Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Behe’s Elephant

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In Darwin’s Black Box, Michael Behe writes:

Imagine a room in which a body lies crushed, flat as a pancake. A dozen detectives crawl around, examining the floor with magnifying glasses for any clue to the identity of the perpetrator. In the middle of the room, next to the body, stands a large, gray elephant. The detectives carefully avoid bumping into the pachyderm’s legs as they crawl, and never even glance at it. Over time the detectives get frustrated with their lack of progress but resolutely press on, looking even more closely at the floor. You see, textbooks say detectives must “get their man,” so they never even consider elephants.

There is an elephant in the roomful of scientists who are trying to explain the development of life. The elephant is labeled “intelligent design.” To a person who does not feel obliged to restrict his search to unintelligent causes, the straightforward conclusion is that many biochemical systems were designed.

For me, the evidence for design in biology has always seemed so overwhelming, so obvious, that the real question is how so many smart scientists are unable to see the elephant in the room. In Chapter 9 of In the Beginning and Other Essays on Intelligent Design I asked how so many intellectuals could have “lost their minds”:

I think I can explain. 1) When one becomes a scientist, one learns that science can now explain so many previously inexplicable phenomena that one comes to believe that nothing can escape the explanatory power of our science. 2) When one becomes a biologist, or a paleontologist, one discovers many things about the origin of species, such as the long periods involved and the evidence for common descent, that give the impression of natural causes. 3) When one studies history, one may become overwhelmed by the misery and confusion of the human condition, and wonder, why is it so hard to see evidence of the hand of God in human history?

But noticably absent from any list of reasons why intellectuals reject ID is any direct scientific evidence that natural selection of random mutations or any other unintelligent process can actually do intelligent things, like design plants or animals.

So I see three reasons why the elephant in the room, which is so obvious to the unindoctrinated, is ignored by most of our intellectuals, and here is how I would counter each:

  1. Is it possible that this crime could have been committed by an elephant, when all the other crimes the detectives have investigated were committed by humans? Is it possible that we can explain all other phenomena in Nature without invoking design, but we cannot explain the origin and evolution of life without it? Score one point for the other side here, but…of course it is possible, why not? I explained why evolution is so different from other scientific questions that it requires such a different type of explanation, in this video.
  2. Kenneth Miller asked ID advocates to explain why the history of life gives the appearance of evolution, if species were really designed. I answered this with another question in this Evolution News and Views article: “Why does the history of technology give the appearance of evolution, when we know it was the result of intelligent design?” Again, score one point for the other side, but this argument is also not definitive, I gave one possible answer, others are possible.
  3. The presence of evil and misery in our world is an unscientific, but powerful, argument against design. It is unscientific because there is a very simple reply: no one ever claimed that the scientific evidence shows that our designer is good, only intelligent. But it is powerful because neither we nor our critics like this answer. I devoted a chapter in my otherwise scientific book to this objection to design, because it is so powerful, even if it is unscientific. Sometimes my answers there seem convincing, other times they seem naive, even to me. Score 2 points for the other side here, but again their arguments are not definitive.

Despite the above reasons to go after the usual suspects, which seem so powerful to many intellectuals, the evidence implicating the elephant is so overwhelming, so obvious, that the final score is still 1000000 to 4 for the elephant, the way I calculate it.

Comments
Quote of Note: LIFE: WHAT A CONCEPT! Excerpt: The ribosome,,,, it's the most complicated thing that is present in all organisms.,,, you find that almost the only thing that's in common across all organisms is the ribosome.,,, So the question is, how did that thing come to be? And if I were to be an intelligent design defender, that's what I would focus on; how did the ribosome come to be? George Church http://www.edge.org/documents/life/church_index.html The Ribosome of the cell is found to be very similar to a CPU in a electronic computer: Dichotomy in the definition of prescriptive information suggests both prescribed data and prescribed algorithms: biosemiotics applications in genomic systems - 2012 David J D’Onofrio1*, David L Abel2* and Donald E Johnson3 Excerpt: The DNA polynucleotide molecule consists of a linear sequence of nucleotides, each representing a biological placeholder of adenine (A), cytosine (C), thymine (T) and guanine (G). This quaternary system is analogous to the base two binary scheme native to computational systems. As such, the polynucleotide sequence represents the lowest level of coded information expressed as a form of machine code. Since machine code (and/or micro code) is the lowest form of compiled computer programs, it represents the most primitive level of programming language.,,, An operational analysis of the ribosome has revealed that this molecular machine with all of its parts follows an order of operations to produce a protein product. This order of operations has been detailed in a step-by-step process that has been observed to be self-executable. The ribosome operation has been proposed to be algorithmic (Ralgorithm) because it has been shown to contain a step-by-step process flow allowing for decision control, iterative branching and halting capability. The R-algorithm contains logical structures of linear sequencing, branch and conditional control. All of these features at a minimum meet the definition of an algorithm and when combined with the data from the mRNA, satisfy the rule that Algorithm = data + control. Remembering that mere constraints cannot serve as bona fide formal controls, we therefore conclude that the ribosome is a physical instantiation of an algorithm.,,, The correlation between linguistic properties examined and implemented using Automata theory give us a formalistic tool to study the language and grammar of biological systems in a similar manner to how we study computational cybernetic systems. These examples define a dichotomy in the definition of Prescriptive Information. We therefore suggest that the term Prescriptive Information (PI) be subdivided into two categories: 1) Prescriptive data and 2) Prescribed (executing) algorithm. It is interesting to note that the CPU of an electronic computer is an instance of a prescriptive algorithm instantiated into an electronic circuit, whereas the software under execution is read and processed by the CPU to prescribe the program’s desired output. Both hardware and software are prescriptive. http://www.tbiomed.com/content/pdf/1742-4682-9-8.pdfbornagain77
April 15, 2013
April
04
Apr
15
15
2013
04:45 PM
4
04
45
PM
PDT
Taking on Behe's Challenge: Evolve Me a Cilium - April 15, 2013 Excerpt: "Once upon a time, a complete, working cilium with all the correct components, and with all the right genetic assembly instructions, just "emerged" in some mythical common ancestor. Maybe evolution "repurposed" some protein-coating genes after a mistake duplicated them. However it happened, all those parts were "conserved" the rest of the way, from simple one-celled Chlammy to complex trillion-celled Sammy. During evolution, some branches of the eukaryotic tree lost some parts, but the ones that didn't die are getting along OK. " http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/04/taking_on_behes071121.htmlbornagain77
April 15, 2013
April
04
Apr
15
15
2013
08:16 AM
8
08
16
AM
PDT
Semi OT: Clinging to crevices, E. coli thrive - April 10, 2013 Harvard research reveals the role of the flagellum in helping biofilms colonize rough surfaces Excerpt: A team of materials scientists and microbiologists studied the gut bacterium Escherichia coli, which has many flagella that stick out in all directions. The researchers found that these tails can act as biological grappling hooks, reaching far into nanoscale crevices and latching the bacteria in place.,,, E. coli are equipped with two types of appendages: pili, which are short, sticky hairs, and the whip-like flagella, which are often twice as long as the bacterium itself. Pili had previously been recognized as playing a critical role in the formation of biofilms. These short hairs, up to only a micron in length in E. coli, can stick to surfaces temporarily, while the bacteria secrete a thick slime that holds them permanently in place. Flagella, on the other hand, typically play a propulsive role, helping bacteria to swim and steer in liquid environments. As it turns out, though, when it’s time to settle in one place, flagella also contribute to adhesion on rough surfaces, where the pili would have access to fewer attachment points. https://www.seas.harvard.edu/news-events/press-releases/flagellabornagain77
April 11, 2013
April
04
Apr
11
11
2013
04:23 AM
4
04
23
AM
PDT
GS #54 : The average person would never believe a theory as absurd as Darwinism unless he were constantly told that ALL competent scientists believe it, then he begins to think ‘maybe they see something I can’t see.’
In an ideal world our beliefs are based on rationality – deliberate dr. Spock-like weighing of pros and cons -, but being social beings seems to render this impossible. Believes are socially grounded and this implies all sorts of factors correlated with self-esteem. Speaking strictly for myself, my belief in the afterlife can become rather feeble when I lose a game of chess. These kind of social intrusions into beliefs are bizarre, I know. The fact that so many competent scientists adhere to Darwinism weighs in heavily when self-esteem (defense) is down. In order to regain my balance I have to seek support from authoritative figures on the ID site. So reading Meyer, Berlinski, Behe and Sewell(!) strengthens my beliefs, but admittedly a well-played chess game works even better … Our beliefs are not separate from other parts of our lives and are in need of constant nurturing. The good news – at least for some of us - is that it keeps the momentum for book sales.Box
April 10, 2013
April
04
Apr
10
10
2013
05:53 PM
5
05
53
PM
PDT
JLAfan2001
If the homonids didn’t descent from Australopithicus, where did the the homonids come from?
From Intelligence, JLAfan. They came from Intelligence. If you don't know what that means then just ask yourself: Where did your car come from? - Intelligence Where did your computer come from? - Intelligence Where did the international space station come from? - Intelligence Ok, now where did homonids come from? __________lastyearon
April 10, 2013
April
04
Apr
10
10
2013
07:57 AM
7
07
57
AM
PDT
While I know what you are saying, I might be somewhat less generous and award the other side only half a point on #1, because, as shown by cosmological ID (fine tuning of the laws of physics, design in mathematics, etc., as described, for example, in Chapter 2 of your book), we can't really explain all other phenomena in Nature without ultimately invoking design. The difference, as I understand, is just that, while all other phenomena can probably be explained using the same set of design parameters, which were presumably all present from the Big Bang, the origin and development of life requires additional design specifications (or information sources) which probably (though not necessarily) were not all present from the beginning of the universe. So, actually elephants also initiated all the other crimes the detectives have investigated, just perhaps less directly (though of course many of the detectives may still not admit that an elephant was really behind the other crimes). To go one step further, as Behe writes in Chapter 10 of The Edge of Evolution, "Rather than supporting randomness, a consilience of relatively recent results from various branches of physical science - physics, astronomy, chemistry, geology, molecular biology - actually points insistently toward purposeful design in the universe...Merely intriguing when considered in isolation, when taken together the results from the disparate disciplines strongly reinforce each other. They paint a vivid picture of a universe in which design extends from the very foundations of nature deeply into life." So I think the nature of all the other "crimes" should really be more points on the side of ID, although of course many on the other side don't see it that way, so it is still a good reason to help understand why they have "lost their minds" with respect to the origin and development of life.CS3
April 10, 2013
April
04
Apr
10
10
2013
06:42 AM
6
06
42
AM
PDT
Semi related: Marvellous molecular machines-- CMI LIVE - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GNmaB-zFW4bornagain77
April 10, 2013
April
04
Apr
10
10
2013
05:39 AM
5
05
39
AM
PDT
Box:
I would like to add to Sewell’s reason 1 & 2 that the force of authority comes into play. Scientists are authorities and their adherence to naturalism is hard for students and laymen to brush aside. Whenever self-doubt sets in there is immediately the problem that the vast majority of scientist adhere to naturalism. IOW one has to be self-confident in order to believe one’s own eyes and see the elephant in the room – despite the fact that everyone else (people with more experience and of higher intelligence) assures you the elephant does not exist.
Exactly. The average person would never believe a theory as absurd as Darwinism unless he were constantly told that ALL competent scientists believe it, then he begins to think 'maybe they see something I can't see.' But if even a handful of biologists/biochemists start to question the theory, most of them will revert back to common sense. That is why, of course, bullies like the NCSE feel such a need to ostrasize this handful, and call into question their motives and credentials.Granville Sewell
April 10, 2013
April
04
Apr
10
10
2013
04:01 AM
4
04
01
AM
PDT
Ratcliff is right. Darwinian atheists are the only ones who have a problem with the fossils suddenly appearing in the fossil record as they do.
Three (or Four) Reasons Everyone Should Read Darwin's Doubt Casey Luskin - April 9, 2013 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/04/three_or_four_r071001.html
As far as science itself is concerned, the fact that the entire material universe 'poofed' into existence from a higher dimension means that there is no known barrier, scientifically speaking, that would prevent anything within this universe from 'poofing' into existence from a higher dimension subsequent to that initial 'poofing'. In fact Eugene Koonin, an evolutionist, tried to appeal to a 'Many Worlds' mechanism a few years back to explain at least the Origin of Life:,,, The cosmological model of eternal inflation and the transition from chance to biological evolution in the history of life - Eugene V Koonin - 2007 Excerpt: Recent developments in cosmology radically change the conception of the universe as well as the very notions of "probable" and "possible". The model of eternal inflation implies that all macroscopic histories permitted by laws of physics are repeated an infinite number of times in the infinite multiverse. In contrast to the traditional cosmological models of a single, finite universe, this worldview provides for the origin of an infinite number of complex systems by chance, even as the probability of complexity emerging in any given region of the multiverse is extremely low. This change in perspective has profound implications for the history of any phenomenon, and life on earth cannot be an exception. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1892545/ The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution - Eugene V Koonin - 2007 Background: "Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity. The relationships between major groups within an emergent new class of biological entities are hard to decipher and do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin's original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution. The cases in point include the origin of complex RNA molecules and protein folds; major groups of viruses; archaea and bacteria, and the principal lineages within each of these prokaryotic domains; eukaryotic supergroups; and animal phyla. In each of these pivotal nexuses in life's history, the principal "types" seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms between different types are detectable; http://www.biology-direct.com/content/2/1/21 Biological Big Bangs - Origin Of Life and Cambrian - Dr. Fazale Rana - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4284466 The trouble of "Many Worlds" for Koonin is that #1 there is no evidence for it/them, and #2 once you let the multiverse/Many Worlds cat out of the bag all insanity breaks out:
BRUCE GORDON: Hawking's irrational arguments - October 2010 Excerpt: What is worse, multiplying without limit the opportunities for any event to happen in the context of a multiverse - where it is alleged that anything can spontaneously jump into existence without cause - produces a situation in which no absurdity is beyond the pale. For instance, we find multiverse cosmologists debating the "Boltzmann Brain" problem: In the most "reasonable" models for a multiverse, it is immeasurably more likely that our consciousness is associated with a brain that has spontaneously fluctuated into existence in the quantum vacuum than it is that we have parents and exist in an orderly universe with a 13.7 billion-year history. This is absurd. The multiverse hypothesis is therefore falsified because it renders false what we know to be true about ourselves. Clearly, embracing the multiverse idea entails a nihilistic irrationality that destroys the very possibility of science. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/1/hawking-irrational-arguments/ "If there are infinite universes, then we couldn’t trust our senses, because it would be just as likely that our universe might only consist of a human brain that pops into existence which has the neurons configured just right to only give the appearance of past memories. It would also be just as likely that we are floating brains in a lab, with some scientist feeding us fake experiences. Those scenarios would be just as likely as the one we appear to be in now (one universe with all of our experiences being “real”). Bottom line is, if there really are an infinite number of universes out there, then we can’t trust anything we perceive to be true, which means there is no point in seeking any truth whatsoever." Michael Behe - “Edge of Evolution”
Yet, though atheists have no evidence for 'Many Worlds' so as to try to 'explain away' the sudden appearance of different kinds of fossils in the fossil record (or of the sudden appearance of life on earth), Theists do have empirical evidence for 'higher dimensions' above this temporal dimension:
The 'Top Down' Theistic Structure Of The Universe and Of The Human Body https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NhA4hiQnYiyCTiqG5GelcSJjy69e1DT3OHpqlx6rACs/edit
Music, Quote, and Verse
Jeremy Camp - "†There Will Be A Day†" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=le-TG4sRRiQ "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." William Shakespeare - Hamlet Job 19:26 And after my skin has been destroyed, yet in my flesh I will see God;
bornagain77
April 10, 2013
April
04
Apr
10
10
2013
03:22 AM
3
03
22
AM
PDT
Mapou @51, :DChance Ratcliff
April 9, 2013
April
04
Apr
9
09
2013
08:21 PM
8
08
21
PM
PDT
Ratcliff @50, LOL. I just love the way you turn the table on the false prophets. Darwinists are indeed the real magicians. Amazing how they can so easily accuse others of what they are guilty of.Mapou
April 9, 2013
April
04
Apr
9
09
2013
07:27 PM
7
07
27
PM
PDT
"If the homonids didn’t descent from Australopithicus, where did the the homonids come from?"
Where did life come from, and what observable mechanism gives it the ability to produce novel functionality and form?
I know creationism says “poof, there it is”.
Actually that's what Darwinism says. ;) The magical force that supposedly makes apparent design illusory is completely missing. Design implicates a designer. "Poof" is when you suggest that goal-directed processes arise out of nothing for no particular reason. It's a non-starter.Chance Ratcliff
April 9, 2013
April
04
Apr
9
09
2013
05:28 PM
5
05
28
PM
PDT
"While Darwinists like to think that common descent implies Darwinian evolution, this is problematic because under this logical relationship, no Darwinian evolution implies no common descent. But clearly this isn’t the case; I think the converse is instead true. While it’s understandably convenient for Darwinists to suggest that we get common descent if and only if Darwinian evolution is true, it falls to us to repeatedly make the distinctions clear." If the homonids didn't descent from Australopithicus, where did the the homonids come from? They just appear fully formed in the fossil record out of thin air while the A.cines just disappear. I know that ID can include common descent but how does ID explain this for those who don't accept common descent? I know creationism says "poof, there it is".JLAfan2001
April 9, 2013
April
04
Apr
9
09
2013
04:54 PM
4
04
54
PM
PDT
Mr Sewell makes the best point at the top that evolutionists didn't and don't have scientific evidence backing up their claims about evolution. It has always been the issue of methodology behind the claims of evidence that evolutionism has slipped under the radar. Thats the equation to break the code here. a false idea should not be a existing theory where the scientific method is king. either there is no evidence for the great claims of evolution or creationists are missing it! Therefore is the 'evidence" evolutionists present actually biological scientific evidence?? Nope!Robert Byers
April 9, 2013
April
04
Apr
9
09
2013
04:39 PM
4
04
39
PM
PDT
Mapou, I'm just offering some additional thoughts about the comments in your post #43.
"For some reason, I was under the impression that common descent, as understood by Darwinists, assumes that the entire genetic material that make up every living organism came about via an uninterrupted succession of procreation events."
While Darwinists like to think that common descent implies Darwinian evolution, this is problematic because under this logical relationship, no Darwinian evolution implies no common descent. But clearly this isn't the case; I think the converse is instead true. While it's understandably convenient for Darwinists to suggest that we get common descent if and only if Darwinian evolution is true, it falls to us to repeatedly make the distinctions clear. At least some Darwinists don't make the distinction, as every so often somebody has to remind a Darwinist interlocutor here that common descent doesn't falsify ID. The same is true with the term "evolution" denoting both micro and macro varieties, and often the prebiotic version as well. ID proponents are constantly needing to untangle the definitions because the equivocation is advantageous to the pro-Darwinian side of the debate.
"Thus lateral inheritance would violate this rule."
Yes indeed, hence the term "convergent evolution" used to label homoplasy. Here's the google search for homoplasy. Notice the Wikipedia entry that comes up at or near the top. With the events surrounding the lizard species podarcis siclua that I've been so fascinated with lately, this phenomenon gets labeled, Rapid Evolution. Just never mind the oxymoron implied in that title! :) Hence, evolution covers violations to its rule quite easily, by appending "evolution" at the end of a word or phrase.
That being said, I think the biggest problem with convergent evolution is that it is just another mediocre so-so story that will not stand the test of time.
With regard to the attempt to make exceptions to the rule appear to be confirmations, "convergent evolution" is certainly a just-so story. But it seems we agree that homoplasy itself is very suggestive of design.
Because, by its very nature, evolution guarantees that no independently evolved genetic code segments of high complexity could be identical in two different species.
I believe evolutionists would say that an unexpected result, "sheds new light on evolution". ;)
In my opinion, this is the sort of things that ID experimenters should be searching for. A good starting place to look is in the genomes of echo-locating bats and whales. An intelligent designer would certainly reuse tried and tested code rather than reinvent the wheel.
By the way, I think bats and whales echolocation is a documented case of homoplasy. Echolocation in Bats. From the article, " In any event, echolocation in bats provides some remarkable examples of evolutionary convergence."Chance Ratcliff
April 9, 2013
April
04
Apr
9
09
2013
04:17 PM
4
04
17
PM
PDT
I would like to add to Sewell’s reason 1 & 2 that the force of authority comes into play. Scientists are authorities and their adherence to naturalism is hard for students and laymen to brush aside. Whenever self-doubt sets in there is immediately the problem that the vast majority of scientist adhere to naturalism. IOW one has to be self-confident in order to believe one’s own eyes and see the elephant in the room – despite the fact that everyone else (people with more experience and of higher intelligence) assures you the elephant does not exist. I can relate to Sewell’s third reason in a slightly different way. Theistic believe has a certain fairy tale quality. For instance many NDE reports have a ‘too good to be true’ ring to it; something so far distanced from good old harsh reality that believing them feels naive. Reconciling heaven and Auschwitz is a real problem indeed.Box
April 9, 2013
April
04
Apr
9
09
2013
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT
lifepsy @34, I just revisited your video linked in your comment at #34 and I have to say that not only is your choice of material excellent, your commentary is insightful. This is important information, thanks much. I took the time to really listen to your presentation here and it's quite good. I recommend your video heartily.Chance Ratcliff
April 9, 2013
April
04
Apr
9
09
2013
12:47 AM
12
12
47
AM
PDT
Mapou @43, not much to disagree with there, and your comments are thought provoking. I'll offer more thoughts tomorrow.Chance Ratcliff
April 8, 2013
April
04
Apr
8
08
2013
11:59 PM
11
11
59
PM
PDT
Ratcliff, For some reason, I was under the impression that common descent, as understood by Darwinists, assumes that the entire genetic material that make up every living organism came about via an uninterrupted succession of procreation events. Thus lateral inheritance would violate this rule. But no matter. Intelligent design does not forbid (probably predicts) the creation of parallel descent lines, some of which could have been merged into single lines at an early stage or could have borrowed features laterally via genetic engineering rather than procreation. That being said, I think the biggest problem with convergent evolution is that it is just another mediocre so-so story that will not stand the test of time. Similarities in design do not mean much. The (big?) ID hypothesis predicts that huge and complex identical genetic code segments will be found to be identical in distant species, codes that could not possibly have evolved independently. Why? Because, by its very nature, evolution guarantees that no independently evolved genetic code segments of high complexity could be identical in two different species. In my opinion, this is the sort of things that ID experimenters should be searching for. A good starting place to look is in the genomes of echo-locating bats and whales. An intelligent designer would certainly reuse tried and tested code rather than reinvent the wheel. Not that any of this matters much in the evolution/creation debate because it is not a scientific debate but a political and religious one. Otherwise, Darwinian evolution would be a forgotten folly by now, not even worthy of a footnote in the history of science.Mapou
April 8, 2013
April
04
Apr
8
08
2013
09:28 PM
9
09
28
PM
PDT
Mapou, I'll take a stab at it. An engineer builds a single-celled self-replicator and wants a population of around a million, so he will let the creatures replicate for twenty generations. Since we want to track ancestry in the tree, in the genome of each offspring the engineer introduces a mechanism for storing two identifiers, one uniquely for the current offspring and one for its parent's identifier. This is just a way for introducing an evolutionary component and a way to track ancestry back to the root organism. At generation ten he takes two creatures from disparate parts of the tree and adds a new function, let's say bioluminescence. After ten more generations we have a one-million population master tree with two subtrees consisting of a thousand members each. Both subtrees have the common feature of bioluminescence, but each one traces ancestry from separate parts of the master tree, where neither of their parents have the trait. The engineer could have even taken two specimens from different generations and introduced bioluminescence. So in that example there is both universal common descent and convergent evolution by the injection of design in distantly related creatures. Nope, I don't really buy it either in regards to actual history, but I think it shows that there's no logical exclusivity between common descent and design where we see a horizontal introduction of features across distantly related specimens. If ID can accommodate both front loading and the incremental infusion of information over time, then it's possible to imagine common descent and common design both being true at the same time. For a front loading scenario, we can imagine a genome loaded with information constituting a developmental program which allows for pre-programmed responses to environmental cues. This would allow for different organisms to develop similar features because of similar stressors or environmental conditions. In an incremental infusion of information scenario, the designer is free to add a heritable feature at any time to a specimen, allowing for similar features in unrelated organisms according to his goals and preferences. In both cases common descent has still occurred.Chance Ratcliff
April 8, 2013
April
04
Apr
8
08
2013
07:44 PM
7
07
44
PM
PDT
Ratcliff:
I don’t think that lateral inheritance alone falsifies common descent, because it’s possible to imagine a scenario where both UCD and design are compatible. In other words, they are not mutually exclusive.
Unfortunately, I cannot imagine such a scenario. What do you have in mind?Mapou
April 8, 2013
April
04
Apr
8
08
2013
06:49 PM
6
06
49
PM
PDT
Mapou @38,
"So why should ID be incompatible with common descent? Because, from what we know about design, the evolution of complex designed objects always follow a mostly nested hierarchy peppered with instances of lateral inheritance. This is what is also observed in living organisms. My understanding is that horizontal inheritance is not evidence for common descent. It is evidence for the intelligent reuse of previous designs."
Interesting thoughts. I agree that what's termed, convergent evolution, is good evidence for design, but I'm not willing to make the leap that it falsifies common descent. Don't get me wrong, I don't think UCD from a "simple" organism occurred, and I wouldn't be opposed to a methodology which could reliably falsify common descent, but I'm not sure one exists presently. I don't think that lateral inheritance alone falsifies common descent, because it's possible to imagine a scenario where both UCD and design are compatible. In other words, they are not mutually exclusive.Chance Ratcliff
April 8, 2013
April
04
Apr
8
08
2013
05:54 PM
5
05
54
PM
PDT
Sewell @37, You are probably right but I am not sure that these things are really obvious to the rest of us. This is the reason that they keep popping up everywhere, in my opinion. We need to forcefully put those arguments out to pasture, once and for all.Mapou
April 8, 2013
April
04
Apr
8
08
2013
05:24 PM
5
05
24
PM
PDT
Ratcliff @14:
A few points. First, ID is not incompatible with common descent or change-over-time evolution. This should be clear to anyone familiar with ID.
True but ID should certainly be incompatible with common descent. It is a mistake to restrict Intelligent Design to design detection. ID should encompass everything about intelligent design. Design is an integral part of human civilization and we can deduce powerful principles from observing what human designers do. So why should ID be incompatible with common descent? Because, from what we know about design, the evolution of complex designed objects always follow a mostly nested hierarchy peppered with instances of lateral inheritance. This is what is also observed in living organisms. My understanding is that horizontal inheritance is not evidence for common descent. It is evidence for the intelligent reuse of previous designs. As a Christian, it bothers me that Darwinists are claiming that the tree of life was their idea. I beg to differ. The book of Genesis was several millenia ahead of them.Mapou
April 8, 2013
April
04
Apr
8
08
2013
05:19 PM
5
05
19
PM
PDT
Mapou, If you remember that this list was my attempt to explain why so many otherwise intelligent people are unable to see (or pretend to be unable to see) what is so obvious to the rest of us, maybe you will then agree that this item should in fact have been at the top of the list.Granville Sewell
April 8, 2013
April
04
Apr
8
08
2013
04:34 PM
4
04
34
PM
PDT
The presence of evil and misery in our world is an unscientific, but powerful, argument against design.
I don't see this as a powerful argument at all. We live in a yin-yang reality. There can be no such thing as health without sickness, beauty without ugliness, or happiness without sadness. The argument about evil is certainly a religious one. As a Christian, I would say it is illogical for the following reason. Evil is not a physical concept. It is a spiritual entity and, as such, is neither created nor destroyed. It just is. God could not create evil even if he wanted to. Our spirits, good or evil, are our own. They are eternal and transcendental. We cannot blame God for them. God only created the physical body.Mapou
April 8, 2013
April
04
Apr
8
08
2013
01:40 PM
1
01
40
PM
PDT
lifepsy @34, thanks for that video, very informative. I agree that most beneficial mutations are likely non-random, and plasticity seems to be the source of quite a bit of phenotypic change. It looks to leave neo-Darwinism helpless to account for anything substantial with regard to beneficial changes. It's been presumed for so long that "evolution" was occurring anytime change was observed, it'll be interesting to see how long the notion persists that RM+NS is the primary source of phenotypic novelty. By the way, I also watched your video on podarcis sicula a while back, so thanks for putting that together. Interestingly, there's nothing about podarcis sicula on Wikipedia's phenotypic plasticity page.Chance Ratcliff
April 8, 2013
April
04
Apr
8
08
2013
12:09 PM
12
12
09
PM
PDT
Chance, 17 Personally I am skeptical that any beneficial mutations are truly random. I think they are part of a genomic plasticity system... where certain regions are made more available for alteration in stressed environments. There is emerging research on the non-random quality of mutations, particularly those occurring in stressed cells of bacteria. Also, it has been demonstrated that Recombination enzymes can repair DNA perfectly without causing mutations... meaning mutations are not necessarily random errors.. Susan Rosenberg is doing research on this. I have put together some more references here when I was researching it awhile back. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTChu5vX1VIlifepsy
April 8, 2013
April
04
Apr
8
08
2013
09:04 AM
9
09
04
AM
PDT
OT: The Latest Buzz on Bumblebees - April 8, 2013 Excerpt: We report a formerly unappreciated sensory modality in bumblebees (Bombus terrestris), detection of floral electric fields. These fields act as floral cues, which are affected by the visit of naturally charged bees. Like visual cues, floral electric fields exhibit variations in pattern and structure, which can be discriminated by bumblebees. We also show that such electric field information contributes to the complex array of floral cues that together improve a pollinator's memory of floral rewards. Because floral electric fields can change within seconds, this sensory modality may facilitate rapid and dynamic communication between flowers and their pollinators. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/04/the_buzz_on_bum070911.htmlbornagain77
April 8, 2013
April
04
Apr
8
08
2013
07:06 AM
7
07
06
AM
PDT
Follow-up thoughts on my previous post #29: I can see how genetic knock-out experiments - reverse engineering - can be successful. One amino acid is removed (or replaced), but the conforming epigenetic system is left in place! So when the DNA code is somehow recovered it will be 'welcomed' by the good old fitting epigenetic environment. My point is: this will not be the case for new DNA code. New DNA code is like an unconnected part in a car engine. At best meaningless, but likely detrimental.Box
April 8, 2013
April
04
Apr
8
08
2013
06:11 AM
6
06
11
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply