Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Casey Luskin asks: Can claims about punctuated equilibrium accommodate the scientific data?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Some of us would have thought that quantum mechanics killed all that off but in any event:

As Stephen Jay Gould put it: “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology.”1 Because of this difficulty, in the 1970s, Gould and his colleague Niles Eldredge developed punctuated equilibrium as a model where evolution takes place in small populations over relatively short geological time periods that are too rapid for transitional forms to become fossilized.2 But this model has many problems.3

Punctuated equilibrium compresses the vast majority of evolutionary change into small populations that lived during shorter segments of time, allowing too few opportunities for novel, beneficial traits to arise. Punctuated equilibrium is also unconvincing in that it predicts that with respect to the fossil record, evidence confirming Darwinian theory will not be found. Would you believe someone who claimed that fairies and leprechauns exist and were caught on video, but when asked to produce the film, declares, “Well, they are on camera, but they are too small or too fast to be seen”? That doesn’t make for a compelling theory.

Analogous problems plague attempts to account for the life-friendly fine-tuning of physical laws by appealing to a multiverse.

Casey Luskin, “Can Materialistic Models Accommodate the Scientific Data?” at Evolution News and Science Today (May 7, 2022)

As Luskin implies, appealing to a multiverse is like appealing to fairies.

Here’s Casey Luskin’s whole series on the topic.

You may also wish to read: Rescuing the multiverse as a science concept… ? Luke Barnes on the multiverse: In the cycle of the scientific method, the multiverse is in an exploratory phase. We’ve got an idea that might explain a few things, if it was true. That makes it worthy of our attention, but it’s not quite science yet. We need to find evidence that is more direct, more decisive.

Comments
Fred Most of the comments above allude to things that are not considered controversial,(at least not by anyone serious) you’re inability to grasp this or you’re grad school comprehension and deflection tactics do nothing to illicit any further conversation.BobSinclair
May 14, 2022
May
05
May
14
14
2022
07:11 AM
7
07
11
AM
PDT
I see that you are still clueless, Fred. All lines had the ability to metabolize citrate. All 12 lines are still alive, Fred. Even the 11 that didn't get the just-so gene duplication. Evolution by means of intelligent design counteracts genetic entropy. After tens of thousands of generations no new proteins were formed. No new functional protein complexes were formed.ET
May 14, 2022
May
05
May
14
14
2022
05:27 AM
5
05
27
AM
PDT
I see you are trying to have it both ways, ET. There are twelve lines. One evolved aerobic citrate metabolism, eleven haven't so far. So which bit of the materialistic world is the single line in and which the other eleven?Fred Hickson
May 14, 2022
May
05
May
14
14
2022
05:19 AM
5
05
19
AM
PDT
Fred Hickson:
I posted the link to Richard Lenski’s LTEE site. After thirty years, it is still going. At the very least, it debunks the idea of genetic entropy.
Genetic entropy only applies to a materialistic world. And the LTEE demonstrates the severe limits of evolutionary processes. After tens of thousands of generations no new proteins were formed. No new functional protein complexes were formed.ET
May 14, 2022
May
05
May
14
14
2022
05:14 AM
5
05
14
AM
PDT
Fred Hickson:
There are twelve separate lines of E. coli. Why aren’t they all digesting citrate aerobically? The citrate is there for all lines, the aerobic environment is there for all lines. Why is only one benefiting from the opportunity?
Because only one found that answer. And the others are not going extinct so they must have found a different answer to the question. All the kids in a classroom are given the same instruction. And yet they all don't put down the same answers on the test.ET
May 14, 2022
May
05
May
14
14
2022
05:11 AM
5
05
11
AM
PDT
Fred Hickson:
I think we might have a severe case of projection here.
Nope, yours is a severe case of equivocation and bearing false witness. And you did it again!
Some here agree with Behe that common descent is irrefutable, some agree with Demski that mathematical models preempt reality.
So, you are stupid, also. Universal common descent remains untestable. And Dembski's mathematical models preempt the nonsense that is materialism. Materialism doesn't have anything to do with reality.
Evolution is an attempt to explain the co-design of niche and organism.
AGAIN, ID IS NOT ANTI-EVOLUTION. What is wrong with you? The only thing that evolution by means of blind and mindless processes can "design" are genetic diseases and deformities. So please stop being such an equivocating coward.ET
May 14, 2022
May
05
May
14
14
2022
05:09 AM
5
05
09
AM
PDT
Yes, Q. E coli already had the ability to utilize citrate. It’s just that in an aerobic environment the gene that codes for the Cit transport protein isn’t expressed. So, in an aerobic environment the citrate on the outside didn’t have a way to the inside.
There are twelve separate lines of E. coli. Why aren't they all digesting citrate aerobically? The citrate is there for all lines, the aerobic environment is there for all lines. Why is only one benefiting from the opportunity?Fred Hickson
May 13, 2022
May
05
May
13
13
2022
10:18 PM
10
10
18
PM
PDT
For Viola, Mike Gene's website https://shadowtolight.wordpress.com/Fred Hickson
May 13, 2022
May
05
May
13
13
2022
09:57 PM
9
09
57
PM
PDT
Querius:
So, has anyone actually looked into Lenski’s bacteria experiment?
I posted the link to Richard Lenski's LTEE site. After thirty years, it is still going. At the very least, it debunks the idea of genetic entropy.Fred Hickson
May 13, 2022
May
05
May
13
13
2022
09:53 PM
9
09
53
PM
PDT
That you refuse to understand the basics of what ID is just further proves that you are not here for an honest discussion.
I think we might have a severe case of projection here. Glancing through comments above, it appears there are several different ideas of what "Intelligent Design" is and should be. Some here agree with Behe that common descent is irrefutable, some agree with Demski that mathematical models preempt reality. Maybe some agree with Nelson that there is as yet no scientific, testable theory of "Intelligent Design". And there is no argument against design. I don't think anyone claims design doesn't happen. The question is how it happens. Evolution is an attempt to explain the co-design of niche and organism. ID? Well, surely this is the site dedicated to providing the answer. What can ID do?Fred Hickson
May 13, 2022
May
05
May
13
13
2022
09:47 PM
9
09
47
PM
PDT
Lenski's experiment is used to defeat the longest running strawman. That of the fixity of species. But that is the fault of the terminology. In a Biblical Creation scenario, the original populations, the baramins, would also be the extant species, at that time. Now, they are gone, and all existing species would have descended via modification from them. Species to start and species to finish seems like a fixity of species. But that is only because of the top> down nature of Creation.ET
May 13, 2022
May
05
May
13
13
2022
07:39 PM
7
07
39
PM
PDT
Viola Lee @265, The author finds that the observation is compatible with his biblical world view rather than contradicting it as is commonly claimed. The Lenski experiments do indeed provide evidence for creation . . . or if you choose not to believe in God, saltation. In fact, the current secular narrative seems to be focusing on an extraterrestrial source of at least the building blocks of life. For example, here's what NASA (not particularly known for a Christian orientation) released three years ago: https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/goddard/2019/sugars-in-meteorites/ And there's this: https://www.gaia.com/article/signs-life-meteorites And this: https://astrobiology.nasa.gov/news/did-meteorites-bring-lifes-phosphorus-to-earth/ And this article published in 2022 also suggests there's evidence for an extraterrestrial origin of life: https://www.pentictonherald.ca/life/article_f59f0592-d23f-11ec-8db6-33d6e996a335.html -QQuerius
May 13, 2022
May
05
May
13
13
2022
06:49 PM
6
06
49
PM
PDT
The last lines of the report Q linked to:
this experiment started with fully functional bacteria and seems to have produced degenerate mutants. Since this fits well into the Biblical history of the world, which tells us the living things were created as complete, fully functional organisms, but have lost functions as the world has degenerated due to human sin and God’s judgement, again we have to to disappoint dear Richard [Dawkins]. Rather than being evidence for evolution, the Lenski experiments are providing evidence for creation.
Viola Lee
May 13, 2022
May
05
May
13
13
2022
05:36 PM
5
05
36
PM
PDT
Yes, Q. E coli already had the ability to utilize citrate. It's just that in an aerobic environment the gene that codes for the Cit transport protein isn't expressed. So, in an aerobic environment the citrate on the outside didn't have a way to the inside.ET
May 13, 2022
May
05
May
13
13
2022
05:31 PM
5
05
31
PM
PDT
So, has anyone actually looked into Lenski's bacteria experiment? Apparently, the bacteria did NOT actually "evolve" the ability to metabolize citrate after all. So, the celebrations and parades by Darwinists who claim they finally got some evidence to support their 19th century racist theory were premature. The explanation is here: https://askjohnmackay.com/bacteria-evolution-lenskis-e-coli-experiment-bacteria-evove-information/ -QQuerius
May 13, 2022
May
05
May
13
13
2022
04:54 PM
4
04
54
PM
PDT
JVL:
Some of the bacteria are able to digest more things, some of the fruit flies fly a bit faster or have larger broods.
Bacteria will always be either bacteria or dead. Fruit flies will always be fruits flies or dead. That's it.ET
May 13, 2022
May
05
May
13
13
2022
04:36 PM
4
04
36
PM
PDT
JVL:
So, how do you examine a telic origin of life?
Start by getting rid of the dogma that rules science now. Then, by determining what it takes to be a living organism. There is research into a minimal genome for a minimalist bacteria.ET
May 13, 2022
May
05
May
13
13
2022
04:34 PM
4
04
34
PM
PDT
VL
My “repetitive questions” were because I thought, and still think, that the explanations and answers being offered were not entirely consistent.
I thought you did a good job in restating previous answers as part of a follow up question. This enabled us to make progress (as I saw it) regarding special creation and common descent. However, in this latter discussion concepts are more ambiguous and definitions are unclear, so the same questions, using the same terminology can get answers that appear to be inconsistent. I think it's important for you to take a role by defining what you mean by concepts, and when you disagree with an answer, explain why. A person will not know if you're understanding the answer, otherwise, and may assume one thing while you're thinking something entirely different. For example, I asked you what you mean by "science". You could explain that, and what you think the limits of science are. I also asked why the limits of what you think science is, is important to you. I've stated that science cannot investigate the nature of God. You seemed ok with that. But why can't science do such a thing? It depends on what we mean by science. Some people consider philosophy or theology, even, fields of scientific research. If so, why does this matter to you? My views on this are colored by the nature of the question and the understanding that I believe the questioner has. You have repeated an idea about science, as to whether it can or cannot investigate the nature or identify of the designer - or whatever you want science to do - but I already explained that mainstream science takes on activities that are patently absurd. So, what are we talking about? Lawrence Krauss who says he has scientific evidence that the universe started from nothing? Or Susskind who claims that a multiverse is accessible to scientific research? I don't think you've acknowledged that there is no single, agreed-upon definition of science and what its scope should be. That's why it's difficult to make sweeping judgements about "what science can do".Silver Asiatic
May 13, 2022
May
05
May
13
13
2022
03:19 PM
3
03
19
PM
PDT
Silver Asiatic Yes, you and I know this, but that point is not necessary for materialists to do science.
:) Well whenever you met them just refresh their memory : “Nonsense remains nonsense, even when talked by world-famous scientists.”(John C. Lennox)Lieutenant Commander Data
May 13, 2022
May
05
May
13
13
2022
02:48 PM
2
02
48
PM
PDT
My intention was to try to understand your views. An earlier intention was to try to understand the resistance to the idea of common descent, and to argue that common descent was not incompatible with ID. Another intention was to try to understand if there was more to ID than just making the inference that designs exists, a question to which I have gotten mixed answers. My "repetitive questions" were because I thought, and still think, that the explanations and answers being offered were not entirely consistent. I think all of these things are part of having a productive discussion. YMMV. But as I said, I won't continue.Viola Lee
May 13, 2022
May
05
May
13
13
2022
02:37 PM
2
02
37
PM
PDT
VL
But I’ll bother you no more about all this.
What's bothering me is repetitive questions, lack of transparency (on what is your point?) and what appears as a loaded-agenda that wants to drive the topic somewhere. Just say what you think. If you believe science should do something, then say it. If you think ID is wrong then say that also. But just spinning some questions on me without giving an idea of your intention or direction does not make for a productive conversation.Silver Asiatic
May 13, 2022
May
05
May
13
13
2022
02:29 PM
2
02
29
PM
PDT
LCD When geneticists do an experiment, it requires teleology, as you correctly said. It means that the processes in the genome are ordered and directed to specific endpoints. Implied in that is that they were created for that purpose - they are designed. But materialist science does not pursue that part of the origin of what they study. They just accept (without question) that genes have telic behaviors, but they do not look at the origin of the genes as something purposeful. They can do their science by ignoring the origin of the genes, even though they rely on a design-based foundation of all they are observing. So there's a difference between the study of the origin of the entity (and therefore the purpose from the beginning) and the on-going ordered, purposeful processes which are just accepted as "that's the way nature is".
A code come from a code and the origin of every code is a mind.
Yes, you and I know this, but that point is not necessary for materialists to do science.Silver Asiatic
May 13, 2022
May
05
May
13
13
2022
02:24 PM
2
02
24
PM
PDT
SA writes, "You appear to be looking for some kind of gotcha or entrapment here." I'm sorry and disappointed, that you think that. But I'll bother you no more about all this.Viola Lee
May 13, 2022
May
05
May
13
13
2022
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT
Silver Asiatic True – but in this case we’re talking about the study of teleology in the origin of natural entities.
I don't see the difference. Where is? A code come from a code and the origin of every code is a mind.Lieutenant Commander Data
May 13, 2022
May
05
May
13
13
2022
02:17 PM
2
02
17
PM
PDT
LCD True - but in this case we're talking about the study of teleology in the origin of natural entities.Silver Asiatic
May 13, 2022
May
05
May
13
13
2022
02:10 PM
2
02
10
PM
PDT
:) SA, Geneticists can't even start a single experiment without teleology. Science is impossible without teleology(=to segregate few possibilities from the ocean of all possibilities).Lieutenant Commander Data
May 13, 2022
May
05
May
13
13
2022
02:07 PM
2
02
07
PM
PDT
VL
That is not what I understood: my understanding was that you were saying that further investigations would move you into religion or philosophy, and not be amenable to science.
It depends on what you mean by science? I'm not sure where you're going with this. First of all, as I said - nobody owns the definition of what the term "science" refers to. Wikipedia calls ID "pseudo-science". Jerry here says ID is "science+". I say ID is ordinary science. Materialists say that science is part of the materialist toolkit. Do you think materialism can study teleology in nature? You appear to be looking for some kind of gotcha or entrapment here. Science is not a religious dogma that you're forbidden to violate. If you think you can study immaterial entities with science, you're free to try that. Nobody is going to stop you. Whether something is amenable to science or not is irrelevant. Whether we call ID science, pseudo-science, science + , creationism or religion is irrelevant. The label we put on it does not change what the design project indicates - the design inference. The label does not change the truth of what we see. The labels also do not change the limits of what ID has established for itself. ID is not the science of oceanography. It's not psychology. ID has some limits, as do other branches of knowledge. That seems to bother you for some reason. So, why are you so concerned about this?Silver Asiatic
May 13, 2022
May
05
May
13
13
2022
02:07 PM
2
02
07
PM
PDT
JVL The experiments on bacteria, for example, however, represented 10,000 generations. So if we look at the effect of mutations on a species there's not much to see there. Humans are said to have existed for 8,000 generations. So there's not enough time for mutations to create what it is claimed they did.Silver Asiatic
May 13, 2022
May
05
May
13
13
2022
01:55 PM
1
01
55
PM
PDT
SA, you write, "Science as it currently exists does not permit the analysis of teleology in the origin of life. ... As I said, nothing stops you from inquiring about the production of the design. You can use science or whatever you want...." Hmmm. That is not what I understood: my understanding was that you were saying that further investigations would move you into religion or philosophy, and not be amenable to science. But I''ll accept this wording if that better expresses your view, and let it go at that.Viola Lee
May 13, 2022
May
05
May
13
13
2022
01:52 PM
1
01
52
PM
PDT
JVL
So . . . how do you analyse the possibility of teleology in the origin of life?
As stated, science as it currently exists does not permit that kind of analysis. The study of teleology in nature is a rational process. So "how" we do it is looking at analogous effects, differentials, universality, the nature of the causes, nature of functions. We apply a rational process from the problem-statement through the data to inferences.Silver Asiatic
May 13, 2022
May
05
May
13
13
2022
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PDT
1 2 3 10

Leave a Reply