot even begin to verify – chance*, and natural*." But, I have several lines of evidence which indicate not only is the system up to the task but that it is unguided. I know you know what I'm going to say but I'll repeat them anyway: Fossils, geographic distribution of species, morphology and the DNA evidence. I've discussed these before and anyone who is interested in reading up on them will be able to find many good explanations of the evidence. AND my own poor ability to argue in their favour does not indicate their truth or falsehood. And, as I said, I was only trying to give an idea of why I find Darwinism more parsimonious. "Yet you (and Darwin) feel perfectly comfortable pointing at products of artificial selection and claiming it provides evidence of what natural selection can do! Will you also point at genetic engineering as an example of what chance* mutations can do?" Of course not. Natural and artificial selection are both non-random processes. Genetic engineering is likewise non-random whereas the proposed mechanism of mutations is.ellazimm_{June 6, 2011
June
06
Jun
6
06
2011
08:07 AM
8
08
07
AM
PDT}

PS: And, EZ, surely you know or should know by now that the issue is not to hill climb within islands of function, but to get to the shores of such islands in beyond astronomical config spaces. Intelligence we know can routinely do that, but chance and necessity, we have good analytical and empirical reasons to see, cannot credibly do so within the gamut of our observed cosmos.kairosfocus_{June 6, 2011
June
06
Jun
6
06
2011
08:07 AM
8
08
07
AM
PDT}

That's where Dawkins has led you up the garden path, ellazimm. Artificial selection acts on a pre-existing gene pool: random mutations do not come into it. If anything, the more specialised a variety becomes, the more genetic information is actually lost. Man, using Intelligent Design if you like, can shape a dog or a cabbage using artificial selection with nothing more than the gene pool that was already there in the first place. I repeat: artificial selection does NOT act upon random mutations. Natural selection, acting upon random mutations, has nothing to do with the present variety of cabbages and dogs.Chris Doyle_{June 6, 2011
June
06
Jun
6
06
2011
08:06 AM
8
08
06
AM
PDT}

ellazimm states: "You know you can’t prove a negative like that!!" I'm not asking you to prove a negative. I'm asking you to support the positive claim that natural* and chance* processes are reasonably capable of producing what you have claimed they explain. All positive claims carry with them either explicit or implicit negative counter-claims. ellazimm states: "And, I would say, the default assumption is not guided by intelligence unless there is other evidence of intelligence present for the task." So you are going to defend your claim of satisfactory explanation by claimming it is a "default assumption"? Do you know the difference between an assumption and a satisfactory scientific explanation?William J. Murray_{June 6, 2011
June
06
Jun
6
06
2011
08:03 AM
8
08
03
AM
PDT}

EZ: Unfortunately, this is the crucial assumption at work:
To Sagan, as to all but a few other scientists, it is self-evident that the practices of science provide the surest method of putting us in contact with physical reality, and that, in contrast, the demon-haunted world rests on a set of beliefs and behaviors that fail every reasonable test . . . . It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. [[From: “Billions and Billions of Demons,” NYRB, January 9, 1997.]
(And in case you think this is idiosyncratic and personal, observe the other three excerpts here, from NAS and NSTA as well as Coyne.) That's worldview level quesiton-begging. And worse, in fact the claimed cases of chance or chance and necessity giving rise to functionally specific complex organisation and information consistently are either shown on inspection to be actually intelligent design, or else are cases where we do not and cannot observe. The ongoing saga of ev and the GA's here at UD is a capital example in point. The only -- and routinely -- observed causal source of FSCI (this and other posts in this thread are examples in point) is design. Asa Einstein famously said: everything should be as simple as possible, but not simpler than that. In other words, if the account cannot account coherently for the observed facts, or imposes question-begging and censoring a prioris etc [as we just saw], it is not simple, but instead it is simplistic. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{June 6, 2011
June
06
Jun
6
06
2011
08:01 AM
8
08
01
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply