Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

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

Categories
Culture
Darwinism
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
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
Good words, KF
UD has been a place where standing up happens, one where responsible objection has been welcome for well over a decade
UD has been very tolerant of people who show lack of seriousness and no sincere interest in ID. There's always the hope that such people can change their views -- so they are given a chance. Anybody who has been banned has more than deserved it.Silver Asiatic
May 12, 2022
May
05
May
12
12
2022
05:42 PM
5
05
42
PM
PDT
JH, I rarely say this, but you are a barefaced liar. Where, definition: to lie is to speak with disregard for truth in hope of profiting by what is said or suggested being taken as true. Intelligent design is an oppressed small research programme harrassed by powerful and connected ideologues. It has been much slandered and attacked. Someone, needs to stand up, and UD has been a place where standing up happens, one where responsible objection has been welcome for well over a decade. Unfortunately, in a spoiled brat, cultural marxist moment, there are also all too many trolls, who have stalked online and offline, including trying to threaten family. I know this as it has happened to me. It is time for you to do basic duty to truth, right reason, warrant, basic prudence and fairness. KF PS, Today, happens to be a day where I responded, right in this thread, to attempts to dismiss what should be uncontroversial facts, that D/RNA is a 4-state per base, smart polymer molecular nanotech information storage medium. One, that is used in the heart of the cell and stores coded information that inter alia expresses machine code forms of algorithms that when executed, assemble AA chains towards functional proteins. Several Nobel Prizes were won elucidating this. Import, language, text, goal directed stepwise procedure in the heart of the cell. And as history reports the past based on record in writing, this is the first text of record telling us a lot about the roots of life. But, a message that cuts across powerful, radical, secular humanist agendas that are seeking to utterly dominate our civilisation, agendas pushed by the utterly ruthless. In part, I chose to correct objections by citing what Wikipedia had to concede against known ideological interest. They confirm what I noted, and provided further information on how such properties are being exploited, up to being demonstrated as a digital memory medium, albeit one that is not currently commercially feasible. What was the reaction, including yours? Wilson, Arte of Rhetorique side stepping of highly material facts and evidence to continue a trollish campaign. You have negative credibility and we would be well advised to only take from you what is separately corroborated. When you can respond reasonably to evidence, then maybe there can be a more collegial discussion. But right now you are playing the troll. Stop it. PPS, Generally, people who have been banned here have been banned for cause of trollish or otherwise abusive conduct. Stop pretending to martyrdom in the cause of reason, today's track record gives the lie to the sort of hyperskeptical, dirty rhetorical objectionism that we have seen far too much of. Stop it.kairosfocus
May 12, 2022
May
05
May
12
12
2022
05:32 PM
5
05
32
PM
PDT
Evolutionists have banned me from their pages for exposing them as liars and equivocators.ET
May 12, 2022
May
05
May
12
12
2022
05:20 PM
5
05
20
PM
PDT
Oh no. Anyone but Scamp. ;) Andrewasauber
May 12, 2022
May
05
May
12
12
2022
05:20 PM
5
05
20
PM
PDT
You were banned, Scamp because of your perverted commentary. Yes, other sites permit such things.Silver Asiatic
May 12, 2022
May
05
May
12
12
2022
05:00 PM
5
05
00
PM
PDT
ET: Wrong again, JHolo. The “criticism” usually amounts to nothing more than whining.
Perhaps you are correct. Could you point me to other sites where you post comments? It would be interesting to see the reaction of people you disagree with on sites that favour their views.JHolo
May 12, 2022
May
05
May
12
12
2022
04:45 PM
4
04
45
PM
PDT
Wrong again, JHolo. The "criticism" usually amounts to nothing more than whining.ET
May 12, 2022
May
05
May
12
12
2022
04:38 PM
4
04
38
PM
PDT
KF: Have a look at echo chambers and their effects
That is why I come to UD. It is full of people who are very vociferous on this site, where people who disagree are often banned, but who seldom comment on other sites where their views are not protected from criticism.JHolo
May 12, 2022
May
05
May
12
12
2022
04:34 PM
4
04
34
PM
PDT
Have a look at echo chambers and their effects https://moodle.epfl.ch/pluginfile.php/2714935/mod_resource/content/1/1467-9760.00148.pdfkairosfocus
May 12, 2022
May
05
May
12
12
2022
03:24 PM
3
03
24
PM
PDT
Fred Hickson:
August, 2012. Developments in the following decade?
It's been confirmed. Any developments on the Stonehenge front? Nope, still artificial.ET
May 12, 2022
May
05
May
12
12
2022
03:22 PM
3
03
22
PM
PDT
Some characteristics of those who dispute ID Has any of those who object to ID here ever come to accept ID? Answer few or none. Has any of those who oppose ID provided any insight into any aspect of science? I’m not aware of any. I learned a lot about science on this site but little or nothing from any one who opposes ID. For example, Seversky has been commenting here over 13 years. What have we learned from him? Have any of those who dispute ID found any shortcomings in ID? Maybe a little but the corrections then have been accepted by ID. Something that those who criticize never do even though none can justify their beliefs. Has anyone who denies ID ever actually framed what ID believes as part of their denial? No, they avoid it like the plague. Yet, pro ID adherents have spent literally hundreds of thousands comments repeating the same arguments. There has been over 750,000 comments since this site started. Now using Einstein’s definition of insanity, who is insane?jerry
May 12, 2022
May
05
May
12
12
2022
03:10 PM
3
03
10
PM
PDT
@ Seversky That's an hour of my life I'll never get back. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/ub-sets-it-out-step-by-step/ August, 2012. Developments in the following decade? 1,432 comments!Fred Hickson
May 12, 2022
May
05
May
12
12
2022
01:58 PM
1
01
58
PM
PDT
Why the genetic code is a real code : -a sequence of nucleotides is translated into a sequence of amino acids, -the bridge between them is realized by a third type of molecules, called transfer-RNAs, that act as adaptors and perform two distinct operations: 1)at one site they recognize groups of three nucleotides, called codons 2)at another site they receive amino acids from enzymes called aminoacyl-tRNA-synthetases. The key point is that there is no deterministic link between codons and amino acids since it has been shown that any codon can be associated with any amino acid (Schimmel 1987; Schimmel et al. 1993). Hou and Schimmel (1988), for example, introduced two extra nucleotides in a tRNA and found that that the resulting tRNA was carrying a different amino acid. This proved that the number of possible connections between codons and amino acids is potentially unlimited, and only the selection of a small set of adaptors can ensure a specific mapping. This is the genetic code: a fixed set of rules between nucleic acids and amino acids that are implemented by adaptors. In protein synthesis, in conclusion, we find all the three essential components of a code: (1) two independents worlds of molecules (nucleotides and amino acids), (2) a set of adaptors that create a mapping between them, and (3) the proof that the mapping is arbitrary because its rules can be changed. http://www.codebiology.org/index.htmlLieutenant Commander Data
May 12, 2022
May
05
May
12
12
2022
01:41 PM
1
01
41
PM
PDT
The genetic code involves a coded information processing system in which mRNA codons REPRESENT amino acids. JVL
Unless they are based on some chemical affinities which is a possibility being looked into.
WTF? Seriously? mRNA never makes contact with the corresponding amino acid. Is it some sort of chemical affinity from a distance?ET
May 12, 2022
May
05
May
12
12
2022
01:35 PM
1
01
35
PM
PDT
Fred Hickson:
I see you posting here at UD. I’ve never seen you venture out beyond UD and engage in serious debate with those who might disagree with you.
People have disagreed with him here. But they have never demonstrated that blind and mindless processes can produce any version of complex specified information. Never. No one has in all of the interwebbings. I have never seen you, or any of your socks, engage in an actual discussion, anywhere. Debate? Your idea of a debate is to baldly assert and then reference that bald assertion. And you don't seem to understand the basic concepts that you try to defend.ET
May 12, 2022
May
05
May
12
12
2022
01:31 PM
1
01
31
PM
PDT
Fred Hickson:
I’m looking forward to an exchange of view and it’s the main reason I’ve recently been posting here.
All evidence to the contrary, of course.ET
May 12, 2022
May
05
May
12
12
2022
01:26 PM
1
01
26
PM
PDT
Seversky I don’t agree dipping into “silo’s” is constructive to critiquing anyone’s idea’s data and experiment’s are enough to allow any merit to a given idea, if there is any to be given.BobSinclair
May 12, 2022
May
05
May
12
12
2022
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PDT
Fred Hickson/162
Oh dear, I’ve let the divine foot in the door!
May the Curse of Lewontin be upon you!Seversky
May 12, 2022
May
05
May
12
12
2022
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PDT
Fred Hickson/160
Indeed. Let’s hear from Upright Biped. I’m looking forward to an exchange of view and it’s the main reason I’ve recently been posting here.
If you haven't already done so, you might want to review the extensive discussions of UBP's ideas on The Panda's Thumb and The Skeptical Zone in 2012 and 2015.Seversky
May 12, 2022
May
05
May
12
12
2022
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT
Fred Hickson KF, when your understanding of the chemistry and biology is so superficial,
:) You are so good at chemistry and biology that's why you bring evidences for ID saying that are evidences for darwinism ? You did that to confuse and disorient ID advocates ,right? :lol:Lieutenant Commander Data
May 12, 2022
May
05
May
12
12
2022
12:24 PM
12
12
24
PM
PDT
FH, the physics and chemistry are not the issue and you know it. Your problem is not with me but with Crick et al. Even Wikipedia does better, as you show by ducking it. And, intermolecular force-distance curves and linked issues feed a lot of things in physics with bleed over into Chemistry. Nothing in such forces changes the LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL pattern, chaining on one axis, prongs orthogonal, interlock and fit a function of prong height, where the Yale type lock is a common device that uses that pattern. KFkairosfocus
May 12, 2022
May
05
May
12
12
2022
12:07 PM
12
12
07
PM
PDT
JVL You said, “yes, there is research suggesting that the genetic code might be reducible to physics and chemistry” References pleaseBobSinclair
May 12, 2022
May
05
May
12
12
2022
11:41 AM
11
11
41
AM
PDT
FH, you have proved yourself unserious. Negative credibility, only to be taken up when independently corroborated. When even Wikipedia is more responsive to evidence, facts and established knowledge than you are that says somewhat. KF
KF, when your understanding of the chemistry and biology is so superficial, it is difficult to take you seriously. Here's a serious question. I see you posting here at UD. I've never seen you venture out beyond UD and engage in serious debate with those who might disagree with you. Except actually, I do have a vague memory back in 2005 perhaps of you inviting an ID critic who was a regular commentzer at the now defunct ISCID site. His pseudo was "the pixie". Remember that?Fred Hickson
May 12, 2022
May
05
May
12
12
2022
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT
FH, you have proved yourself unserious. Negative credibility, only to be taken up when independently corroborated. When even Wikipedia is more responsive to evidence, facts and established knowledge than you are that says somewhat. KFkairosfocus
May 12, 2022
May
05
May
12
12
2022
11:22 AM
11
11
22
AM
PDT
JVL @ 154 Oh dear, I've let the divine foot in the door! "Pearls before swine"!Fred Hickson
May 12, 2022
May
05
May
12
12
2022
11:19 AM
11
11
19
AM
PDT
KF, if I were inclined to religious metaphors, observing your quoting Wikipedia at length, I might be reminded of "the Devil can quote scripture when it suits him". Yet I can't find much in those quotes that I take huge exception to or much in the way of relevance to your own argument, which I freely admit I'm finding hard to follow. Have you an aversion to paragraphs?Fred Hickson
May 12, 2022
May
05
May
12
12
2022
11:14 AM
11
11
14
AM
PDT
William Murray
As to the “it’s just molecular binding without any semiotic meaning (letters and numbers)” challenge, let’s allow UB the floor:
Indeed. Let's hear from Upright Biped. I'm looking forward to an exchange of view and it's the main reason I've recently been posting here.Fred Hickson
May 12, 2022
May
05
May
12
12
2022
10:58 AM
10
10
58
AM
PDT
Andrew @157: And we are the ones who are accused of having the blind faith. LOLAnimatedDust
May 12, 2022
May
05
May
12
12
2022
10:46 AM
10
10
46
AM
PDT
JVL, I see your:
[ET:] There isn’t any evidence the genetic code is reducible to physics and chemistry [JVL:] Except there is. I directed you, again, to a place where you could easily start following research but you refuse to even having a look. And if I do all that work and show you that, yes, there is research suggesting that the genetic code might be reducible to physics and chemistry you’ll just continue to say it’s all rubbish.
I raise you from the Wikipedia article on DNA data storage that:
In 2016 research by Church and Technicolor Research and Innovation was published in which, 22 MB of a MPEG compressed movie sequence were stored and recovered from DNA. The recovery of the sequence was found to have zero errors.[21] In March 2017, Yaniv Erlich and Dina Zielinski of Columbia University and the New York Genome Center published a method known as DNA Fountain that stored data at a density of 215 petabytes per gram of DNA. The technique approaches the Shannon capacity of DNA storage, achieving 85% of the theoretical limit. The method was not ready for large-scale use, as it costs $7000 to synthesize 2 megabytes of data and another $2000 to read it.[22][23][24] In March 2018, University of Washington and Microsoft published results demonstrating storage and retrieval of approximately 200MB of data. The research also proposed and evaluated a method for random access of data items stored in DNA.[25][26] In March 2019, the same team announced they have demonstrated a fully automated system to encode and decode data in DNA.[27] Research published by Eurecom and Imperial College in January 2019, demonstrated the ability to store structured data in synthetic DNA. The research showed how to encode structured or, more specifically, relational data in synthetic DNA and also demonstrated how to perform data processing operations (similar to SQL) directly on the DNA as chemical processes.[28][29] In June 2019, scientists reported that all 16 GB of Wikipedia have been encoded into synthetic DNA.[4] In 2021, CATALOG reported that they had developed a custom DNA writer capable of writing data at 18 Mbps into DNA.[30]
Thus, it is clear that DNA is a data store, is amenable to various encodings, can be extended and can be used technologically. All of this, Wikipedia has had to concede. We need to ask some pointed questions as to why we have a cluster of objectors trying so hard to obfuscate such reasonably manifest points. That goes to just how weak their case is, if they cannot simply, forthrightly accept that D/RNA is as was described. As for the code is forced by physics and chemistry, the fact of engineered variants and alternatives shows differently. We can refer to the Tanenbaum layer cake type model and observe that a physical layer is foundational to higher layers and protocols, but the protocols are exploiting the device physics to achieve informational transfers that go beyond mere blind chance and/or mechanical necessity. KFkairosfocus
May 12, 2022
May
05
May
12
12
2022
10:44 AM
10
10
44
AM
PDT
"many, many, many generations" Just you wait and see! This is nothing but a convenient push of the problem into the imagination where the magic can happen. It was pathetic the first time you tried it, JVL, let alone the 1000th time. Andrewasauber
May 12, 2022
May
05
May
12
12
2022
10:37 AM
10
10
37
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5 6 10

Leave a Reply