Design Detection Reported on CBS’s 60 Minutes

_{Barry Arrington

November 30, 2008

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

This evening the CBS News show 60 Minutes reported on an impressive example of design detection in the on-line poker world.

Online gambling has grown in a few short years to a 16 billion dollar a year industry, and a big part of that growth has come from internet poker. Recently several professional gamblers at one of the larger internet poker sites, Ultimatebet.com, noticed that some of their opponents were playing extremely poorly, yet winning consistently. They suspected cheating.

One of the professionals obtained tracking data on one of the suspected cheaters, and after running the numbers determined that the suspect’s winning hand percentage was 13 standard deviations away from the mean percentage. This is equivalent to winning a 1,000,000 to 1 lottery six times in a row. The professionals took their findings to the licensing authority. Denyse, you’ll get a kick out of this. Most internet poker sites are licensed by a sovereign Indian nation near Montréal, Canada, the Mohawk Kahnawake tribe. The tribe hired a professional gaming expert to investigate, and sure enough there was cheating. One of Ultimatebet’s employees had gotten an administrative password, which gave him the ability to play poker at the site while looking at the other players hands! In all, the employee stole more than $20,000,000. Read the whole story here.

How does this relate to ID? The investigation was pure scientific design detection. Here is how the investigator employeed the scientific method to reach his conclusion.

Step 1: Decide on a question one would like to explore. In this case, the investigator suspected cheating, but it was just a gut feeling. The poker players among us know that in any given hand the worst player in the world can beat the best player in the world by pure dumb luck. I have personally seen a player win a hand in which the probability that he was going to win was only 1%. But blind luck like this succeeds only in the short run. In the long run, the better player will always come out ahead. Here, the investigator saw data that seemingly contradicted that maxim. A player (let’s call him Joe) who was playing very poorly, constantly taking foolish risks, was nevertheless winning not only in the short run, but also in the long run.

Step 2: Form a hypothesis. This was easy enough. The investigator hypothesized that the Joe was cheating.

Step 3: Test the hypothesis. The investigator gathered data about Joe’s history and performed a statistical analysis to test his hypothesis. He determined that Joe was winning at a rate that was 15 standard deviations above the mean. In the story the investigator is quoted saying, “Now, this sort of stuff just doesn’t happen in the real world.” In other words, the investigator cannot rule out random chance in an absolute sense, but as a practical matter, he is certain that Joe is cheating.

Step 4: Form a conclusion. The data indicate that Joe is cheating.

Acting on his scientific findings, the investigator reported Joe to the licensing authority, which performed its own investigation and found that Joe had in fact been cheating by using the administrative password to look at the other players’ hands while he was playing.

How is design detection in this instance different from the design detection employed by ID proponents? As far as I can tell, not at all.

Comments

Barry has created a new thread for our macroevolution discussion, so let's continue over there.ribczynski_{December 7, 2008
December
12
Dec
7
07
2008
03:48 PM
3
03
48
PM
PDT}

PhilipBaxter: "The same argument is used to support evolution" Why am I not surprised? I have seen darwinists use all possible arguments to support their views. The fact remains that the more complexity we observe, and the more that compexity is structured in efficient and interacting levels, the less it can be explained by unguided models. Regarding the "infinite", I think I was just saying that for emphasis. But as you say: "Are you hinting that the complexity extends past the purely physical realm?", just because you are asking, I think I could well answer yes. But I was probably referring in my post "only" to the fact that, up to now, every time we deepen our understanding of biological realities, new and deeper levels of mystery seem to emerge. We have no idea if and when that trend will change, and I think we are very, very distant from the "end", if an end exists. Or are you expecting the "end of biology", just as physicists were expecting the "end of physics" at the end of the nineteenth century?gpuccio_{December 7, 2008
December
12
Dec
7
07
2008
03:42 PM
3
03
42
PM
PDT}

gpuccio
there are infinite levels of complexity in biological beings, each of them superimposed to the previous one
The same argument is used to support evolution, that layers of complexity would be expected as structures are incorporated into new function. However, what do you mean "infinite levels of complexity"? There cannot be infinite levels, it must have an upper bound, or do you have a particular specific reason for using infinite? Are you hinting that the complexity extends past the purely physical realm?PhilipBaxter_{December 7, 2008
December
12
Dec
7
07
2008
02:41 PM
2
02
41
PM
PDT}

ribczynski: Let's go to the end then. #123: IC. You say it has been "adequately refuted" by: "(a) the cooption argument; (b) the scaffolding argument; and (c) the “optional part becomes indispensable” argument. " Indeed, b and c are only theoretical and stupid arguments which try to show that ir is logically possible to evolve an IC structure by steps. Well, we know that. IC is not a purely logical argument. It is an empirical argument. It is logically possible, but empirically impossible, to evolve an IC structure by steps. We know that. Again you, like most darwinists, seem not to understand the difference between logical and empirical, which Behe anyway has well specified in his book. The cooption argument is silly just the same, but at least Miller et al. have spent some time trying to build up a model for it, and so it deserves some more specific confutation. Indeed, the first time I read about it, I could not believe that any reasonable person could take it seriously. But it seems that many people do, and so... Cooption: so if you cannot explain the design of a complex system, where the function arises from the cooperation of different parts, you say: but those parts could be there, just like for a miracle: it is enough that each one has evolved for a different function and there it is, how can they not realize that there is a completely new future for them if they just stick together? Well, let's take the only model of supposed cooption which has been suggested up to now (I will not consider Miller's mouse trap - tie holder): the flagellum would not be irreducibly complex because part of it is similar to TTSS. That's simply ridiculous. The flagellum is a highly complex and brilliant machine, and the only reason why there is some similarity (but not identity) between some of its proteins and those of the TTSS is that those proteins have a similar function on both machines: they are a special secretory apparatus. In other words, the similarities between TTSS and the flagellum are based on partial functional similarities between the two machines, in other words they are based on design considerations. But the flagellum remains irreducibly complex, even if it uses a sub-machine which can be found in similar, but not identical, way in another machine, with different function. In other words, designers can (and indeed do) use similar solutions for different sub-parts of different machines, when it is appropriate. Let's make an example in computer programming: you can write a word-processing software and a spreadsheet. They are very different softwares, do different things, have different complexity, different parts, and definitely you cannot derive one from the other. But there are certainly procedures and parts which can be common, especially if they have been written by the same programmer. For instance, you could find the same ordering algoritm in both. Miller and co. have in no way presented a model of how you could evolve the flagellum (a much more complex machine) from the TTSS, least of all of how both could have evolved from a common precursor. The function of the flagellum is motion. That function cannot be obtained by the TTSS. Where is the model of how the TTSS became the flagellum? Of how all the parts which contribute to the IC of the flagellum came into being? Of how proteins changed? Of which proteins changed? Of how the delicate regulation and assemblage of the flagellum came into being, when no new function (motion) could still be obtained? Miller's "argument" is like all other darwinist arguments: imagination and magic, with a pinch of myth. And I am really tired of all this fuss about the flagellum, as though it were the only complex machine in the cell. Are we kidding? The cell is stuffed with complex machines which are IC. The body plans, the morphological features of multicellular organism, are almost always evidently IC. Function, when it is not elementary, is IC. Almost all complex functions are attained by the cooperation of parts, of simpler functions, of interactions and regulations and so on. Sub-functions never explain the higher function, except in Miller's imagination. Were all those examples of IC machines, billions of IC machines, all assembled by cooption? Are all functions deconstructable as random assemblage of elementary functions? What an interesting perspective! Darwinist go on denying the obvious, and the obvious is in this case the truth: there are infinite levels of complexity in biological beings, each of them superimposed to the previous one, and all of them are structured in a wonderful global interaction which we can hardly guess at present. The lowest level is the single protein, the single gene. Darwinists cannot even begin to explain that. For the rest, there is simply no game.gpuccio_{December 7, 2008
December
12
Dec
7
07
2008
02:25 PM
2
02
25
PM
PDT}

Ribczynski (#123): You write: "1c. The argument that natural selection cannot produce IC structures. "This has been adequately refuted by a trio of arguments: (a) the cooption argument; (b) the scaffolding argument; and (c) the “optional part becomes indispensable” argument. These are pretty well known, so I won’t rehash them unless someone challenges them or wants to hear them explained." I don't deny that the above-named processes, taken as complete abstractions, can be seen as methods of generating irreducible complexity. But the devil, as always, is in the details. Who has shown any one of these to be plausible in any particular case of a major new organ or system, with reference to the nitty-gritty genetic and developmental facts? For example, after years of arguing, the best Ken Miller can do with the bacterial flagellum is to point out the type three secretory system (TTSS) as a possible intermediate, because it contains many of the parts of the flagellum. Well, sure, it's possible. But if you're swimming across a lake a hundred miles wide, and will drown if you don't rest every mile, you need 99 islands along the way. Even on Miller's account, the path to the bacterial flagellum is missing 98 islands. All the intermediate steps between no-TTSS and TTSS, and all the intermediate steps between TTSS and flagellum, are entirely missing in Miller's account. What would those steps have been, and would they have given the bacterium selective advantage? How can we reconstruct them, or the environments in which they lived? And that's not even touching on the genetic questions, such as: exactly what parts of the genome would have had to change to produce the TTSS? And what parts would have to change after the TTSS? Would a large number of co-ordinated changes have been needed for each step? Are such co-ordinated changes likely? The truth is that neither Miller nor anyone else has answers to these questions. The TTSS is an island in the middle of the stream, and there is no known swimming stroke that can get us to it. Regarding the giraffe's neck, your argument, to the extent that it is plausible, depends upon the unlikely happenstance of neck-length increases and pumping-mechanism improvements being (a) frequent; and (b) happening in the right order to be able to work together. But if after, say, the third neck length increase, toenail length increases instead of the pumping mechanism, the giraffe is out of luck. And given the millions of possible mutations in the giraffe genome, how likely is it that you are going to get a third lucky blood pressure increase, as opposed to a toe-nail length increase, or an albino skin coloration, or something else? And don't forget, the time allotted for this lucky ABABAB sequence to turn an okapi into a giraffe is limited by the fossil record. So you need numbers. How often do mutations occur, period? And how often is it likely that mutations of the particular parts of the genome required for neck length and pumping mechanism will occur often enough, and in the right order, for your scenario to work out? Has any evolutionist pinpointed the parts of the giraffe genome which would have to be altered, and the probability of their being so altered over the last few million years, in the way proposed? I know of no such detailed account. So once again, ID asks for quantitative science and the Darwinists offer qualitative storytelling. In any case, even if we suppose that such an upward-crawling co-ordination of two already existing things, blood pressure and neck length, could occur, this is nothing at all like the much more daunting task of creating a radically new system or organ that never existed before, and this is what Darwinism must explain. It needs to explain flagella, eyes, and cardio-vascular systems. Right now it can explain antibiotic resistance and finch beaks. I.e., right now Darwinian science cannot get beyond microevolution. The rest is speculative extension. If such speculative extension is going to be forced upon ninth-grade students, at least science educators should have the decency to label it as such, and stop presenting it as a scientific truth as well-grounded as the work of Newton and Pasteur. T.Timaeus_{December 7, 2008
December
12
Dec
7
07
2008
12:38 PM
12
12
38
PM
PDT}

Continuing from comment #117. One final comment about the alleged theoretical limits of natural selection, and then I'll start addressing comments and objections from ID supporters. 1c. The argument that natural selection cannot produce IC structures. This has been adequately refuted by a trio of arguments: (a) the cooption argument; (b) the scaffolding argument; and (c) the "optional part becomes indispensable" argument. These are pretty well known, so I won't rehash them unless someone challenges them or wants to hear them explained. 1d. The "coordinated changes" argument. IDers (and creationists) sometimes claim that certain features could not have evolved via unguided evolution because they require simultaneous, coordinated changes to multiple systems in the organism, and that this sort of coordination cannot be achieved by a blind evolutionary process. This claim is reminiscent of, but not identical to, the IC argument. One example they cite is the giraffe's system for regulating blood pressure in the head. Because of its long neck, a giraffe's body requires special mechanisms to boost blood pressure to the brain when the animal is upright and to limit it when the animal leans down. The claim is that all three things -- the long neck and the two blood pressure regulatory systems -- had to appear at the same time, which is beyond the capability of natural selection. The argument fails because evolutionary biologists do not claim that these systems appeared full-blown, all at once. If they did, then IDers would be right to object. Instead, biologists think that these systems evolved gradually, via many mutations. So for example, a mutation would occur that made the neck slightly longer. This would create a need for slightly better blood pressure regulation, so that when such a mutation occurred, it would be preserved. Then, with better blood pressure regulation in place, it would become possible for the neck to become slightly longer still, and so on. When the changes are made incrementally rather than all at once, the need for intelligent coordination is eliminated.ribczynski_{December 7, 2008
December
12
Dec
7
07
2008
10:22 AM
10
10
22
AM
PDT}

ribczynski: I really don't know how to qualify the ever increasing superficiality of your posts, which is matched only by your obstinacy in not addressing the answers we give you. I gave you detailed confutations of all your points in #103 in my post #104. What have you done? Nothing. You just go on accumulating superficial nonsense about issues that you seem not to understand. I will comment on your posts #115 and 117 just in case some reader may think that you have some points, although it should be obvious to anybody that you have none. But I have not much hope that you will answer. I just go briefly about the errors in your post: #115 "An obvious first question: Why do IDers believe that microevolutionary changes cannot accumulate over time to yield macroevolution?" Because macroevolution is not the sum of microevolutonary changes. "Some have argued that mutations are always deleterious. " That's nonsense. Most mutations are probably neutral, as most darwinists well know. Many are indeed deleterious. Rare ones can be useful in very specific contexts. "Well, the first thing to point out is that any genetic sequence can be converted to any other by an appropriate series of mutations." That's trivial. There was no necessity to point it out. "If sequence B is an improved version of sequence A, it is mathematically impossible for all of the mutations along the way from A to B to be deleterious. At least some must be beneficial." It depends on what you mean with "improved". If we are discussing an existing protein with an existing active site with an existing function, and we are just discussing the possibility that the existing function "improves", in the sense that the affinity of the active site for the substrate increases, that's a very simple scenario where single mutations can be useful, deleterious or neutral according to the effect they have on the active site's affinity. That's a scenario where theoretically some darwinian mechanism could take place, because the target (B) is only one or a few aminoacid distant from the existing protein (A), and function could increase one step at a time. I say in theory, because in practice we don't know well defined examples of such a mechanism. And in any case that would still be microevolution. But if your A and B are two different proteins with different functions, and say different folding, then what you say has no meaning. Single mutation steps can only be neutral or deleterious to the existing function, or wxceptionally improve it (which is not our target). But they cannot give the new function until a very different sequence has been achieved, with a different folding and a different active site. Until then, no new function arises and NS can in no way intervene to "guide" mutations toward the new sequence. That means that if the distance between the old sequence and the new sequence is big enough (let's say 50 aminoacids), the new sequence will never be reached by RV because there is simply too low a probability that that happens (I am pruposely staying at a level which is still very distant from the UPB: let's state it clearly, the UPB is excessive as a limit, I am no more available to make gifts to darwinists). "What about a less sweeping claim: that in an actual series of mutations connecting one sequence to a fitter sequence, there must be at least one deleterious mutation that stops natural selection in its tracks?" That's not the problem. he problem is not that "there must be at least one deleterious mutation that stops natural selection". There is no need for deleterious mutations. As I said in the previous point, it's the sheer improbability to reach a new function by RV (a "new" function, which is "different" from the existing function) which makes macroevolution impossible. It's not the occurrence of deleterious mutations. Indeed, if the new function has to arise, it's obvious that the old function must be gradually lost. That's why darwinist imagine that the "evolution" takes usually place on duplicated genes. That would allow the conservation of the old function. But that cuts completely out NS, even negative NS, until the new function arises. Your remaining points in #115 are still based on that false concept of necessary negative mutations, so I will not deal with them. #117: "The claim that mutations cannot produce information can be easily disproven. Suppose that a mutation causes a sequence to lose information. We then apply the inverse mutation to restore the original sequence. We’ve regained all the information we lost via the first mutation. Therefore the second mutation has increased the information content of the sequence." That's simply silly. The second mutation has simply "restored" the information which was already present. Only one "bit" (in the sense of nucleotide) of that information had been lost: the rest was still there. The second mutation is just restoring the lost bit. "More generally, we can create a series of mutations to link any sequence A to a sequence B containing more information. Therefore, at least some of the mutations must cause an increase in information." The first sentence is trivial. We certainly can. The second sentence is false. If what we have to achieve is a new function, no mutation will be useful until the new function arises. But perhaps you mean that a single correct mutation, in other words one of the "50" which are needed for the new function, is causing an increase in information. That's true only for a designer who knows what the target sequence is. But it's not true for NS, which doesn't. "Concerning the argument that while mutations can increase information, they cannot produce CSI: Suppose we’re considering a large but unlikely mutation that would qualify as producing CSI, if it happened. Now construct a series of simple mutations that, if performed in sequence, would have an effect equivalent to that of the larger mutation. None of the simple mutations contains CSI, so IDers cannot rule it out on that basis. But if none of them are ruled out, then the sequence stands, and the sequence as a whole produces CSI. So the IDers’ claim is disproven." You have simply not yet understood what CSI is. CSI is a property of a whole piece of information with complexity and function. No single mutation can "contain" CSI. CSI is a property of the functional protein. A sequence of random events cannot produce CSI. A sequence of guided events can. "But if none of them are ruled out, then the sequence stands, and the sequence as a whole produces CSI." No, you again don't understand. Your sequence is just too unlikely, because it's one of a huge number of possible sequences. That's why it does not happen. There is no need to "rule out" anything. It's the whole unlikely sequence which does not happen. "What if the IDer claims that in all such cases, the series of mutations cannot happen because at least one of them reduces fitness and acts as a barrier to natural selection?" You are always making the same mistake. "Therefore the burden of proof is on the ID supporter to show that it is true for all of the fitness landscapes encountered by terrestrial lifeforms." False, as all your other statements. They descend all from the same error of thought. The burden of proof is of the darwinian supporter, who has to show how the probabilistic process that he himself is suggesting has a credible probability. "As for the final argument that natural selection requires a source of CSI, and that the CSI must come from outside since random mutations cannot produce it: we’ve already seen that mutations can produce CSI, so the argument fails." We have seen nothing like that. "In any case, selection is not random, so the environment itself is a source of CSI for natural selection." You really can't understand what CSI is, can you? You are not just pretending? Let's take one protein: myoglobin. The CSI here is linked to the right sequence of 154 aminoacids which can give the function. Are you suggesting that the environment "knows" what that sequence is? That's the only way the environment could be a "source of CSI" for our protein before natural selection can recognize the emerging function and fix it. Are you saying that? Or what?gpuccio_{December 7, 2008
December
12
Dec
7
07
2008
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT}

Khan, The glossary of Douglas Futuyama's Evolutionary biology text book, third edition says Macro evolution - a vague term for the evolution of great phenotypic changes, usually great enough to allocate the changed lineage to distinct genus or higher taxon. So maybe we have to agree on being more precise when using this term. I have a long discussion of the issues involved here which I will post for you so that we can discuss things on an even basis and not talk past each other because we are using different definitions. Essentially when I am using the term macro evolution, I am using it in a sense of the formation of new complicated capabilities and in a technical sense the formation of a new genus or even a family may not qualify as this. So I will try to find my classification scheme for evolutionary biology in order to emphasize where the dividing lines lie.jerry_{December 7, 2008
December
12
Dec
7
07
2008
08:34 AM
8
08
34
AM
PDT}

ribczynski, You are barking up the trivial tree trying to find some minutiae to trip up an ID argument instead of facing the real argument in the face. "What about the argument(s) that macroevolution requires new information, but that natural selection can only lose information" Natural selection can only work with what is present in the current gene pool. It does not create information in the gene pool. So you are right there. There have been numerous long discussions here on how the different engines of variation can increase information in a gene pool. Some want to call this mutations but it is really more than just mutations so some here have used the term RV or random variation and some have pointed out that the new variation may be directed by certain processes so all new variations are not necessarily random. The modern evolutionary theory (MET) has two sides to it, one is variation or the source of new information and the other is genetics or once the variation is introduced, how the variation may or may not work its way through the population. Natural selection is part of the genetics side. The Achilles Heel of MET is the generation of variation so at least you are headed in the right direction to start talking about variation or mutations. However, your examples are inane and seem only to find some meaningless step that can be used to say "look at this, it disproves your ideas." The reason CSI is specified is because it specifies another process that has a function. The DNA sequences specify other actions that have real time functional consequences. So loosing a SNP and then gaining it back is a fool's argument. What ID people want to see is how systems or processes are created by randomly changing the DNA sequences. These processes are not the DNA but functional systems that are specified by these DNA sequences. How does the introduction of random variation produce a complicated interacting system in an organism with DNA or epigenetic elements acting as the intermediary as the English language does for a Sonnet or computer code for operations performed in the hardware of a computer. Remember, information is not CSI. A rock you find on your jogging path has complex information in it and it was formed as the result of several random processes but none of the information in the rock is CSI. As I said above geology has not produced one element of CSI but it has produce some of the more complex things we know and some are beautiful. But no CSI. So play your games but in the end you have to generate CSI and not just trivial CSI. You have to generate CSI that prescribes systems with a functional purpose. Occasionally you will get a low level change in the DNA from RV that will have a positive benefit for an organism but these are 1) generally one off slight changes to the organism, for example, the ice fish with an anti freeze element in its blood and 2) most often a deterioration of the genome where a deletion or a lost of information has a positive benefit. Read The Edge of Evolution for a description of this. Stop playing games and provide real examples. Khan is trying to do that. See how our discussion with him plays out. We may both learn something.jerry_{December 7, 2008
December
12
Dec
7
07
2008
08:15 AM
8
08
15
AM
PDT}

1. An obvious first question: Why do IDers believe that microevolutionary changes cannot accumulate over time to yield macroevolution?/blockquote> Because an accumulation of blue eyes or red hair does not change the body plan. Ya see there isn't ANY data that suports the premise that an accumulation of mutations can lead to novel protein machinery and new body plans. So all YOU have to do is show that an accumulation of mutations can do such a thing. By doing so you will refute our claims and support yours. However it is obvious that you have no intention to bring such data to this forum. And BTW your rhetoric is not data and imagination is not a replacement for scientific data. So the bottom-line is the anti-IDists cannot support their poisition with actual data so instead the gunk up the thread with speculations and imaginary scenarios. And that is why the theory of evolution is losing its influence among the masses. As for the evidence for endosymbiosis- the SAME data can be used to say that mitochondria and chloroplasts DEvolved from living cells of a eukaryote.Joseph_{December 7, 2008
December
12
Dec
7
07
2008
06:56 AM
6
06
56
AM
PDT}

Jerry, Macroevolution is defined as evolution above the species level. THis is true in every Evolution textbook. I have also heard it defined as large-scale change in phenotype, but mostly on the web. I have never heard anyone restrict it to multicellular organisms except you, so I'm not sure that it would be correct to do so. But, if you insist, the Aphid-Buchnera symbiosis is a perfect example. Aphids have evolved tight symbiotic relationships w Buchnera bacteria (which used to be free-living Enterobacteria), which provide essential amino acids. The aphids have evolved bacteriocyte cells specifically to house the bacteria. There is your large-scale change in phenotype. THe aphids and buchnera have co-speciated (i.e. new species of APhids and Buchnera have appeared in about the same order and time; not suprising considering the bacteria are passed on from mother to offspring). There is your change above the species level. there is a very large literature on the topic (look up Nancy Moran for some elegant work) and similar patterns also hold in tsetse flies, german cockroaches, etc. As far as the fossil record goes, a few things. First, you claimed that there were no examples of gradual macroevolution in the fossil record and challenged someone to provide some. I provided some. Now you say there aren't enough transitional species in these series. Exactly how many transitional species would convince you? I'm sure you realize how unlikely an event fossilization is? Second, I'm glad you accept 1 and 2 a macroevolution. But 3-5 are also examples of macroevolution. Or do you want to claim that A. afarensis is the same species as H. sapiens? Or that the evolution of our huge brain case is just a small change in phenotype like antibiotic resistance? similar story in the small bump on the head in early Titanotheres to the massive horns on later ones. THird: you wrote "Also a bone sequence does absolutely nothing to show how the unique characteristics of mammals arose from some other class. Mammals are dramatically different from reptiles and other classes that preceded them. How did these unique characteristics arise solely in mammals?" the presence of three middle ear bones IS one of the defining characteristics of mammals. and we have a v nice series showing that they evolved from jaw bones of Synapsids.Khan_{December 7, 2008
December
12
Dec
7
07
2008
05:45 AM
5
05
45
AM
PDT}

Continuing from comment #117. 1b. What about the argument(s) that macroevolution requires new information, but that natural selection can only lose information (however the ID supporter chooses to define "information")? Or that natural selection can create information, but not CSI, and that no external source of CSI is available? The claim that mutations cannot produce information can be easily disproven. Suppose that a mutation causes a sequence to lose information. We then apply the inverse mutation to restore the original sequence. We've regained all the information we lost via the first mutation. Therefore the second mutation has increased the information content of the sequence. More generally, we can create a series of mutations to link any sequence A to a sequence B containing more information. Therefore, at least some of the mutations must cause an increase in information. Concerning the argument that while mutations can increase information, they cannot produce CSI: Suppose we're considering a large but unlikely mutation that would qualify as producing CSI, if it happened. Now construct a series of simple mutations that, if performed in sequence, would have an effect equivalent to that of the larger mutation. None of the simple mutations contains CSI, so IDers cannot rule it out on that basis. But if none of them are ruled out, then the sequence stands, and the sequence as a whole produces CSI. So the IDers' claim is disproven. What if the IDer claims that in all such cases, the series of mutations cannot happen because at least one of them reduces fitness and acts as a barrier to natural selection? Well, as discussed in an earlier comment, this is clearly not true of all paths through all fitness landscapes. Therefore the burden of proof is on the ID supporter to show that it is true for all of the fitness landscapes encountered by terrestrial lifeforms. As for the final argument that natural selection requires a source of CSI, and that the CSI must come from outside since random mutations cannot produce it: we've already seen that mutations can produce CSI, so the argument fails. In any case, selection is not random, so the environment itself is a source of CSI for natural selection. To be continued.ribczynski_{December 7, 2008
December
12
Dec
7
07
2008
12:24 AM
12
12
24
AM
PDT}

Khan, Two things: You gave away the store when you insisted that my definition of macro evolution was inappropriate and who was I to restrict macro evolution to multi-cellular organisms. Some evolutionary biologists refuse to define macro evolution so I chose to do so restricting it to multi cellular organisms where the debate is centered. If you want to include unicellular organisms, be my guest, but the types of organisms do not really enter the debate as I said above. It is not that they are not interesting, it is that they are not relevant to whether natural process can create new complex functional systems in multi-cellular organisms. You then go on to list two examples of macro evolution (the first two because the last three are micro evolution) but no mechanism is entailed here. The transitions in the fossil record are too few and too broad for each to identify gradualism as the cause of the origin of each of the fossils in the sequence if in fact they are in a real sequence. To use the fossil records to infer gradualism, one would need lots more fossils in each transition and lots more transitions. Also a bone sequence does absolutely nothing to show how the unique characteristics of mammals arose from some other class. Mammals are dramatically different from reptiles and other classes that preceded them. How did these unique characteristics arise solely in mammals? Second: Why don't you explain the relevance of Aphid-buchnera symbiosis for macro evolution. It is not something I am familiar with and the references to it on the web seem obscure. Lay it out in simple enough terms as possible. If you want to do the same for your other two examples, go ahead but one could be a start.jerry_{December 6, 2008
December
12
Dec
6
06
2008
08:47 PM
8
08
47
PM
PDT}

In my previous comment I discussed the demands that ID supporters make regarding the empirical evidence for macroevolution. Next I want to discuss attempts by IDers to show that macroevolution is theoretically impossible (or at least very, very unlikely). 1. An obvious first question: Why do IDers believe that microevolutionary changes cannot accumulate over time to yield macroevolution? 1a. Some have argued that mutations are always deleterious. This is easily refuted empirically by pointing to beneficial mutations. How about theoretically? Well, the first thing to point out is that any genetic sequence can be converted to any other by an appropriate series of mutations. This provides the basis for an existence proof: If sequence B is an improved version of sequence A, it is mathematically impossible for all of the mutations along the way from A to B to be deleterious. At least some must be beneficial. What about a less sweeping claim: that in an actual series of mutations connecting one sequence to a fitter sequence, there must be at least one deleterious mutation that stops natural selection in its tracks? Again, the existence of beneficial mutations already refutes this claim. In terms of theory, there is no reason why there must be one or more deleterious mutations in a connecting series. While this might be true of a given fitness landscape, it is certainly not true of all. This puts the ID supporter in the untenable position of having to show that the actual fitness landscapes faced by terrestrial lifeforms all have this characteristic. What about an even more relaxed claim -- that while there aren't necessarily deleterious mutations on every such path, there are enough of them to make macroevolution impossible, or effectively impossible? Same problem: how can an ID supporter possibly show that this is true for all of the fitness landscapes faced by terrestrial lifeforms?ribczynski_{December 6, 2008
December
12
Dec
6
06
2008
08:25 PM
8
08
25
PM
PDT}

Khan (#111): You wrote: "if you want some multicellular examples of macroevolution from the fossil record, here are a few off the top of my head: 1)the gradual change of jaw bones to ear bones in the synapsid-mammal transition. 2) the gradual backward movement of the nasal cavity in the evolution of whales from land vertebrates 3) the gradually expanding brain case in human evolution 4) the gradual change in tooth structure of the vole genus Mimonys 5) the gradual increase in horn size in the Titanotheres" All of these examples are compatible with macroevolution, but are not proof of macroevolution. What you have done is line up a sequence of fossils whose differences suggest (to you, and no doubt to many paleontologists) an actual historical development from one form to the other. This is much like lining up a sequence of "eyes" of increasing complexity, from a light-sensitive spot on a one-celled creature all the way up to the human camera eye, and claiming that the human camera eye evolved from earlier forms in a similar sequence. But without a mechanism that can be shown capable of effecting such changes, all you have is a sequence, with no causality, and hence no proof of ancestry. I could line up a series of Ford cars from the Model T onward, showing how each subsequent model is slightly different from the one previous, and apparently "moving toward" the look of later models. This would not prove that the later models of the Ford were genetically descended from the earlier ones. It is equally compatible with the hypothesis that each model was separately designed and manufactured, but borrowed design elements from the earlier models. In fact, in the case of the Fords, we know this to be the true history. In the case of living things, we don't know the true causal history, partly because we have, in 99% of the cases, no DNA, but even more because, even if we had the complete DNA, we have no proof of any mechanism that can create radically new body structures. It is not hard to believe that the horn size of Titanotheres slowly increased by Darwinian means; it is much harder to believe that a wolf-like animal (the current hypothesis) turned into a whale by Darwinian means. First of all, we simply don't know nearly enough about either genetics or development to say how it could have happened, and therefore shouldn't be wildly speculating. Second of all, there are environmental constraints which make the survival of the intermediate land-to-whale forms highly unlikely. On this point, please read the works of Michael Denton, a research scientist and medical doctor, who, though an evolutionist, shows in great detail the inherent improbability of Darwinian mechanisms, and argues that the observed pattern of evolution implies some sort of immanent design. T.Timaeus_{December 6, 2008
December
12
Dec
6
06
2008
07:36 PM
7
07
36
PM
PDT}

Khan (#111),
the endosymbotic origin of mitochondria and chloroplasts is as well established as anything in biology
Yeah, probably. That isn't a high standard, if you mean evolutionary biology. Do you know the bacteria that were reduced to mitochondria or chloroplasts? Do you even have a guess? Do you know what gene deletions were required to accomplish the transfer? We could really get an education here.
If you want some multicellular examples of macroevolution from the fossil record, here are a few off the top of my head: 1)the gradual change of jaw bones to ear bones in the synapsid-mammal transition. 2) the gradual backward movement of the nasal cavity in the evolution of whales from land vertebrates 3) the gradually expanding brain case in human evolution 4) the gradual change in tooth structure of the vole genus Mimonys 5) the gradual increase in horn size in the Titanotheres
Numbers 1 and 3 are debatable, but certainly reasonable from your point of view. But number 2 needs more detail, and numbers 4 and 5 are frankly ridiculous. They are precisely the kind of microevolutionary changes that all of us here accept, and have no bearing on whether dogs and cats have a common naturalistic ancestor, let alone whether starfish and regular fish, or roses and humans, have one. Do you want to defend your list, or discuss the cut-down one, or do something else?Paul Giem_{December 6, 2008
December
12
Dec
6
06
2008
07:20 PM
7
07
20
PM
PDT}

Sorry, I’m coming at this late, but there are some comments that just can’t be ignored. pubdef (#63), you say,
All I’m saying is that rejecting a scientific theory solely on the basis of its improbability is a serious mistake.
You repeated this sentiment in #75. Boy, do you need some education! Scientific hypotheses, and specifically chance hypotheses, are rejected all the time in scientific literature solely on the basis of their improbability. To be fair, you do recognize that
I’m basically ignorant of the science of evolutionary biology
and apparently elementary statistics. Perhaps you can study before you are again so dogmatic about what is a proper reason for rejecting a scientific theory. ribczynski, in #65 you say,
Yes, but we already know that beavers, bees and programmers exist. They aren’t being appealed to just to explain the existence of dams, hives and programs.
Ever heard of Stonehenge? Is it designed? Do we know the designers, or how they did it? At least sometimes, we can tell design whether or not we know the designer(s). Or would you dispute this? I agree with you that we can sometimes go beyond the brute fact of design. I think it is fair to reasonably conclude that it wasn’t done by two ordinary 1.8 m (5’ 11”) guys with only 6 m (20 foot) ladders. But without further information, we couldn’t say whether it was large numbers of slaves, giants, aliens, angels, or God. You comment,
Because a) science has worked tremendously well without invoking design; d) given that we have a mechanism (natural selection) that seems capable of explaining biological complexity, why invoke a superfluous designer?
I’d like to see these examples of large-scale evolution that have worked tremendously well without invoking design. It’s okay if you want to believe that, but most of us here would like a little evidence on that score. For the record, I’d take anything above the family level. You seem sanguine about the capabilities of natural selection. So what pathways did natural selection take to create, say, the bacterial flagellum? Surely you have at least a reference.
If all of that is true, then shouldn’t you also say that the only truly scientific way of explaining the origin of the flagellum in terms of ID would be to: (a) specify a particular evolutionary process by which the flagellum was designed; (b) specify alternate implementations of the flagellum and other motility devices, and explain why they were not chosen by the designer; (c) identify the constraints that the designer was operating under and the design parameters that he was attempting to optimize; and (d) calculate the probability that these goals and constraints would lead to genetic and phenotypic changes that just happened to appear compatible with a hypothesis of common descent and Darwinian selection?
Can you do this for Stonehenge (except for (d))? Does that mean that it was not designed? As for (d), I would like to hear your argument that the “genetic and phenotypic changes” “just happened to appear compatible with a hypothesis of common descent and Darwinian selection”. To most of us, they don’t appear compatible with this hypothesis. In #95 you say,
not all “designing agents” are equally plausible
Again, Stonehenge is designed regardless of the designer. If you mean to imply that life, or major changes in life, if designed, would require a Godlike intelligence, and you are not prepared to allow this kind of intelligence, then just say so. At least we will know where you are coming from. In #103 you say,
b. If evolution is guided, why are there no saltations? Why does the designer always happen to choose the small changes that we would expect to see if natural selection were operating — the same small changes that allow us to deduce the nested hierarchy?
You cannot be thinking critically here. Not only is there the theory of punctuated equilibrium, explicitly designed to explain why the fossil record does not look like Darwinian (or neo-Darwinian) theory would expect, but you have forgotten about the Cambrian explosion, where the putative precursor organisms are simply absent. That is a massive parallel example of saltations. And it is not alone. There are explosions of birds, mammals, and edicaran life forms. You ask, “Why does the designer always happen to choose the small changes that we would expect to see if natural selection were operating”? I ask, why do you always see small changes even where there are none in the fossil record? And are you aware that the nesting of hierarchies is often different depending on whether anatomical or molecular criteria are used, and which molecular criteria? I don’t mean to deny you your faith. But please, if you come here expecting to convince others, try to use something other than faith statements against the evidence.Paul Giem_{December 6, 2008
December
12
Dec
6
06
2008
07:03 PM
7
07
03
PM
PDT}

Jerry, Macroevolution is a theory for multicellular organisms? According to whom? You continually claim that there is no evidence for macroevolution yet the endosymbotic origin of mitochondria and chloroplasts is as well established as anything in biology and is a perfect example of both evolution above (well above) the species level and of the acquisition of novel, complex phenotypes. and as to whether or not this is a general trend in nature, I put forward the Aphid-buchnera symbiosis, the squid-vibrio symbiois, or, most closely related, the Amoeba proteus-XB symbiosis as further examples. if you want some multicellular examples of macroevolution from the fossil record, here are a few off the top of my head: 1)the gradual change of jaw bones to ear bones in the synapsid-mammal transition. 2) the gradual backward movement of the nasal cavity in the evolution of whales from land vertebrates 3) the gradually expanding brain case in human evolution 4) the gradual change in tooth structure of the vole genus Mimonys 5) the gradual increase in horn size in the Titanotheres I hope we can at least agree that there is some evidence for macroevolution.Khan_{December 6, 2008
December
12
Dec
6
06
2008
05:54 PM
5
05
54
PM
PDT}

Khan, I am not sure I accept endosymbiotic theory or that eukaryotic cells evolved when one prokaryote absorbed another. It is also something I do not disagree with since I know little about it. It does not, it if true. affect anything I understand about ID. If in fact eukaryotes originated this way this does not act as a general proof of macro evolution which is primarily a multi-celled hypothesis. Though the evolution of uni-celled organisms is always an interesting topic. We also tend to talk in absolutes here when often the debate should be couched in less absolute terms. The debate does not hinge on a single refutation of an IC system or even the possible development of a macro evolution system but it would have to be shown that this was a general trend in nature not just a fluke one time occurrence. If there were several of each available then this debate or this site would not exist as people like myself would support a naturalistic process for macro evolution. I personally view the micro evolution process as one of great design whereby someone set up a system where organisms were capable of adapting to changing environments. However, micro evolution by all the research that has ever been done is limited in what it can produce and as I said above tends toward devolution not creative evolution. I also believe there are others theories for single celled organisms that could explain dramatic changes including horizontal gene transfer as well as the possibility of endosymbiosis. Endosymbiosis I believe has little implication for this debate since it irrelevant for OOL and for multi-celled macro evolution . Others may want to comment since I am far from knowledgeable on this subject.jerry_{December 6, 2008
December
12
Dec
6
06
2008
05:09 PM
5
05
09
PM
PDT}

Jerry, do you accept the evidence that mitochondria evolved from endosymbiotic bacteria? If so, then the addition of an organelle to a primitive cell is about as clear an example of macro-evolution (by any definition) as you can get.Khan_{December 6, 2008
December
12
Dec
6
06
2008
01:44 PM
1
01
44
PM
PDT}

"The question for jerry is this: Is he prepared to provide a real-time demonstration of guided macroevolution? If not, why the double standard?" What a silly question. You are saying that we do not have a video tape of the designer in his/her lab preparing the new species that we have a double standard. ribczynski, you need to get a reality check. ID says that the formation of new species with novel complex functions is a mystery. We are not saying that there is proof that there is a designer but only that is is a very likely explanation for what happened. Come on the double standard comment means you are really flailing. Is such a thing as a designer possible. Certainly, no one doubts that within 50-100 years, engineering genomes to do completely novel things may be possible in labs such as those that exist at MIT. That my friend will be an example of intelligent design in action. If such a thing is possible in today's world what is to say it was not possible in the past. "f evolution is guided, why are there no saltations? Why does the designer always happen to choose the small changes that we would expect to see if natural selection were operating — the same small changes that allow us to deduce the nested hierarchy?" Gould said the whole history of the fossil record was one of apparent saltations. That was why he developed his absurd fix for Darwinian processes called punctuated equilibrium. I suggest you read Gould and as suggested by other, his ideas on punctuated equilibrium. Everybody immediately just lapped up his ideas and it is now part of the evolutionary canon. "If a direct demonstration of macroevolution is not possible, then what about the indirect evidence of the fossil record, comparative anatomy and molecular biology?" The indirect evidence refutes a gradualistic approach which is why Gould proposed his theory. Comparative anatomy and molecular biology could have been the result of micro evolution once a population gene pool arose. ID believes and supports micro evolution. See my comment #88. The question is where did the original gene pool come from. "Apart from their YEC brethren, IDers tend to accept the evidence for geologic processes operating over vast timescales, and they don’t dispute it when geologists contend that these processes were unguided. Why don’t they demand proof that these processes were unguided? Could it have anything to do with the fact that their religious beliefs conflict with unguided macroevolution, but not with unguided geology?" You should study geology. There is evidence of both gradual and catastrophic forces having occurred in the past and operating today in the world. We can witness massive earth quakes, volcanos, tsunamis and rock slides, sedimentation and erosion before our eyes as well as plate tectonic movements, plate formation at the mid ocean ridges. All the pieces fit together and I am sure there will be adjustments in it over time. So all holds together but one thing geology has never done is form any complex specified information. Now biology has nothing similar except for micro biology which we all accept and yet life has complex specified information forming over time and no known process that can do it. Nothing in the current world shows this tendency to form complex specified information. Geology produces complexity but it is not specified. That is why we can accept geology and not biology. One process leaves a host of forensic evidence on how the non specified complexity has formed, the other leaves no information on how the complex specified information has formed. In fact the geological evidence is extremely persuasive for ID. There are gradual processes working over time that can be observed in the current world for geology but none in biology except for micro evolution which does not produce complex specified information. There is no forensic evidence that micro evolution leads anywhere but to devolution which is the opposite of macro evolution. "I ask them: In your view, what would count as sufficient empirical evidence for unguided macroevolution?" How about some examples either in the fossil record or in the current world. None exist. Macro evolution has no empirical evidence behind it. It is not science, but an ideology. Why don't you start presenting empirical evidence for macro evolution. If you could, you would be a Nobel prize winner. Please, provide some evidence, not just the tired old clichés we see all the time.jerry_{December 6, 2008
December
12
Dec
6
06
2008
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT}

IDers demand empirical evidence of unguided macroevolution, but it’s not clear to me what sort of evidence they would actually accept, short of an authentic handwritten note from God.
Umm if "God" wrote a note then it would be a sure sign that the processes are guided. However ID does not require a "God" nor does it require a belief in "God". What would be a good start for evos would be to demonstrate what gene, genes and DNA sequences are responsible for which body parts and body types. Until scientists can do that the theory of evolution is even less than a working hypothesis. That is because until we have such knowledge we cannot test the premise of universal common descent via any mechanism.Joseph_{December 6, 2008
December
12
Dec
6
06
2008
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PDT}

And why do evolutionists keep invoking natural selection when there isn't any data whuich demonstrates it can do what they need it to do, and the data supports that it culls variation- ie reduces the information in a population? And why do they ignore the data which demonstrates that NS disappears in populations greater than 1,000? The Origin of Theoretical Population Genetics (University of Chicago Press, 1971), reissued in 2001 by William Provine:
Natural selection does not act on anything, nor does it select (for or against), force, maximize, create, modify, shape, operate, drive, favor, maintain, push, or adjust. Natural selection does nothing….Having natural selection select is nifty because it excuses the necessity of talking about the actual causation of natural selection. Such talk was excusable for Charles Darwin, but inexcusable for evolutionists now. Creationists have discovered our empty “natural selection” language, and the “actions” of natural selection make huge, vulnerable targets. (pp. 199-200)
Joseph_{December 6, 2008
December
12
Dec
6
06
2008
07:29 AM
7
07
29
AM
PDT}

By the way, it’s interesting that you continue to employ the Explanatory Filter when Dembski has disavowed it.
Can rib provide a reference for this?
1. When ID supporters ask for evidence of macroevolution, biologists point to the fossil record, molecular biology and comparative anatomy to make their case. The more enlightened IDers accept these as evidence of evolution, but question whether such evolution can be explained as the result of unguided natural selection. They ask for evidence that unguided macroevolution has been directly observed.
The VAST MAJORITY of the fossil record is of marine invertebrates. Which is to be expected given what we know of the fossilization process. In this vast majority (over 95%) there isn't any sign of universal common descent. Only signs of slight variation.
The problem is that macroevolution doesn’t happen on a short human timescale. Why demand a demonstration of rapid macroevolution when evolutionary biologists don’t even believe that it occurs? It doesn’t make sense.
What doesn't make sense is a theory is built upon untestable assumptions. And don't blame the evolutionary skeptics for that. Also just throwing time at something is NOT scientific.
2. If a direct demonstration of macroevolution is not possible, then what about the indirect evidence of the fossil record, comparative anatomy and molecular biology?
1- the fossil record does NOT help you for the reason provided 2- Comparative anatomy can be explained by common desgn or convergence. 3- Molecular biology can also be explained by common design or convergence. IOW universal common descent does NOT have any EXCLUSIVE evidence.
a. In making this complaint, IDers are undermining their own demand for a direct demonstration of unguided macroevolution.
ID does NOT care about macro or micro evolution. That is not the point of ID.
b. If evolution is guided, why are there no saltations? Why does the designer always happen to choose the small changes that we would expect to see if natural selection were operating — the same small changes that allow us to deduce the nested hierarchy?
Nested hierachy is noit an expected outcome of neo-Darwinian evolution. Nested hierarchies are built on characteristics, not descent. In evolution charactertistics can be lost as well as gained. Nested hierarchies require that characteristics be gained only. However evoltion does not follow any direction. The best your scenario can hope for is a lineage, or even a branching lineage. And neither woulod form a nested hierarchy. ID is basecd upon the following: (DeWolf et al., Darwinism, Design and Public Education, pg. 92): 1) High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design. 2) Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity. 3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity. 4) Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.Joseph_{December 6, 2008
December
12
Dec
6
06
2008
07:23 AM
7
07
23
AM
PDT}

ribczynski: When you make specific points, I am always ready to answer. 1) is not really a point. I agree that the supposed unguided macroevoution operates at large time scales: nobody is asking that it should be "directly" observed. But we do ask that it may be "indirectly" inferred form observed facts according to a credible model, which is what we can and must ask of all sicentific theories. 2) a) Wrong. If you can arrange a demonstration, be it direct or indirect, where macroevolution happens in an understandable way, according to a credible model, withou any apparent intervention of a designer, that would be falsification of ID. The objection you suggest, that a designer could still be acting "behind the scenes" is imply inacceptable. I would never make it, and the same is true for any serious IDist. Maybe some theistic evolutionists... :-) b) First of all there are saltations. Have you ever heard of "punctuated equilibrium"? That's not an ID theory. Anyway, I don't see why a designer should not act gradually. That's the usual way of working of designers. Obviously the time scale depends on the nature of the designer. And by the way, we do not observe "the small changes that we would expect to see if natural selection were operating". If that were the case, we should see an almost infinite number of "small changes", not only at the fossil level, but also at the molecular level. And a credible and detailed model for macroevolution could be inferred. And that has never happened. Rather, what we do observe are "the small changes that we would expect to see if intelligent variation and selection were operating". I refer you again to the example of intelligent protein engineering. c) About geological processes: personally, I am not completely sure that they are absolutely unguided: I just don't know. The fact is that, as far as we know, geological processes, and other similar processes (evolution of the universe, and so on) do not explicitly exhibit CSI (the fine tuning argument is about the whole universe, and nopt specific internal processes of it). So, the ID theory is not at present applicable to them. They can aoparently be explained by laws of necessity, usually with only a few random components. The model is credible, and we can well accept it. Religious beliefs have nothing to do with that. 3) Existing computer models have in no way demonstrated neither the "plausibility of unguided macroevolution" nor the emergence of any CSI from unguided processes. Avida and similar are intellectual frauds. In case you have not noticed, all the recent work by Dembski and Marks is dedicated to that problem. But it is possible, in principle, to give that demonstration: that would falsify ID (and that again shows that ID is falsifiable). We are eagerly waiting to be falsified! But Avida? Please, be serious. Show me a computer model where unplanned and unexpected CSI emerges form random noise on the basis of "spontaneous" self-selection, without the system having been planned in any way to select anything specifically, and we can discuss. After all, that's what the darwinist affirm has happened.gpuccio_{December 6, 2008
December
12
Dec
6
06
2008
04:01 AM
4
04
01
AM
PDT}

The following comments and questions are for those of you who acknowledge that natural selection and common descent are real (with the usual caveats about horizontal gene transfer), but believe that natural selection does not and cannot explain large-scale evolutionary changes (i.e. "macroevolution"). [Note: In this discussion I will be using "natural selection" to encompass both heritable variation and selection, as is commonly done.] 1. When ID supporters ask for evidence of macroevolution, biologists point to the fossil record, molecular biology and comparative anatomy to make their case. The more enlightened IDers accept these as evidence of evolution, but question whether such evolution can be explained as the result of unguided natural selection. They ask for evidence that unguided macroevolution has been directly observed. The problem is that macroevolution doesn't happen on a short human timescale. Why demand a demonstration of rapid macroevolution when evolutionary biologists don't even believe that it occurs? It doesn't make sense. Some, like jerry, will argue that Darwinians are just using time as an excuse:
Since there are no examples of macro evolution happening, Darwinists resort to all sorts of crutches, the most important of which is deep time. They will say that don’t you see what can happen over millions of years and that is where they stop.
The question for jerry is this: Is he prepared to provide a real-time demonstration of guided macroevolution? If not, why the double standard? 2. If a direct demonstration of macroevolution is not possible, then what about the indirect evidence of the fossil record, comparative anatomy and molecular biology? No good, say ID supporters, because you can't show that the evidence was produced by unguided changes. They might have been guided. I have three responses: a. In making this complaint, IDers are undermining their own demand for a direct demonstration of unguided macroevolution. Suppose that such a demonstration could be arranged. How would we know that it was unguided? After all, it's possible that the Designer has his fingers in our demonstrations. (This, by the way, is what critics mean when they say that ID is unfalsifiable). b. If evolution is guided, why are there no saltations? Why does the designer always happen to choose the small changes that we would expect to see if natural selection were operating -- the same small changes that allow us to deduce the nested hierarchy? c. Apart from their YEC brethren, IDers tend to accept the evidence for geologic processes operating over vast timescales, and they don't dispute it when geologists contend that these processes were unguided. Why don't they demand proof that these processes were unguided? Could it have anything to do with the fact that their religious beliefs conflict with unguided macroevolution, but not with unguided geology? 3. Mathematical or computer modelling of Darwinian processes could demonstrate the plausibility of unguided macroevolution, but as the reaction to Avida indicates, IDers can always insist that a particular model is unrealistic in some crucial way that invalidates the results. IDers demand empirical evidence of unguided macroevolution, but it's not clear to me what sort of evidence they would actually accept, short of an authentic handwritten note from God. I ask them: In your view, what would count as sufficient empirical evidence for unguided macroevolution? More to come tomorrow (Saturday).ribczynski_{December 6, 2008
December
12
Dec
6
06
2008
02:01 AM
2
02
01
AM
PDT}

pubdef (#95): I forgot your second point: "notwithstanding the protestations of ID people here and elsewhere, evolutionary biology, supported by other branches of science, does have the kind of evidence that supports (and, more importantly, provides a fruitful paradigm for further investigation of) the existence of a mechanism that can produce complex structures" Well, what can I say? You are entitled to your own opinions. I will not re-deiscuss here the basic points we have been discussing here daily for yeras just because you simply affirm the contrary of what we believe. At least, not until and unless you take the time to make specific (and possily interesting) arguments, together with bold affirmations. You know, we, the ID people, as you call us, believe exactly the contrary of what you affirm. And have very definite arguments for that.You are welcome to explain yours. I am really looking forward to see reasonable evidence and/or paradigms (especially paradigms) for what you affirm.gpuccio_{December 6, 2008
December
12
Dec
6
06
2008
12:01 AM
12
12
01
AM
PDT}

Timaeus (#100): Very good points. It is really tiring to see how the same old "arguments" are repeated without end. Some people seem incapable to conceive that a process, like design, and a causal power, like conscious intelligence, may exist in different contexts, and not necessarily be exclusive properties of humans as we know them today. In their view, there can be no consciousness or intelligence unless in humans (or, if they are really cornered, in aliens). So, in a universe which is soaked with intelligence and design, they can see (or rather want to see) only randomness. pubdef (#95): You say: "not all “designing agents” are equally plausible" Well, that's certainly true. Humans are not only plausible, but regularly observed. And they are our basis for the definition itself of design and designers. Aliens are plausible for some, not for others. RV+NS is totally implausible as a designer. The same is true for the so often cited "unknown laws or principles of necessity". A Gos, instead, if correctly conceived, is a rather plausible designer. He has been considered a more than plausible designer, sometimes a necessary designer, for millennia, and not only by innumerable cultures and civilizations in general, but also by a lot of individual persons of superior intelligence, depth and creativity: philosophers, scientists, artists and so on. We may discuss if God is real, but that He is "plausible" should be completely out of discussion. Unless you share Dawkins' childish philosophy...gpuccio_{December 5, 2008
December
12
Dec
5
05
2008
11:54 PM
11
11
54
PM
PDT}

pubdef (#95): You wrote: "Exactly — we wouldn’t know it was a beaver if we had no idea that beavers exist, but we would surmise that it was *some* kind of *animal*." Sorry, but I don't get it. You're going to have to draw your inference explicitly for me. What difference does it make whether a beaver or a hobbit or some unknown creature built the dam? The point is that the dam was designed, not formed by trees that fell over and floated to the center of the stream. If that inference is sound, then ID is sound even when it can't specify the agent, and the only remaining question is whether the inference applies equally to the complex integrated systems found in living beings. More generally, your objections throughout this post display a hang-up about characterizing or identifying the designer. What difference does it make who or what the designer is? If there is design, there is design, no matter who is responsible for it. Why do you want to change the topic of conversation to the identity of the designer, when as a Darwinist you really need to either (a) show the non-existence of design in the living system (e.g., argue that there is no design in the human eye), or (b) show that the design is there, but was achieved through blind natural mechanisms? T.Timaeus_{December 5, 2008
December
12
Dec
5
05
2008
10:15 PM
10
10
15
PM
PDT}

"Where exactly is the dividing line between micro- and macroevolution?" There is no exact dividing line since macro evolution has never been observed, only inferred. There is a pretty good understanding of micro evolution which is essentially a reshuffling of the gene pool of a population through sexual reproduction. Rarely is anything new produced and when it is, the differences are small genetically. It generally results in a reduced gene pool not an expanded one since natural selection tends to eliminate a lot of elements in the gene pool. Natural selection is not a constructive process but primarily a destructive one. Macro evolution is when novel, complex functional elements arose. For example, flight in insects, birds and mammals; different cardio vascular systems, birthing processes, the avian respiratory system, the various forms of the eye, neurological systems or maybe the blood pressure system of a giraffe, consciousness in humans etc. You could point to probably hundreds or maybe thousands of other capabilities that would qualify. They are usually complex systems that require the interaction of many sub systems and elements. They are nearly always complex, have function and involve hundreds or thousands of subunits to function correctly. The genomic elements for each are usually varied and many and require coordination of many elements when the embryo is formed. It is anything but a well understood process of just how these systems are created during gestation or what guides the formation. It seems inconceivable how a system of trial and error could have created these systems, especially since there has never been an example of one forming on even some simple pre cursors arising. Only recently a slight change in a microbe was hailed as evolution in action by Lenski's group studying single celled organisms. This was like saying that two lego pieces finally attached to each other when many systems of macro evolution would require the building of something equivalent to the space shuttle. Since there are no examples of macro evolution happening, Darwinists resort to all sorts of crutches, the most important of which is deep time. They will say that don't you see what can happen over millions of years and that is where they stop. Because they have no examples of deep time enabling macro evolution only faith that it must have happened.jerry_{December 5, 2008
December
12
Dec
5
05
2008
07:27 PM
7
07
27
PM
PDT}

1 2 3 … 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply