Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Darwinism: An Embarrassment for Legitimate Science

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

I write this post from a hotel room in Livermore, California, home of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, where my company has sent me for advanced training in computational fluid dynamics using LS-DYNA, arguably the most advanced finite element analysis program ever devised, originally at LLNL in the 1970s for the development and analysis of variable-yield nuclear weapons.

I have a particular interest in LLNL because my father worked on the Manhattan A-bomb Project during WWII, and was the founder and director of an experimental nuclear reactor at Washington State University, which has been named in his honor.

Here is some info from the LLNL website:

For more than half a century, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory has applied cutting-edge science and technology to enhance national security.
Origins. The Laboratory was established in 1952 at the height of the Cold War to meet urgent national security needs by advancing nuclear weapons science and technology. Renowned physicists E.O. Lawrence and Edward Teller argued for the creation of a second laboratory to augment the efforts of the laboratory at Los Alamos.

The people who developed this technology are legitimate scientists. Darwinists are pseudo-scientists who have no notion of what science is all about. Compare the accomplishments of the LLNL scientists and developers of LS-DYNA to those of people like Dawkins and his “weasel” program.

Darwinism is a downright embarrassment for legitimate science.

Comments
Mung,
Because “turns into” is not synonymous with “evolve” or with “speciation”.
A species may evolve into another species, but it shall not be the case that one species shall turn into another species.
Yes.
In what way does the ancestral species “turn into” the new species in anagenesis? Seems to me that the ancestral species itself never changed.
On your view, there was no ancestral species. It’s like a Zeno’s Paradox applied to speciation.
That's not my view. I certainly recognize there are ancestral species. Dinohippus is an ancestor of Equidae. I don't see that as an issue at all.
Each species is ancestral, but none of them ever change, excuse me, evolves.
I certainly recognize that they do indeed change and evolve. I'm not sure why you think that would not be my understanding.Doveton
July 18, 2011
July
07
Jul
18
18
2011
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PDT
Re: post 129. No problem, Lizzie, take you time. Cheers ChrisChris Doyle
July 18, 2011
July
07
Jul
18
18
2011
02:07 AM
2
02
07
AM
PDT
I'm sorry, Mung, you have completely lost me. What is it that you think I think? And how does it differ from what you think I've said I think? What is it, in other words, that you think you have "nailed"? No, I have most certainly not forgotten our previous discussion about hypothesis testing. It is etched in acid on my brain. And, as I said then, and I said now, it is the formulation of the null that I think is the problem with Dembski's hypothesis. I really think we need to look at that paper (Specification: the pattern etc).Elizabeth Liddle
July 18, 2011
July
07
Jul
18
18
2011
01:13 AM
1
01
13
AM
PDT
Elizabeth Liddle:
I have thought the null hypothesis was wrongly formulated for years.
Yes, you have an internet history. I have just chosen to not make an issue of it. We can all change, right? Perhaps your argument has changed since you were last lauded on PandasThumb as the greatest thing since sliced Dembski.
Link to my “protest” please. There was quite a long discussion about the EF and about CSI and about hypothesis testing. Have you already forgotten? Mung:
Here’s how I see your argument framing up: How you specify your null is critical to the validity of your hypothesis testing. Dembski fails to properly specify the null. Therefore the ID argument is not valid.
You:
I suggest you stop trying to anticipate “the way [my] argument framing up”. It’s causing you to see spooks behind every bush. It’s also stopping you reading the actual words I write! These are simply not controversial (and you would, I’m sure, readily agree with them if you were not scared I was going to pull a “Gotcha!” with your agreement!) HERE
Man, did I ever nail that one. Now, since that is in fact your argument, why did you object when I first framed it? Why not just honestly admit that is in fact what you think?
Mung
July 17, 2011
July
07
Jul
17
17
2011
05:42 PM
5
05
42
PM
PDT
Chris: I'm sorry I missed your post above. I'm going to be busy next week, but I'll try to get to it. Give me a nudge if I don't. Thanks!Elizabeth Liddle
July 17, 2011
July
07
Jul
17
17
2011
03:38 PM
3
03
38
PM
PDT
catching up: Mung:
Elizabeth Liddle:
Specifically, I think the null hypothesis is wrongly formulated, and that this invalidates the design inference.
And how long ago did I predict this would be your argument? And how loudly did you protest? I laugh.
Link to my "protest" please. I have thought the null hypothesis was wrongly formulated for years. I find conversations with you rather odd, Mung. You frequently imply that I am inconsistent, yet you consistently misread my posts. Oh well. No-one ever said communication was easy.Elizabeth Liddle
July 17, 2011
July
07
Jul
17
17
2011
03:36 PM
3
03
36
PM
PDT
OK, but I'll do it on a relevant thread. How about this one: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/is-the-csi-concept-well-founded-mathematically-and-can-it-be-applied-to-the-real-world-giving-real-and-useful-numbers/ See you there.Elizabeth Liddle
July 17, 2011
July
07
Jul
17
17
2011
12:29 PM
12
12
29
PM
PDT
Elizabeth, could you please elucidate? gpuccio is very interested.Mung
July 17, 2011
July
07
Jul
17
17
2011
12:26 PM
12
12
26
PM
PDT
Assmbly (usually referred to as "self-assembly") Isn't it true that the system for assmebly of anything in a cell and including the cell, is under program control? Cells (the most "basic" unit of life) have an information library a retrieval system, a translation system, assembly machinery, regulatory elements,feedback loops, and error correction systems, all interdependant upon one another for function. In lay-terms, it's an ultimate chicken, or egg first, conundrum wihtout even a hint that natural law can account for it. (Or post solution here if you have it..) This isn't self-assembly, it's assembly under program control. That really is a problem for evolution - from biogenesis, to the origin of species. Why would anyone, in light of this, assert nature, biology, can account for itself?arkady967
July 17, 2011
July
07
Jul
17
17
2011
06:43 AM
6
06
43
AM
PDT
Elizabeth, thank you for your response. "I’m not. I’m saying that something can have an intrinsic function- that function doesn’t have to assigned from without." It can, but this does not explain how the components of a protein molecule, through natural selection and chance and mutations, assemble themselves properly. "One species never “turns into” another. I think this is a misunderstanding you have." Tell that to Carl Sagan, who wrote: "Mutations--sudden changes in heredity--breed true. They provide the raw material of evolution. The environment selects those few mutations that enhance survival, resulting in a series of slow transformations of one lifeform into another, the origin of new species." (Cosmos, 1980, page 27). Has he confused speciation with adaptation as well? "Well, common sense can be a misleading guide!" Really? That's the best answer you can come up with? "Birds are very different from modern reptiles. Both are different from their common ancestor. But both belong to the Reptilia clade." Please consider the following: "In 1866, Haeckel demonstrated that vertebrates could be divided based on their reproductive strategies, and that reptiles, birds and mammals were united by the amniotic egg. By the end of the 19th century, the class Reptilia had come to include all the amniotes except birds and mammals. Thus reptiles were defined as the set of animals that includes the extant crocodiles, alligators, tuatara, lizards, snakes, amphisbaenians, and turtles, as well as fossil groups like dinosaurs, synapsids and the primitive pareiasaurs. This is still the common definition of the term." "Colin Tudge wrote: Mammals are a clade, and therefore the cladists are happy to acknowledge the traditional taxon Mammalia; and birds, too, are a clade, universally ascribed to the formal taxon Aves. Mammalia and Aves are, in fact, subclades within the grand clade of the Amniota. But the traditional class Reptilia is not a clade. It is just a section of the clade Amniota: the section that is left after the Mammalia and Aves have been hived off. It cannot be defined by synapomorphies, as is the proper way. It is instead defined by a combination of the features it has and the features it lacks: reptiles are the amniotes that lack fur or feathers. At best, the cladists suggest, we could say that the traditional Reptilia are 'non-avian, non-mammalian amniotes'.[10]" "Cladistics, either generally or in specific applications, has been criticized from its beginnings. A decision as to whether a particular character is a synapomorphy or not may be challenged as involving subjective judgements,[4] raising the issue of whether cladistics as actually practised is as objective as has been claimed. Formal classifications based on cladistic reasoning are said to emphasize ancestry at the expense of descriptive characteristics, and thus ignore biologically sensible, clearly defined groups which do not fall into clades (e.g. reptiles as traditionally defined or prokaryotes).[5]" --all from Wikipedia. The absolute bottom line is that birds =/= reptiles. "l, species do not turn into other species. Ancestral populations speciate – it’s a slightly different concept!" See the quote from Sagan above. Organic evolution--as I have seen it described--is the theory that the first living organism developed from nonliving matter. As it reproduced, it changed into different kinds of living things, ultimately producing all forms of life that have ever existed on earth, including humans. "Yes, one of the interesting things about the Grants’ work was the degree of hybridisation they observed. Speciation is a gradual process – even lions and tigers can produce fertile offspring I believe, although in the wild they do not interbreed." I don't know if they do, but humans have decided that they can: http://www.liger.org/ "Well, I wasn’t even talking about abiogenesis! Nor was I even talking about the evolution of molecular machinery – I was simply making the point that molecular machines do indeed have a function, but that function is intrinsic to their role within the whole of which they are a part." They do have a function, but the problem for evolution is explaining how they assemble themselves into a fully functioning machine (i.e., a protein or a cell).Barb
July 15, 2011
July
07
Jul
15
15
2011
04:16 PM
4
04
16
PM
PDT
Elizabeth: Secondly: the hypothesis as put forward by Dembski, for example, I think, is incorrectly operationalised. Specifically, I think the null hypothesis is wrongly formulated, and that this invalidates the design inference. Could you please elucidate? I am very interested.gpuccio
July 15, 2011
July
07
Jul
15
15
2011
02:16 PM
2
02
16
PM
PDT
Chris Doyle:
Here’s my opener: your assumption “that self-replication with variance in a fitness landscape results in entities with the appearance of well-engineered design” needs to be challenged. Furthermore, your assumption that any findings we make in computer simulations can be carried into cell biology also needs to be challenged. In other words, even if it was true that computers can simulate evolution, it does not mean that we can apply any findings from computer simulations to cell biology.
Well put. She's been challenged on both points. Repeatedly. Good luck. :)Mung
July 15, 2011
July
07
Jul
15
15
2011
10:32 AM
10
10
32
AM
PDT
Doveton:
Because “turns into” is not synonymous with “evolve” or with “speciation”.
A species may evolve into another species, but it shall not be the case that one species shall turn into another species.
In what way does the ancestral species “turn into” the new species in anagenesis? Seems to me that the ancestral species itself never changed.
On your view, there was no ancestral species. It's like a Zeno's Paradox applied to speciation. Each species is ancestral, but none of them ever change, excuse me, evolves.Mung
July 15, 2011
July
07
Jul
15
15
2011
10:24 AM
10
10
24
AM
PDT
Mung:
Elizabeth Liddle:
Birds are very different from modern reptiles. Both are different from their common ancestor. But both belong to the Reptilia clade.
Well, if they are so different, how do you decide what the common ancestor was like?
Well, I'm no palaeontologist, but by constructing phylogenies from fossils, mainly. It would have been a diapsid, apparently.
What was the common ancestor to modern birds and reptiles? It’s ok if you don’t have one. Just be honest enough to say so.
I'm always honest, Mung. There's an interesting page about diapsids here: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/taxa/verts/archosaurs/basal_diapsids.php It seems to be still a bit of a muddle.Elizabeth Liddle
July 15, 2011
July
07
Jul
15
15
2011
09:58 AM
9
09
58
AM
PDT
Elizabeth Liddle:
Specifically, I think the null hypothesis is wrongly formulated, and that this invalidates the design inference.
And how long ago did I predict this would be your argument? And how loudly did you protest? I laugh.Mung
July 15, 2011
July
07
Jul
15
15
2011
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT
Elizabeth Liddle:
We do, in contrast, have many traces of an intrinsic design mechanism (essentially, Darwin’s).
That's false in at least two respects. One, Darwin's theory was that something extrinsic to living organisms was responsible for the apparent design. To wit, "natural selection." Second, there is no evidence whatsoever of any "intrinsic design mechanism."Mung
July 15, 2011
July
07
Jul
15
15
2011
09:49 AM
9
09
49
AM
PDT
Mung,
Elizabeth Liddle: One species never “turns into” another.
I’m willing to grant that speciation never happens, but then why isn’t Darwinism false? Because "turns into" is not synonymous with "evolve" or with "speciation".
One species never “turns into” another.
Then what is anagenesis? Anagenesis, also known as “phyletic change,” is the evolution of species involving an entire population rather than a branching event, as in cladogenesis. When enough mutations have occurred and become stable in a population so that it is significantly differentiated from an ancestral population, a new species name may be assigned. A key point is that the entire population is different from the ancestral population such that the ancestral population can be considered extinct. A series of such species is collectively known as an evolutionary lineage. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anagenesis You can’t really be this ignorant of evolutionary theory, can you? Really?
My own 2 shekels on this... In what way does the ancestral species "turn into" the new species in anagenesis? Seems to me that the ancestral species itself never changed. In fact, we have all sorts of fossils and bones of ancestor species showing that they didn't morph into other organisms during their life times. Do parents "turn into" their children? No. There in lies the problem with the phrase "turns into" and why it really is not appropriate when speaking of evolution. It is, otoh, appropriate to say that ancestor species evolved into new species because the term "evolve" does not simply mean "becomes". Hence the reason that the old canard, "if evolution is true and humans descended from apes, why are there still apes" demonstrates a misconception (among other misconceptions therein).Doveton
July 15, 2011
July
07
Jul
15
15
2011
09:35 AM
9
09
35
AM
PDT
Elizabeth Liddle:
Birds are very different from modern reptiles. Both are different from their common ancestor. But both belong to the Reptilia clade.
Well, if they are so different, how do you decide what the common ancestor was like? What was the common ancestor to modern birds and reptiles? It's ok if you don't have one. Just be honest enough to say so.Mung
July 15, 2011
July
07
Jul
15
15
2011
09:30 AM
9
09
30
AM
PDT
Elizabeth Liddle:
One species never “turns into” another.
I'm willing to grant that speciation never happens, but then why isn't Darwinism false?
One species never “turns into” another.
Then what is anagenesis?
Anagenesis, also known as "phyletic change," is the evolution of species involving an entire population rather than a branching event, as in cladogenesis. When enough mutations have occurred and become stable in a population so that it is significantly differentiated from an ancestral population, a new species name may be assigned. A key point is that the entire population is different from the ancestral population such that the ancestral population can be considered extinct. A series of such species is collectively known as an evolutionary lineage. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anagenesis
You can't really be this ignorant of evolutionary theory, can you? Really?Mung
July 15, 2011
July
07
Jul
15
15
2011
09:16 AM
9
09
16
AM
PDT
Elizabeth Liddle:
I’m saying that something can have an intrinsic function- that function doesn’t have to assigned from without.
And why is that any different from teleology? Why do you just ignore the sources I gave you? It's like you're lying to yourself, if not to anyone else. Which to me in fact seems worse.Mung
July 15, 2011
July
07
Jul
15
15
2011
09:06 AM
9
09
06
AM
PDT
Good Afternoon Lizzie, I think I have supported both claims that: 1. “if we didn’t have divine ordained morality there would be no reason to behave” and 2. “meaning has to be assigned to life from outside” but that’s over on the aforementioned (post 101) thread so maybe we can continue that discussion there. (btw, I think the poem would come across better if it was sung to the music you wrote for it!) As for Cthulhu, I completely agree with you: as far as Intelligent Design theory is concerned, it could be that Cthulhu designed the cell. As Descartes pointed out, reality could simply be an illusion brought on by a demon who is toying with my soul in a jar. The demon doubt will always remain if all we have to rely on is our senses (that includes all of the knowledge that the scientific method yields, by the way). So again, there is no parallel between the worldview shattering implications of the rejection of evolution and acceptance of ID theory for atheists and the acceptance of evolution and rejection of ID theory for believers. Do not underestimate the importance of this distinction in this debate and just how influential the requirements of the worldview are for atheists compared to believers. Ugly facts are much more important than beautiful theories, Lizzie. As Thomas Huxley said: “The great tragedy of Science: the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact” Moving onto the two reasons that you offer for “resisting ID theory”. First, your evolutionist beliefs (we’ll put a pin in that one for now!) and your conclusion that the ID argument is fundamentally flawed. If you still feel that way by the time you finish reading Signature in the Cell, you should be invited to detail exactly why that is in your own guest blog entry. That’ll be a very popular thread! Secondly, you have theological objections: thank you very much for admitting that and detailing them. Would it be fair to say that if evolution was universally rejected and ID theory accepted, you would still “resist ID theory” (or at least the religious implications of it) because of these theological objections? Because, if that’s the case, that is probably where the conversation needs to go sooner rather than later (though Uncommon Descent may not be the place for that). It will come as no surprise to you that I see a perfect harmony between science and theology. I believe what all of the Greatest Scientists who ever lived believed: that the Book of Nature and the Book of Scripture complement and enhance each other. But again, as far as ID theory is concerned, all that matters is establishing the need for an Intelligent Designer(s). Even if it turns out to be true that Cthulhu is waiting for us, then we must go wherever the evidence leads. We cannot and should not knowingly live a lie. I liked your “Obviousness” anecdote: a fascinating insight into human nature. You also have a point about it being harder to be reasoned out of view you were reasoned into. However, if reason is the only force at play, it can be achieved once the mind is opened to it. But how often is reason the only force at play? Pride, peer-pressure, emotional commitments, conflicts of interest, habits, etc usually muddy the waters. When Jonathan Swift said “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into” he is capturing the problem that arises when prejudice keeps the mind closed. And, I completely agree, this argument cuts both ways. I also agree that we need “to find the unchallenged assumptions that we each regard as “obvious” but which may not be as “obvious” as we have always thought”. Here’s my opener: your assumption “that self-replication with variance in a fitness landscape results in entities with the appearance of well-engineered design” needs to be challenged. Furthermore, your assumption that any findings we make in computer simulations can be carried into cell biology also needs to be challenged. In other words, even if it was true that computers can simulate evolution, it does not mean that we can apply any findings from computer simulations to cell biology.Chris Doyle
July 15, 2011
July
07
Jul
15
15
2011
06:40 AM
6
06
40
AM
PDT
Dala:
Elizabeth Liddle
So no, I do not reject the “obvious conclusion based on belief, not evidence”. [I think the obvious conclusion is, in fact, that a design process was involved. Given that conclusion, my next question is: what was that design process?] I don’t think “an external intentional designer” is the obvious answer to that question. In fact I suggest that there are serious difficulties with that hypothesis.
First, what exactly are the serious difficulties you have with that hypothesis if its not based on a belief? IF, for example, there does exist an external designer, why do you have serious difficulties with the hypothesis that he(?) did the designing? Aren’t those ‘serious difficulties’ based on belief?
(restored my full paragraph for reference) Here are my difficulties: Firstly: we have no trace of a mechanism by which an external designer might have designed living things. We do, in contrast, have many traces of an intrinsic design mechanism (essentially, Darwin's). Secondly: the hypothesis as put forward by Dembski, for example, I think, is incorrectly operationalised. Specifically, I think the null hypothesis is wrongly formulated, and that this invalidates the design inference. As I said - the inference that something interesting is going on is fine! Even the inference that something resembling intelligence is fine! But I think the answer lies in the self-organising capacity of systems of self-replicators with feedback loops, not in an external organiser. Simply because the former has a great deal of predictive power, and has consist generated successful predictions, while in order to make the latter fit the data we have, I suggest, to posit not just an invisible designer with invisible designing tools, but one with some very odd limitations, not least being lack of foresight, and lack of ability to transfer solution from one lineage (in its broadest sense) to another - something that human designers are able to do easily.
And if you do claim that you base your conclusion on scientific evidence I really want to know WHAT evidence you have in mind. I dont need ALL the evidence, just the one most convincing one.
The pattern of nested hierarchies in living and once-living things; the fact that phylogenies derived from independent datasets (anatomical; genetic) are readily reconciled; the fact that the basic evolutionary algorithm is capable of creating novel and unanticipated solutions to problems when applied to real problems faced by human beings; the fact that evolutionary algorithms are, in many senses, intelligent algorithms and lie at the heart of artificial learning and artifical intelligence systems; the fact that human intelligence (or, more generally, animal intelligence) seems operate on a comparable form of "neural Darwinism" (what works is more likely to be repeated; what doesn't is inhibited). In other words that the very mechanisms of human intelligence (with the exception of foresight/intention) are exactly those we see operating at short time scales in the natural world - replication with variation in the ability to replicate, and a steady stochastic source of novelty.
Secondly, nobody said there had to be “an external intentional designer”. What seems obvious is that there is intelligence involved SOMEHOW.
Exactly :)
Maybe there is an external designer? Maybe all matter contains intelligence?
Well, my own view is that intelligence is a property of systems, not matter. The paradigm case is the human brain, but other systems also display a kind of intelligence (foresight - forward modelling - however, does seem to be a higher order capacity that as far as we know is unique to brains).
Maybe intelligence is a “fundamental force” in nature?
I think that self-organisation is a fairly fundamental property of nature and will tend to occur wherever there are feedback loops. This is why I think chaos theory (an unfortunate word - it's more like the opposite, IMO) has been a hugely helpful development in understanding how natural systems self-organise, including brains.
maybe etc. etc. We simply dont know what/who/how intelligence is involved, but looking at the scientific evidence it SEEMS obvious that its involved SOMEHOW. You might have difficulties BELIEVING that it is, of course…
Yes, and this is why I restored, in your quote of me above, the parts you had replaced by ellipses :) It was rather key to my point :)Elizabeth Liddle
July 15, 2011
July
07
Jul
15
15
2011
04:13 AM
4
04
13
AM
PDT
arkady967: "science is the reason many of them have changed their minds." Beautiful, and very true. For me, it is absolutely true. I am a medical doctor, and for years I have believed that there was probably something in the darwinian theory, even if at first approach I could not really understand how things worked. I thought that my understanding of the theory was probably too superficial (and, at that time, it was). Please, note that my philosophical and religious ideas were already well formed, and they were not disturbed by the possibility that darwinism, at least in part, could be credible. Then I came to know ID, and it was a revelation. A scientific, completely rational revelation. I have been deepening my understanding of darwinain theory, and of biology, for years now, and my feeling of utter disappointment, even amazed disgust, with darwinian thought has been constantly increasing. My hostility to darwinism is absolutely motivated and fueled by purely intellectual, rational and scientific considerations. While I certainly accept and respect individuals, I am totally intolerant of the ideology. Individuals are sometimes in good faith, but the ideology is stupid, arrogant and inacceptable.gpuccio
July 15, 2011
July
07
Jul
15
15
2011
04:03 AM
4
04
03
AM
PDT
Thoughts concerning the post inspiring this discussion: Darwinism vs science. I think Dr. Dodgen is making a point about Darwinism that's worth noting. I've been examining modern high-school and college biology texts. When it comes to origin of life and accounting for diversity of life, there's very little in these texts different from the accounts I was given in school, and that was in the seventies. The graphics are better, but not much else. The confirmable explanatory power Darwinism seems stuck in the mud regarding it's broadest claims - single cells to man - probably because it's being asked to account for more than the known mechanisms can accomplish. I view, and think the actual science confirms, mutation and natural selection etc., as primarily conservative mechnaisms. The processes being referred to as evolution are the processes that build, for instance, a better worm, thus preserve the type. Thus, rather than tranmutation of forms, the processes Darwin observed is one that conserves them. A second thought on this is: you don't need bring intelligent design in to demonstrate this. The concrete observations of science, apart from evolutionary gloss, confirm the conservative role of Darwin's observation. Intelligent Design is the response many have come to due to advances in science as applied to biology. What's now known is simply more compatible with design than it is with the idea of random chance and known chemical and physical law. Fianlly, some of the people who have come to the design conclusion, were once adamant Darwinists. They have the perspective, therefore, of having "been there" which, too me, is significant, as science is the reason many of them have changed their minds.arkady967
July 15, 2011
July
07
Jul
15
15
2011
03:43 AM
3
03
43
AM
PDT
Elizabeth Liddle
I think your idea that intelligence is a “fundamental force” in nature is a viable one, and, with some heavy provisos, I would agree with it!
But if you agree with the idea that intelligence MIGHT BE a “fundamental force” in nature, why do you object so strongly to the idea that its is involved in creating "living systems"? Accepting intelligence as a "force" in nature but rejecting the idea that it is involved in "building life" seems a bit contradictory to me. Like Gil says, and which you agreed to, by looking at the scientific evidence it SEEMS obvious that intelligence IS involved... ...somehow... (PS. When i say a "fundamental force" I mean a force which is not en "emergent property" of any of the other four fundamental forces, of course. I just have a feeling you MIGHT mean that nature SEEMS intelligent, but that the "obvious" intelligence we observe is just an "emergent property" of randomness acting on matter...)Dala
July 15, 2011
July
07
Jul
15
15
2011
03:17 AM
3
03
17
AM
PDT
Elizabeth, "my field is neuroscience... I do psychiatric research, using neuroimaging and cognitive behavioural techniques, also computational modelling." Even better :) At first glance, ID reasoning appears to be perfectly amenable to what you do.Eugene S
July 15, 2011
July
07
Jul
15
15
2011
03:14 AM
3
03
14
AM
PDT
Dala: Just a quick response: I think your idea that intelligence is a "fundamental force" in nature is a viable one, and, with some heavy provisos, I would agree with it! I'll leave that bombshell there while I do some work.... Eugene S: I am not a professional biologist - my field is neuroscience, but I work at the "systems" end, rather than with actual neurons! (although I do know a bit about neurons obviously). I do psychiatric research, using neuroimaging and cognitive behavioural techniques, also computational modelling. Just thought I'd clarify :)Elizabeth Liddle
July 15, 2011
July
07
Jul
15
15
2011
02:50 AM
2
02
50
AM
PDT
Elizabeth Liddle
So no, I do not reject the “obvious conclusion based on belief, not evidence”.... ...I don’t think “an external intentional designer” is the obvious answer to that question. In fact I suggest that there are serious difficulties with that hypothesis.
First, what exactly are the serious difficulties you have with that hypothesis if its not based on a belief? IF, for example, there does exist an external designer, why do you have serious difficulties with the hypothesis that he(?) did the designing? Aren't those 'serious difficulties' based on belief? And if you do claim that you base your conclusion on scientific evidence I really want to know WHAT evidence you have in mind. I dont need ALL the evidence, just the one most convincing one. Secondly, nobody said there had to be “an external intentional designer”. What seems obvious is that there is intelligence involved SOMEHOW. Maybe there is an external designer? Maybe all matter contains intelligence? Maybe intelligence is a "fundamental force" in nature? maybe etc. etc. We simply dont know what/who/how intelligence is involved, but looking at the scientific evidence it SEEMS obvious that its involved SOMEHOW. You might have difficulties BELIEVING that it is, of course...Dala
July 15, 2011
July
07
Jul
15
15
2011
02:09 AM
2
02
09
AM
PDT
Dear Elizabeth, Without presuming to be an expert on ID, I have made an attempt at systematically laying out my arguments in the note the URL to which I gave you the other day. I hoped I would get a response from a professional biologist. Maybe I missed it somewhere in your comments... I'd still love to hear your thoughts. If you look around this site for comments (I suggest you start with the FAQ page perhaps), you will easily find enough argumentation for ID. Please do not say you haven't seen any in your next post. You tacitly acknowledged the soundness of this argumentation in your latest response to my questions. So you do have evidence to infer intelligence. In fact, this is done routinely on a daily basis in information theory, computer science, medicine, sociology, forensics. ID summarises and quantifies it. Evolutionists simply have nothing to say to this, so they choose to ignore it. I agree that ID in its ultimate inductional prediction about the intelligence agency in the origin of the world is untestable. But it is not unfalsifiable! It is okay for a scientific theory to be untestable. It is legitimate to have a means to analyse the end effect of some process to make scientifically valid predictions (until such times as they become invalidated by experiments). Information theory gives us a means to analyse information complexity of an object AND MAKE VALID PREDICTIONS about the origin of this object. Pure science... The Big Bang theory for one is a scientific theory even though we cannot replicate the Big Bang. It is scientific and it is not disputed. BTW, the Big Bang is not THE ONLY theory. There are steady state theories as well which also explain the red shift but rather differenly. I have little reason to suspect that ID is false with respect to the origin of life, since it is doing nicely in other areas. All in all, I am as happy with untestability of ID with respect to the origin of life as Richard Dawkins is happy about the untestability of macroevolution.Eugene S
July 15, 2011
July
07
Jul
15
15
2011
02:06 AM
2
02
06
AM
PDT
Barb:
However, this answer doesn’t really make sense. The concept of ID may have extrascientific implications but, then again, so does Darwinian evolution. If something appears to have a purpose, then why deny that it has a purpose?
I'm not. I'm saying that something can have an intrinsic function- that function doesn't have to assigned from without.
However, the data gathered from some 100 years of mutation research in general and at least 70 years of mutation breeding have shown that mutations cannot transform a species into an entirely new one. The research coincides with the laws of probability. The law of recurrent variation states that genetically properly defined species have boundaries that cannot be abolished or transgressed by accidental mutations. I can remember seeing the ‘Drosophilia’ fruit flies illustrated in books. They were mutants, but none of the mutations were beneficial, and none of the mutations produced a new species.
Well, you are confounding speciation - which is when a single population divides into two subpopulations, and adapt independently to two different environments, with adaptation itself, which is evolution down a single lineage. Yes, once two sub populations from an ancestral population have diverged so far that interbreeding no longer occurs, there will be a boundary that cannot be crossed between them, because there is no longer any route for lateral gene transfer. But that doesn't mean they can't continue evolving to adapt to their own environment. There are lateral barriers, but no obvious longitudinal barriers. One species never "turns into" another. I think this is a misunderstanding you have. Species is a horizontal concept, not a vertical one. As for gross mutants - they are usually deleterious, but in a minority, and usually drop out of the gene pool rapidly. The certainly won't "produce a new species". As I said, that occurs when a population subdivides and adapts along separate lineages. You don't get new species from single gross mutants! As you rightly point out!
If highly trained scientists are unable to produce new species by arrtificially inducing and selecting favorable mutations, is it likely that an unintelligent, purposeless process would do a better job? Common sense tells us otherwise.
Well, common sense can be a misleading guide! But in any case, farmers and breeders have been indcuing speciation for years. It's arguable that chihuahuas and Great Danes are already separate species, unlikely to be able to interbreed. It's possible that man-induced speciation is faster, but I'm not convinced. I would expect mutation rate to be the limiting factor for divergence, and that is probably optimised. Artificially induced mutation may not be a good substitute. But I don't know.
According to Wikipedia, birds are classified as follows: Animalia (kingdom), Chordata (phylum), Availae (branch), and Aves (species). They are most assuredly not members of the clade Reptilia.
Here's a cladogram for Reptilia: http://www.enchantedlearning.com/rgifs/Reptilecladogram.GIF As you can see, Aves is a branch on it.
Birds are, by definition: feathered, winged, bipedal, endothermic, egg-laying vertebrate animals. Reptiles are scaled, cold-blooded animals. While both species lay eggs, only birds incubate theirs; birds have a brood spot on their breast (an area without feathers) that contains a network of blood vessels which gives warmth to the eggs.
Birds are very different from modern reptiles. Both are different from their common ancestor. But both belong to the Reptilia clade.
As I understand it, natural selection favors the life-forms best suited to the environment and, as species spread and became isolated, natural selection chose those whose gene mutations made them most fit for their new environment. These isolated groups would eventually develop into new species.
Yes.
As previously noted, decades of research into mutations has not proven that they are capable of changing a species into another species. Natural selection might be helping species to adapt to the changing demands of existence, but it’s not creating anything new. Researchers studying the famous Darwin finches on the Galapagos islands noted as much. They’re still finches. They might be different breeds of finches but they are all finches, and there is absolutely no evidence that they are anywhere close to becoming anything else.
Well, species do not turn into other species. Ancestral populations speciate - it's a slightly different concept! Your description above was correct. Speciation is not triggered by gross mutations. Most adaptation probably involves alleles that have been around for a while, including the ancestral populations. New, near neutral alleles probably drip feed into the gene pool the whole time. Once a population has ceased to interbreed, these new alleles will not cross what is now a species barrier between the two species, and so both populations will diverge further and further apart, especially if they have to adapt to different environmental conditions.
In fact, Peter Grant and graduate student Lisle Gibbes wrote in 1987 in ‘Nature’ that they had seen a reversal in the direction of selection. They also noted interbreeding between species, which they believed might cause a fusion of two of the species into just one. The fact that the finches are interbreeding casts doubt on the methods used to define ‘species’ and also exposes the fact that some prestigious scientific academies aren’t above reporting evidence in a biased manner.
Yes, one of the interesting things about the Grants' work was the degree of hybridisation they observed. Speciation is a gradual process - even lions and tigers can produce fertile offspring I believe, although in the wild they do not interbreed. I don't think there is an aspersion to be cast on "prestigious academies" in this regard,though. Species naming is an attempt to impose categorical labels on a continuum. Eventually species do completely cease to interbreed or to be interfertile, and then it is clear. But there are long drawn out half-way stages (and ring species) where the barriers are more subtle and still permeable. We try to "carve nature at its joints" but there are always tough bits of gristle in the way :)
This resembles, I think, an instance of ‘not seeing the forest for the trees.’ The evolution of the genetic machinery (amino acids to proteins to cells) is rife with speculation. Without the genetic code in place to begin reproduction, there can be no material for natural selection to select! This is what Dr. Behe was trying to get across in his 1996 book, “Darwin’s Black Box”. There is nothing in the scientific literature (either an experimental attempt or a detailed model) that explains how the cell ‘evolved’ bit by bit. In biology, certain things apparently do occur by chance, but this does not mean that the complex molecular machinery in cells and inherent in all life arose by change; that argument simply isn’t logical.
Well, I wasn't even talking about abiogenesis! Nor was I even talking about the evolution of molecular machinery - I was simply making the point that molecular machines do indeed have a function, but that function is intrinsic to their role within the whole of which they are a part. But to pick up your point: molecular machinery doesn't "arrive by chance". Behe's point is not that scientist say that it does, but there is no way that this fancy machinery can evolve bit by bit. I think he is almost certainly wrong! But ask Nick Matske - he's the one who knows about that particular bit of evolution, and he's around here somewhere. Probably in the bar. Cheers LizzieElizabeth Liddle
July 14, 2011
July
07
Jul
14
14
2011
05:55 PM
5
05
55
PM
PDT
1 2 3 5

Leave a Reply