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

@Chris,#67 Ellazimm has responded to this, but just an additional response:
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.
I hear you, but I am wondering what sources you are referencing. As Ellazim says, every human being has a couple of hundred de novo mutations, a few of which will have phenotypic effects. In addition, every human being potentially has brand new alleles, generated by random crossover between parental alleles. Again, these may have phenotypic effects. And anything trait with a phenotypic effect is potentially selectable. So to say that natural selection does not act on random mutations seems, well, odd. Natural selection acts on allele with a phenotypic effect, and that will include new alleles resulting from "random mutations" as well as changing the frequency in the population of existing alleles. If all natural (or artificial, which is just a special case of a niche environment) selection were simply a question of eradicating unwanted or not-currently-useful alleles from an existing pool, there would indeed be "limits to evolution". But this is not the case. There is a constant supply of new alleles, in every generation. Most of these are likely to be neutral in effect, and a few are disastrous. The neutral ones will sometimes propagate by drift, and sometimes not. The slightly advantageous ones have greater chance of propagating through the population. And, I submit, it is the information that those advantageous, whether new or existing, alleles are, indeed, advantageous in this new environment that constitutes the "information in the genome" namely, the information the organisms physiology requires to build a phenotype with the best chance of successful replication in that environment. At least that is the Darwinian case, and there is a good evidence to support it. There is certainly good evidence for the regular spontaneous appearance of brand new alleles with phenotypic effects.Elizabeth Liddle_{June 6, 2011
June
06
Jun
6
06
2011
03:36 PM
3
03
36
PM
PDT}

Dr Liddle: Please, please, please!
At best I see: well all the codes/machines we know the provenance of are designed by intelligence, and living things are codes/machines, so they must have been as well. Which simply isn’t a valid inference! As I’ve said somewhere else recently (this thread?) that’s like saying: cats are mammals, therefore all mammals are cats.
This is an outright strawman caricature. You have an empirically known cause of FSCI -- which BTW can be and is measured, thank you. Namely, intelligence. You have a claimed cause, chance and necessity without intelligence, that has not been observed to cause FSCI, and which is ALSO analytically -- on considerations very close to those lying behind the second law of thermodynamics, statistical form -- challenged by the quantum state level resources of the 10^57 atoms or our solar system (at 500 bits) or the 10^80 or so of our cosmos (at the 1,000 bit FSCI threshold). So, to infer on best explanation relative to the evidence that FSCI is a reasonable and so far reliable sign of intelligent cause is NOT a circular argument. remember, this is the same sort of claim as the grounds for the laws of thermodynamics: well tested, analytically supported, and open to correction in light of actual observations to the contrary. But, as the conclusions are empirically reliable, the burden of proof lies on him or her who would object. Proof by empirical demonstration. the Internet and the collected libraries and offices of he world provide billions of test cases ion point on FSCI, as do ever so many artifacts of a technological civilisation. The infinite monkeys analysis used to support the 2nd law of thermodynamics comes up in support. We now see cases of unknown, unobserved provenance, inthe living cell. Do we trust the empirical reliability and the known causal force, as well as the analysis, or do we allow Lewontinian a priori materialism to prevail over the uniformity principle of inferring to a known and empirically reliable causal pattern on observing its signs? Why? GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{June 6, 2011
June
06
Jun
6
06
2011
03:36 PM
3
03
36
PM
PDT}

BA 103: I do think Richard Dawkins is honest to a fault. I know you disagree with him but that doesn't make him a liar. Have you got a critique of Lenski's work other than that put out by Creation Evolution website? above 104: "What you have illustrated here is the impossibility of defending scientifically, the articles of faith embeded in words such ‘chance’ and ‘nature’ that are unheld as dogma by the naturalists." You don't like my model, that's fine. But I haven't seen a well defined, worked out alternative. Everyone is taking shots at me but no one has told me why there is a need for a 'metric' or proposed a possible 'metric'. WJM 107: "What aspect of “the biological record” can be used to quantify that mutation is chance*, and selection random*, in sufficient capacity to produce the biological record?" The fact that mutations happen unpredictably. That mutations can be modelled like other random variables. Selection IS NOT random! Everyone keeps asking for a metric . . . .what is it you want to measure? A capacity? At least tell me the units of the metric you want. WJM 109: "Darwinists claim as scientific fact that mutations are chance* and selection is natural*, and that they are sufficient to produce macroevolutionary features. That claim is a lie. It only take a little logic to show it to be a lie. Odd how so transparent a lie can be so difficult for so many to see." Well, you don't have to agree, that's okay. But I don't see how you can prove that mutations are anything but random. They follow random patterns. They are unpredictable. You may disagree with the assertion but that doesn't make it a lie. Please be civil. Mung 111: "And of course, all the evidence in favor of the existence of a designer must be disregarded for after all, there is no evidence there has ever been one." I'm sorry that I don't see any good evidence. But even Christians don't agree what parts of the Bible are literal truth and what parts are metaphor. Mung 114: "So if we infer that the eye is designed, what explanation is really the most parsimonious?" The one that makes the fewest assumptions. For me that is the one that does not assume the presence of an unnamed, undefined, undetected designer. I'm even told that some of the questions about the designer are inappropriate. So, one we can't question too closely either. That's too big a pill for me to swallow. Sorry. Mung 117: "What scientific metric exists that can exclude “the hand of god” from nature, from being the cause of events that we call “selection” and for “natural selection” therefore to be guided, purposeful, and intentional? There is none, and there can be none. Thus the exclusion of “the hand of god” has to be rhetorical, not scientific." What about the inclusion of the hand of god? How can that be scientific if the exclusion must be rhetorical? Mung 119: "What is it about DNA that says that the three bases that code for a particular codon must be arranged in a linear manner on the DNA strand?" If the codons were not read in a particular order then it wouldn't be a code. There has to be a nomenclature or the data is meaningless. We don't decide what order to read the letters in a word; that's defined by the language protocols. Once a scanning order/sequence is selected then that's it. Now I'm going to bed. If anyone can suggest the units of a possible metric I'd appreciate it. And once we decided on a metric then what values would indicate that Darwinian processes are adequate? What else would we apply the metric to for comparison? What values would be put into the metric? If you want me to answer your question then I'll need some help understanding what you want.ellazimm_{June 6, 2011
June
06
Jun
6
06
2011
03:14 PM
3
03
14
PM
PDT}

Posts inviting responses are sprouting rather faster than I can keep up, but I'll keep trying! Meleager @ #55:
Pardon me for answering under a different name (my work computer won’t all me to sign on via my “Meleagar” identity), but: I never asserted that ID was an adequate explanation. I only asked Dr. Liddle to support her assertion that non-intelligent evolutionary forces were “an adequate explanation”.
I hope the modification I have now posted of that assertion makes more sense. The point perhaps I was trying to make, but failing, was that how we look at this depends on what we regard as the null hypothesis. From what I gather from reading the posts here, ID is regarded as a legitimate null. In other words, the onus is on people who dispute ID to falsify the null - to demonstrate that what we see can be sufficiently accounted for by non-intelligent processes. I think that is at the bottom of much of the rancour, actually, because, of course, scientists do not regard ID as a valid null. The null, in science, is not "materialism did it" but "we don't know. If we fail to support a hypothesis we simply conclude that we "don't know". Sometimes the null is more formally stated, but that in the end is what it boils down to. If we cannot show that two groups are different, we do not conclude that they are the same, but that we do no know that they are different, or, at best, that if they are different, the difference was smaller than we postulated. It seems to me that on a level playing field, the same should be true of ID - that if IDists cannot produce evidence that a thing is intelligently designed, that the interim conclusions must be that "we do not know". Now, before a ton of bricks falls on my head, I know that people have offered all kinds of evidence that they think supports ID. But (and I may have missed something) it seems to me that all that evidence amounts to evidence that "materialism" or "Darwinism" cannot explain such and such, therefore ID. At best I see: well all the codes/machines we know the provenance of are designed by intelligence, and living things are codes/machines, so they must have been as well. Which simply isn't a valid inference! As I've said somewhere else recently (this thread?) that's like saying: cats are mammals, therefore all mammals are cats. However, let's move on...
Note how Dr. Liddle still hasn’t answered the question or met the challenge, but is now claiming that evolutionary forces might be considered intelligent, just not intentional; IOW, she’s thinking maybe an “intelligent” decision-making computer can be purchased from generated from unintelligent processes.
Well, I've been busy, and tbh I've slightly lost track of the challenge. But yes, I do think that unintelligent processes can generate intelligent ones. I don't see any good a priori reason to think they couldn't.
Note how the semantic distinction between “intelligence” and “intentionality” simply moves the question to another position; okay, Dr. Liddle, please show your rigorous evidence that demonstrates that unintelligent forces, chemicals, natural laws, etc. or whatever can generate intelligent processes.
Yes, indeed, it does move the question to another position - I think it moves it to the key position, i.e. the place where we should be looking to cut between intelligence in the sense that human beings are intelligent, with foresight and motivations and goals, and intelligent in the strict sense that Dembski defined it, which specifically excluded intention. As for demonstrating that chemicals, natural laws, etc, can generate intelligent processes, well, first let's be clear whether we are talking about intentional processes or merely intelligent processes as in Dembski's definition of something with the "power to choose between options". If the latter, than I scarcely need to demonstrate it - natural selection (note the word "selection" which is a synonym for "choose") is a process by which the traits that result in the greatest replication rate are best represented in the next generation. What works, in other words, is amplified, and what works less well, is inhibited. And, of course, that is exactly what happens in human brains - thought patterns that receive excitatory input from lots of other networks are amplified, and those that receive less are laterally inhibited (what is sometimes called Neural Darwinism). There is one important difference (well, several, but one crucial one, I suggest) between brains and evolutionary processes, which is that brains can simulate the outcome of potential actions without execution, and feed that outcome back as input. This the key recursion that allows intention, I would argue.
Or is making a distinction between “intelligence” and “intentionality” simply more dissembling in order to continue avoiding the fact that you have provided no scientific basis whatsoever for your assertion that chance* and natural* processes can [insert new begged-question semantic avoidance] generate the “intelligent” non-intentional processes necessary to acquire macro-evolutionary success?
Not at all, and I have to repeat - I do not "dissemble". I have my faults, but lying isn't one of them. What I would like, however, is for you to explain what you mean by "chance*" and "natural*" processes, and what those asterisks mean. Then I will attempt to answer your question.Elizabeth Liddle_{June 6, 2011
June
06
Jun
6
06
2011
02:50 PM
2
02
50
PM
PDT}

What scientific metric exists that can exclude “the hand of god” from being the cause of events that we call “chance” or “random” and for those events thus being guided, purposeful, and intentional? What scientific metric exists that can exclude “the hand of god” from nature, from being the cause of events that we call “selection” and for “natural selection” therefore to be guided, purposeful, and intentional? There is none, and there can be none. Thus the exclusion of “the hand of god” has to be rhetorical, not scientific. I'm usually not much for simply repeating a comment to cheer on merely because I agree with it. But what the heck, I'll make an exception here. Bravo.nullasalus_{June 6, 2011
June
06
Jun
6
06
2011
02:13 PM
2
02
13
PM
PDT}

: Elizabeth Liddle @93:
when DNA...is read in a cell...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?
First, I'd like to commend you on your effort. But we have known systems of information storage and retrieval. Why not appeal to those for an analogy? Take a hard disk, or CD/DVD or RAM. Think about whether the data is read from them in a linear fashion, and why. What is it about matter, energy, or information that requires that it be read in a linear fashion? Could the information that is stored in DNA be read in a non-linear fashion? What is it about DNA that says that the three bases that code for a particular codon must be arranged in a linear manner on the DNA strand? As to your Shannon Information example. Even Shannon Information pre-supposes the existence of something called information. He just gives a way to measure it. True?Mung_{June 6, 2011
June
06
Jun
6
06
2011
02:07 PM
2
02
07
PM
PDT}

@ Upright BiPed, #106
EL, I am away from my computer for the next short while, and have limited accesss (on my phone). I have read your reply quickly. Just so as to save time, it looks like you’vre covered most of the bases necessary to have a discussion – except one. This information you chosen to send me by virtue of 1s and 0s, I have just one question before I return and give you my response – What is this information about? You are free to make up anything you wish in this regard, just choose what the information is about, and then I will respond soon.
Well, that was exactly why I asked you to give me your definition of information! The nice thing about Shannon information is that it has an absolutely clear operational definition. However, once we start talking about what the message is "about" we are in a whole new ballgame and need another operational definition before I can proceed. Clearly, you are an intelligent, language using agent, and so am I (I hope). So I can send you a message containing information that can be "about" something, and you can figure out what it is "about". But the whole point of this exercise is that we are trying to apply this to what happens, in, for example a cell. In the cell, if we assume there is an intelligent sender and an intelligent decoder, and they speak the same "language" then how do we allocate the actors in the analogy? We might call the "language" the sequence of nucleotides, and we might call the "message" the protein, and we might call the "receiver" the RNA molecules (although that would be a stretch, IMO). So who is the sender? We cannot say "the intelligent designer" because that would be assuming our conclusion, as would be to say "natural selection". My answer, actually, if we must use this model, which I don't think is great, is that the "sender" is the environment. The "message" encoded in DNA is, in effect, "if you make this protein, now, you will maximise your organisms chances of survival and thus my chance of being replicated". But let me have a go at that challenge anyway: Let's say I am an infirm old lady (not yet, but it'll happen one day I expect),with reasonable nice, but not terribly diligent neighbours. One morning, my neighbours go past my house, and they notice that a thick layer of dust has settled on the polished table I keep by the window. They think: this is unusual, Lizzie normally keeps her house spotless (heh - this is hypothetical, you understand). So they go in and sure enough, I'm dead as a doornail, and obviously haven't been downstairs for a couple of weeks. That, it seems to me, is an example of information about my health being conveyed by an entirely stochastic process (the gathering of dust on my polished table top. The dust is "saying" to my neighbours: "Lizzie is in trouble". Now, I'm sure you will see a flaw in that analogy, but I'm hoping you can see why an operational definition is so important if we are going to sort this thing out! However, that's fine, because Kairosfocus above, says: use CSI. heh. So the challenge to me is to show that purely stochastic processes can create CSI. Complex, Specified, Information. As I understand it, Specified information is actually the opposite of Shannon information - it is information that can be highly compressed. But while 1010101010101010 can be highly compressed, it is not complex. On the other hand, 718281828459045 is both complex and can be highly compressed (e-2), perhaps with some kind of symbol to indicate the precision. So 718281828459045 exhibits CSI. If we found it in a SETI signal we might infer intelligent life,right? So the challenge for me is to demonstrate that Darwinian processes can generate complex (not just a simple repetitive pattern) but highly compressible information, right? I'll wait for your assent here, and in the mean time have a bit of a play with MatLab and see what I can come up with. Cheers LizzieElizabeth Liddle_{June 6, 2011
June
06
Jun
6
06
2011
01:57 PM
1
01
57
PM
PDT}

One comes away with a sense that people are talking past each other, to be charitable about it. What scientific metric exists that can exclude "the hand of god" from being the cause of events that we call "chance" or "random" and for those events thus being guided, purposeful, and intentional? What scientific metric exists that can exclude "the hand of god" from nature, from being the cause of events that we call "selection" and for "natural selection" therefore to be guided, purposeful, and intentional? There is none, and there can be none. Thus the exclusion of "the hand of god" has to be rhetorical, not scientific. The belief that chance and selection or nature acting alone can account for anything at all is one of faith. Stop claiming that science supports it. It does not, and it cannot.Mung_{June 6, 2011
June
06
Jun
6
06
2011
01:56 PM
1
01
56
PM
PDT}

William J. Murray: That claim is a lie. It only takes a little logic to show it to be a lie. Odd how so transparent a lie can be so difficult for so many to see. This phenomenon is known as not seeing the forest for the trees.GilDodgen_{June 6, 2011
June
06
Jun
6
06
2011
01:10 PM
1
01
10
PM
PDT}

Holy mackerel! (I've never quite understood how a mackerel could be holy, but that's how the saying goes.) It appears that I've stirred up quite a controversy, and started something akin to a Forrest fire. And yes, I made a booboo concerning the indefensible assault. The assault is defensible, but no reasonable defense can be made against it.GilDodgen_{June 6, 2011
June
06
Jun
6
06
2011
12:58 PM
12
12
58
PM
PDT}

Further on my post @111, I would gather all the evidence that appeared to indicate design, then see if anything could be developed from the totality of the evidence. ellazimm @61:
For me I just find that the modern evolutionary synthesis has much more explanatory power and makes fewer assumptions about the forces utilised. It’s more parsimonious. Occam’s Razor and all that.
It's more parsimonious than what? The explanations offered by the modern evolutionary synthesis are all very different and varied. One thing it cannot reasonably be called is parsimonious. Take for example one structure, the eye. Id there was a single explanation for the evolution of the eye, that would be parsimonious. But the eye evolved many times, we are told. And are we supposed to believe that the same mutations and the same sequences of events took place in each case? Hardly. So if we infer that the eye is designed, what explanation is really the most parsimonious?Mung_{June 6, 2011
June
06
Jun
6
06
2011
12:47 PM
12
12
47
PM
PDT}

@WJM -“ I was a materialist for quite a long time, but it wasn’t because it was an attractive philosophy. I held it because it seemed to me that was what the evidence indicated.” That has been pretty much my experience as well and the funny thing is up until I started engaging with philosophical and metaphysical literature I had no idea that I sub-consciously held such a worldview. I think our development in western culture, our education, the force of the media, the blind faith in scientism (not science) and a general attitude favoring materialistic hedonism are what at least in my experience were the primary underlying forces that led me to unthinkingly accept such a worldview. It could countless hours of reading contemplation and dialogue with myself and those close to me to finally liberate myself, from the materialistic superstition. My point being: given that there is sufficient scientific rationale (even if one doesn’t hold it as “proof”) to abandon philosophical materialism, why would anyone want to hold onto it, much less defend its obvious and glaring defects to the point of abandoning logic and right reason? I can see abandoning logic and reason to avoid materialism; I can’t for the life of me figure out the appeal.” Exactly! I think it has more to do with sophism, surrendering to the authority of scientism and a general ignorance as to what a naturalistic worldview actually entails. @Mung -"And of course, all the evidence in favor of the existence of a designer must be disregarded for after all, there is no evidence there has ever been one." I'm starting to pick up on your humor style. You're actually pretty funny.above_{June 6, 2011
June
06
Jun
6
06
2011
12:44 PM
12
12
44
PM
PDT}

Another thing I wonder: what is it that is so appealing about materialism that people will cling to it in the face of 90 years of quantum, information, and biological research that show it to simply not be true? I was a materialst for quite a long time, but it wasn't because it was an attractive philosophy. I held it because it seemed to me that was what the evidence indicated. My point being: given that there is sufficient scientific rationale (even if one doesn't hold it as "proof") to abandon philosophi al materialism, why would anyone want to hold onto it, much less defend its obvious and glaring defects to the point of abandoning logic and right reason? I can see abandoning logic and reason to avoid materialism; I can't for the life of me figure out the appeal.William J. Murray_{June 6, 2011
June
06
Jun
6
06
2011
12:30 PM
12
12
30
PM
PDT}

If I thought something was designed then I would want to know things about the designer and there just is no evidence that there ever has been one.
And of course, all the evidence in favor of the existence of a designer must be disregarded for after all, there is no evidence there has ever been one.Mung_{June 6, 2011
June
06
Jun
6
06
2011
12:23 PM
12
12
23
PM
PDT}

Correction to the end of #107: ellazimm said; "Why don’t you come up with one since you’re the one questioning the consensus? I’m serious. I don’t need a metric. You do. " IOW, you find the current Darwinistic explanation “satisfying” not because any rigorous metric has demonstrated nature* and chance* reasonably sufficient (because, as you say, you don’t need a metric); you find it satisfying simply because it is the consensus view.William J. Murray_{June 6, 2011
June
06
Jun
6
06
2011
12:14 PM
12
12
14
PM
PDT}

Above, I know that Darwinists cannot provide any support for the chance* & natural* characterization of mutation and selection. The question is, why do they insist on characterizing evolutionary forces according to ideological matieralism when, according to them, there is no way to determine them to be such. Someone asked me why I don't require that astrophysicists demonstrate that gravity or entropy is unguided by intelligence (or intention, s per Dr. Liddle); the simple answer is that they do not claim as scientific fact that gravity and entropy are unguided by intelligence (intention). Darwinists claim as scientific fact that mutations are chance* and selection is natural*, and that they are sufficient to produce macroevolutionary features. That claim is a lie. It only take a little logic to show it to be a lie. Odd how so transparent a lie can be so difficult for so many to see.William J. Murray_{June 6, 2011
June
06
Jun
6
06
2011
12:12 PM
12
12
12
PM
PDT}

This thread is great proof of the content set forth within the OP. Good job Gil!Mung_{June 6, 2011
June
06
Jun
6
06
2011
12:11 PM
12
12
11
PM
PDT}

ellazimm said: "As I’ve said. I think the support is in the evidence I’ve cited." The evidence you've cited only applies to a straw man argument for common descent and descent with modification, neither of which I have challenged. ellazimm asks: "How about the biological record as a metric?" What aspect of "the biological record" can be used to quantify that mutation is chance*, and selection random*, in sufficient capacity to produce the biological record? ellazimm said: "OR, how about, if you want a metric, you propose one and then see how things stack up?" Shifting the burden. Why don’t you come up with one since you’re the one questioning the consensus? I’m serious. I don’t need a metric. You do. ellazimm said; IOW, you find the current Darwinistic epxlanation "satisfying" not because any rigorous metric has demonstrated nature* and chance* reasonably sufficient (because, as you say, you don't need a metric); you find it satisfying simply because it is the consensus view.William J. Murray_{June 6, 2011
June
06
Jun
6
06
2011
12:02 PM
12
12
02
PM
PDT}

EL, I am away from my computer for the next short while, and have limited accesss (on my phone). I have read your reply quickly. Just so as to save time, it looks like you'vre covered most of the bases necessary to have a discussion - except one. This information you chosen to send me by virtue of 1s and 0s, I have just one question before I return and give you my response - What is this information about? You are free to make up anything you wish in this regard, just choose what the information is about, and then I will respond soon. - - - - Ella, clearly you are just not getting the point being made. Sorry.Upright BiPed_{June 6, 2011
June
06
Jun
6
06
2011
11:43 AM
11
11
43
AM
PDT}

-"‘Dawkins is very honest actually." Seriously, you would be better off claiming that pigs can fly. The guy is a hateful proselytizer who ironically has become the very thing he claims to want to combat, a religious extremist, with the only difference being that his beliefs rest upon atheism.above_{June 6, 2011
June
06
Jun
6
06
2011
11:40 AM
11
11
40
AM
PDT}

@WJM -"No. Watching mutations occur, even if one had a time-lapse billion-year camera, would not answer the question of whether or not those variations caught on tape were generated by processes that were chance* and natural*, or by intelligent design. What is required is a meaningful metric that describes the creative capacity of undirected, unintelligent mutation and selection processes so that we can be reasonably assured that the macroevolutionary products we see all around us could in fact have been – again, reasonably – generated by the kinds of forces (chance*, natural*) you have said offer satisfying scientific explanations." I don't think a darwinist can provide you with such a demarcation. I highly doubt if that is even possible to do scientifically. What you have illustrated here is the impossibility of defending scientifically, the articles of faith embeded in words such 'chance' and 'nature' that are unheld as dogma by the naturalists. This is why ellazim is once again trying to shift the burden of proof with his post #102. Strictly speaking there is not even a consensus on what the word 'nature' entails (among naturalists) and what entities are said to comprise it. There was a discussion on this topic several months ago where different definitions of 'nature' provided by naturalists were analyzed and were not even close to being agreeable with one another. An example would be in the philosophy of mind where some proclaimed naturalists have began adopting a dualist view. I find that violently incompatible with naturalism as do many hardcore naturalists themselves.above_{June 6, 2011
June
06
Jun
6
06
2011
11:34 AM
11
11
34
AM
PDT}

ellazimm, though I disagree with just about everything you wrote, this caught my eye: 'Dawkins is very honest actually. No Dawkins IS NOT honest!!! But hey, don't take my word for it, watch for yourself here. Richard Dawkins Lies About William Lane Craig AND Logic! - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1cfqV2tuOI As well ellazimm you state; 'And I think Lenski’s research shows exactly what he says it shows.' Well Ellazimm it turns out that Lenski just recently co-released a paper on his LTEE on e-coli; Genetic Entropy Confirmed (for Lenski's e-coli) Excerpt: No increases in adaptation or fitness were observed, and no explanation was offered for how neo-Darwinism could overcome the downward trend in fitness. http://crev.info/content/110605-genetic_entropy_confirmedbornagain77_{June 6, 2011
June
06
Jun
6
06
2011
11:25 AM
11
11
25
AM
PDT}

Chris: ".....do you concede my point: artificial selection in cabbages and dogs is acting upon a pre-existing gene pool and has nothing to do with random mutations?" Nope. Random mutations happen all the time at a fairly well defined rate. There is a pre-existing gene pool but, especially with artificial selection, desirable variations can get fixed in the population quickly. "Variation in eye colour, like so many other human characteristics, is simply part of our pre-existing gene pool." Well, from what I've read, the blue-eyed allele probably arose once, percolated along under the surface and then, once expressed in a recessive individual, got selected for. It did not exist previously. Sorry. Read the research. Dawkins is very honest actually. And I think Lenski's research shows exactly what he says it shows. Hey, we may all be descendent from bacteria. Who says it hasn't give rise to other life forms? WJM: "Yes, we know what you believe. You’ve stated it several times. I’m not trying to discern what you believe or what you think, but rather if what you believe and what you think has any rational or scientific support that you can argue here or direct anyone to. Apparently, the answer is no." As I've said. I think the support is in the evidence I've cited. "No. Watching mutations occur, even if one had a time-lapse billion-year camera, would not answer the question of whether or not those variations caught on tape were generated by processes that were chance* and natural*, or by intelligent design. What is required is a meaningful metric that describes the creative capacity of undirected, unintelligent mutation and selection processes so that we can be reasonably assured that the macroevolutionary products we see all around us could in fact have been – again, reasonably – generated by the kinds of forces (chance*, natural*) you have said offer satisfying scientific explanations." How about the biological record as a metric? OR, how about, if you want a metric, you propose one and then see how things stack up? Honestly, the biologists are asking for a metric. Why don't you come up with one since you're the one questioning the consensus? I'm serious. I don't need a metric. You do. Come up with one and we'll see how it works. Deal?ellazimm_{June 6, 2011
June
06
Jun
6
06
2011
11:13 AM
11
11
13
AM
PDT}

ellazimm said: "I think they already have been shown to be sufficient to the the task at hand." I ask you to direct me to where, and this is your answer? ellazimm said: "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." Yes, we know what you believe. You've stated it several times. I'm not trying to discern what you believe or what you think, but rather if what you believe and what you think has any rational or scientific support that you can argue here or direct anyone to. Apparently, the answer is no. ellazimm askes: "What kind of proof do you want?" I haven't asked for proof. I've only asked you to reasonably support your assertions. ellazimm said: "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??" No. Watching mutations occur, even if one had a time-lapse billion-year camera, would not answer the question of whether or not those variations caught on tape were generated by processes that were chance* and natural*, or by intelligent design. What is required is a meaningful metric that describes the creative capacity of undirected, unintelligent mutation and selection processes so that we can be reasonably assured that the macroevolutionary products we see all around us could in fact have been - again, reasonably - generated by the kinds of forces (chance*, natural*) you have said offer satisfying scientific explanations. I'm not asking for "proof" that those kinds of forces in fact generated biological diversity; I'm just asking for rigorous support that they are reasonably capable of generating such macroevolutionary features. It's a reasonable request. One wonders why you and Dr. Liddle work so hard to simply avoid directly responding to such a simple and reasonable request.William J. Murray_{June 6, 2011
June
06
Jun
6
06
2011
10:57 AM
10
10
57
AM
PDT}

PS: I mean info in the practical day to day sense of posts etc. I doubt that most of us are particularly interested in identifying how many bits per second (regardless of functional content) can be sent down a Gaussian White noise, bandlimited channel. Dembski and others have done us a good service by highlighting how to characterise and measure such functional information.kairosfocus_{June 6, 2011
June
06
Jun
6
06
2011
10:51 AM
10
10
51
AM
PDT}

Dr Liddle: Actually, no: information is not measured from how much or little of Shannon metric info is sent but by how much spcecified complexity (especially functionally specified) is sent. In that case we have a communication system and the pattern is distinct form noise. We have had an encoding, transmission, protocol, decoding and recognition. In this case, as distinct from noise and fitting a known pattern, so signal as the channel path is known to be contingent so what appears will either be from noise or from signal or both. In more complicated situations, we could have orderly sequence complexity specified by natural law, e.g. crystal unit cell ordering and packing. In that case the threefold possibilities allow for us to discern law, chance and choice by the signs in light of accessible dynamics. If we see a defect in the crystal scattered at random it would be best to infer to chance, but if there is a discernible and functionally informative (not just orderly -- think ferrimagnetic materials here) pattern to the defects, that would be a sign of the crystal being used as a storage unit. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{June 6, 2011
June
06
Jun
6
06
2011
10:45 AM
10
10
45
AM
PDT}

Hi Ellazimm, I appreciate the pressing demands of family (and other social distractions!) so take your time with any response you may care to post. Now then, back to artificial selection. First of all, given that you’ve changed the subject matter from cabbages and dogs to bacteria, lactose and eye colour, do you concede my point: artificial selection in cabbages and dogs is acting upon a pre-existing gene pool and has nothing to do with random mutations? Dawkins himself fails to appreciate the crucial involvement of Intelligent Design in artificial selection and the significant difference it makes here. Lactose tolerance is a fuzzier characteristic than the rest because it is often acquired (or lost) due to environmental factors. Nonetheless, any genetic component to it is something that is part of our pre-existing gene pool. The same can be said of eye colour. Even if we take seriously (I don’t, by the way) the claim that the human race is artificially selecting for more blue-eyed babies, this has nothing to do with random mutations. Variation in eye colour, like so many other human characteristics, is simply part of our pre-existing gene pool. These two examples represent neither artificial nor natural selection. They are merely examples of sub-specific variety (sometimes referred to as micro-evolution). Finally, bacteria. I’m glad you mentioned it actually because I can now reproduce a statement that has yet to be addressed by any evolutionist. Before that, let me just point out that E. coli has several pre-existing enzymes - coded from its gene pool - that use and digest citrate, especially in the absence of oxygen. The only problem E. coli normally has is bringing citrate through its membrane in the presence of oxygen. Nonetheless, E. coli (outside of Lenski’s experiment) has been identified which can do just this thanks to an over-expressed protein. There are also plasmids which perform the same function on its behalf. I bet Dawkins didn’t mention that did he! To be fair to him, he probably didn’t even know that himself. I do not disagree that random mutations and bacteria certainly appear to go hand-in-hand. Bacteria is believed to have been in existence for 3,000,000,000 years. It has the ability to asexually reproduce so quickly that populations can double in size every 10 minutes. It thrives in all environments, extreme or otherwise. It obtains genetic information from plasmids, bacteriophages, mutations and even other bacteria (no matter how distantly related they may be). There are about 5,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 of them on the planet today. With so many features to facilitate evolution, bacteria should have given rise to a multitude of species: things like flowers, fish, trees, whales, fungi, mice, canaries, dinosaurs, humans, etc. All those random mutations, all that time and all those opportunities for natural selection... yet not a single body plan or even body part to show for it! If evolution predicts a tree of life, then why is bacteria still just an acorn?Chris Doyle_{June 6, 2011
June
06
Jun
6
06
2011
10:44 AM
10
10
44
AM
PDT}

Dr. Liddle says: "No, I don’t have a citation for a formalised version of the limits I suggested, but they seem intrinsic to me. " Your suggested limitations are without value in our discussion, because they do not address the specific issue at hand - whether or not chance* and natural* processes are reasonably capable of producing those series and collections of stepwise and treelike variations. What you need to produce is support for the assertion that chance* and natural* mutations & selections are explanations in any scientific sense at all (seeing as you have wisely walked back the claim of "adequacy") Dr Liddle asked: "And I’m not at the moment quite sure what kind of “vetting” you mean – can you provide operational definitions for “natural” and “chance”?" Seeing as you have "begged the question" from "intellience" back to intentionality, I mean (for the sake of our particular discussion) processes that do not require intentionality. Dr. Liddle said: "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." I haven't asked for a falsification. I've asked you to provide support for your assertion. If you are going to assert that such processes are a scientific explanation without any necessary intentionality, then please direct me to where intentionality has been quantifed and shown unnecessary to the evolutionary process because chance* and natureal* processes were shown to be sufficient. Dr. Liddle said: "In my view evolutionary processes fit the data better than any other model." So, with our new understanding of what you mean by "evolutionary process", will you please direct me to where "non-intentional processes" have been rigorously vetted as sufficient to produce successful macro-evolutionary outcomes? I'm anxiously waiting to see where science has quantified "intentionality". Dr Liddle said: "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." Please direct me then to the predictive evolutionary model that defines, quantifies and utilizes the characteristic parameters of mutation and selection we call "chance" and "natural" with, of course, footnotes that show where mutation and selection processes have been vetted as non-intentional.William J. Murray_{June 6, 2011
June
06
Jun
6
06
2011
10:40 AM
10
10
40
AM
PDT}

UB: "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.? I think they all show how life forms whose recipes (DNA) are subject to random modifications are 'selected' as being more or less fit by the environment and competition with other organisms. That that information is preserved and stored because those that have it propagate more. The source of the information in the genome is a long dance between DNA and the environment. And the DNA is very . . . loose. Over the billions of years it's tried millions and millions and millions of different configurations. And the ones that dance better make more babies. And they pass on their information. And their babies try new variations. That's where I think the information arises. And that is inherent in any good book on evolution. "You take it for granted Ella, thats the cheap way out. You can do better than that." Well, I don't think I can match the multiple lines of evidence that I've elucidated above. KF: The fossil evidence does not contradict the Darwinian hypothesis. The fossil record is bound to be spotty, it's the nature of that evidence. The genome of the platypus . . . well, that I know nothing about so I'll pass on that discussion. But I can't help but think that the idea that hundreds, thousands of working biologists have been brainwashed into following a party line is . . . . a bit paranoid. I prefer to think that people are much like me: honest, sometimes confused, but basically sincere. And there are millions of qualified people who have looked at the evidence who think that the modern evolutionary synthesis is valid. It's not just down to you and me. It's down to the non-conspiracy consensus.ellazimm_{June 6, 2011
June
06
Jun
6
06
2011
10:28 AM
10
10
28
AM
PDT}

Groov: Just for fun: often "basic" mathematics to a practising engineer -- which Gil is [think the dynamics to make a parachute that is dirigible] -- would be categorised as "higher" for most people. As in start from Kreyszig and go on from there. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{June 6, 2011
June
06
Jun
6
06
2011
10:08 AM
10
10
08
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 7 8 9 10 11 … 13 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply